The URL can be used to link to this page

17-1060464CITY OF �� Federal February 6, 2018 William Shiels Talasaea Consultants 15020 Bear Creek Rd NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Way � 1 LE7: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor wsliiels@,talasaea.com Re: File #17-106046-00-PC, PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY Greenline Buildings A & B - USACE Mitigation Site, 32820 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Shiels: Thank you for participating in the preapplication conference with the City of Federal Way's Development Review Committee (DRC) held January 18, 2018. We hope that the information discussed at that meeting was helpful in understanding the general requirements for your project as submitted. This letter summarizes comments given to you at the meeting by the members of the DRC. The members who reviewed your project and provided comments include staff from the City's Planning and Building Divisions and Public Works Department, and representatives from Lakehaven Utility District and South King Fire and Rescue. Some sections of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) and relevant information handouts are enclosed with this letter. Please be advised, this letter does not represent all applicable codes. In preparing your formal application, please refer to the complete FWRC and other relevant codes for all additional requirements that may apply to your project. The key contact for your project is Jim Harris, 253-835-2652, jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com. For specific technical questions about your project, please contact the appropriate DRC representative as listed below. Otherwise, any general questions about the preapplication and permitting process can be referred to your key contact. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) required compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts associated with Greenline Buildings A & B. The applicant is proposing to construct a.wetland mitigation area including wetland creation, wetland enhancement and wetland buffer creation. The applicant is proposing this mitigation to fulfill US Army Corps (Federal) requirements resulting from wetland impacts associated from filling wetlands at the Greenline Buildings A and B projects. The Corps mitigation is proposed on the North Lake parcels located generally between the North Lake shoreline and Weyerhaeuser Way, just south of the WDFW boat launch area. William Shiels February 6, 2018 Page 2 MAJOR ISSUES Outlined below is a summary of the major issues of your project based on the plans and information submitted for preapplication review. These issues can change due to modifications and revisions in the plans. These major issues only represent comments that the DRC consider most significant to your project and do not include the majority of the comments provided. The major issues section is only provided as a means to highlight critical requirements or issues. Please be sure to read the entire department comments made in the next section of this letter. a Planning Division The project is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Process IV Land Use Review, and Shoreline Substantial Development permit or exemption. 2. The application will need to provide current code -based classifications and delineations of all existing streams and wetlands located on or within 200 feet of the project limits. Also, an assessment of the site as a "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area" must be provided. The City's review of technical analyses such as wetland and stream classifications, delineations, functions and values assessment, mitigation plans, monitoring plans, wildlife assessments, will require the assistance of a professional wetland/stream/habitat biologist. Any such services will be provided on a cost recovery basis, whereby the applicant authorizes the scope of work and funds the budget for the peer review. 3. If, as a result of creating or modifying a wetland, a new or different wetland buffer will be imposed upon property that is not owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant, the affected property owner(s) must be a party to the application, either by signing the master land use application, or by separate written authorization. Alternatively, the applicant could request reduction of externalized buffers pursuant to the applicable code provisions. 4. The wetlands and critical areas within 200 feet of the North Lake shoreline ordinary high water mark (OHWM) are regulated and governed under the critical area regulations in FWRC Chapter 15.10. The wetlands outside the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction are governed by FWRC 19.145. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Outlined below are the comments made by the representatives of each department present at the preapplication conference. Each section should be read thoroughly. If you have questions, please contact the representative listed for that section. Modifications and revisions to the project as presented for this preapplication may influence and modify information regarding development requirements outlined above. In addition to this preapplication letter, please examine the complete FWRC and other relevant codes carefully. Requirements that are found in the codes that are not addressed in this letter are still required for your project. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — PLANNING DIVISION (Jim Harris, 253-835-2652, j im.harris@cityoffederalway.com) Zoning Review — Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.430, the wetland creation component of the proposal triggers Process IV land use review. Therefore, pursuant to FWRC 19.70.010, the whole proposal 17-106046-00-PC Doe ID: 77216 William Shiels February 6, 2018 Page 3 will be reviewed under Process W. The Hearing Examiner holds a public hearing and makes the decision on a Process IV application. The subject property is zoned Corporate Park CP-I and is subject to the 1994 Concomitant Zoning Agreement for the property. 2. SEPA Review — As noted above under "major issues," the project is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). As discussed at the meeting, comments on the SEPA threshold determination will be invited from agencies with jurisdiction, such as the Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, Historic Preservation, and the Tribes; and interested parties. The applicant may wish to solicit input from any such agencies or parties in advance of a formal application. Process IV Wetland Intrusion — The proposal to disturb land within a wetland requires Process IV review and approval pursuant to FWRC 19.145.430(2). The application must include materials clearly addressing the following: + Wetland intrusion criteria in FWRC 19.145.430(2)(a-g), • Process IV decision criteria FWRC 19.70.150(3)(a-f). 4. North Lake Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Jurisdiction — The subject site has a shoreline designation of Urban Conservancy. Any work within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHV,M) of North Lake is governed by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program, and the Federal Way Revised Code Shoreline regulations FWRC 15.05 and critical area regulations in FWRC Chapter 15.10. The subject site has a shoreline designation of Urban Conservancy. The proposed wetland creation, wetland enhancement and wetland buffer creation are not exempt from a shoreline substantial development permit (SDP), unless it meets the exemption in WAC 173- 27-040(p). It appears upon initial review of the preapplication materials, the proposal does not meet this exemption from substantial development permit as discussed in the December 19, 2017 Talasaea letter. However, if you can show that the proposal meets any of the SDP exemptions of WAC 173- 27-040, then it may be exempt from an SDP as determined by the Director of Community Development. You may provide further information and documentation to the city on how the proposal meets the SDP exemption in WAC 173-27-040. Under either circumstance whether the proposal is exempt from an SDP or requires an SDP, the proposal needs to meet all applicable shoreline master program goals and policies, as well as all applicable shoreline development regulations in FWRC 15.05. In addition, the wetlands and critical areas within 200 feet of the North Lake shoreline ordinary high water mark (OHWM) are regulated and governed under the critical area regulations in FWRC Chapter 15.10. The wetlands outside the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction are governed by FWRC 19.145. 17-106046-00-PC Doe ID: 77216 William Shiels February 6, 2018 Page 4 The application must include materials clearly addressing the following: ■ Shoreline Permit criteria in WAC 173-27-150(1). • Shoreline Permit Criteria in FWRC 15.05.150(3)(a-c). • Criteria for critical area intrusion in FWRC 15.10.260(4)(a-i). • Shoreline Permit Application requirements in FWRC 15.05.140(1-10) for any work in critical areas within the 200 feet of the OHWM of North Lake. + All plans must clearly identify the OHWM of North Lake as defined in RCW 90.58.030. • Shoreline SDP Application Form. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area — An assessment of the site as a "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area" in accord with FWRC 19.145.260 must be provided. Submittal Requirements — The project must be accompanied by a completed master land use application (enclosed), all applicable fees, completed SEPA checklist, all project plans, drawings, and details, and specialized studies. A Process IV Development Submittal Checklist is enclosed. The application must include three sets of mailing envelopes addressed to all property owners within 300 feet of project boundaries (handout enclosed). 7. Application Fees — Contact the City permit center to inquire about permit fees for SEPA Review, Use Process IV, and shoreline substantial development permit or shoreline exemption. General Technical Comments — o As a preliminary technical comment, the City has identified a potential concern with the proposed removal of functioning wetland buffer and replacement with wetland creation area. The areas for wetland creation and enhancement must meet appropriate factors and must have appropriate characteristics, which makes the area a viable candidate for creation and enhancement. The mitigation, creation and enhancement areas must not be chosen out of convenience. o Any externalized buffers must be supported by affected property owner(s), and/or alternative buffer reduction(s) may be requested under applicable code provisions. o It is the applicant's responsibility to identify and obtain all outside agency permits, including but not limited to a joint aquatics permit (JARPA) and hydraulic permit (HPA) if applicable. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — WETLAND CONSULTANT ESA (Ilon Logan, 206-789-9658, ilogan@esassoc.com) At the request of the City of Federal Way (City), Environmental Science Associates (ESA) reviewed the Pre -Application Submittal Greenline Buildings A and B Proposed Wetlands Mitigation (dated December 19, 2017) prepared by Talasaea Consultants Inc. for a site located east of Weyerhaeuser Way and along the shoreline of North Lake in Federal Way, Washington. The site is part of the former Weyerhaeuser Campus property, which has recently been renamed the Greenline Campus. The site is being proposed for 17-106046-00-PC Doe ID: 77216 William Shiels February 6, 2018 Page 5 wetland mitigation required by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for wetland impacts associated with the Greenline Buildings A and B projects. As documented during previous third -party reviews of application materials for each building, the wetland impacts associated with these developments are exempt from City -required mitigation per the 1994 Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre -Annexation Zoning Agreement (ESA review memorandums dated December 13, 2017 and June 21, 2017). ESA reviewed the preapplication submittal material and attended the preapplication meeting at City Hall on January 18, 2018. Based on our review and understanding of the proposal, we have the following comments: Shoreline Management Act — The proposed mitigation area is located within 200 feet of North Lake, and therefore is within the City's shoreline jurisdiction triggering a review under FWRC 15.05 — Shoreline Management. The preapplication submittal letter states that the project should be exempt from a substantial development permit because it is consistent with WAC 173-27-040(P). This exemption is for "A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage." If this exemption is pursued, the application will need to address how the proposal specifically meets the criteria listed in WAC 173-27-04.0(P , which includes approval in writing from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), a hydraulic project approval from WDFW, and a determination from the local government that the project is substantially consistent with the local shoreline master program (SMP). Since the proposed mitigation concept focuses on wetland creation and wetland enhancement, does not propose fish habitat enhancements, and no streams are present on the mitigation site, a hydraulic project approval may not be required by WDFW. If WDFW does not review the project and/or approve of the exemption request in writing because the proposal does not conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55,,,:1-8-1.-, the project may not qualify for the exemption and a substantial development permit will need to be pursued. We note that WAC 173-27-040(1)(a) specifically states that "exemptions shall be construed narrowly." To demonstrate consistency with Federal Way's SMP, we recommend that that application address how project is consistent with the general development standards of the SMP for restoration activities as listed in FWRC 15.05.040f81. Sewer Easement — A 10-foot-wide sewer easement runs through the proposed mitigation area. The sewer was installed approximately 18 years ago along with its corresponding impact mitigation area, which is apparently located north of the existing boat launch access. Future application materials should show this area of previous mitigation so that it is clear the area is not included within the current mitigation proposal. As discussed during the preapplication meeting, the area of the sewer easement itself should be removed from the total mitigation credit area. Some planting will be allowed within the terms of the easement agreement, but this area cannot be secured in perpetuity as mitigation for the Greenline Buildings A & B wetland impacts. With this change to the mitigation area, we note that proposed wetland creation area that is closest to the sewer easement will no longer have a 100-foot buffer. The wetland creation area should be relocated so that it can be adequately buffered. We strongly recommend that all of the mitigation occur in a contiguous area and be located east of the sewer easement and west of North Lake. A contiguous mitigation area 17-106046-00-PC Doc ID: 77216 William Shiels February 6, 2018 Page 6 adjacent to North Lake would be the most valuable for protecting shoreline functions and habitat. The more fragmented the created or enhanced habitat, the lower its value and ability to protect shoreline functions. Mitigation Proposal — The proposed mitigation concept includes enhancement of existing wetland and creation of wetland and buffer. Based on the limited information provided, ESA generally agrees with the conceptual mitigation plan with the exception of the comment above regarding the location of wetland creation and buffer requirements. As the mitigation design progresses, we strongly recommend that the applicant perform further environmental investigations (groundwater level monitoring, soil analysis, etc.) at the proposed mitigation site to acquire the necessary data and information to inform mitigation feasibility and design. PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (Kevin Peterson, 253-835-2734, kevin.peterson@cityoffederalway.com) Land Use Issues — Stormwater I . If more than one acre will be disturbed during construction, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction storm water permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology at littp://www,egy.wa.,Qov/programs/wq/stortnwater/eonstruction/index.htmi or by calling 360-407- 6048. 2. If work is to be done below the ordinary high water mark, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Engineering (EN) Permit Issues Engineered plans are required for clearing, grading, and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the City. Engineering review fees are $1,669.00 for the first 12 hours of review, and ($139.00) per hour for additional review time. 2. The Federal Way Public Works Development Standards Manual (including standard detail drawings, standard notes, and engineering checklists) is available on the City's website at htW://www-ciiyoffederalmLay.com/index.asDx?nid= to assist the applicant's engineer in preparing the plans and TIR. Bonding is required for all temporary erosion and sediment control measures associated with the project. The bond amount shall be 120 percent of the estimated costs of the TESC measures and final. An administrative fee deposit will need to accompany the bond to cover any possible legal fees in the event the bond must be called. Upon completion of the installation of the improvements, and final approval of the Public Works Inspector, the bond will be reduced to 30 percent of the original amount and held for a two-year maintenance period. 4. When topographic survey information is shown on the plans, the vertical datum block shall include the phrase "DATUM: N.G.V.D.-29" or "DATUM: K.C.A.S.," on all sheets where vertical elevations are called out. 17-106046-00-PC Doe ID: 77216 1-1 William Shiels February 6, 2018 Page 7 Drawings submitted for plan review shall be printed on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" paper. Site plans shall be drawn at a scale of 1 " = 20', or larger. Architectural scales are not permitted on engineering plans. Provide cut and fill quantities on the clearing and grading plan. Temporary Erosion and Sediment control (TESC) measures, per Appendix D of the 2016 KCSWDM, must be shown on the engineering plans. The site plan shall show the location of any existing and proposed utilities in the areas affected by construction. PUBLIC WORKS — TRAFFIC DIVISION Traffic Division has no comment on this proposal. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — BUILDING DIVISION (Peter Lawrence, 253-835-2621, Peter.Lawrence ci offederalw$ .com) Building Division has no comment on this proposal. LAKEHAVEN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT (Brian Asbury, 253-946-5407, BAsbury@lakehaven. org) Regarding the proposed USACE required wetland mitigation on tax parcel 1521049178, to manage wetland impacts for development on tax parcel 6142600005 & the SE portion of existing tax parcel 6142600200. Let me know if you've any questions or need additional information. Project will need to avoid encroachment with existing Lakehaven sewer system facilities and easements (2, KCAF 19990903000827 & 199904201889 copies attached). If excavation, or fill, within the existing easement areas is proposed, contact Lakehaven's Sewer Field Operations staff for review & any necessary coordination. These comments are valid for one (1) year and are based on the proposal(s) submitted and Lakehaven's current regulations and policies. Any change to either the development proposal(s) or Lakehaven's regulations and policies may affect the above comments accordingly. SOUTH KING FIRE AND RESCUE (Chris Cahan, 253-946-7243, Chris.cahan@southkingfire.org) South King Fire and Rescue has no comment on this proposal. CLOSING This letter reflects the information provided at the preapplication meeting and is intended to assist you in preparing plans and materials for formal application. We hope you found the comments useful to your project. We have made every effort to identify major issues to eliminate surprises during the City's review of the formal application. The completion of the preapplication process in the content of this letter does not vest any future project application. Comments in this letter are only valid for one year per FWRC 19.40.070 (4). 17-106046-00-PC Doc ID: 77216 William Shiels February 6, 2018 Page 8 As you know, this is a preliminary review only and does not take the place of the full review that will follow submission of a formal application. Comments provided in this letter are based on preapplication materials submitted. Modifications and revisions to the project as presented for this preapplication may influence and modify information regarding development requirements outlined above. In addition to this preapplication letter, please examine the complete FWRC and other relevant codes carefully. Requirements that are found in the codes that are not addressed in this letter are still required for your project. If you have questions about an individual comment, please contact the appropriate department representative noted above. Any general questions can be directed towards the key project contact, Jim Harris; 253-835-2652. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, t j J� aHarris Senior Planner enc: Development Submittal Checklist Mailing Label Handout (2) Lakehaven Easement Documents Lakehaven Map c: Kevin Peterson, Public Works Engineering Plans Reviewer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water and Sewer District, via email Ilon Logan, ESA, ilogan@esassoc.com Jennifer Marriott, Talasaea 11arriatt[alasaeR.cnm 17-106046-00-PC Doc ID; 77216 0 Lakehaven ' sG o PG .� tiz North ° Lake 4C Ex. WtrSvc 64 _-----_- C 5/8"x3/4" M it r i Ex. SwrSvc "x SSCP 22839 G v North Lake JG o N� NOTE. Lakehaven Water and Sewer Greenline - Northlake Wetland Mitigation District neither warrants nor guarantees 17-106046-PC the accuracy of any facility information 0 200 400 ' provided. Facility locations and conditions ` are subject to field verification. 1/11/2018 BIA l Feet 19990903000827 itla7l�lY!♦ffllf ��I II� 09183108F OF 810 J �Ilrfrll�.t9s9 i3.74 %1COBS Ef1S KING COilNTY, WA 77.00 Return Address: Lakehaven Utility District P. 0. Box 4249 Federal Way, WA 98063-4249 COVER SHEET Document Title: EASEMENT FOR SEWER FACILITIES Reference Number(.). Grantor(s): WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY Grantee(s): LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT Legal Description: Additional legal description is on of document. Assessoes Properk, Tax Parcel/Account Number: WeyerHaeuser Sewer Trunk DISTRICT USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Account Number: Project Number. 432.127.594.83.6993 Fund: (circle one) Amourrt: WATER / SEWER / JOINT EASEMENT FOR SEWER THIS AGREEMENT by and between Lakehaven Utility District, a municipal corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter termed "Grantee" and Weyerhaeuser Company, hereinafter termed "Grantor". WITNESSETH: That Grantors, for and in consideration of one Dollar or other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby convey to the Grantee; A perpetual easement and right-of-way for sewer facilities and all appurtenances related thereto, together with the right of access and egress from said property, through, over and across the following described real property: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED Grantee and its agents, designees or assigns shall have the right, without prior institution of any suit or proceeding at law and without prior notice to Grantors, at such time as Grantee deems necessary, to enter upon said property, by foot or vehicle, for the installation, repair, reconstruction or maintenance of sewer facilities and appurtenances, provided that such shall be accomplished in a manner that existing private improvements shall not be disturbed or destroyed or in the event that they are disturbed or destroyed, they will be replaced or repaired, as nearly as is practicable, at Grantee's expense, to as good a condition as they were immediately before the property was entered upon by the Grantee. Grantors hereby agree that no building, wall, fence, rockery or structure of any kind shall be erected or planted, nor shall any fill material be placed within the boundaries of said easement area. No tree shall be planted within the easement area unless prior approval shall have been obtained from the Grantee. No excavation shall be made within three feet of said sewer service facilities within the easement area and the surface level of the ground within the easement area shall be maintained at the elevation as currently existing unless Grantee shall have given its prior written approval for any such modification, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. It is acknowledged that in the event of such request, Grantee shall have the right to require that Grantors make all reasonable modifications to the facilities, at their own cost, to maintain consistency with Grantee's standards under such altered conditions and shall have the right to request, as an Easement No. L-IC) 149(o 133A 19990903000827 PAGE 002 OF 010 09/93/1999 13:14 KING COUNTY, WA JACOBS EAS 17 00 additional condition of approval, that. Grantors convey similar easement rights to Grantee over such additional areas adjacent to the easement herein to allow for suitable excavation of, and work upon, facilities in the event of modification of the surface level or levels within the easement area if it can be demonstrated that additional area is necessary to perform such work. In the event that any of these provisions are violated, the Grantee shall have the right to require removal of any such structure and same shall be accomplished within a reasonable period of time and at Grantors' expense. Failure of Grantee to so exercise its right to require removal shall not constitute waiver of this right. Grantors additionally grant to the Grantee, its agents, designees or assigns, the use of such additional area immediately adjacent to said easement area as shall be required for the construction of said sewer service facilities in accordance with Grantee approved plans and specifications. The use of such additional area shall be held to a reasonable minimum and be returned, at Grantee's expense, to the condition existing immediately before the property was entered upon by Grantee or its agents. In the event of the need for future reconstruction or repair of the sewer service facilities, Grantors agree to cooperate with Grantee by negotiating the limited use of additional work area immediately adjacent to said easement. It is agreed that the additional area shall be held to a reasonable minimum, as determined by the actual work to be performed, and shall be returned, at Grantee's expense, to the condition existing immediately before the property was entered upon by Grantee or its' agents. Upon completion of the construction of said sewer facilities and appurtenances thereto, Grantee shall furnish Grantor "as -built" drawings and an "as -built" description of the actual location of said sewer facilities. If there is any discrepancy between the description and the exhibit maps attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B and the "as -built" location, an easement correction describing and showing said "as -built" location shall be executed by the parties hereto, their successors and assigns, and recorded in the Deed Records of King County, Washington. This Agreement and each of the terms, provisions, conditions and convenants herein shall be binding upon and apply to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. DATED this 1 V t4 day of 7)c tw. .- , 19 V. By Vj64 President of usiness Services By� ._ Mg&, rrl dy7� Assistant Secretary Easement No. !Mill 19490-303000827 PAGE 903 OF 019 09/03/1999 13:14 KING COUNTY, WA JACOBS ERS 17.00 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: County of King ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that A. Judd Haverf field and Pamela M. Redmon signed this instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the vice President of Business Services and Assistant Secretary to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: 12/14/98 Li s NotaryPublic in and for the State of Washington, Residing at Puyallup. Title My appointment expires Easement No. 3/28/01 ��iR�dfGYQ� '� I9�JNgLsYe�fwnn.s� PACE 004 CF 020— JACOBS 0"3i1$y7 13: 14 EAS 17.00 KING CoUNTY, WA ESM Lakehaven Sewer District Job No. 653-07-960-001 Revision of July 16, 1999 EDIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY PROPERTY That portion of Government Lot 2 of Section 15 and Government Lots 1 and 2 of Section 16, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., King County, Washington, being a 30 foot wide strip, lying 20 feet to the right of AND 10 feet to the left of the following described line: COMMENCING at the southeast comer of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 15, as shown on that Record of Survey by ESM, Inc. filed in Volume 114 of Surveys, Page 46, Recording Number 9704029002, Records of King County, Washington; THENCE along the east line of said northwest quarter of the northwest quarter, N 00°53'25" E, 1285,77 feet to the southerly margin of South 320tb Street; THENCE along said southerly margin, N 89°44'47" W, 10.00 feet; THENCE along a line 10 feet westerly of AND parallel with said east line of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter, S 00°53'25" W, 500.81 feet; THENCE S 27°47'02" W, 415.00 feet; THENCE S 25'01'49" W, 454.38 feet to the south line of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 15 AND the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE continuing S 25'01'49" W, 22.62 feet; THENCE S 12038'48" E, 50.00 feet; THENCE S 55'18'31" E, 192.78 feet; 720 South 348th Street Tel (253) 838 6113 Tacoma (253) 1271111 il Enginee rin^ _and �l an•'••+g Federal Way. WA 98003 Fax (253) 838 7104 Seattle (206) 62911 13 5r iz , ` —gem—' ,o,. www.esmcivil.com Bremerton (360) 7923375 _��d Sur _ 19990903000827 PAGE 005 OF 010 09/03/1999 13:14 KING COUNTY, WA JACOBS EAS 17.00 Lakehaven Sewer District Revision of July 16, 1999 Page 2 THENCE S 33036'57" W, 471.37 feet; THENCE S 06055'41" W, 301.62 feet; THENCE S 43031'26" W, 500.00 feet; THENCE S 55042' 13" W, 213.53 feet; THENCE S 37.49' 11" W, 392.53 feet; ' +^ . •'' i THENCE S 38053'49" W, 277.95 feet;' THENCE S 31°31'57" W, 310.33 feet; 5%P1PP.S.3 11-01•�� THENCE S 46°34'46" W, 422.57 feet; 0712-11g1 THENCE S 40019'34" W, 339.08 feet; THENCE S 22'09' 17' W, 210.81 feet; THENCE N 82°53'20" W, 88.06 feet; THENCE S 49058'54" W, 300.08 feet, more or less, to the east line of an existing sanitary sewer easement per instrument filed under King County Recording Number 9512140224 AND the terminus of said line description. EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within the public rights -of -way for South 336th Street and Weyerhaeuser Way South (AKA 32nd Drive South); ALSO EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within that parcel conveyed to the State of Washington Department of Game by deed filed under King County Recording Number 8204160626. The sidelines of said easement are to be shortened or lengthened as necessary to commence on the south line of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter said Section 15 AND to terminate on the east line of said existing sanitary sewer easement filed under King County Recording Number 9512140224. See attached Exhibits `13-1", `B-2", `B-3" and `B-4". Written by R.J.W. Checked by C.A.F. \\esm2\voll\engr\esm jobs\653\07\document\65307leg3A.doc r IN 19990903000827 PAGE 006 OF 010 {{{888fff 09/03/1999 13:14 JACOBS EAS 17.00 Y,ING COUNTY, WA EXHIBIT "B-1" TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SANITARY- SEWER EASEMENT A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 2 OF SECTION 15 AND OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 OF SECTION 16, TWP. 21 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M., CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON S. 320TH STREET I' I O I w > I o_ o v 04 30' SANITARY SEWER Y EASEMENT 10, 3 20 W N ,1 Q , 1 ' I' SOUTH LINE OF THE 1 1/ THE ' 1 /4 OFF SEE 15CTION 15 1' It SCALE 1"=200' -� 0 200 400 SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 200 FEET OF GOVERNMENT SEE EXHIBIT "B-2" LOT 2 OF SECTION 15 JOB NO. : 653-07-960-001 DRAWING NAME : EXH-B1 DATE : 07-24-98 DRAWN : A.W. / C.F. SHEET 1 OF 4 19990903000827 PACE 097 OF 010 09/03/1999 13:14 JACOBS EAS 17 00 KING COUNTY, WA EXHIBIT "B-2" TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 2 OF SECTION 15 AND OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 OF SECTION 16, TWP. 21 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M., CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15 S�F GOVERNMENT LOT 2 SECTION 15 30' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT 20' 101, B�3•. JOB NO. : 653-07-960-001 DRAWING NAME • EXH—B2 DATE : 07-16-98 DRAWN : A.W./C.F. SHEET 2 OF 4 ESM c,.,mi,g Engineers, Lc. oa Eov>... • 1mm 3—*o • P jcl ManaF.mwl 720 %% 44M Sews • F.drW ". M 65M Phone (25M M-5113 • (251) GD-051Y SEE EXHIBIT "13-1" s /r �i SCALE : 1" =200' 0 200 400 19990903000827 PgGEGE 008 OF 919 99'93.1999 13:14 JACOPS KING COUNTY, HR EAS 17.00 EXHIBIT "B-3" TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 2 OF SECTION 15 AND OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 OF SECTION 16, TWP. 21 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M., CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 20' 30' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT GOVERNMENT LOT 1 SECTION 16 m SEE EXHIBIT "B-4 JOB NO. : 653-07-960-001 DRAWING NAME : EXH-B3 DATE : 07-16-99 DRAWN : A.W./C.F./R.W. SHEET 3 OF 4 s� {" 3 0_ O� U c �-cc SF� 3 F�-61z 1 y I f SCALE : 1"=200' 0 200 400 0827 �I � INtlII IA IE�utl � �� F 010 ppg9 /1999 3: 14 JACOBS EAS 17.00 EXHIBIT "B-411 TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 2 OF SECTION 15 AND OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 OF SECTION 16, TWP. 21 N_ RGE. 4 E., W.M., CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON EXISTING 30' SANITARY SEWER I EASEMENT — REC. NO. 9512140224 S. ' 336TW cr.,—_ JOB NO. : 653-07-960-001 DRAWING NAME : EXH-84 DATE : 07-16-99 DRAWN : A.W. / C.F. SHEET 4 OF 4 ESM cwl3ift Evhwa, u.c. aw E Mo una Su wym • n•}x M rm :o, wrs sa.w . v.o.o ►_y..n :eats n.— (20) &M-e»a . (25M 927-0em SEE EXHIBIT "B-3" �1 gypP c�. �-10' GOVERNMENT LOT 2 SECTION 16 20' —10, 30' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT SCALE : 1"=200' 0 200 400 19990903000827 PAGE 010 OF 010 09/03/1999 13:14 KING COUNTY, WA JACO2S EAS 17.00 After Recording Return To: Randy Ellison Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Real Estate Division 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA. 98501-1091 Document Title: Easement Reference No.: Grantor: State of Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife Grantee: Lakehaven Utility District Legal Description: Section 15, Twp. 21 N., Rge 4 East W.M. Parcel No.: 8204160626 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE EASEMENT The Grantor, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, hereinafter called "Grantor", for valuable consideration in hand paid, and subject to the terms and conditions as set forth below, hereby conveys and grants to the LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Grantee", their successors and assigns, the right, privile e. authority to place, construct, operate, main in repair, and replace an undergro sewer line being a 30 foot wide strip, lying 20 feet to the right of AND 10 feet to the left of the following described line located in King County, State of Washington: TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. Section 15: COMMENCING at the southeast comer of the northwest quarter of said section, as shown on that Record of Survey by ESM, Inc. filed in Volume 114 of Surveys, Page 46, Recording Number 9704029002, Records of King County, Washington; Thence along the east line of said northwest quarter of the northwest quarter, N 00 ° 53'25" E, 1285.77 feet to the southerly margin of South 320th Street; Thence along said southerly margin, N 89°44' 47" W, 10.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along a line 10 feet westerly of AND parallel with said east line of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter, S 00 ° 53' 25" W, 500.81 feet; Thence S 27°47' 02" W, 415 feet; Thence S 25'01' 49" W, 477.00 feet; Thence S 12°38' 48" E, 50.00 feet; Thence S 55°18' 31" E, 192.78 feet; Thence S 33°36' 57" W, 471.37 feet; Thence S 06°55' 41" W, 301.62 feet; Thence S 43°31' 26" W, 500 feet to the terminus of said line description. EXCEPT any portion thereof lying outside of said parcel conveyed to the State of Washington, Department of Game by deed filed under King County Recording Number 8204160626. North Lake - Easement Lakehaven Utility District Page 2 THIS EASEMENT IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS; 1. Upon completion of construction activities the easement area shall be restored to its original condition. 2. In the event Grantee should abandon use of the land for the purposes described above for a continuous period of two years (2) or more, all rights and interest in the above described easement shall revert to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. 3. The rights and obligations of this easement shall run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of Grantor and Grantees. 4. In the event of a lawsuit involving this easement, jurisdiction and venue shall be proper only in the State of Washington, Thurston County Superior Court. 5. The Grantee shall not hold the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, their successors or assigns, liable for any damages or injuries caused by Grantee's exercise of the rights herein granted and the Grantee further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, its agents and employees on account of damages or claims of damages by whomsoever made and of any nature whatsoever arising out of or in any manner connected with The rights herein described. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Date ' Elyse Axell Kane, Assistant Director STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss County of Thurston ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Elyse Axell Kane signed this instrument, on oath stated that she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Assistant Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to be the free and voluntary acts off such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Date.I9 � NpTgRV � / 5—AD Notary Public for the State of Washingl�l o p B My appointment expires RTE2/4/99 EXHIBIT "B-2' TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SANITARY SEVIER EASEMENT -- A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 AND OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 15 AND OF THE NE 1/4 AND OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TWP. 21 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M., CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE SW OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 15 SFF N A I I I� SEE EXHIBIT "B-1" 1 30' SAIJITARY J SBVEP. EASEMENT O Cs ti 20' ----- 10' — , ev�y�ppPgo o�rs��z6 4;10 li s e�3•, JOB NO. : 653-07-960-001 DRAWING NAME : EXH—B2 DATE : 07-16-98 DRAWN : A.W./C.F. SHEET 2 OF 4 ESM cow Eegnews, LL.c. 0A E vh—m • L.e S—yhq • F.Jd Mano.nna SCALE : 1" =200' 720 Sa 31sn Shwt • F•Md-1fq, MA il70S Y— 1 n ETD nffl TA L CONSULTANTS, INC, 19 December 2017 ASAEA Robert "Doc" Hansen Planning Manager City of Federal Way Department of Community Development 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 RECEIVED DEC 2 0 2017 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT TAL-1572F REFERENCE: Greenline Buildings A and B Proposed Wetlands Mitigation, Federal Way, Washington SUBJECT: Pre -Application Submittal Doc: On behalf of Federal Way Campus, LLC, this letter and the enclosed Master Land Use Application and figures are being provided to request a pre -application meeting with the City of Federal Way for wetlands mitigation required by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for wetland impacts associated with the Greenline Buildings A and B projects. The wetland impacts associated with these developments are exempt from city required mitigation per the Concomitant Agreement. The Corps required mitigation is located on the North Lake parcel owned by the Applicant. A location map of both the impact site and mitigation site is attached for reference. The proposed wetland mitigation area will be located within the Shoreline Management Zone associated with North Lake. The wetland complex will be hydrologically connected to Wetland BD North, but it will not be hydrologically connected to the lake. The proposed project is consistent with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-27-040(P), and therefore, should be exempt from substantial development permit 1 requirements. .' To compensate for 9,922 square feet (sf) of wetland impacts on the Greenline Buildings A and B projects, the Applicant is proposing the following on mitigation: 19,844 sf of wetland creation; ® 27,002 sf of wetland enhancement; and • 77,113 sf of buffer creation. Wetland creation is being provided at a 2:1 ratio, as required by the Corps and Department of Ecology standards for wetland mitigation. Wetland BD -North will be enhanced through minor regrading to tie in proposed grades and plantings of native woody trees, shrubs, and emergent species as part of the wetland creation work. Wetland buffer is proposed to be Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast - Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 19 December 2017 Page 2 of 2 created/enhanced around the wetland complex. Please see the attached figures for a mitigation overview, proposed grading, and plant communities plan. We believe that the enclosed documents constitute a complete pre -application submittal. If you have any questions, please contact me or Bill Shiels at the office at (425) 861-7550 or by e-mail at jmarriott@talasaea.com. Thank you. Sincerely, TALASAEA CQNSUL en ifellarriott, PWS S or Ecologist Attachments: 1. One (1) Master Land Use Application 2. Greenline Buildings A and B Mitigation Figures (7 copies) 3. PCN Submittal to USACE (1 copy) cc: Tom Messmer, Federal Way Campus, LLC File Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast . Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 SEGTION 16 4 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. S 324* 6t &4rw File � Y +�are:Pa(k 3 r5 �r MITIGATION 51TE NORTH LAKE S W&d St -- S 3-Alh St _ ---_0. Ip 5ER S34t0* r ffl. Pharmacy Z e Ndfic Bonsai PROJECT SITE 5 344th St rool Zg i i 5OURGEi GOOGLE MAPS, WWW.MAP5.6006LE.GOM (AGGE55ED 10-20-2017) VRIVINS VIREGTIONS TO PROJECT 51TE FF20M SEATTLE FROM PROJECT 51TE TO MITIGATION SITE I. MERGE ONTO 1-5 SOUTH I. FROM PROJEGT 51TE HEAD NORTH ON 2. TAKE EXIT 143 FOR 5 520TH 5T WEYERHAEU5ER ROAD 3. SHARP LEFT ONTO 5 320TH 5T 2. TURN LEFT ONTO WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 4. TURN R16HT ONTO WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 3. SLIGHT RIGHT ONTO WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 5. AT TRAFFIC, GIRGLE, TAKE 2ND EXIT ONTO 5 4. AT THE TRAFFIC GIR I T EXIT 336TH ST 6. 5 336TH 5T TURNS 5LIOHTLY RIGHT AND BEGOMES WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 7. TURN RIGHT ONTO WEYERHAEU5ER ROAD 5. GONTINUE ONTO WEZ9 IW5 (b. THE DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT ARRIVE AT DESTINATION )DEC 2 0 2017 NORTH 47.308612,-122.288574 ARRIVE AT DESTINATION ON LEFT CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY N.T.S. FIGURE TITLE VICINITY MAP AND DRIVING DIREGTIONS DRAWN MW TAL# 1572F TALASAEA re REFERENCE FFPlr-ILLG 41.2g630 , 122.214154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE REVISED Resource & Environmental Plenntng 3-27-2017 I 12-1-201-1 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 96077 Bus (425)661-7550 - Fax (425)861-7549 LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 FIGURE # 1 NEAR/AT ICOUNTY STATE I I IN FEi7ERAL KAd KING WA I HYLEB05 CREEK Z.\DRAWING\1500-1599/TAL157211572B\P1ans/TAL-1572B-F 2017-li-27 (PCN FIGS)Oftpgright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. f�A / BD-UPLI • BD -I BI-1 / BI-12 `�',� •'1 ter-. •.. u ... '.. - . . ; . ,r.:� ExISTIN6 l' : •: WETLAND BD -NORTH CANOPY, TYP. ' , ' , , ' FLA65 BD I-82, Bl I-12 AK. ;�• A I-ETLAND D-8 caNrlNUEs NORTH LAKE MITISPATION VIENFORT GRAPHIC SCALE PLAN LECENn - -PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WETLAND — — — — — — WETLAND BUFFER re TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Enviroumental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Wood1nvi11e, Washington 98077 Bus (425)B61-7550 - Fax (425)861-7549 ( IN FEET) NORTH O 50 [00 Zoo SCALE, I"=100' FIGURE TITLE EX15TINO CONDITION5 - MITIGATION SITE MA&Wrn MW iai.fi 15-12F REFERENCE NWS-201-I-XXX APPLICANT FWG, LLG LAT. & LONG. 4-I.21650-1,-122.2g4154 PROPOSED PROJECT: &REENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE 5-27-2017 I REVISE❑ 12-1-2017 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE # 2 NEARfAT FEDERAL W.4 COUNTY KING STATE I IN WA HYLEB05 GREEK Z:\DRAWING 1500-1599 TAL1572 1572B Plans TAL-1572B--F 2017-11-27 PCN FIGS ►f pyright - Talssaea Consultants, INC. 5EGTION 16. TOHN5HIP 21 N, RANGE 4 t_ A.M. yIl v, r %•-•.- 1 �. J 1 •- . a r a • {tom � % / / • • • • v ' r V ♦ ♦ `r IN - ' .. - . • . p - M_ I T_ 16AT I Oil LEC7ENC) ft ,� } �s " _ - . - . • . WETLAND CREATION 19,544 5F WETLAND ` --� - 27,002 sF ENHANCEMENT BUFFER CREATION -7-7,113 5F PLAN LEr 1 r + . ... • - • . • . • + • + + a • rL PROPERTY LINE WETLAND BD -NORTH ` + + • = . _. — EXISTINC3 WETLAND { - - r.. 116rho 5F _ — — — — — GREATEE2NETLAND + w r ♦ + ♦ + BOUNDARY + " . a • • + + • - , — —• — — — WETLAND 6UFFER A / ♦ W ♦ ' • - � • r GRAPHIC 5C AI-E I I ( IN FEET) NORTH W SGALE: I"=80' IF PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION OVERVIEW iu�B TALA S AE A NWS-2201lCXXX I FWG, LLGG CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B Resource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 90077 Bus (425)661-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 L LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 NEAR/AT FEDERAL WA COUNTY KIM& STATE IN WA HYLEB05 GREEK LAT. & LONG. 47216307,-122.214154 3-2-1-201-7 112-1-201-7 FIGURE # 3 Z:IDRAWING 1500-1599 TAL1572 15725 Plans`TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)Vvftpyright - Ta "ays Consultants, SECTION 16, TOHN5HIP 21 NNN, RANGE 4 t. W.M. r 1 - r, 1 14 1 _ ♦ f� rn f`ti !I / /� a 'a• �•� LS W ♦ W 1 I TOP TOP E� r I~ � � •� � y W T i •. V r' 1 Ar7 / Y +fix. ' .� . ;,y , 4 k- _ i j W •••«• 1 w t ' t FLAN LZC r:Nr7 -- /: `� _ `" '� i,' •= .' * x' "� — PROPERTY LINE WETLAND CREATED NETLAND BOUNDARY !— �) E '� • �• ` �, • Top'- �o — — — — — — NETLAND BUFFER " i i i W F i c i . • •;a — — — — — — EX15TINO 2-FT CONTOUR WETLAND B©-NORTH • �n PROP05ED 2-FT CONTOUR 1 s ' 116a60 SF • . K —x SILT FENCE ,r+• ,+•« � . a ♦ a•.aaY- Woo©Y DEBRIS 1 (DONN LOOS, ROOTWAD5) + • a . • . « . « « STUHP r J (� `. • . a SNA5 KITH NEST BOX f GRAPH I G 50ALE �y ( IN FEET) O 40 80 160 SCALE: I "=80' 04A SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RAN6E 4 L, el.M. r ! A! ` BLS LAO i • • r ,• Q) N, ♦ + r + W Zrr ry� PLAN LE&ENP PROPERTY LINE i,ETLAND 1— `1 W'�•: - 1 _ CREATED WETLAND EOUNDARY r M • + • �y4` ' . + « — — — — — ` P05T GONSTRUGTION WETI`AND BUFFER _♦ `WETLAND BD —NORTH •• - 4 f + . + . + . + . .« 5EE PLANT GOMMUNITIE5 LEGEND • - '+ • a • r ++«-.-rr ON FIGURE 14 1 a r • + I[ Ii r • - ` - &RAPH I G SCALE NORTH f IN FEET) NORTH / LAKE ` 0 40 80 160 SCALE: 1"=80' TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning Bear Creek Road Northeast Wood Woodinville, Washington 96077 Bus (425)661-7550 - Fax (425)861-7549 FIGURE TITLE GONCEPTUAL PLANT COMMUNITIES PLAN DRAWN MW TAL# 1572F NWSFF��NCEXX FWG LLc 4�2g630NG122.2g4154 PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDIN05 A AND B DATE 3-27-201-7 REVISED 12-1-2017 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL LOCATION: 55665 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE # C 5 1 NEAR/AT FEVERAL WA COUNTY I KIN& STATE I IN WA HYLEB05 GREEK Z:\DRAWING\1500-1599\TAL1572\1572B\Pians\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 {PCN FIGS}&r1jppyrigbt - Ta€asaea Consultants, INC. PLANT COMMUNITIES LE6ENG ENHANCED UNDISTURBED BUFFER (63,0525F) TREES SCIENTIFIC NAME AGER GIRGINATUM GORNU5 NUTTALLII GORYLU5 GORNUTA SHRUBS SCIENTIFIC NAME GOMMONNAME VINE MAPLE PAGIFIG DOGWOOD WESTERN HAZELNUT COMMON NAME AMELANGHIER ALNIFOLIA 5ERVIGEBERRY OEMLERIA CERASIrORMI5 INDIAN PLUM 5AMBUGU5 RAGEM05A RED ELDERBERRY FORESTEL) BUFFER (14,031 5F) TREES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME AGER GIRGINATUM VINE MAPLE AGER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 13ETULA PAPYRIFERA PAPER BIRCH GORNUS NUTTALLII PACIFIC DOGWOOD GORYLUS GORNUTA WESTERN HAZELNUT P5EUDOTSU6A MENZIE511 DOUOLA5 FIR 5ORBU5 51TCHEN5I5 51TKA MOUNTAIN A5H THUJA PLIGATA WE5TERN RED CEDAR T5UGA HETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK SHRUBS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME AMELANGHIER ALNIFOLIA GAULTHERIA 5HALLON HOLODI5GUS P15GOLOFZ MAHONIA AGUIFOLIUM OEMLERIA CERA5IFORMI5 POLY5TIGHUM MUNITUM RIBES 5ANOUINEUM RUBU5 PARVIFLORU5 5AMBUGU5 RAGEMOSA SYMPHORIGARPO5 ALBUS 5ERVIGEBERRY SALAL OGEANSPRAY TALL OREGONORAPE INDIAN PLUM SWORD FERN RED CURRANT THIMBLEBERRY RED ELDERBERRY COMMON 5NOWBERRY F0RE5TE015GRUE3-5HRUB WETLAND (39,005 5F) TREES �f SCIENTIFIC, NAME MALUS FUSCA FRAXINU5 LATIFOLIA PIGEA SITGHEN515 RHAMNUS PUR5HIANA SALIX LASIANDRA THUJA PLIGATA COMMON NAME WESTERN CRABAPPLE OREGON ASH 51TKA SPRUCE GA5GARA PACIFIC WILI-ONO WESTERN RED CEDAR SHRUBS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME GORNUS ALBA RED-051ER DOGWOOD GRATAEGU5 DOUOLA511 BLACK HAWTHORN LONIGERA INVOLUGRATA BLACK TWIN -BERRY PHYSOGARPUS GAPITATUS PAGIFIG NINEBARK ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE R05A PI50GARPA CLUSTERED HILO ROSE RUBU5 5PEGTABILI5 5ALMONSERRY 5ALIX 5000LERIANA 5GOULER'S WILLOW' 5ALIX 51TGHEN515 51TKA WILLOW • TO BE INSTALLED A5 GUTTING5 SHALLOW EMERGENT WETLAND (9,0133 SF) EMERGENT5 SCIENTIFIC NAME Commot I NAME ALOPEGURUS GENIGULATU5 WATER FOXTAIL GAREX OBNUPTA SLOUGH SEDGE JUNGU5 EN5IFOLIU5 DAGGER -LEAVED RUSH 5GIRPU5 MIGROGARPU5 SMALL -FRUITED BULRUSH DEEP EMER 5-ENT WETLAND (5,&74 5F) jEMERGENT5 SCIENTIFIC, NAME COMMON NAME `- ELEOGHARIS PALU5TRI5 COMMON 5PIKERU5H 5GHOENOPLEGTU5 AGUTU5 HAR05TEM BULRUSH 5PAROANIUM EURYGARPUM BROAD -FRUITED BURREED FIGURE TITLE CONCEPTUAL PLANT COMMUNITIES LEOEND DRAWN IMW TAL# 1572F TALASAEA N� 2pNCEj� LICANT FWG, LLG LAT. & LONG. 4 296301, 1222114154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning 3-27-2017 12-1-2017 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 LOCATION: 336(53 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE # 6 NX"/AT COUNTY STATE IN IL FEDERAL WA KING WA HYLED05 GREEK Z:1DRAWING,1500-1599,TAL15721157213/P1ans\TAL-15728-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)®vCppyrigilt - Talasaea Consultants, INC. mz ono / boJ0, I �I o aioAmr on rri D w 111111 � � m j { SECTION 16, TONRSHIP ]I R Fax5E 4 i1VY m N, m lif f '�y r r-•\ -�1 l m � v L {_ z !- O N • Z j 1 1 K;U .I ■ MIT(6ATION �6EFJ� Y€TVthBJ CREATION 19b44 SF - — l VEMAND ENHAW-E row r -e)FFax cREnnoN T11I3 SF � � - � ;�•� F'LAl�I LEND l I•/EnL eo-NORTH 2M6TM KETLNC , =i �w ------ vuri_ .NO BUFFER _ `1 - •� • �• GRAPHIC SCALE - .- -. f IN FEET NORM ecuF. r=aO' i noun tt i �^n Mw l ]N' , W a'P"" R aAa�Near.:wJw�a `iALASAEA Cfl S AN'S'S, IHC. iraorm a Pe ewrtc rocs • uan � Fe.n+ve.Pk Lnb.umceLt KL 7-]'i-]Df] -F2p] PL-a9.>a CP19.GNL er e.eeniopee vaon e.�Hzigaie-+vo - n: (�ayel-rwu 1 ! KTL /ASBc Y 9 aY CPL %laSi Li rmn / a I� xlovan . I TISISTxt ISTx Plw. T.c-t �•-P- mF-LI-t+ [Is +ww ... a 4s� MEMORANDUM CITY OF Federal Way Community Development Department WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: January 4, 2017 City: Jim Harris Community Development Department 33325 8111 Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: lion Logan, ESA 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 ilaaan tr.esassoc.com Project: Pre -Application for - Greenline USACE Mitigation Site East of Weyerhaeuser Way File No.: 17-106046-PC Project Proponent: Talasaea Staff Contact: Senior Planner Jim Harris — 253.835.2652, jintaiartjajithaffeder hR VaNxcom Project Background: Applicant has requested a pre application meeting for USACE mitigation site. Documents Provided: s Talasaea Cover Letter December 19, 2017 Figures 1 — 5 by Talasaea Task Scope: m Assist City staff in determining appropriate City Code review process, and other applicable City requirements. High level conceptual review of concept plans for fatal flaws etc - Provide brief written response following pre app meeting. Attend pre application meeting of Thursday January 18, 2018 at 10:00 at City Hall • Phone discussion with Jim Harris a few days prior to meeting. Task Schedule: Provide a task cost estimate ASAP. Review work is not authorized until authorized in writing by city. Task Cost: Not to exceed S 'Z `" without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Greenline Mitigation Site Pre-app Acceptance: (City C , rv► GIS51-YI 6-11 Z ), 1 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 8, 2018 TO: Cole Elliott, Development Services Manager Rick Perez, Traffic Division Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue FROM: Jim Harris, 253 835-2652 FOR DRC MTG. ON: DATE - Internal DATE, TIME - with applicant FILE NUMBER(s): 17-106046-00-PC RELATED FILE NOS.: None PROJECT NAME: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A & B-'USACE MITIGATION PROJECT ADDRESS: 32820 WEYERHAEUSER WAY S ZONING DISTRICT: CP-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of USACE required compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts associated with Greenline Buildings A & B. LAND USE PERMITS: TBD PROJECT CONTACT: WILLIAM SHIELS -- Talasaea Consultants MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Concept Plan and summary letter from Talasaea. This is proposed wetland mitigation just south of the Northlake Boat Access. The is proposed mitigation of impacts of resulting from filling several wetlands on Greenline properties, and is proposed to fulfill federal mitigation requirements under the US Army Corp Engineers (USACE) regulations. Likely requires SEPA and a land use process TBD. CITY OFF Federal Inlay January 8, 2017 William Shiels Talasaea Consultants Community Development Department RE: FILE No. 17-106046-PC; GREENLINE USACE MITIGATION SITE 32820 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Shiels: The above -referenced proposal has been assigned to me as project planner. At this time, the application and preliminary site plan have been routed to the members of the Development Review Committee. A meeting with the project applicant and Development Review Committee has been scheduled as follows: Thursday, January 18, 2018 —10:00 AM Hylebos Conference Room City Hall, Second Floor 33325 8`' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 We look forward to meeting with you to discuss your proposal. Contact me at jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Harris Senior Planner C: Jennifer Marriott RECEIVED CITY OF�� DEC 2 0 2017 TY OF FEDERAL WAY Federal WaYC4MUNfTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO(S) I -' f t/ O 9 w Project Name Greenline Buildings A & B USACE Mitigation Property Address/Location MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DFVELOPMENT 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 Date 32820 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98001 Parcel Number(s) 152104-9178 /a-ao-/7 Project Description Construction of USACE required compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts associated with Greenline Buildings A & B. PLEASE PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment _ Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Areof Line Elimination application Conference Process I (Director's Approval) _ Process II (Site Plan Review) _ Process III (Project Approval) _ Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) _ Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process VI SEPA w/Project SEPA Only _ Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision _ Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information CP-1 Corporate Park Zoning Designation Corporate Park Comprehensive Plan Designation Value of Existing Improvements Value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (IBC): • Occupancy Type Construction Type Applicant Name: Tom Messmer Address: 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 850 City/State: Los Angeles, CA Zip: 90025 Phone: (310) 261-4382 Fax: Email: tmes r@in dustrialrealtygroup.com Signatu Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: William E. Shiels Address: 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast City/State: Woodinville, WA Zip: 98077 Phone: (425) 861-7550 Fax: E aseea.com S. natu %,. , " — r'. _ Owner Name: Same as Applicant Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Bulletin 8003 -January 1, 2011 Page 1 of I k:\IlandoutsWlaster Land Use Application 1�— to Loj�—(� )C TALASAEA `CONSULTANTS, INC. TO: Seattle District Corps of Engineers ^� CENWS-OD-RG PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING: letter duplicate copies X report originals specifications proposal X other LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FROM: Jennifer Marriott PROJECT: Greenline Buildings A and B SUBJECT: PCN Submittal DATE: 1 December 2017 FOR: X review & comment information X approval use & files as requested action noted X submittal DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS: One (1) Pre -Construction Notification dated 1 December 2017 consisting of: o Cover Letter o One (1) Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application o Two (2) General and Regional Conditions Summary Tables o One (1) Existing Conditions Report, dated 1 December 2017 o One (1) Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan, dated 1 December 2017 o Cultural Resource Reports (3) Please call me if you have any questions. ThVarriott, Je, Senior Ecologist Sentvia: Mail Courier X Other RECEIVED cc: Tom Messmer, Federal Way Campus, LLC DEC 2 0 2017 File CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 9 Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: 401/CZM Federal Permit Coordinator FROM: Jennifer Marriott Shorelands and Environmental PROJECT: Greenline Buildings A and B Assistance Program SUBJECT: PCN Submittal/401 WQ Cert Washington Dept. of Ecology DATE: 1 December 2017 PO Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504 TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING: letter X duplicate copies X report originals specifications proposal X other FOR: X review & comment information X approval use & files as requested action noted X submittal DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS: • Copy of a Pre -Construction Notification provided to the US Army Corps of Engineers, dated 1 December 2017 consisting of: o Cover Letter o One (1) Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application o Two (2) General and Regional Conditions Summary Tables o One (1) Existing Conditions Report, dated 1 December 2017 o One (1) Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan, dated 1 December 2017 o Cultural Resource Reports (3) Please call me if you have any questions. Thank ff Jeri ' Sent via: Mail X Courier Other cc: Tom Messmer, Federal Way Campus, LLC File Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 961-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 1 ° TTALASAEA CONSULTANTS. INC. 1 December 2017 Seattle District Corps of Engineers CENWS-OD-RG PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 REFERENCE: Greenline Buildings A and B, Federal Way, Washington SUBJECT: Pre -Construction Notification Dear Project Manager: TAL-1572F This letter and the enclosed Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) and supporting documents are being provided to serve as a pre -construction notification (PCN) for the Greenline Buildings A and B project located in Federal Way, Washington. The coordinates of the center of the Project Site are (47.296307,-122.294154). The mailing address for the Site is 33663 Weyerhaeuser Way South. A location map is provided in the attached Existing Conditions Report. The project proposes to develop two (2) buildings, Buildings A (225,000 sf) and B (214, 050 sf). Associated infrastructure to be constructed includes one (1) stormwater detention facility and parking for both large trucks and cars. There are thirteen (13) wetlands and one regulated (1) stream located on the Project Site. In total, 9,922 square feet (0.23-ac) of wetland impact will occur for the construction of the proposed project that will be mitigated for using wetland creation on another site owned by the Applicant. Portions of the project were previously permitted by the Corps (NWP-2016- 443, issued 31 October 2016, provided as Appendix A of the Existing Conditions Report), but the new site plan is sufficiently different that it was determined that a new application was warranted, based on a meeting with Jacalen Printz, Section Chief, Regulatory Branch, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, on 14 June 2017. Materials submitted as part of this application include: a One (1) Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application 0 Two (2) General and Regional Conditions Summary Tables One (1) Existing Conditions Report, dated 1 December 2017 One (1) Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan, dated 1 December 2017 • Cultural Resource Reports (3) The attached Existing Conditions Report is provided to address the components of a wetland delineation report and to only document existing conditions on both the Project and Mitigation Sites. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast - Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 - Fax: (425) 861-7549 1 December 2017 Page 2 of 2 The Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan is intended to address the project details, proposed critical areas impacts, environmental permitting concerns for the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Ecology, and mitigation details. The Cultural Resources assessments are provided within three (3) reports that were prepared at slightly different times as the project scope expanded. Listed species concerns are addressed within the Existing Conditions Report and Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan. We believe Nationwide Permit 39: Commercial and Institutional Developments best suits the parameters for this project. Wetlands proposed to be filled are freshwater wetlands and are not connected to tidal waters of the United States, and total proposed wetland fill is less than 'h acre. Consistent with the requirements of NWP 39, we are providing a PCN for the proposed development. We request a preliminary Jurisdictional Determination concurrently with this permit application to address all of the current set of wetlands within the Project and Mitigation Sites. We understand the Corps typically has a heavy workload, and we would like to help streamline our Project's review to the best of our abilities. We believe that the enclosed JARPA and supporting documents constitute a complete PCN. However, if any additional information is necessary to make this application complete, or if you have any questions, please contact me at the office at (425) 861-7550 or by e-mail at bshiels@talasaea.com. If I am not available, please contact Jennifer Marriott at the office number or via email at jmarriott@talasaea.com. Thank you. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULT NTS, INC. William E. Shiels Principal Attachments: 1. One (1) Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application 2. Two (2) General and Regional Conditions Summary Tables 3. One (1) Existing Conditions Report, dated 1 December 2017 4. One (1) Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan, dated 1 December 2017 5. Cultural Resource Reports (3) Cc: Tom Messmer, Federal Way Campus, LLC File Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast . Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 . Fax: (425) 861-7549 0 ��ILASA��A CONSULTANTS, INC 1 December 2017 401/CZM Federal Permit Coordinator Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Washington Dept. of Ecology PO Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504 REFERENCE: Greenline Buildings A and B, Federal Way, Washington SUBJECT: 401 Water Quality Certification To whom it may concern: TAL-1572F 1 This letter and the enclosed Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) and supporting documents are being provided to serve as a request for concurrence with the Corps on the 401 Water Quality Certification for the Greenline Buildings A and B Project located in Federai Way, Washington. This application is being concurrently submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as a Pre - Construction Notification. Please see the attached cover letter provided to the Corps for a project summary. If you have any questions, please contact me at the office at (425) 861-7550 or by e-mail at jmarriott@talasaea.com. If I am not available, please contact Bill Shiels at the office number or via - email at bshiels@talasaea.com. Thank you. Sincerely, T �un UeVm. Marriott, PWS ;enlor Ecologist cc: Tom Messmer, Federal Way Campus, LLC File Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 . Fax (425) 861-7549 Greenline Buildings A & B PCN Submittal Tat-1572F Attachment 1 Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 •--------------------------------------, Q AGENCY USE ONLY WASHINGTON STATE us army crs w Date received: of Englneors Seattle District Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Agency reference #: i rl Application (JARPA) Form' '2 [liel❑ ; l USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. Tax Parcel #(s): 20 , Part 1—Project Identification 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) k Greenline Buildings A & B -� Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [tLelnj I I 1 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Messmer, Tom 2b. Organization (If applicable) Federal Way Campus, LLC 2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 850 2d. City, State, Zip Los Angeles, California 90025 2e. Phone (1) 2f. Phone (2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail (310) 261-4382 ___]_ tmessmer@industrialrealtygroup.com lAdditional forms may be required for the following permits: • If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at htto./Iwww.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Reciulato /PermitGuidebook/Endan eredS ecies.as x. • Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they accept the JARPA. ZTo access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to htto://www.epermitting.wa.-gov/site/alias resourcecenter/'ar a 'ar a form/9984/jarpa form.aspx. For other help, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or heloCcDoria.w_a.gov. ORIA-16-011 Page 1 of 14 Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this application.) nei 3 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Shiels, William, E 3b. Organization (If applicable) Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 3c. Mailing Address (street or Po Box) 15020 Bear Creek Road NE 3d. City, State, Zip Woodinville, Washington 98077 3e. Phone (1) 3f. Phone (2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail (425) 861-7550 bshiels@talasaea.com Part 4—Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider bo" upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. Hein ® Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights -of -way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. ❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don't know, contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization. 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) 4b. Organization (If applicable) 4c. Mailing Address (street or PO Box) 4d. City, State, Zip 4e. Phone (1) 4f. Phone (2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail ORIA-16-011 Page 2 of 14 1 Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. hei I ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. 1 1 1 1 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [help] ® Private ❑ Federal ❑ Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) 5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) hi elpl 5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) Lelpj Federal Way, Washington 98001 5d. County hei King County 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. hl elpl Section Section Township Range 16 & 21 21 N 4E 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. hei ■ Example: 47.03922 N lat. /-122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees - NAD 83) 47.296307 N lat./-122.294154 W long. (NAD 83) 5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. ni Pink • The local county assessors office can provide this information. 614250-0005, 614260-0200, and 152104-9178 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (if you need more space, use JARPA Attachment Q.) hl gips Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) ORIA-16-011 Page 3 of 14 5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. heI There are 13 wetlands (Wetlands DP, DQ, DR, DT, DU, DV, DW, DZ, EB, EC, ED, EE, and EF) on the Project Site. One wetland (Wetland BD-N) is located on the Mitigation Site and continues off -site. 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. be[o] Stream EA is located on the Project Site. North Lake is located adjacent to the Mitigation Site. ` 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? LigLp) I ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. LLipj The Project Site is a mixed conifer and deciduous forest with a series of gravel roads and paths traversing the site. The 13 wetlands are generally shrub/forest-dominated wetlands. The Mitigation Site is also a mixed conifer and deciduous forest with a shrub/forest-dominated wetland. Also see attached Existing Conditions and Critical Areas Reports. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. heI The Project Site contains a landscape materials (gravel, sand, soil, compost, boulders) yard that has been used for the entire greater property, formerly known as the Weyerhaeuser Campus. There are also several gravel roads and trail for access and passive recreation. The Mitigation Site is part of a larger parcel that is used for passive recreation. A gravel road meanders along much of the lakefront shoreline that is used as a trail, though this trail stops south and west of the Mitigation Site. A sewer line easement crosses the Site and extends across the larger parcel of which the Mitigation Site is a part. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. heI l The Project Site is surrounded on all sides by roads: Weyerhaeuser Way South to the north and east, Weyerhaeuser Road to the west, and Highway 18 to the south. The Mitigation Site is part of a larger parcel that is surrounded by roads or North Lake. However the Mitigation Site is immediately surrounded by undeveloped land, and the boat ramp road to the east. In a broader context, there are a few single family residences to the east of the site, but most of the immediate area is office/commercial facilities, North Lake (used for fishing), and undeveloped lands. 5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current condition. tel The only structures on the Project Site are some cinderblock walls in and around the landscape materials yard. Several vacated right-of-ways occur across the Site. l No structures occur within the Mitigation Site, though a single-family residence located at 32820 32"d Ave S is in the southwest corner of the larger parcel of which the Mitigation Site is a part. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. haid See attached Vicinity Map & Driving Directions (Figure 1 of either the Existing Conditions Report or Critical Areas Impact and Mitigation Report). 1 ORIA-16-011 Page 4 of 14 I J I Part 6—Project Description 6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. helc The Applicant proposes to construct approximately 439,050 square feet of new building space with associated infrastructure, parking, and stormwater facility. 6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. hel The purpose of the project is to provide large commercial facilities that could serve as warehouse storage and distribution centers in response to market demands of the region within an area zoned Commercial. 6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [hel ® Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational ❑ Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help] ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam / Weir ❑ Floating Home (upland) ❑ Road ❑ Boat House ElDike / Levee / Jetty ElGeotechnical Survey ❑ Scientific ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ® Land Clearing Measurement Device ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock / Pier ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs ❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Mining ® Stormwater facility ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ OutFall Structure ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Piling/Dolphin ❑ Utility Line ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway ❑ Raft ® Other: Wetland fill ORIA-16-011 Page 5 of 14 6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. kM ■ Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. ■ Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain. The majority of the Project Site would be cleared of vegetation using heavy construction machinery with appropriate erosion and sediment control measures used. Appropriate construction methods and equipment will be used for each element of the project, though specifics have yet to be established. The Mitigation Site will be built in conjunction with another project's mitigation site to maximize efficiency and reduce mobilization efforts. Both the Project and Mitigation Sites will be constructed using appropriate construction methods through a designated construction contractor. Erosion control measures will be used. No work in floodplains is proposed; 9,922 square feet of wetland fill is proposed. Some regrading of an existing wetland is proposed in conjunction with the wetland creation to meet grades. See Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan for additional details and graphics. 6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthNear) Lkm ■ If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use DARPA Attachment Q to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start Date: 2018 End Date: 2023 ❑ See JARPA Attachment D 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. LLelo $50,000,000.00 (approximate) 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? l,ei ■ If yes, list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation ® Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) heM 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. hf ell ❑ Not applicable Various site configurations were evaluated to find the footprint with the fewest adverse impacts to wetlands. Unfortunately, development of large warehouse buildings precludes many avoidance options. See Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan for additional details and graphics. 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? LkM ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? nel ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know ORIA-16-011 Page 6 of 14 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? i el ■ If Yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No See Existing Conditions Report. 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? hel,) • If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? hel • If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g. o If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know See Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan for additional details and graphics. 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. help Wetland impacts will be mitigated through a multi -part mitigation plan that includes elements of wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and wetland buffer creation. Wetland creation is currently proposed at an approximately 2:1 ratio. A watershed plan does not exist for this area. This mitigation site was chosen based on its availability (under same ownership) as well as its connectivity to other critical areas and location within the same watershed as the proposed wetland impacts, consistent with the intent of the watershed approach. 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. hel Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation area flood, etc.) rating ft. or type (sq. ft. or category2 Acres) acres DU, DW, DX, PFO/PSS Fill DZ, EB, EC, III 9,922 sf Permanent Creation 19,844 sf ED, EE, EF See Chapter 4 of the Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan for proposed mitigation elements. If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as "Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter "permanent" if applicable. 4Creation C , Re-establishmenVRehabiiitation R , Enhancement E , Preservation P , Miff ation Bank/ln-lieu fee B ORIA-16-011 Page 7 of 14 Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: Page 8+ 7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. Ihei2] Clean structural fill to be used for filling wetlands will be pulled from a City -approved location. Approximately 800 cubic yards of fill will be placed within the 9 wetlands proposed to be filled, and subsequently compensated for through the provided Mitigation Plan submitted as part of this PCN. 7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. heel ] No excavating is proposed. Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) icl ] ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) 8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. hch, ❑ Not applicable The project was designed to avoid all impacts to Stream EA and North Lake. The Stream EA buffer will be reduced with buffer averaging to replace the lost buffer area so that the final area of buffer will not change. Minor temporary impacts are proposed to the Stream EA buffer, but these areas will be restored post - development. 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? heI ❑ Yes ® No ORIA-16-011 Page 8 of 14 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non -wetland waterbodies? 1,eI ] • If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know There are no impacts to non -wetland waterbodies. 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [hel No impacts to streams or North Lake are proposed, thus no mitigation elements address these features. Restoration of stream buffer encroachments is proposed and addressed in this mitigation plan but are intended to address City of Federal Way regulations. 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. LniA Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile namelocation' of impact' (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of drive, etc.) placed in or removed waterbody from waterbody directly affected N/A If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as "Stream 1") The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain. 3Indicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably Impacted by the work. Enter 'permanent" if applicable. 8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. LheV Not applicable. ORIA-16-011 Page 9 of 14 8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. r,el ] Not applicable. Part 9—Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. 9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. I2cI Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact City of Federal Way Jim Harris/Stacey Welsh 1253.835.2655 Ongoing correspondence USACE Kaitlyn White N/A October 2016 WA Dept of Ecology Paul Anderson N/A September 2016 9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? heI • If Yes, list the parameter(s) below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: htt :Ilwww.ec .wa. ov! ro ramslw /303d/. ❑ Yes ® No 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? ht l )) • Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surfilocate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC. 1711019 (Hylebos Creek — Commencement Bay) 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? helu] ■ Go to Iit(p:lwww.ecy.wa.aov/waterlwria/index.himI to find the WRIA #. WRIA 10: Puyallup — White ORIA-16-011 Page 10 of 14 9e. Will the in -water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? hel • Go to htlp:i/www.ecy.wa.gov/prociramslwci/swqsicriteda.htmI for the standards. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? �� • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. ■ For more information, go to: hUp://www.ecy.wa.-goviprogramsisea/sma/laws rules1173-26/211 designations.html. ® Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ® Conservancy ❑ Other: 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? theM ■ Go to http:llwww.dnr.wa.gov/forest-pracrices-water-tyi)inQ for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. ® Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non -Fish Perennial ❑ Non -Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? Lq!pj ■ If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. ❑ Yes ® No Name of manual: Kinq Count Surface Stormwater Desi n Manual 2016 9L Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? hem • If Yes, please describe below. ❑ Yes ® No 9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. tzel The property has been owned and managed by Weyerhaeuser since the 1970s until acquisition by Federal Way Campus, LLC in 2015. The Project Site was used for passive recreation on existing gravel roads and a landscape materials yard. Numerous structures, presumed to be houses as well as a network of roads are evident in 1957 aerial imagery, indicating this area used to be developed. The Mitigation Site was the site of some kind of lakefront resort/facility in the 1957 aerials that was abandoned in the decade or so after and allowed to revegetate naturally. The locations of the previous structures is evident in the quality of the substrate remaining and the generally poor growth of plants within certain areas. 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? hel ) • If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No Three (3) reports are provided that collectively cover both the Project and Mitigation Sites. ORIA-16-011 Page 11 of 14 91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work. LL-ipj No listed species are noted as occurring on the site. Bald eagles may use North Lake for foraging. Man- made obstructions appear to restrict movement of salmonids upstream from Hylebos Creek, which has known populations of salmonids. Thus, salmonids may occur within North Lake and surrounding waters, though none have been observed or noted in applicable databases. Please see the Existing Conditions Report for more information on listed species relative to the Project and Mitigation Sites. 9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. help See comments above on Federally -listed species. Please see the Existing Conditions Report for more information on priority species and habitats relative to the Project and Mitigation Sites. ORIA-16-011 Page 12 of 14 1 .) Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.oria.wa.Qov/opasl. • Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or helpeoria.wa.cgov. • For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for com letted JARPA. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) hei • For more information about SEPA, go to www.ec .wa. oyI r rams/sea/se ale-review.htmi. ❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ® A SEPA determination is pending with City of Federal Way (lead agency). The expected decision date is March 2018 ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.) h pj ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) heI a LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance ® Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): Improve Wildlife Habitat WAC 173-27-040 (P) Other City/County permits: ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ® Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GOVERNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: ® Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption —Attach Exemption Form Washington Department of Natural Resources: ❑ Aquatic Use Authorization Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Do not send cash. Washington Department of Ecology: ® Section 401 Water Quality Certification FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): ® Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ❑ Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) ORIA-16-011 Page 13 of 14 Part 11-Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. hf eM 11a. Applicant Signature (required) h[ M I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby ante the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies enterin the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature Date 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature hf elpl I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authoritv tn a proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been i u z 0r7 Au rized Agent Printed Name Authorized Ag i nat Date 11 C. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant). hem Not required if project is on existing rights -of --way or easements. I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA), People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (M) 833-6341. ORA publication number. ENV-019-09 JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 13 of 13 4ik CITY 10';:tS0VP OF Federal Way Department of Community Development Services 33325 8`t' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cit offederalwa .com SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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, minimization, 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: aielp 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 "doer not apply "only wbenyou can explain wly 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 allpa17s ofyorw-popm,14 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 wlvch 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. 1 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. _J Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:1he�l For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans, and programs), complete the applicable parts of ` sections A and B, plus the 5 1 f l.E:\iF'N'EU. SI Ii FOR NE )NI'M I.X-i ACTIONS 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 1 Part B (Environmental Elements) that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 1 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 201-1 A. BACKGROUND jLido, 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: liel . Greenline Warehouse A 2. Name of applicant: JLelpj Chi" -Ruald Seattle, LLG- Federal Way Campus, LLC 3. Addresa acid phone number of applicant and contact person: il� 11200 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310-261-4382 4. Date checklist prepared: !] is l ReT,4sed Augast 8, 16 Awe 1 A 2W Revised August 24, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: [Lcipl City of Federal Way 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): IlIch, Commercial Grade & Fill work to occur summer 2036-2817 2018 Construction of warehouse and .,:st44..#^., ^}^�and parking to begin Summer- Fall 203fi 2037 2018 Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. l)el After the Process III land use review is complete and approval is granted, the applicant plans on constructing the 314,424 g s.r 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse, effise spawe and associated parking and infrastructure. No addWARM Additionally, Right -of -Way improvements will be installed along Weyerhaeuser Way S upon approval of any future development that exceeds the 300,000 SF threshold outlined in the 1994 Concomitant Agreement. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. llju lit m Critical Areas Report for Pm feff"„a r-r-e-ezeq ^"^a Say Federal Way Campus, LLC that includes the following: a. Geotechnical report; b. Wetland delineation; c. Wetland mitigation plan; d. Wildlife Assessment Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 2 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Afay1014 O Level One Downstream storm drainage analysis pursuant to KCSWDM 01 Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) addressing relevance of the 9 Core and 5 Special Requirements of 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Cultural Resource Report Traffic impact analysis 0 JARPA a Environmental Noise Report ■ Air Quality Technical Report 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. iel and wall be processed cenrur-Fently with this aPPI"GAtien Section 404 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1I-)ell-, 1 Section 404 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Commercial Grade & Fill City of Federal Way, SEPA Threshold Determination, Process III Land Use Review, NPDES Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit, Land Surface Modification Permit, and Forest Practice Class -IV- General Application. 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. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) DielpJ Site development atqd req6twoien approvals for. a 2441,124 g-6-f buildil;g, inGlu-11- --k—use, effiGe and food pr-eeess;Rg spare, 49F Prefer -Fed gFeezer- and GFra eay Seafoods, on a 4:9 aeFe site withiR the CP 1 zene Federal Way Campus, LLC is amending this Process III land use application to develop a general commodity warehouse on 15.16-acres of CP-01 zoned land. The proposed warehouse will be approximately 225,950 square feet and include accessory parking for up to 2-64 255 vehicles. A stormwater quality control and detention pond are located off -site to the south on an adjoining parcel as described in #12 of this checklist. Limited commercial vehicle ingress and egress access will be off of Weyerhaeuser Way S near the interchange ramps for Highway 18. A 50-foot wide managed forest buffer will run along the property boundary adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Way S. o4site, adjacent to N ianh La lie 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient infomation for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal, description, site plan, vicinity reap, and topographic map, if reasonably available. \X7hile you should submit any plans required by the ' agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted ►vitii any permit applications related to this checklist. ftipj Site Address: 337XX Weyerhaeuser Way S Federal Way, WA 99003 Located at the intersection of Weyerhaeuser Way S and 33rd Place S. Lot 1, City of Federal Way Boundary Line Adjustment No.16-102886-00-SU, recorded under recording number 20170210900007, in King County, Washington. Parcel Number: 614260-005 Bulletin #050 —May 1, 2014 Page 3 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Ala), 2014 A proposed stormwater pond for the runoff generated by the project will be located on an adjacent parcel to the south. The parcel number is 614260-0200 and the site address is 3120 S 344th ST. The proposed stormwater pond will be located at the southern end of the property protected by a stormwater easement that has a 15-foot wide extension to the Warehouse 'A' parcel. More information regarding the stormwater facility located on the adjacent parcel can be found in the revised Preliminary Technical Information Report. This parcel is described as: NORTH LAKE ADD TO EAST TACOMA LOT 2 FEDERAL WAY BLA #16-102886-00-SU REC #20170210900007 SD BLA BEING POR PLAT OF NORTH LAKE ADD TO EAST TACOMA LOC IN E 1/2 OF NE 1/4 STR 21-21-04 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS .[1,c;i,[ 1. Earth a. General description of the site l,e ll (underline/circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Somewhat undulatory with a general downward slope to the east. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? VitI4 ±15% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Iht Weathered (medium dense) glacial till and unweathered (dense to very dense) glacial till. Generally silty sand with gravel. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. J1�1»f None e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. tl;rl �[ Cuts in the west and fills in the east will be completed to create a level development pad. A small portion of structural fill material may be imported for the building foundation. Native on -site material will be used for general fill. Quantities aEe as faliews : out eF-anti -- Approximate earthwork quantities: Cut = 74,100 cubic yards Fill= 48,800 cubic yards Stripping= 21,600 raubieyank-20,500 cubic yards Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. PitIpj Erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction, particularly if earthwork is completed during periods of rainfall. TESC measures will be implemented as approved by the City prior to clearing and construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 1, 1sJ Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 4 of 14 k:\Ilandouts\Environmental Checklist May 201d t6g% (567,829 fowl 39.61% (261,679 Square Feet) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: f h�:11 } i The owner will institute an erosion control plan to be used during earthwork and construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. ltcl A Some heavy machinery exhaust and dust particulates generated primarily by construction equipment. An updated Air Quality report has been included with the SEPA checklist which discusses impacts during operation. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. I11L 1 . No. The updated Air Quality report compares the proposed project to Ambient Air conditions. Off -site sources do not appear to affect our proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: tLidip-I All construction equipment will be in proper working order and regulated for emissions by the manufacturer and local emissions laws. Vehicles entering and leaving the site will also be regulated for emissions by state and local emissions laws. During construction the site will be watered as necessary to keep any dust from impacting surrounding air quality. 3. Water a. Surface Water )e ,21 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including }rear -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. Uidpl. There are no fish -bearing or perennial streams on or near the site. there is —;a Man made aphemeFal ditrh, unRamed that fiews into wetland DR, dees Rot c:estinwe. A 3 man-made ephemeral ditch, unnamed, connects Wetland EE to Wetland DR. An ephemeral stream (Stream EA) occurs in the southeast portion of the project area. See attached Wetland report for more details. 913 on -site wetlands occur within the project limit @Rd 1 ,..etia..a vfis:.e to t ro-th. Onsite Wetlands: DP (PFO), DQ (PSS), DR (PSS), DT (PSS), DU (PSS), DW (PFO), DX (PFO), DZ (PFO), EB (PFO/PSS), EC (PFO), ED (PFO), EE (PSS), and EF (PFO). All wetlands ultimately discharge to Hylebos Creek to the south. 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. lielW Yes, work adjacent to the man-made ditch is proposed- L67f831 9,949 square feet of proposed direct impacts (fill) to wetlands DU, DW, DX, DZ, EB, ED, and EE. and IF Indirect impacts will affect Wetlands DQ,EC, and EF. Wetlands DP, DR, and DT will not be impacted. Stream EA will not be impacted. See attached work plans and report for more details. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Jhel Total wetland fill to equal ±435 cubic yards. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 5 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Maj 2014 Fill materials will be sourced from the project site. The filling of these wetlands will have no long-term impacts on the surrounding hydrology. The runoff from the Site in the post -development condition will be detained within the proposed Stormwater pond to the south before being discharged under Highway 18. This path of water movement will be the same in the post -development condition as from the pre -development condition. Wetland EE does currently drain to Wetland DR through a culvert and associated ditch that was artificially constructed many years ago. That artificial connection between Wetlands EE and DR will be removed in the post -development condition as previous City concerns regarding the Site's stormwater discharges disallowed any site runoff to be conveyed to these remaining wetlands. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known..ltt�jjjj No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note the location on the site plan. 11ic pi No 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. h c14IJ No 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. Vig1w No groundwater will be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or any other purpose. 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. Vielp No waste material will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. See subsection 3.0 for information for discharge of stormwater. c. Water runoff (including 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. ?1}. "sn Run-off from impervious surfaces will be collected and directed into an -site a stormwater detention pond located on the adjoining parcel to the south. Once detained and treated for water quality, the storm water will be released to the downstream system, including the off -site wetlands. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. hcl , Not as proposed 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 6 of 14 kAllandouts\Environmental Checklist Ala), 2014 1 -I -I No - discharge will occur at the natural location. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: The project contractors, users, and personnel will utilize onsite Best Management Practices. Attached drainage plans show runoff from impervious surfaces will be directed to on site stormwater detention pond. 4. Plants f, e a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: a 1, Ap X_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X_evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X_shrubs _X__grass pasture crop or gram orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops _X_wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, 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? tbLIpI Native Native trees and shrubs will be removed during site construction. 4-of 7 7 of 13 on -site wetlands will be filled; 3 wetlands and adjacent buffers of native trees and shrubs will remain. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. tl,� ! , No native threatened and endangered plant species observed or known to occur on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. l,-I , Buffer enhancement of native plants will be done as needed. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, English holly S. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site, or are known to be on or near Jthe site. Examples include: JL)vI birds: hawk,heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rabbits squirrels fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: bass and perch —1 b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. UILIp I Bald Eagle nest documented t1,500 feet east of site; none on -site. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 7 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Ala), 2014 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The entire region is known to be part of the Pacific Flyway. The Pacific Flyway includes Alaska and the Aleutian Islands and the Rocky Mountains and Pacific coast regions of Canada the United States and Mexico, south to where it becomes blended with other flyways in Central and South America. However, the site is not known to be used by migratory fowl. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. 1i�1_nJ Preservation of remaining wetlands and adjacent uplands - a corridor will be provided between preserved wetlands and a 50'-wide forested buffer will be provided along Weyerhaeuser Way S. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Bullfrog 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Ditlpj Electrical energy will be the primary source of power serving the project. Natural gas maybe used to satisfy incidental energy needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. l l No, the proposed building height will not exceed .70 42 feet above grade. No existing development utilizes solar energy in proximity to which the shadow cast from the building has any effect. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. 1t_-11� No plans included in the Commercial grade & Fill Permit. Energy conservation will be addressed in the building permit documents. 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 proposal? If so, describe. Eiv1.121 None known. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known. 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. None known. 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. Riw;al 40— Or-ain CleaAer � degreaser, Activate; P-26 FG - Additive te Keeper, Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 8 of 14 k:\Hand outAEnvironmental Checklist A1ay 2014 r� The previously mentioned chemicals including Ammonia are not proposed to be used or stored on site. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None anticipated 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. State regulations regarding safety and the handling of hazardous materials will be followed during the construction process. Equipment refueling areas would be located in areas where spill could be quickly contained and where the risk of hazardous materials entering surface water is minimized. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? ] i � 1 i)] The primary source of noise near the project site is from vehicular traffic along Weyerhaeuser Way S and Hwy-18. It is not anticipated to materially impact the proposed project in any way. 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. JI. e I p l Short-term impacts would result from the use of construction equipment during the site development. Construction would occur during permitted construction hours and always in compliance with the City of Federal Way noise regulations. Long-term impacts would be those vehicular trips associated with the warehouse. Noise generated from the proposed warehouse and office operations is not expected to impact surrounding properties. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: JFLL1W Construction activity will be limited to permitted construction hours and construction equipment will not be allowed to idle for continuous periods of time, which will help mitigate the impacts of potential construction noise. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. JlLuIpA The property is zoned as Corporate Park but the project site is primarily vacant with small areas used for landscape material storage. Pedestrian trails meander through the site. North- GGFPGFate-Park RESIDENTIAL/VACANT East- OFFICE West- Corporate Park South- Corporate Park/HIGHWAY The proposed development may have a minor, long teFM impact with respect to the additional traffic related to of deliveries and employee trips. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 9 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Map 201d proposal, 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 nonforest use? J idi, No 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. No impact. The site exists on land previously owned by Weyerhaeuser Company and used for corporate headquarters for many years. c. Describe any structures on the site. ]iul None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?rli 1 No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Jhu][J Corporate Park- 1(CP-1) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Vi 1 Corporate Park g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Illt!pI N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Jidpj Yes, site reconnaissance conducted by Talasaea resulted in discovery of 913 wetlands on the proposed project site. A copy of the wetland delineation report was submitted with this environmental checklist and is available upon request. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? ILe.1pi Approximately,2-5A 255 people would work at the completed project j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? l7el None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. ll.-� j4nj N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. eel The project will be developed in accordance with applicable City of Federal Way development and land use codes and the approved Annexation and Concomitant Agreement to ensure the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Development Regulations. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any. None proposed 9. Housing Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 10 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Vielo N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. li el_L� N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. hd N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? hel yl i. I GD feet 7 ste F,. r Fete Ga St fAr_MAd .. ^.Ile or b! qrsks The tallest structure on this property will be the warehouse at 42 feet above adjacent grade. The principal exterior building material will be painted concrete panel. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? iel Currently forested. Views impacted would be viewing SW from 33rd PI S, viewing E from Weyerhaeuser headquarters parking lot. There is a 50' forested buffer that runs along Weyerhaeuser Way S. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. htl 11 Maintain required 50' forested buffer along Weyerhaeuser Way S 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? ItLelpl Parking lot lighting would occur dusk through dawn at completed project. Minimal glare would occur from sunlight reflected off parked cars. Additionally, the headlights of traveling vehicles would occur any time of day. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 1,1,tj1pj No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ll,cl��E None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. The managed forest buffer running adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Way S, along the property would diffuse and mitigate impacts from glare sources from either side of the buffer. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? jh lj- Informal pedestrian hiking trails meander throughout the immediate vicinity. Please note that these trails are located on private property and no right has been conveyed to the public for their continued use. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.J!LLL1pJ Yes, the informal trails will be removed through the site by the proposed development; however, connections will remain around the site. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 11 of 14 k:\Handouts\l nvironmental Checklist A40, 2014 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. hel ) A continuous sidewalk will eventually be installed along Weyerhaeuser Way S which will provide for formal pedestrian connectivity to the north. 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. ll dpj The Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building was constructed in 1969 which makes it 47 years old. Pursuant to CFR 36, Chapter I, subsection 60.4 criteria for evaluation, the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building may be eligible; however-, it has net ar.hie ed signifirapee in the past 59 yeaFs However, the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters is not currently listed in national, state, or local preservation registers. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. hul No known landmarks or evidence have been observed on or near the site. The northern portion of the site was previously developed as single-family homes in the 1950's. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. hL1 The methods used to assess the potential impacts included GIS data analysis and WISAARD GIS data review. Please review the preliminary determination letter from Tetra Tech, who "completed a review of the Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation website WISAARD for known archeological sites, National Register of Historic Places properties and completed cultural resource surveys located Y2 mile of the project area. Tetra Tech also researched BLM GLO Cadastral Surveys to determine if any known archeological resources may be found in or near the project area. Additionally Tetra Tech completed 6 shovel test probes within the proposed project areas to determine subsurface conditions and possibly the presence of subsurface archeological materials. No archeological features or artifacts were identified in the 6 shovel test probes." - Stipe, F (2016, November 28). Letter to Talasaea. Tetra Tech conducted 4 additional shovel test pits as part of the revised application and their report is included. 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 required. If any such historic or cultural evidence is encountered during construction or installation of improvements, work will be halted in the area and a state -approved archeologist/historian will be engaged to investigate, evaluate and/or move or curate such resources, as appropriate. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. fel The project site is primarily served by Weyerhaeuser Way S, north of Highway 18. Passenger vehicle access off of the existing Loop Road is proposed at the northwest corner of the site. No delivery truck or tractor trailer access is permitted on the northwest side of the site. Delivery truck and tractor trailer access is provided at the southeast corner of the site closest to the Highway 18 interchange. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 12 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Mry 2014 14ighway !8 would provide areass for trucks and- a- Of eF:AJ31eyQes InFefeFF 0�rv1- A -.-�eeet b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? I hel z Yes, the site is serviced by Pierce County Transit route 501 with 2 stops along the property frontage on Weyerhaeuser Way S. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? hel 11 The proposed project will add 234 car stalls and 30 trailer stalls for a total count of 264 parking stalls. \Xrill the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). litl ..I..ng 1Af.,yer-4.-.....W Way 5 with sidewalks, Future frontage improvements have are anticipated; however, no frontage improvements have been proposed with this project as the first 300,000 SF of new building is exempt from these improvements per the CZA. Property frontage along Weyerhaeuser Way S will be dedicated to the City for future Right -of -Way as part of the Process III land use approval. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity o fl water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Jljdd )t Not expected. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non -passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? hrl The proposed development is estimated to eamerime a total of about:750 wehiele uilas per day, wit U56Ag 44P Fates 48M thG ITE T-Fip-GeReratian Manual based 9A a weject with t259,009 6f high cube headqaaAeFsr Per the TIA Submitted April 4, 2017, the project is estimated to generate 994 total new trips (795 passenger vehicles and 199 trucks) and 100 PM trips (80 passenger vehicle and 20 trucks). Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 13 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist A9ag 2014 f. \Vill the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Not expected. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Jh l , Payment of the City's transportation impact fee is expected, which will help fund City-wide transportation improvements. Additionally, Modifications to existing northbound center left -turn lane are described in the recent TIA. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. L L 1 1 1 The completed warehouse facility would result in an slight increased need for public services to include fire protection, police protection, and health care. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. L-1. The increased demand will be offset by impact fees, levies, and taxes required to be paid by the applicant as part of this development. Also the proposal has been designed in a manner that will provide adequate access for fire, medic, and police vehicles. 16. Utilities a. Underline/circle utilities currently available at the site: RielpI electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other The above listed utilities are either available on -site or will be extended as necessary to serve the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. I!wh Lakehaven Utility District will provide water and sewer connection. Puget Sound Energy will supply electricity and gas Telephone: Century Link, Verizon, Comcast Fire Protection: South King Fire & Rescue C. SIGNATURE HELP 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: eL _Z) Printed Name of Signee: ff�4,,J a( Position and Agency/Organization: --,e+ l iffsM ifp&a5u ;7 %.rLAr, . Date Submitted: ' L - w Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 14 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist kkiy 2014 I D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS I is 1121 (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 15 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 16 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2— F Department of Community Development Services 33325 8"' Avenue South — Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 CITY OF 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 Federai Way wvm,_cityoffederalway.com � SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose ofcheckUst. Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are i significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts, or if an environmental impact statement will be 1 prepared to further analyze the proposal. -� Instructions for applicants: Zel 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 we "not applimble"or "does not applb,"ony whenyou can explain why it does not appll, and not when the ansu eris 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. 1 The checklist questions apply to allparls ofyaur pmporal, 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. _j Use of checklist for nonproyectproposals: -,el For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans, and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the SUPIP .1:�Pi: �7'._ll. St 11'1-'T FOR NOh11lt4 )Ji (part 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 "affectedgeographic 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. Bulletin #050 - May 1, 2014 Page 1 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 A. BACKGROUND 1e1 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: V1g1pJ Greenline Warehouse "B" 2. Name of applicant: Tel Federal Way Campus, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: VLelp 11100 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310-261-4382 4. Date checklist prepared: V16W September 15t, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: RlelW City of Federal Way 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Vaelpl Project Approval Spring 2018, Construction Summer 2018 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Dbelpi There are no future additions to Warehouse B. Right -of -Way dedications and improvements will occur as part of the Warehouse B development. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. DLeIW o Critical Areas Report for Federal Way Campus, LLC e Geotechnical report; Pavement Analysis; Level One Downstream storm drainage analysis pursuant to KCSWDM o Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) addressing relevance of the 9 Core and 5 Special Requirements of 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4 Traffic impact analysis iv Environmental Noise Report G Air Quality Technical Report 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.D-ielpl An application for a Boundary Line Adjustment that includes the parcel of this proposal has been submitted and will be processed concurrently with this application. Section 404 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Vaelp Section 404 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Commercial Grade & Fill City of Federal Way, SEPA Threshold Determination, Process III Land Use Review, NPDES Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit, Land Surface Modification Permit, and Forest Practice Class -IV- General Application. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 2 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 l 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. (Lead agencies may Modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) DitlW The proposed Warehouse "B" development is for the construction of a 217,300 square foot Warehouse/Distribution Center located on a site of approximately 16.9 acres. Improvements to the right-of- way for Weyerhaeuser Way S are also proposed. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would otter over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. 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. Dielpj Future Site Address: 337XX Weyerhaeuser Way S, Federal Way, WA Per King County Assessor's Data: 3120 S 344TH ST 98003 Located between Weyerhaeuser Way S and Weyerhaeuser Rd NORTH LAKE ADD TO EAST TACOMA LOT 2 FEDERAL WAY BLA #16-102886-00-SU REC #20170210900007 SD BLA BEING POR PLAT OF NORTH LAKE ADD TO EAST TACOMA LOC IN E Yz OF NE Y STR 21-21-04 Parcel Number: 614260-0200 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS hel: 1. Earth a. General description of the site DielW (underline/circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Somewhat undulatory with a general downward slope to the east. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?V-10PI ±15% ? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? if you lahow the Jclassification of agricultural soils, specify theta and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. )el Weathered (medium dense) glacial till and unweathered (dense to very dense) glacial till. Generally I silty sand with gravel. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. DielW None e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fi] 1. iel Cuts in the west and fills in the east will be completed to create a level development pad. A small portion of structural fill material may be imported for the building foundation. Native on -site material will be used for general fill. Approximate earthwork quantities: Cut = 45,500 Cubic Yards Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 3 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 Fill= 40,900 Cubic Yards Net: 4,600 Cubic Yards of Cut Stripping=19,700 Cubic yards f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. lel Erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction, particularly if earthwork is completed during periods of rainfall. TESC measures will be implemented as approved by the City prior to clearing and construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 1 ] z L ] Asphalt and building surface covers approximately 54.9% of the Warehouse'B' site. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: �e] The owner will institute an erosion control plan to be used during earthwork and construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. iel Some heavy machinery exhaust and dust particulates generated primarily by construction equipment. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. le] No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: iel All construction equipment will be in proper working order and regulated for emissions by the manufacturer and local emissions laws. Vehicles entering and leaving the site will also be regulated for emissions by state and local emissions laws. During construction the site will be watered as necessary to keep any dust from impacting surrounding air quality. 3. Water a. Surface Water D14LIW 1) Is there any surface eater 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. ie] 4 The following description includes both Warehouse B and Warehouse A project limits as they are in close proximity to each other. There are no fish -bearing or perennial streams on or near the site. A man-made ephemeral ditch, unnamed, connects Wetland EE to Wetland DR. An ephemeral stream (Stream EA) occurs in the southeast portion of the project area. See attached Wetland report for more details. 913 on -site wetlands occur within the project limits. Onsite Wetlands: DP (PFO), DQ (PSS), DR (PSS), DT (PSS), DU (PSS), DW (PFO), DX (PFO), DZ (PFO), EB (PFO/PSS), EC (PFO), ED (PFO), EE (PSS), and EF (PFO). All wetlands ultimately discharge to Hylebos Creek to the south. 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. iel Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 4 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 The following description includes both Warehouse B and Warehouse A project limits as they are in close proximity to each other. Yes, work adjacent to the man-made ditch is proposed 9,949 square feet of proposed direct impacts (fill) to wetlands DU, DW, DX, DZ, EB, ED, and EE. Indirect impacts will affect Wetlands DO EC, and EF. Wetlands DP, DR, and DT will not be impacted. Stream EA will not be impacted. See attached work plans and report for more details. 3) 1 :, rumate the amount of frill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or ,,wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. zcl The following description includes both Warehouse B and Warehouse A project limits as they are in close proximity to each other. Total wetland fill to equal ±435 cubic yards. Fill materials will be sourced from the project site. The filling of these wetlands will have no long-term impacts on the surrounding hydrology. The runoff from the Site in the post -development condition will be detained within the proposed Stormwater pond to the south before being discharged under Highway 18. This path of water movement will be the same in the post -development condition as from the pre -development condition. Wetland EE does currently drain to Wetland DR through a culvert and associated ditch that was artificially constructed many years ago. That artificial connection between Wetlands EE and DR will be removed in the post -development condition as previous City concerns regarding the Site's stormwater discharges disallowed any site runoff to be conveyed to these remaining wetlands. 1 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Dielpj No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year Iloodplain? If so, note the location on the site plan. iel No 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. iel No b. Ground Water 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn froth 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. z i No groundwater will be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or any other purpose. 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. DwIW No waste material will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. See subsection 3.0 for information for discharge of stormwater. E Bulletin #050 —May 1, 2014 Page 5 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Map 2014 c. Water runoff (including 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. iel Run-off from impervious surfaces will be collected and directed into on -site stormwater detention pond at the southern end of the site, shared with Warehouse "A." Once detained and treated for water quality, the storm water will be released to the downstream system, including the off -site wetlands. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. VWW Not as proposed 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the -vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No - discharge will occur at the natural location. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: The project contractors, users, and personnel will utilize onsite Best Management Practices. Attached drainage plans show runoff from impervious surfaces will be directed to on site stormwater detention pond. 4. Plants ielp a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: iel _X_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _X_evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _X_shrubs X—grass pasture —crop or gram orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops _X_wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, 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? lel Native Native trees and shrubs will be removed during site construction. 7 of 13 on -site wetlands will be filled; 3 wetlands and adjacent buffers of native trees and shrubs will remain. e. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. iel No native threatened and endangered plant species observed or known to occur on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Jie14 Buffer enhancement of native plants will be done as needed. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 6 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May2014 Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, English holly 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site, or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: Vie1W birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rabbits, squirrels fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: bass and Perth b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.I,—el-121 Bald Eagle nest documented ±1,500 feet east of site; none on -site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. lel The entire region is known to be part of the Pacific Flyway. The Pacific Flyway includes Alaska and the Aleutian Islands and the Rocky Mountains and Pacific coast regions of Canada the United States and Mexico, south to where it becomes blended with other flyways in Central and South America. However, the site is not known to be used by migratory fowl. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. Rie1 Preservation of remaining wetlands and adjacent uplands - a corridor will be provided between preserved wetlands and forested buffers will be provided along Weyerhaeuser Way S and Highway 18. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Bullfrog 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. hel Electrical energy will be the primary source of power serving the project. Natural gas maybe used to satisfy incidental energy needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Iel No, the proposed building height will not exceed 42 feet above grade. No existing development utilizes solar energy in proximity to which the shadow cast from the building has any effect. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Rielw No plans included in the Commercial grade & Fill Permit. Energy conservation will be addressed in the building permit documents. 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 proposal? If so, describe. hel None known. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 7 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Ma), 2014 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known. 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. None known. 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 are known to be stored on site. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None anticipated 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. State regulations regarding safety and the handling of hazardous materials will be followed during the construction process. Equipment refueling areas would be located in areas where spill could be quickly contained and where the risk of hazardous materials entering surface water is minimized. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? DILIW The primary source of noise near the project site is from vehicular traffic along Weyerhaeuser Way S and Hwy-18. It is not anticipated to materially impact the proposed project in any way. 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. ihelpi Short-term impacts would result from the use of construction equipment during the site development. Construction would occur during permitted construction hours and always in compliance with the City of Federal Way noise regulations. Long-term impacts would be those vehicular trips associated with the warehouse. Noise generated from the proposed warehouse and office operations is not expected to impact surrounding properties. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: hel Construction activity will be limited to permitted construction hours and construction equipment will not be allowed to idle for continuous periods of time, which will help mitigate the impacts of potential construction noise. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. VielW The property is zoned as Corporate Park but the project site is primarily vacant with small areas used for landscape material storage. Pedestrian trails meander through the site. North- Proposed WAREHOUSE A Development East- OFFIC West- Corporate Park South- Corporate Park/Highway Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 8 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 J J ,l J The proposed development may have a minor impact with respect to the additional traffic of deliveries and employee trips. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, 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 nonforest use? 1el No 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. No impact. The site exists on land previously owned by Weyerhaeuser Company and used for corporate headquarters for many years. c. Describe any structures on the site. iel None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? RielW No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? hel Corporate Park-1 (CP-1) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?R-ielpj Corporate Park g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? ielo:) N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Dielp4 Yes, site reconnaissance conducted by Talasaea resulted in discovery of 13 wetlands on the proposed project site. A copy of the wetland delineation report was submitted with this environmental checklist and is available upon request. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? D1111 Approximately 244 people would work at the completed project Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? ael None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. Zel N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. eel The project will be developed in accordance with applicable City of Federal Way development and land use codes and the approved Annexation and Concomitant Agreement to ensure the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Development Regulations. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 9 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Alay 2014 J m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any. None proposed 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. iel N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. VLelo N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. Vielo N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? ftlo The tallest structure on this property will be the warehouse at 42 feet above adjacent grade. The principal exterior building material will be painted concrete panel. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Ie] Currently forested. Views impacted would be viewing SW from 33'd PI S, viewing E from Weyerhaeuser headquarters parking lot. There is a 50' forested buffer that runs along Weyerhaeuser Way S and a 100' forested buffer along Highway 18. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. jbflw Maintain required 50' forested buffer along Weyerhaeuser Way S 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? tLielpl Parking lot lighting would occur dusk through dawn at completed project. Minimal glare would occur from sunlight reflected off parked cars. Additionally, the headlights of traveling vehicles would occur anytime of day. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 1e1 No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? iel None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. The managed forest buffer running adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Way S and Highway 18 along the property would diffuse and mitigate impacts from glare sources from either side of the buffer. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? VielW Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 10 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Atay� 2014 Informal pedestrian hiking trails meander throughout the immediate vicinity. Please note that these trails are located on private property and no right has been conveyed to the public for their continued use. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.V!glPJ Yes, the informal trails will be removed through the site by the proposed development; however, connections will remain around the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. DLeIW A continuous sidewalk will eventually be installed along Weyerhaeuser Way S which will provide for formal pedestrian connectivity to the north. 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. Dielpj The Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building was constructed in 1969 which makes it 47 years old. Pursuant to CFR 36, Chapter I, subsection 60.4 criteria for evaluation, the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building may be eligible. However, the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters is not currently listed in national, state, or local preservation registers. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. DLelw No known landmarks or evidence have been observed on or near the site. i c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. jel The methods used to assess the potential impacts included GIS data analysis and WISAARD GIS data review. y 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 required. If any such historic or cultural evidence is encountered during construction or installation of j improvements, work will be halted in the area and a state -approved archeologist/historian will be engaged to investigate, evaluate and/or move or curate such resources, as appropriate. 1 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 1el The project site is primarily served by Weyerhaeuser Way S, north of Highway 18. Passenger vehicle access off of the existing Loop Road is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. Delivery truck and tractor trailer access is provided at the northeast corner of the site, shared with proposed Warehouse A, closest to the Highway 18 interchange. J b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? h� Yes, the site is serviced by Pierce County Transit route 501 with 2 stops along the property frontage of proposed Warehouse A on Weyerhaeuser Way S. Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page I of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May2014 c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed projector non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? ijc z� The proposed project will add 244 car stalls. 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 (indicate whether public or private). Le11 Property frontage along Weyerhaeuser Way S will be dedicated to the City for future Right -of -Way as part of the Process III land use approval. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. DielW Not expected. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non -passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Vielpl It is estimated that approximately 78 new pm peak hour trips will be generated by this project. Daily Passenger Vehicle Trips will be 763 Daily Truck Trips will be 191 Total Daily Trips will be 954 More information can be found in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Warehouse B, dated 9/1/17 f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Not expected. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. VLelpl Payment of the City's transportation impact fee is expected, which will help fund City-wide transportation improvements. Additionally, modifications to existing northbound center left -turn lane are described in the recent TIA. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased geed for public services (For example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. 1 el The completed warehouse facility would result in a slight increased need for public services to include fire protection, police protection, and health care. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. iel pj The increased demand will be offset by impact fees, levies, and taxes required to be paid by the applicant as part of this development. Also the proposal has been designed in a manner that will provide adequate access for fire, medic, and police vehicles. 16. Utilities a. Underline/circle utilities currently available at the site: Zelp eIectricity naturaI gas, water, refuse_ setvige, .tslephone, sanitary, sewer, septic system, other Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 12 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Ala),2014 I 1 1 I 11 [I The above listed utilities are either available on -site or will be extended as necessary to serve the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. DmI4 Lakehaven Utility District will provide water and sewer connection. Puget Sound Energy will supply electricity and gas Telephone: Century Link, Verizon, Comcast Fire Protection: South King Fire & Rescue C. SIGNATURE HELP 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. J Signature: 1 '/:. > at6:� Printed Name of Signee: lit C-- & L4&� Position and Agency/Organization: i~ , ml- + . _s'_7 , Date Submitted: 1. G 0 1 Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 13 of 14 k:\l-landouts\Environmental Checklist My 2014 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS iel (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Bulletin #050 — May 1, 2014 Page 14 of 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist Alay 2014 a i u 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: G. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Bulletin #050, — May 1, 2014 Page 15 Qf 14 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist May 2014 a My ipYs F US Army Corps WASHINGTON STATE � egQR�;g. Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA) Li,Ll Attachment C: Contact information for adjoining property owners. p! j Use this attachment only if you have more than four adjoining property owners. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below ----------------- _--------------------- AGENCY USE ONLY Date received: Agency reference #: Tax Parcel #(s): ; , e i TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT heE ; Project Name: Location Name (if applicable): k '--------------------------------------' 1. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. iiel Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) Federal Way Campus, LLC 212104-9052, 162104- 9013, 162104-9036 WA Department of Fish and Wildlife 22800 32ns DR S, Federal Way 98001 152104-9201 Sundstrom, Dennis & Wendy 3809 S 325th PL, Federal Way 98001 152104-9145, 152104- 9142 Barcelo Homes, LLC 32605 39th Ave S, Federal Way 98001 152104-9022 Kremer, Lyle 32629 39th Ave S, Federal Way 98001 152104-9026 797820-U N KN If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORIA publication number: ORIA-16-014 rev. 10/2016 JARPA Attachment C Rev. 10/2016 Page 1 of 1 Greenline Buildings A & B PCN Submittal I Attachment 2 Tat-1572F IGeneral and Regional [Nationwide Permit Conditions 1 11 1 7 I 11 I I Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast ■ Woodinville, Washington 98077 9 Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 NATIONAL GENERAL NWP CONDITIONS # Condition Project Site Greenline Buildings A & B N/A. The site does not occur within navigable waters of 1 Navigation the United States. N/A. There are no waterbodies located within the Project Site which have the ability to host indigenous aquatic life. North Lake is located adjacent to the 2 Aquatic Life Movements Mitigation Site. N/A. No streams occur within the Project Site that have 3 Spawning Areas spawning areas or that would support fish. Minor impacts to potential migratory bird breeding areas 4 Migratory Bird Breeding Areas will occur due to the proposed project. N/A. There is no suitable habitat for concentrated 5 Shellfish Beds shellfish populations within the Project Site. N/A. No unsuitable material will be used in the construction of this project. All materials will be free 6 Suitable Material from toxic pollutants. N/A. The project does not occur in the proximity of a 7 Water Supply Intakes public water supply intake. N/A. The project will not create new impoundments of 8 Adverse Impacts From Impoundments water. The stormwater pond along the south boundary of the 9 Management of Water Flows site will be designed to withstand high flows. N/A. The Project and Mitigation Sites are located outside 10 Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains of the 100-year floodplain. Wetlands not being filled per construction plans will be protected by silt fences or comparable erosion control measures. All measures will be taken to ensure existing wetland soils are not disturbed. No mudflats occur 11 Equipment within the project area. Soil erosion and sediment controls will be applied throughout grading of the mitigation area. There will be no work completed below the ordinary high water mark 12 Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls of any waterbody. 13 Removal of Temporary Fills No temporary fills are proposed. 14 Proper Maintenance Authorized structures and fill will be properly maintained. We affirm that the proposed project is a single and 15 Single and Complete Project complete project for the . N/A. There are no wild and scenic rivers located within 16 Wild and Scenic Rivers the Project Site. TAL-1572F ## Condition Project Site N /A. The project activities are not impairing the rights of 17 Tribal Rights local tribes. N/A. No listed endangered species or suitable habitat for any listed species were identified wihtin the Project Site. A listed species assessment is provided within the Existing Conditions Report and within the Critical Areas 18 Endangered Species Impacts and Mitigation Report. N/A. No eagle nests are mapped within the Project Site, nor were any identified in the field. It is possible that nests of some species of song birds (migratory birds) are present onsite though none were seen during field assessments. Accoring to the WDFW PHS mapper, a Bald eagle nest is located approximately 1,600 feet east of the 19 Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles project site. N/A. No existing structures remain within the Project Site. The site is not listed in the National Register of 20 Historic Properties Historic Places. Discovery of Previously Unknown Remains 21 and Artifacts 221Desienated Critical Resource Waters 231 Mitigation of Impoundment Structures 25l Water Qual 261Coastal Zone Man Frank Stipe of Tetra Tech prepared three (3) Cultural Resources reports as part of the NWP PCN process. N/A. There are no critical resource waters located in the project site. Mitigation is proposed to offset the proposed wetland fill and will be provided as on -site buffer enhancement and wetland creation on another Site owned by the Applicant within the same watershed. All impoundment structures will be designed and reviewed by qualified persons. Section 404/401 permits will be acquired for this project as part of the PCN process. N/A. This project will not be occuring at, or in the vicinity of, a coastal zone. The project will meet all regional conditions specified by 27 Regional and Case -By -Case Conditions "2017 Nationwide Permits Final Regional Conditions." N/A. NWP 39 Commercial and Institutional Developments is the only permit which will be used for 28 Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits the completion of the project. N/A. Should the permitee sell the property associated with an approved NWP, the appropriate steps will be 29 Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications taken to ensure a validated transfer. TAL-1572F REGIONAL GENERAL NWP CONDITIONS SEATTLE DISTRICT Condition Praiect Site Greenline Buildings A & B Project drawings are included as attachments to the cover 1 Project Drawings letter, dated 1 December 2017. Aquatic Resources Requiring Special N/A. There are no ecosystems found on -site requiring special 2 Protection protection. New Bank Stabilization in Tidal N/A. The project area is outside of any tidal waters of Puget 3 Waters of Puget Sound Sound. N/A. The project site eventually drains into Commencement 4 Commencement Bay Bay south and west of the Site, well outside of the Study Area. 5 Bank Stabilization N/A. There is no need for bank stabilization within the project site. Crossings of Waters of the United N/A. No installations, replacements, or modifications of 6 States crossings will be made to waters of the United States. 7 Stream Loss No stream loss will result from this project. Mitigation is proposed to offset the proposed wetland fill and will be provided as on -site buffer enhancement and wetland creation on another Site owned by the Applicant within the 8 Mitigation same watershed. N/A. No suitable or essential fish habitat has been identified Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act - on the Project Site, though fish habitat does occur in North 9 Essential Fish Habitat Lake adjacent to the Mitigation Site. 10 Forage Fish N/A. This project is not located within fish spawning habitat. All appropriate paperwork (NWP verification letter, conditions, and permit drawings) will be provided to all 11 Notification of Permit Requirements contractors prior to the start of construction. Construction boundaries will be marked before any land 12 Construction Boundaries I clearing or filling takes place. 13 'Temporary Impacts and Site ITemporary impacts will not exceed 6 months. See attached TAL-1572F Greenline Buildings A & B PCN Submittal I I 1 I I Attachment 3 Existing Conditions Report Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast ■ Woodinville, Washington 98077 ■ Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 J Tat-1572F EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Prepared For: FEDERAL WAY CAMPUS, LLC Los Angeles, California Prepared By. TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington 1 December 2017 I I I I 1 I Existing Conditions Report Greenline Buildings A and B Federal Way, Washington Prepared For: Tom Messmer, Vice President Federal Way Campus, LLC 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 850 Los Angeles, California 90025 Prepared By. Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 150250 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 (425) 861-7550 1 December 2017 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Greenline Buildings A and B APPLICANT: Tom Messmer, Vice President, Federal Way Campus, LLC (FWC, LLC) LOCATION: The Project and Mitigation Sites are located in Federal Way, Washington. The Project Site is two parcels (King County tax parcel numbers 6142600005 and 6142600200, Parcels A and B, respectively). The Mitigation Site is a portion of a single parcel (King County tax parcel number 152104-9178, Parcel C). The coordinates for the center of the Project Site are 47.296307,-122.294154, and 47.307676,-122.289997 for the Mitigation Site. The Public Land Survey System location of the Project Site is Section 21, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, while the Mitigation Site is Section 16, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M. PROJECT STAFF: Bill Shiels, Principal; Ann Olsen, RLA, Senior Project Manager; Jennifer Marriott, PWS, Senior Ecologist; David Teesdale, PWS, Senior Ecologist; Richard Tveten, Senior Ecologist; and Kristen Numata, Ecologist. FIELD SURVEY: Site evaluations and wetland delineations were performed between December 2015 and present. PURPOSE: This report is intended to outline the existing conditions for both the Project Site and Mitigation Site, including all areas associated with both the on -site and off -site mitigation elements. A detailed assessment of the proposed project, on -site critical areas impacts, and both on -site and off -site mitigation for the proposed development can be found in the Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan, dated 1 December 2017 by Talasaea Consultants. DETERMINATION: Thirteen (13) wetlands were identified on or adjacent to the Project Site. These wetlands rated as Category III wetlands based on the 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. One (1) stream (Stream EA) and one (1) non -regulated upland - excavated ditch were also identified on the Project Site. One (1) wetland occurs on the Mitigation Site that extends off -site. North Lake is in close proximity to the south and is a Shoreline of the State. HYDROLOGY: Hydrology for the Project and Mitigation Sites wetlands is supported, for the most part, by seasonal precipitation and interception of surface water flow, as well as groundwater to a lesser extent. SOILS: The NRCS maps one type of soil in the entirety of the Project and Mitigation Sites, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes. The National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils does not include Alderwood gravelly sandy loam as a hydric soil. VEGETATION: The majority of the Project Site is a Douglas fir forest with an understory dominated by salal. Several non-native species of trees are present along the gravel access roads, clearly planted at some point in the past, and English ivy has overtaken portions of the understory along the northern edge of the Project Site. Many of the wetlands are depressions with minimal to no vegetation present within the core surrounded by salmonberry and young red alder. The Mitigation Site is a mixed conifer/deciduous forest in both the wetlands and uplands. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page i Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ......................................................................................................... Tableof Contents.............................................................................................................ii List of Figures, Tables and Appendices Chapter1. Introduction I 1.1 ................................................................................................ Purpose of Report ...............................................................................1 1.2 Statement of Accuracy........................................................................1 1.3 Qualifications.......................................................................................1 Chapter 2. General Property Description and land use ............................................... 2 2.1 Project Location. ..... _............................_.............................................2 2.1.1 Project Site Description....................................................................... 2 Chapter3. Methodology... ...... .................................................................................... 3 3.1 Background Data Reviewed................................................................ 3 3.2 Field Investigation............................................................................... 3 Chapter4. Results....................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information........................................................... 4 4.1.1 USGS Quadrangle Map...................................................................... 4 4.1.2 National Wetland Inventory Map ......................................................... 5 4.1.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service Map .................................... 5 4.1.4 King County GIS Database................................................................. 5 4.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions — Project Site ..................................... 5 4.2.1 Wetland DP......................................................................................... 6 4.2.2 Wetland DQ......................................................................................... 6 4.2.3 Wetland DR.........................................................................................6 4.2.4 Wetland DT......................................................................................... 7 4.2.5 Wetland DU......................................................................................... 7 4.2.6 Wetland DW........................................................................................ 7 4.2.7 Wetland DX......................................................................................... 7 4.2.8 Wetland DZ......................................................................................... 8 4.2.9 Wetland EB......................................................................................... 8 4.2.10 Wetland EC......................................................................................... 8 4.2.11 Wetland ED......................................................................................... 8 4.2.12 Wetland EE......................................................................................... 8 4.2.13 Wetland EF.......................................................................................... 9 4.2.14 Stream EA........................................................................................... 9 4.2.15 Non -regulated Ditch............................................................................ 9 4.3 Analysis of Existing Conditions — Mitigation Site ................................. 9 4.4 Wildlife Surveys and Habitat Assessments ......................................... 9 4.4.1 Listed Species - Salmonids............................................................... 10 4.4.2 Listed Species - Bald Eagles............................................................. 10 Chapter 5. Regulatory Review... ... ........... _ .............................................................. 11 5.1 Federal and State Regulations.......................................................... 11 5.2 City of Federal Way Permitting Approach .......................................... 11 5.2.1 Wetland Ratings................................................................................ 12 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page ii Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report 5.2.2 Streams............................................................................................. 13 5.2.3 Other Linear Features.......................................................................13 Chapter6. Summary .................................................................................................13 Chapter7. References.............................................................................................. 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2. Site Aerial and Parcel Map Figure 3. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map — Project Site Figure 4. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map — Mitigation Site Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map — Project Site Figure 6. NRCS Soils Map — Mitigation Site Figure 7. Historical Aerial (1957) Map — Project Site Figure 8. Existing Conditions Overview Map — Project Site Figure 9. Existing Conditions Viewports 1 Figure 10. Existing Conditions Viewport 2 Figure 11. Existing Conditions Viewports 3 & 4 Figure 12. Historical Aerial (1957) Map — Mitigation Site Figure 13. Existing Conditions — Mitigation Site Note: all figures are located at the end of the report before the appendices. LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Wetlands on the Project Site ....................................................... 6 Table 2. Critical Areas Regulatory Summary... - - . ........ ................................................ 13 APPENDICES Appendix A: Agency Correspondence, 2016 Appendix B: Wetland Determination Data Forms, Talasaea Consultants, 2016 and 2017 Appendix C: Photodocument, Talasaea Consultants, 2017 Appendix D: Wetland Rating Forms, Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2014). 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page iii Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report This report is the result of a critical areas study for the Federal Way Campus, LLC (FWC, LLC) property proposed for the development of Greenline Buildings A and B (referred to hereinafter as the "Project Site"), and for the proposed off -site mitigation location (referred to hereinafter as the "Mitigation Site"). The Applicant is planning to develop two buildings with limited office space, associated infrastructure, and a stormwater pond. Mitigation will be provided in two parts — both on -site and off -site elements. This report is intended to outline the existing conditions for both the Project Site and Mitigation Site, including all areas associated with both the on -site and off -site mitigation elements. A detailed assessment of the proposed project, on -site critical areas impacts, and both on -site and off -site mitigation for the proposed development can be found in the Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan, dated 1 December 2017 by Talasaea Consultants. The northern half of the Project Site was already reviewed with wetland boundaries and wetland fill approved as part of Corps Permit No. NWP-2016-443, issued 31 October 2016 (Appendix A). This report has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the applicable regulations of the City of Federal Way. This report will provide and describe the following information: ■ General property description; ■ Methodology for critical areas investigation; • Results of critical areas background review and field investigation; • Existing site conditions; and • Regulatory review; 1.2 Statement of Accuracy Stream and wetland characterizations and ratings were conducted by trained professionals at Talasaea Consultants, Inc., and adhered to the protocols, guidelines, and generally accepted industry standards available at the time the work was performed. The conclusions in this report are based on the results of analyses performed by Talasaea Consultants and represent our best professional judgment. To that extent and within the limitation of project scope and budget, we believe the information provided herein is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. Talasaea does not warrant any assumptions or conclusions not expressly made in this report, or based on information or analyses other than what is included herein. 1.3 Qualifications Field investigations and evaluations were conducted by Talasaea staff, including: Bill Shiels, Principal; Ann Olsen, RLA, Senior Project Manager; Jennifer Marriott, PWS, Senior Ecologist; David R. Teesdale, PWS, Senior Wetland Ecologist; Richard Tveten, Senior Ecologist; and Kristen Numata, Ecologist. Bill Shiels has a Bachelor's Degree in Biology from Central Washington University and a Master's Degree in Biological 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 1 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report Oceanography from the University of Alaska. He has over 40 years of experience in wetland delineations and mitigations. Wetland mitigation design was prepared by Ann Olsen, Registered Landscape Architect, License #777. Ann has over 24 years in environmental planning, mitigation and landscape design, and project management. She serves as the firm's lead landscape architect and has successfully designed and implemented over 400 wetland/stream/shoreline mitigation projects in the Pacific Northwest for both the public and private sectors. Jennifer Marriott has a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree in Biology from University of Central Florida, and a second Master's Degree in Soil and Environmental Science from the University of Florida. She has over 13 years of experience in wetland delineations and environmental permitting. David Teesdale has a Bachelor's Degree in Biology from Grinnell College, Iowa, and a Master's Degree in Ecology from Illinois State University. He has 20 years of experience in wetland delineations and biological evaluations. Richard Tveten has a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Biology from Western Washington University with a focus on terrestrial ecology and fire ecology, respectively. Richard has worked for the public and private sectors for 20 years in wetlands, water quality, and forest management. Kristen Numata has a Bachelor's Degree in Biology and Environmental Science from Santa Clara University. CHAPTER 2. GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 2.1 Project Location The Project and Mitigation Sites are located in Federal Way, Washington (Figure 1). The Project Site is two parcels (King County tax parcel numbers 6142600005 and 6142600200, Parcels A and B, respectively) (Figure 2). The Mitigation Site is a portion of a single parcel (King County tax parcel number 152104-9178, Parcel C) (Figure 2). The coordinates for the center of the Project Site are 47.296307,-122.294154, and 47.307676,-122.289997 for the Mitigation Site. The Public Land Survey System location of the Project Site is Section 21, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, while the Mitigation Site is Section 16, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M. 2.1.1 Project Site Description The topography of the Project Site is gently sloping downhill from the west to the east and north to south. The Site is bound to the north and east by Weyerhaeuser Way South, by Weyerhaeuser Road to the west, and Highway 18 to the south. The on -ramp to Highway 18 is located southeast of the Project Site. The Site is currently undeveloped except for existing service roads, a passive recreational trail system, and a maintained landscape materials yard that has been used for the entire Weyerhaeuser property over the past several decades. A number of non- native species of trees occur along the existing gravel roads. 2.1.2 Mitigation Site Description The topography of the Mitigation Site slopes south and east towards North Lake. The site is mostly forested with both coniferous and deciduous mixed forests with several passive recreation trails traversing the site. The deciduous forests tend to overlap areas of historic development in the 1950s and 1960s. A sewer line easement 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 2 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report traverses the property. The Mitigation Site is currently developed with a vacant single- family residence located in the southwest corner of the parcel. CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY The critical areas analysis of the Site involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the Site and the immediate surrounding area using published environmental information. This information includes: 1) Wetland and soils information from resource agencies; 2) Critical Areas information from King County and the City of Federal Way; 3) Orthophotography and LIDAR imagery; and, - 4) Relevant studies completed or ongoing in the vicinity of the Site. The second part consisted of site investigations where direct observations and measurements of existing environmental conditions were made. Observations included plant communities, soils, hydrology, and stream conditions. This information was used to help characterize the site and define the limits of critical areas onsite and offsite for rl� regulatory purposes (see Section 3.2 — Field Investigation below). 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information from the following sources were reviewed prior to field investigations: a US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wetlands Online Mapper (National Wetlands Inventory) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017) (www.wetiandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html); • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2017)(www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ap ); a NRCS, National Hydric Soils List by State (NRCS 2017) (www.soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html); - a King County GIS Database (King County 2017); ■ Orthophotography from USDA's National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP 2017), Earth Explorer (USGS), and Google Earth. • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Mapper; Salmonscape (WDFW) (http://wdfw.wa.gov/mayr)ing/salmonscage); a StreamNet (The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission)(htt ://www.streamnet.or /dataiinteractive-ma s-and- is-datal) a USFWS listed species data; and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 3.2 Field Investigation Talasaea Consultants originally evaluated the Project Site as part of a larger effort for FWC, LLC beginning in December 2015. Wetlands have been periodically evaluated for accuracy since their initial delineations in December 2015 through the present. The wetland delineation utilized the routine approach described in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Western Mountain, Valleys, and Coast Regions (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Ordinary high water 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 3 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report marks (OHWM) were established based on the DOE guidance document Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (DOE Publication #16-06-029). Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (Hitchcock, et al. 1969). Taxonomic names were updated and plant wetland status was assigned according to The National Wetland Plant List, Version 3.3 (Lichvar, et al. 2016). Wetland classes were determined with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's system of wetland classification (Cowardin, et al. 1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Wetland hydrology was determined based on the presence of hydrologic indicators listed in the Corps' Regional Supplement. These indicators are separated into Primary Indicators and Secondary Indicators. To confirm the presence of wetland hydrology, one Primary Indicator or two Secondary Indicators must be demonstrated. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and flood predictions, historical records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. Soils on the site were considered hydric if one or more of the hydric soil indicators listed in the Corps Regional Supplement were present. Indicators include presence of organic soils, reduced, depleted, or gleyed soils, or redoximorphic features in association with reduced soils. An evaluation of patterns of vegetation, soil, and hydrology was made along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information and marked with wire flags or surveyors tape. Appendix B contains data forms prepared by Talasaea for representative locations in both upland and wetland locations, but only for those new wetlands that were not already part of NWS- 2016-443 and the associated preliminary jurisdictional determination. These data forms document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. CHAPTER 4. RESULTS This section describes the results of our in-house research and field investigations. For the purpose of this report, the term "vicinity" describes an area within 300 feet of the Site. 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information The following sources provided information on site conditions based on data compiled from resource agencies and local government. 4.1.1 USGS Quadrangle Map The Project and Mitigation Sites both occur on the Poverty Bay quadrangle. The quad map indicates both North Lake and Weyerhaeuser Pond as being located within the broad vicinity of the sites. No other wetland or stream features are indicated on this map. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 4 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report 4.1.2 National Wetland Inventory Map The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps no wetlands on or adjacent to the Project Site (Figure 3). The Mitigation Site occurs near North Lake. A large wetland complex is mapped east of the Mitigation Site on the opposite side from the boat ramp road (Figure 4). 4.1.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service Map The NRCS maps one type of soil in the entirety of the Project and Mitigation Site, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes (Figures 5-6). The National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils does not include Alderwood gravelly sandy loam as a hydric soil. 4.1.4 King County GIS Database King County does not map any critical areas on or adjacent to the Project Site. One wetland unit is mapped to the south of the Project Site, but is separated from the Project Site by Highway 18. 4.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions — Project Site The majority of the Project Site was developed as residential areas as depicted on the 1957 aerial image (Figure 7). Parcels and roads were laid out in a standard grid pattern. The now vacated rights -of -way have long since been removed or abandoned and the area has been allowed to revegetate naturally since the houses were removed sometime between 1969 and 1980, based on a review of historic aerial imagery. Figure 7 reflects the locations of the currently delineated wetlands relative to the 1957 aerial imagery, which shows the presence of the old rights -of -way and structures present at that time. Much of this area is underlain by glacial till. This dense material frequently possesses ' inclusions consistent with redoximorphic features except they lack the diffuse boundaries characteristic of active wetland hydrology. This material is also very difficult to dig through for complete soil profiling. ` Talasaea Consultants performed an initial delineation of Project Site wetlands in January 2016. We subsequently re -delineated the wetlands in April of 2016 with delineations being modified for Wetlands EE and EB. Boundaries for Wetlands DU, DW, DX, and DZ were also adjusted after a re-evaluation to ensure their delineations were accurately reflected in the survey. Thirteen (13) wetlands were identified on or g adjacent to the Site (Figures 8-11). One stream was located in the southeast corner of 1 the Site, as well as an upland -excavated ditch that drains into Wetland DR. Table 1 outlines the physical characteristics of the wetlands, with descriptions following below. Photographs of all critical areas identified on -site, including their boundaries and typical adjacent uplands, are included within Appendix C. Wetlands that were previous evaluated as part of Corps Permit NWS-2016-443 are noted in the following table. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 5 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report Table 1. Summary of Wetlands on the Project Site. Wetland ID Size (sf) Cowardin' DP 300 PFO DQ* 703 PSS DR* 3,240 PSS DT* 2,430 PSS DU 373 PSS DW 446 PFO DX 392 PFO DZ 59 PFO EB* 1,601 PFO EC* 821 PSS ED* 3,234 PFO EE* 1,881 PSS EF* 1,115 PFO *These wetlands were part of Corps Permit NWS-2016-443. 'Based on Cowardin classifications: Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS), Palustrine Forested (PFO). 4.2.1 Wetland DP Wetland DP is a 300 square -foot palustrine forested wetland located in the southeast corner of the site between a gravel pedestrian path and Highway 18 adjacent to the Highway 18 right-of-way (ROW). This depressional wetland is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra). Wetland DP is seasonally flooded, and has hydrology supported by precipitation and overland flow. Most of the wetland was ponded with 6 inches of water at the time of site investigations so thorough evaluations of soils were problematic. Soils were assumed hydric within the wetland due to the presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. 4.2.2 Wetland DQ Wetland DQ is a 703 square -foot palustrine scrub -shrub wetland in the northeast corner of the property along Weyerhaeuser Way South. This depressional wetland is located adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Way South. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra). Soils within the wetland are a 10YR 4/2 with 10YR 5/6 concentrations. Wetland DQ is seasonally flooded, and has hydrology supported by precipitation and overland flow from adjacent uplands. 4.2.3 Wetland DR Wetland DR is a 3,240 square -foot palustrine scrub -shrub wetland located to the south of Wetland DQ along Weyerhaeuser Way South. This depressional wetland receives hydrology from overland flow as well as through an upland -excavated ditch that flows 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 6 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report south into the wetland. This wetland also receives run-off from the gravel access road and the landscape debris management area through a maintained swale. Wetland DR discharges south through a small swale along Weyerhaeuser Way South towards Wetland EB. Vegetation within the wetland consists of red -osier dogwood (Corpus sericea) and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), though the wetland is generally sparsely vegetated. Most of the wetland was under at least 12 inches of water at the time of site investigations so thorough evaluations of the soils were problematic. Soils were assumed hydric within the wetland due to the presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. 4.2.4 Wetland DT Wetland DT is a 2,430 square -foot palustrine scrub -shrub wetland located to the south of Wetlands EB along a maintained service road that occurs in association with a utility corridor along the southern property boundary. This depressional wetland is located along the eastern edge of the Project Site. Vegetation within the wetland consists of vine maple (Acer circinatum), salmonberry, and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Most of the wetland was under at least 12 inches of water at the time of site investigations so thorough evaluations of the soils were problematic. Soils within the unit, where a soil pit could be dug, are a 10YR 2/2 and were assumed hydric within the wetland due to the presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland DT is seasonally flooded, and is supported hydrologically by precipitation and overland flow. 4.2.5 Wetland DU Wetland DU is a 373 square -foot palustrine scrub -shrub wetland located in the southwestern section of the property adjacent to a maintained service road. This depressional wetland is dominated by salmonberry. Most of the wetland was under 6-8 inches of water at the time of site evaluations so thorough evaluations of the soils were problematic. Soils were assumed hydric within the wetland due to the presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland DU is seasonally flooded, and is supported by precipitation. 4.2.6 Wetland DW Wetland DW is a 446 square -foot wetland palustrine forested wetland located to the west of Wetland DU in the southwest corner of the Site. This depressional wetland is dominated by red alder and salmonberry. Wetland DW is seasonally flooded, and is supported hydrologically by precipitation and overland flow. Most of the wetland was under at least 6 inches of water at the time of site investigations so thorough evaluations of the soils were problematic. Soils were assumed hydric within the wetland due to the presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. 4.2.7 Wetland DX Wetland DX is a 392 square -foot palustrine forested wetland located immediately to the west of Wetland DW. The two are separated by a small upland hummock and are not connected hydrologically, except for during large storm events. This depressional wetland is dominated by red alder and salmonberry. Soils within the wetland did not 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 7 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report meet a hydric soil indicator, but this area was noted as a wetland due to its association with Wetland DZ. Wetland DX is seasonally flooded, and has hydrology supported by precipitation and overland flow. 4.2.8 Wetland DZ Wetland DZ is a 59 square -foot palustrine forested wetland located south of Wetland DX. This depressional wetland is dominated by salmonberry and common rush (Juncus effusus). Most of the wetland was under several inches of water at the time of site investigations so thorough evaluations of the soils were problematic. Soils were assumed hydric within the wetland due to the presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland DZ is seasonally flooded, and is supported by precipitation and overland flow. 4.2.9 Wetland EB Wetland EB is a 1,601 square foot depressional wetland classified as a palustrine forested wetland. Typical vegetation consists of Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), Pacific willow, salmonberry, slough sedge (Carex obnupta) and reed canarygrass. Soils in the wetland were a 10YR 3/2, and assumed hydric based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. Hydrology in the wetland was present as saturation to the surface, though standing water was present through much of December and January during the heavy rains. 4.2.10 Wetland EC Wetland EC is an 821 square -foot palustrine scrub -shrub wetland located within a depression. This wetland occurs immediately west of a gravel access road in the middle of the Site. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii). Soils in the wetland are a 10YR 2/2 and are assumed to be hydric based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. Hydrology for Wetland EC is fed by drainage from the service road as well as direct precipitation and overland flow from the surrounding upland hillslopes. 4.2.11 Wetland ED Wetland ED is a 3,234 square -foot palustrine forested wetland. This wetland occurs within the same general topographic depression as Wetland EC and EF. Vegetation within the wetland consists of red alder, western red cedar (Thuja plicata), black cottonwood (Populus ba/samifera), salmonberry, vine maple, western skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), and false lily -of -the -valley (Maianthemum dilatatum). Soils in the wetland are a 10YR 2/1 with hydrology provided by precipitation and overland flow from the surrounding uplands. 4.2.12 Wetland EE Wetland EE is a 1,881 square -foot palustrine scrub -shrub wetland that occurs in a clear depression in the landscape. A culvert occurs at the eastern most point of this wetland that provides an outlet to this depression to the east. The wetland is flanked on two sides by gravel access roads. Vegetation is predominantly Douglas spirea with significant amounts of open water. Most of the wetland was under at least 12 inches of water at the time of site investigations so thorough evaluations of the soils were problematic. Soils were assumed hydric within the wetland due to the presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 8 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report 4.2.13 Wetland EF Wetland EF is a 1,115 square -foot palustrine forested wetland. This wetland occurs within the same general topographic depression as Wetland EC and ED. Vegetation within the wetland consists of red alder, salmonberry, western skunk cabbage, and lady fern. Soils in Wetland EF were a 10YR 2/1 in the upper 8 inches, and a 10YR 4/1 below 8 inches in the profile. Hydrology is provided by precipitation and overland flow from the surrounding uplands. 4.2.14 Stream EA Stream EA is located in the southeast corner of the Site and flows south under the access road and under Highway 18. The stream is intermittent and is supported hydrologically by precipitation and surface water flows from the surrounding uplands. Areas immediately surrounding the stream are dominated by red alder and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). 4.2.15 Non -regulated Ditch This feature was observed traversing through the forested uplands towards Wetland DR. This feature started in the woods at no particular point, but two (2) culverts discharge into the upper end of this feature before conveying the water south to Wetland DR. This ditch was excavated in uplands, as evidenced by the maturity of the adjacent trees, mostly Douglas fir with salal and sword fern in the understory. 4.3 Analysis of Existing Conditions — Mitigation Site The Mitigation Site was also heavily developed in the 1957 aerial imagery (Figure 12) with multiple docks located along the northern lake shoreline, as well as what appears to be beaches and several buildings. The disturbed areas noted within this area correlate to the lower quality deciduous forest areas of the Mitigation Site today. Talasaea Consultants performed an initial delineation of Wetland BD -North, the only wetland occurring within the Mitigation Site, in January 2016 with datasheets and wetland ratings. Wetland BD -North is one of a series of wetlands associated with North Lake that occurs within the Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ). The remainder of this wetland extends off -site to the south. This wetland is mostly forested and is dominated by young red alder, black cottonwood, Douglas' spirea, and salmonberry. Hydrology for Wetland BD -North is supported primarily by surface water runoff from the surrounding uplands, including road runoff from Weyerhaeuser Way South, as well as by lake water levels to a lesser extent. This wetland and adjacent areas were not part of the previous Corps Permit NWS-2016-443. 4.4 Wildlife Surveys and Habitat Assessments The Project and Mitigation Sites were evaluated for wildlife and habitats concurrently with delineation efforts and observations of additional wildlife were recorded during all field visits since December 2015. The general habitat on the Project Site is a blend of small depressional wetlands, third -growth Douglas fir forest with a patchy salal/sword fern understory, and a mixed deciduous forest with a primarily salmonberry understory. No unique habitats occur onsite. The Mitigation Site is a blend of depressional wetland with portions of a third -growth Douglas fir forest and a mixed deciduous forest. However, salal is far less prevalent in this area, and the understory, in general, is sparser. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 9 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report General wildlife observations during fieldwork included: Birds: American Robin, Pacific Wren, Canada Goose, Chickadee, Ruby - crowned Kinglet, Red -winged Blackbird, Pileated Woodpecker, Bufflehead, Mallard, American Widgeon, American Crow, American Coot, Pied -billed Grebe, Rufous Hummingbird; Mammals: mountain beaver (burrows), rabbit, deer, coyote; Multiple site visits since the initial wetland delineations have added to the list of species identified as occurring on the Sites, as well as expanding our timeframe over which we have evaluated these Sites. No listed species occur on the Project or Mitigation Site. A bald eagle nest was mapped on the Washington Priority Habitat and Species database as occurring approximately 1,350 feet east of the Project Site, near an office park located southeast of North Lake, but was no longer mapped as of October 2017. One non -fish -bearing stream occurs within the Project Site. North Lake occurs approximately 400 feet north of the Project Site on the opposite side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, and is located south of Wetland BD -North on the Mitigation Site. 4.4.1 Listed Species - Salmonids While no habitat occurs on or adjacent to the Project Site for salmonids, the Mitigation Site is located adjacent to North Lake. Listed species evaluated for these effects include the listed salmon species (Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout) to address the potential for downstream water quality impacts. Salmonids have not been observed in any of the streams, North Lake, or Weyerhaeuser Pond within the greater FWC, LLC property. Neither SalmonScape nor StreamNet map any salmonid species as occurring within North Lake, though the lake is noted as being stocked by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife with rainbow trout. The outlet for North Lake is also not mapped with salmon -presence, neither modeled nor actually present. Mapping of salmonids stops south of the Federal Way Campus property, well south of Highway 18. The apparent hindrances restricting salmonid migration into this area appear to be several not -fish -accessible culverts downstream outside of the FWC, LLC property. There is also a long stretch of pipe (roughly 1,600 linear feet) from the Weyerhaeuser pond, under the former Weyerhaeuser headquarters building, to its outlet just north of Highway 18, that is likely problematic for fish passage. The potential for federally or state listed species occurring within either of the Sites is very low. There are no streams located on the Project Site within which salmonids could occur. No impacts within the ordinary high water mark for any stream or lake is proposed as part of this project. All stormwater will be treated consistent to current Federal Way codes prior to discharge and conveyance off -site. 4.4.2 Listed Species - Bald Eagles A bald eagle nest was mapped on the Washington Priority Habitat and Species database as occurring approximately 1,350 feet east of the Site, though as of October 2017 was no longer present on the database. The location of this nest was field verified, though its use status was not. No eagles were observed in or near the nest at the time of survey through the winter of 2015 to fall 2017. The nest occurs on a large tree within a large wetland/upland complex located east of an office park, and is visible 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 10 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report from the edge of the adjacent commercial office park. The nest occurs across Weyerhaeuser Way South from the Project Site, and on the opposite side of the office park from the Project Site. Bald eagles were removed from the federal endangered species list in 2007, and no longer are protected under the Endangered Species Act. However, bald eagles continue to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These Acts prohibit the "taking" of a bald eagle through direct or indirect actions that may disturb the birds enough to disrupt their breeding, foraging, or nesting behaviors. The existing office park and Weyerhaeuser Way South have been in place for many years, and occur between the Project Site and the mapped nest. Bald eagles are unlikely to be disturbed by the proposed activities on either the Project or Mitigation Sites given the regular use of existing facilities around the existing nest. No bald eagle nests occur within the Project Site. No foraging habitat occurs within the Project or Mitigation Site — both sites are too densely vegetated. Eagles are most likely to forage in and around North Lake or Weyerhaeuser Pond, or potentially within the open field areas located in the broad area. Bald eagles rarely hunt within densely wooded environments. It is possible eagles may use trees within the Sites for roosting. However, given the number of large trees within the area, it is incredibly unlikely that the removal of the trees for this project will negatively affect the bald eagle. This project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect listed species. Lastly, coordination for federally listed species occurred through the US Army Corps of Engineers during the application process for NWP-2016-433, and the Project was determined to have no effect on listed species. CHAPTER 5. REGULATORY REVIEW 5.1 Federal and State Regulations Wetland impacts on the Project Site are subject to applicable State and Federal regulations. Wetland impacts are regulated on the Federal level by Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for administering compliance with Section 404 via the issuance of Nationwide or Individual Permits for any fill or dredging activities within wetlands. Any project that is subject to Section 404 permitting is also subject to requirements of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), administered by the Department of Ecology (DOE). Because direct wetland impacts are proposed on the Project Site, the project would be required to comply with all Section 404 and 401 permitting requirements prior to any construction -related activities that would affect "waters of the US." Portions of the project were previously permitted by the Corps (NWP-2016-443, issued 31 October 2016, Appendix A), but the new site plan is sufficiently different that it was determined that a new application was warranted, based on a meeting with Jacalen Printz, Section Chief, Regulatory Branch, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, on 14 June 2017. 5.2 City of Federal Way Permitting Approach The Weyerhaeuser Company entered into a pre -annexation zoning agreement with the City of Federal Way in 1994. This Concomitant Agreement transferred to the new 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 11 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report property owners, FWC, LLC, upon their purchase of the property during the winter of 2015-2016. Through this purchase, the Concomitant Agreement and guidelines identified therein are applicable to the Greenline Buildings A and B project, including the specific language of the Concomitant Agreement with regard to wetlands, as well as the 1994 Federal Way City Code (FWCC) for Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Article XIV, Sections 22-1221 through Sections 22-1369, particularly Sections 22-1357, 22-1358, 22-1359. Thus, the Project Site has been evaluated using the 1994 FWCC, with consideration given to the applicable federal and state regulations that also would affect the project development to ensure the proposed development meets all applicable regulations. We feel that using the 1994 FWCC to evaluate critical area impacts still uses the best available science and will not provide lesser protections to those critical areas remaining post -development compared to what is required at the Federal and State level. While we have evaluated the Project Site using the 1994 FWCC for the City of Federal Way, no compensation for wetland fill is required per the Concomitant Agreement. Thus, the Project Site has been evaluated using the current Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) to address wetland fill impacts and appropriate mitigation. The Mitigation Site is being evaluated solely based on the current FWRC, Chapters 15 (Shoreline Management) or Chapter 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas), as appropriate. 5.2.1 Wetland Ratings We received a preliminary jurisdictional determination from the Corps on 21 July 2016 for the northern eight wetlands on the Project Site (DQ, DR, DT, EB, EC, ED, EE, and EF), acknowledging their agreement with our delineated wetland boundaries, and confirming their jurisdiction over those wetlands within the Project Limits at that time. The remaining wetlands and other critical areas have not been evaluated by the Corps, but all wetlands have been evaluated by Environmental Science Associates, a 3rd party reviewer for the City of Federal Way. Wetlands were rated using the 2014 Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington to determine buffers required in the current FWRC (Chapters 19.145 and 15.10) for comparison purposes between the 1994 and current guidelines. Ratings for the new wetlands not already reviewed under NWS- 2016-443 are provided as Appendix D. All wetlands located on the Project Site were classified as Category III with a habitat score of 3 or 4, which require a standard buffer of 60 feet per the current FWRC. All wetlands under the 1994 FWCC have 100-foot standard buffers (Article XIV, Division 7, Section 22-1357), as no rating system is applied, which is larger than what the current code requires. Buffer width reduction under the 1994 FWCC of up to 50% is allowable through buffer averaging with a minimum buffer width of 50 feet, as outlined in the Concomitant Agreement (Section XII.G.1). Wetland BD -North was characterized as a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 6 using the 2014 Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. However, wetlands located within the SMZ in Federal Way are subject to the current FWRC Chapter 15.10, which requires standard buffers based on 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 12 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report J I J wetland characteristics (size, habitat types), and not the DOE rating system. Wetland BD-N qualifies as a Category II wetland based on these parameters, which requires a standard 100-foot buffer. Table 2 below provides a regulatory summary of wetlands on both the Project and Mitigation Sites. Table 2. Critical Areas Regulatory Summary Feature ID Wetland Size (square feet) DOE Category' 1994 CBuffer'ft) t Standard (FWRC, eft)2 Wetland BD -North N/A III (6) N/A 1003 Wetland DP 300 III (4) 100 60 Wetland DQ 703 III 3 100 60 Wetland DR 3,240 III (3) 100 60 Wetland DT 2,430 III (3) 100 60 Wetland DU 373 III (3) 100 60 Wetland DW 446 III 3 100 60 Wetland DX 392 III (3) 100 60 Wetland DZ 59 III(3) 100 60 Wetland EB 1,601 III (3) 100 60 Wetland EC 821 III 4 100 60 Wetland ED 3,234 III 4 100 60 Wetland EE 1,881 III 4 100 60 Wetland EF 1,115 111 (4) 100 60 'This score is the Category with the habitat score in () afterwards. 2Standard buffers are based off Chapter 19.145.420 (Wetland rating and buffers) of current FWRC. 'Standard buffers are based off Chapter 15.10.250 (Wetland categories and standard buffers) of current FWRC. 5.2.2 Streams Stream EA is classified as a non -fish -bearing (minor) stream within Federal Way, which requires a standard 50-foot buffer according to 1994 FWCC (Article XIV, Division 5, Section 22-1306). Buffer width reduction is allowable through buffer averaging with a minimum buffer width of 25 feet, as outlined in the Concomitant Agreement (Section XII.F.1). This buffer is larger than what would be required under the current FWRC. This is an artificial feature that was constructed at some point after 2000. This stream J shows poor substrate development, and is comprised mostly of leaf litter. The slopes of the channel were constructed as this feature is located at the toe of the slope from the utility easement that traverses this portion of the Project Site. 5.2.3 Other Linear Features All other man-made depressional features would not require buffers as they are all non - jurisdictional features and are actively maintained. CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY The Greenline Buildings A and B Project Site is a 28.7 acre assemblage of portions of two (2) parcels located in the City of Federal Way in King County, Washington. Existing 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 13 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report gravel access roads, trails for passive recreation, and a maintained landscape materials yard are present on the Project Site. The Mitigation Site is a portion of one (1) parcel that is developed with one vacant single-family residence with the remainder of the Site being vegetated. Several passive recreation trails and a sewer line easement traverse the Mitigation Site. Fourteen (14) wetlands, one (1) stream, and one (1) non -regulated ditch excavated in uplands were identified on the Project and Mitigation Sites. All wetlands identified on the Project Site require a 100-foot setback per the 1994 FWCC, which is larger than required by current regulations. Stream EA requires a 50-foot setback as a minor stream per the 1994 FWCC. North Lake is south of the Mitigation Site and is a Shoreline of the State. Only one (1) wetland, Wetland BD -North, occurs within the Mitigation Site and falls within the Shoreline Management Zone. Wetland BD -North requires a standard 100-foot buffer as a Chapter 15 (FWRC, SMZ) Category II wetland (not based on the DOE rating system). 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 14 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES Anderson, P., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #16-06-029. City of Federal Way City Code. 1994. Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Article XIV, Sections 22-1221 through Sections 22-1369 (City of Federal Way, 1994). City of Federal Way Revised Code. 2017. Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Chapter 15 Shoreline Management (City of Federal Way, 2017). Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. r� Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/. Accessed [April 2016]. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program. ERDC/EL TR-10-3 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetiands/ Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List. 2016. www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d (accessed 2017). Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife [Map Online], Olympia (WA): SalmonScape [February 24, 2017]. URL: <hftp//wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.htmi> Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Priority Habitats and Species Database [online], Olympia, WA. [accessed February 2017]. <www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/> 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Page 15 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report I1"IN4..1 Figure 1. Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2. Site Aerial and Parcel Map Figure 3. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map — Project Site Figure 4. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map — Mitigation Site Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map — Project Site Figure 6. NRCS Soils Map — Mitigation Site Figure 7. Historical Aerial (1957) Map — Project Site Figure 8. Existing Conditions Overview Map — Project Site Figure 9. Existing Conditions Viewports 1 Figure 10. Existing Conditions Viewport 2 Figure 11. Existing Conditions Viewports 3 & 4 Figure 12. Historical Aerial (1957) Map — Mitigation Site Figure 13. Existing Conditions — Mitigation Site 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx FIGURES SEGTION 16 4 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. N E I 1 1 I I I S 329111 St Belmor Mobile ':`• Hgme Park LL 3 330th St i S 333rd St s -- S a361h St it r m C9 CORNED S 341 st { n Pacific Bonsai in Phwmacy flr.i V. e 09 MITIOATION ra 51 TE 7,1 PROJECT 51 TE S 3420d St _ 34411ah St a y 5OURGE: 0006LE MAPS, WWW.MAP5.0006LE.GOM (AGGE55ED 10-20-2017) PRIVIN& M1REGTI0N5 TO PROJECT SITE FROM SEATT E FROM PR JEGT 51TE TO MITI ATI N 51M I. MERGE ONTO 1-5 SOUTH 1. FROM PROJEGT 51TE HEAD NORTH ON 2. TAKE EXIT 143 FOR 5 320TH 5T WEYERHAEUSER ROAD 3. SHARP LEFT ONTO 5 320TH 5T 2. TURN LEFT ONTO WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 4. TURN RIGHT ONTO WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 3. SLIGHT RIGHT ONTO WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 5. AT TRAFFIC, GIRGLE, TAKE 2ND EXIT ONTO 5 4. AT THE TRAFFIG GIRGLE, TAKE THE FIRST EXIT 336TH 5T 5. GONTINUE ONTO WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 6. 5 336TH 5T TURNS SLIGHTLY RIGHT AND (9. THE DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT BECOMES WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 7. TURN RIGHT ONTO WEYERHAEUSER ROAD ARRIVE AT DESTINATION AT: 47.308612,-122.288574 ARRIVE AT DESTINATION ON LEFT J FIGURE TITLE VIGINITY MAP AND DRIVING DIREGTIONS N�2oncXXX APPLICANT Fkk-,L C TALASAEA PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE WL-C)IN65 A AND 5 CONSULTANTS, INC. PURPOSE: COMMERCIAL Resource & Environmental Planning LOCATION:33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 a 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 96077 Bus (425)661-7550 — Fax (425)661-7549 Z:/DRAWING'1500-1599`TAL1572\1572B\P1anS/TAL-1572B-F NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL WA KING WA HYLEW5 CREEK 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGSJftpy NORTH N.T.S. MW 11512F LAT. & LONG. 47.296307,-122.2c14154 3-27-2017 12-1-201-1 FIGURE # Of 15 Talasaea Consultants, INC. 5EGTION 16 B 21 , TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, KM CL •fr .}r k IF It nY.. > • - r !! 1 '��•z�: � � it � }_• �i� ++ ° •r _ •C i �' ++ '� .} ,� �f i} �,�� .,:dam I �7�• -i - ;,!I� w i 117i � -. .,, �,r . .fir �+i�.r:� �.•�":� - .., � 47 �f* jr Xy PSI. 1 ` J. _ T�9,' �! _ T' •i,� pp Jy '' � i C � � � - f.�YYYY � �. •. ✓ fix. •' �. -5- 'f/ i r f i T t�S,.- .+ { ,1 •. IFS _ J i'+^ti �, �. `• 5OURGE: KING COUNTY A55E55OR PARGEL MAP (AGGE55ED 3-&-2016) PARGEL KEY GRAPHIC SCALE ^ ( IN FEET) NORTH l'� 614250-0005 8 614260-0200 0 500 1000 2000 G 152104-G 175 5GALE: I "=1000' FIGURE TITLE DRAWN TAL# 51TE AERIAL AND PARGEL MAP MH 1572F TALASAEA NI-20NCXXX FWGFEEE ILLGCANT 47.2G6307,G122.2g4154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE I REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 3-27-2017 12-1-2017 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY S Woodinville, Washington 98077 FIGURE # 2 of 13 Bus (425)861-7550 - Fax (425)861-7549 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL WA iKINr WA HYLE605 GREEK ;:/DRAW[NG/1500-1599/TAL1572\1572B\P1ans/TAL-1572B-F 2017--11-27 (PCN FIGS)�Dftpyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SEGTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. L.r:6L I P TYPE DESGRIPTION PUBHh PALUSTRINE UNGON5OLIPATED BOTTOM PERMANENTLY FLOODED DIKED/IMPOUNDED L2AH5 LAGUSTRINE LITTORAL AQUATIC, BED PERMANENTLY FLOODED NO FEATURES MAPPED WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS SOURGE: U.S. F15H AND WILDLIFE 5ERVIGE, (201-1). NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY WEBSITE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, F15H AND WILDLIFE 5ERVIGE, WASHINGTON D.G. http..//www.fw5.gov/wetland5/ NORTH N.T.S. TALA S AE A CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 \ FIGURE TITLE U5FW5 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP - PROJECT 51TE DRAWN MN TAL# 1572F REFERENCE NW5-2017-XXX APPLICANT FWG, LLG 4-12%30-I,G 122.2G4154 PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE 3-27-201"I REVISED 12-1-2017 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL LOCATION: 33665 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 FIGURE # 3 Gf 13 NEAR/AT i FEDERAL WA ICOUNTY KING STATE IN I WA HYLEBOS GREEK ::\DRAWING\1500-15S91TALI 572\1572B\Plans,'fAL-1572E-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)gftpyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. LrEC ENC) TYPE PSS/EMI G PM I /55E L2AHB DESGRIPTION PALU5TRINE SCRUB -SHRUB EMERGENT PERSISTENT, SEASONALLY FLOODED PALU5TRINE EMERGENT PERSISTENT 5GRUB-5HRUB, SEMI -PERMANENTLY FLOODED LAGU5TRINE LITTORAL AGUATIG BED, PERMANENTLY FLOODED LIU5H LAGUSTRINE LIMNETIG UNGON50LIPATED BOTTOM, PERMANENTLY FLOODED NO FEATURES MAFFED W 1 TH I N THE PROJECT LIMITS 5OURGE: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVIGE, (2017). NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY WEB5ITE, NORTH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVIGE, WA5HINGTON D.G. http://www.fw5.gov/v4oticindr,/ N.T.5. FIGURE TITLE U5FW5 NATIONAL. WETLAND5 INVENTORY MAP - MITIGATION 51TE DRAWN TALC MN 1572F TALASAEA DCONSULTANTS, NN5-2EONCXXX FWG, LLGT 412%307, 122.2g4154 INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning 3-27-2017 112-1-201-7 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 ` Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE #4 �Tnn �� NEAR/AT ICOUNTY STATE IN 1 FEDERAL WA KING I WA I HYLE505 GREEK ''L:\llttAfY1NI;\1bUU-1�N`.!\'1'ALlb-��\lb-1 1i\flans\'1'AL—lb'/Gts—P' GU1"�-11—L'� tVUN rlUbApWVpprignt - '1'alasaea Uonsultants, mu. SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. LEGEN1:) TYPE PE5CRIPTIQEOPE5 AgE3 ALDERWOOD GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, O TO & PERCENT SLOPES AgG ALDERWOOD GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, & TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES NO NORMA 5ANDY LOAM AmB ARENT5, ALDERWOOD MATERIAL, O TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES NORTH SOURCE: SOIL SURVEY STAFF, NATURAL RESOURCES GON5ERVATION SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WEB 501L SURVEY. AVAILABLE ONLINE AT HTTP://HEB50IL5URVEY.NPG5.USDA.00V/. N.T.S. FIGURE TITLE NRG5 SOILS MAP - PROJECT 51TE DRAWN TAL# MW 15-12F TALASAEA REFERENCE APPLICANT 47296307G122.2G4154 NW5-2017-XXX FWG, LLG CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDING5 A AND B DATE REVISED 112-1-201-7 Resource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 3-27-2017 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE # Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)881-7550 - Fax (425)881-7549 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN 1~EDERAL WA KIN 7 WA HYLEB05 GREEK Z:\,DRAWING11500-1599\TAL1572'1572B\Plans\TAL--1572E-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)�4)►qppyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SEGTION 16, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. LECENi2 TYPE PESGRIPTION, SLOPES A,gE3 ALDERWOOD GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, O TO & PERGENT SLOPES OR ORGAS PEAT W WATER 5OURGE: SOIL SURVEY STAFF, NATURAL RE50URGE5 CONSERVATION SERVIGE, NORTH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF A&RIGULTURE, WEB SOIL SURVEY. AVAILABLE ONLINE AT HTTP://WEB501L5URVEY.NRG5.U50A.00V/. N.T.S. FIGURE TITLE NRGS SOILS MAP - MITIGATION SITE DRAWN MN TAL# 15-12F S AE A ii) REFTALA APPLICANT LONG. NW5E2O11 XXX FWG, LLG 4 2%50-122.2j CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: OREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE REVIS Resource & Environmental Planning 3-27-2017 112-1-201-7 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)661-7550 — Fax (425)661-7549 LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 FIGURE # & of NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL KA4 KING I WA I HYLE8O5 GREEK 2:/DRAWING/1500-1599\TAL1572`1572S\P1ans\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)yR]W�ppyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SEGTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, KM l r -+fir �`�.._ } r s .Tl Irr 1 •} 1: � 1 �• r ' ;Y.r '; WETLAND EE �. �Ly:�.r- 7 a6 . �f :. • ti L �+f' WETLAND DO it * W ^ • i +►f~- i• a►� al NON —REGULATED } •� �. ` rr ,: r i. •,r�r +■. DITGH 04 WETLAND DR �+ ~� Y� '• .�A ��' .°.r �f •i 7iT' . I f 402 of WETLAND ED , ' WETLAND Ef3 G' WETLAND EF �i� • r A _ cf •_ } `- sr . :�+ ' WETLAND OT .WETLAND EC, Af ` '��`r:�•'4`' E'':J. ,STREAM WETLAND DU to • 4 [ �' r: ETA . WETLAND OP AND PH All s WETLAND DX WETLAND At NORTH SOURGE: M57 AERIAL N.T.5. FIGURE TITLE DRAWN TAL# HISTORICAL AERIAL (IC157) MAP - PROJEGT SITE MW 1572F TALASAEA REFERENCE I APPLICANT 472G6307,LONG. 122.2g4154 NWS-2017-XXX FWG, LLG CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE 61JILDINC-7 A AND S DATE REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 3-27-2017 12-1-2017 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAYS FIGURE # 'I OP 15 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEC3ERAI WA KING WA WLEB05 GREEK Z:\DRAWING\1500-1599\TAL1572\1572B\Plans\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGSX0vgppyr1ght - Talasaea Consultants, INC. 5EGTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. v r 7 1 LL �• 1 11' I I FAA EL AC l f{it + �' 00Lt.ARY yy . 1 r `:, TO WADJML i5� PARCFL B I 1 VIEWPORT 4 HE OU- 373 5F f J WETLAND DW �f� / �•+' , 446 5F f r ri WETLAND DX.!' 3g2 5F' WETLAN DF 5q u77777WWj GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET) NORTH 1 0 150 300 600 5GALE: I"=300' WETLAND EE 1"551 5F WETLAND DO "105 5F V I EWPORT I NON REGULATED UPLAND DITGH WETLAND OR 3,240 5F WETLAND ED 5234 5F WETLAND EF 1,115 5F WETLAND EB I,6OI 5F WETLAND EG &21 5F WETLAND OT 2,430 5F V I EWPORT 2 STREAM EA (MINOR) WETLAND OP 300 SF --�dp 1 PLAN LEGEN7 PROPERTY LINE PROJEGT LIMITS I_... ._.-.,._._......... � WETLAND — — — — — — WETLAND BUFFER* — • • — .) — - — DITGH GENTERLINE -� STREAM GENTERLINE STREAM BUFFER EXISTING FORESTED AREAS EXISTING UNDER5TORY BRU511 MANAGED FORESTED BUFFET: * PER Igg4 FWG CODE FIGURE TITLE EXISTING GONDITION5 OVERVIEW MAP - PROJECT 51TE DRAWN TAL# MN 15-12F TALASAEA iD REFERENCE -XX FYJG, LLGT 4 2 6307,G122.2G4154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE 13UILPINC75 A AND 5 DATE I REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning 3-2i-2017 1I2-1-201i PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 9B077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)061-7549 LOCATION: 35663 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE # NEAR/AT ICOUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL_ WA KIN& WA HYLE1305 CREEK Z:IDRAW1NG/1500-1599/TAL1572\1572B'P1ans/TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)@)v¢ppyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. 'l h■■■■■■■■■■■■■,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ EE-W�Tl \\ � DO-1 � Q•7' Dt+l}WETi ■ • EE-UPLIVE I �W WETL?�ND EE , I 1 WETLANID Pa ■ FLAGS 1-13 "r.FLAGS I-7 . I f DQ-UPLI ■ EEJI 1 ■ . , • ,;, EE-13 1� ! r I ■ ®-- ------- --_ - -- I ■ EXISTING ® - = ■ TRAIL, T1'P. NON REGULATED - - �\ ■ _ _ r UPLAND D I TGHFM \ \\ ■ -� / 11 � ■ 1 1 L _ ■ WETLAND DR - ■ } FLAGS 1-15 k y Iu ■ EXISTING V ■ ® GANOPY, TYP. } I W PRITI ■ I , v , *DR UPLI ■ I ■ ,I � I ■ V I ENFRORT .SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND ON FIGURE II DTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 GRAPHIC 50ALE NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 0 30 60 120 SGALE: 1 "=60' FIGURE TITLE DRAWN TAL# EXISTING CONDITIONS VIEWPORT I MA 15-12F REFERENCE APPLICANT LAT. & LONG. 41.2%301,-122.2G4154 NWr2O17-XXX FWG, LLG PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE SUILDINC75 A AND 5 DATE REVISED PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 3-27-201-1 12-1-2017 LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 FIGURE # 41 Of 13 NEAR/AT ICOUNTY STATE IN FEDEf AL WA KIN , I WA HYLE5O5 GREEK J Z:\DRAWING\1500-1599\TAL1572\1572B\Plans\TAL-1572H-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS4vWgyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SEGTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. ■ ►I I EXISTING I I CANOPY, +I I TYP. F WETLAND ED r I t FLA051-14 A� ► I ■ W W ��L f j EB-WETI r EB-UPLI ED-1 ` ■ 1 � I WETLAND EB A ■ o D"�w� ri I FLAGS 1-12 ` I W :�► F ED-1 ■ 'r W W * ► W EB-12 1� y W . ■ EF-WETI. -**A ► ► ■ e �� I I I .A f ■ ■ �\ REF -a EF-UPLI + ■► ► ■ ■ WETLAND EE IJIM FLAGS 1-8 ► j EXISTING I f TRAIL, TYP. � I ■ i ■ ► DT-12� A ■ PT-1A,� WWW� EG-5 y OEG-UP LI I ' .-- — ` ~ W ■ ■ W 11 EG-1 + -UPLI a� W W EG- 1 1 y ■ �..� I `` r -HET1 r ■ WETLAND EG FLAC-7S I-6 f WETLAND PT ► FLA55 1-12 ■ VIEWPORT 2 ORAPHIC SCALE 5EE EXI5TIN5 GONDITIONS LEGEND ON FIGURE II ( IN FEET) �� I 0 30 60 120 SGALE: 1 °=60' f F0IGURE TITLE DRAWN TAL# EXISTING GONDITIONS VIEWPORT 2 MW 1512F REFERECETALASAEA APPLICAN NI-2O11-XXX FWG,LLGT 4 2g63O1,G122.2g4154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: OREENLINE BUILDIN55 A AND B DATE REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning 3-2-7-2011 I 12-1-2017 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 96077 Bus (425)661-7550 — Fax (425)661-7549 LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 FIGURE # 10 of 13 NEAR/AT I COUNTY STATE I IN L_ FEDERAL WA KING WA HYLEBO5 GREEK ;:\DRAWING\1500-1599\TAL1572\15728\Plans\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)(Wvjpyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. ©, EXISTINC / TRAIL, Tl'P. / / ■ F - �■ rr ■ STREAM EA ■ (M I NOR) / 7 ' ■ I / ■ j. IPP-5 I E I •/ L 9 1 ■ D#�1 .� j� DP-WETI ■ NETLAND DP FLAGS 1-5 1 � EXISTING ■ ■ NOPY, TYP. ■ V I ENPORT 3 1 TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. JResource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 ■ NETLAND DU ■ ■ NETLAND DN FLAGS 1-6 ■ ■ FLA551-5 ■ OU-UPLIe Du -I ■ DW-I I *_ ■ ■ ! tPH-WETI DX-1 DU-WETI ■ DW UPLI DU-6 ■ ■ DX-WETI t w �� :DX--UPLI�< rDW-5 y� ■ ■ DZ-4�yI DX-5 NETLAND DX ■ ■DZ-UPLI FLA&5 1-5 ■ ■ DZ-WETI DZ-I ■ ■ NETLAND DZ ■ ■ FLAGS 1-4 ■ m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r V I ENPORT .4 PLAN LEeENP PROJEGT SITE BOUNDARY WETLAND TP-WETARL • SOIL TEST PIT STREAM GENTERLINE STREAM BUFFER — DITGH GENTERLINE 200' SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ZONE GRAPH I G 50ALE NORTH ( IN FEET) O 30 60 120 SGALE: 1 " = & O FIGURE TITLE EXISTING GONDITIONS VIEWPORTS REFERENCE APPLICANT NNS-2011-XXX I FW,, LLG PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE SUILDI PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL LOCATION: 35665 WEYERHAEUSER HAY 5 NEAR/AT ICOUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL NAA KING I WA HYLI 8 4 DRAWN TAL# MW 1572F LAT. & LONG. 4-7.2g63O-7,-122.2ci4154 5 A AND 5 DATE 3-27-2017 A[REVISED 017 FIGURE # II Of I3 ?5 GREEK J Z:\DRAWING\1500-1599\TAL1572\1572B\Plans\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 {PCN FiGSONftpyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. •r'Ytii r i ,'{.rr• it, _ ,'4 ._I .- • ` •.. r�•+� ��.��lr' y� �) fir.-,1�"�_t"�e F+ �' �•• f �r ��_ 4. SOURCE: IC157 AERIAL • r- �� or NORTH "1 r N.T.S. FIGURE TITLE HISTORIGAL AERIAL (IC157) MAP - MITIGATION SITE DRAWN MW TAL# 1572E REFERETALASAEA NHS-2OI�CXXX FAG,LLGT 4 2g63O7,G122.2cI4154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE I REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning 3-27-2017 112-1-201-1 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Hear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER HAY 5 FIGURE :r r # li2�nn �� NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL HA KING WA HYLEBOS GREEK Z:\DRAWING. 1500-1599\TAL1572\1572$\Plans\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS Ajppyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. --, SEGTION I6, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. J I BD-UPLI ' B0-1 A BI-1 / BI-12 Ar m L4 ors/ / r .- ._:_._- EXISTINO - - - GANOPY, TYP.' AA 7. WETLAND PD-38� GONTINUES SOUTH NORTH LAKE i MITIGATION VIEWPORT SEE EXISTING GONDITIONS LEGEND ON FIGURE II I TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 WETLAND BD -NORTH FLA05 BD 1-52, BI 1-12 GRAPHIC. SCALE NORTH ( IN FEET ) 0 50 100 200 SGALE: I "=100' EXISTING GONDITIONS - MITIOATION 51TE REFERENCE I APPLICANT NW5-2017-XXX j FWG, LLG PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE B0ILDIN05 A AND B PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 NEAR/AT ICOUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL AM KIN&a I WA I HYLEBOS CREEK DRAWN TAL# MW 15-12F LAT. & LONG. 47.2g63O7,-122.2G4154 DATE REVISED 3-27-2017 112-1-201-7 FIGURE # 13 of 13 Z:\bRAWING\1500-1599/TAL1572\1572E\Plans\TAL-1572B-F 2017--11--27 (PCN FSGS)¢pvFppyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report APPENDIX A AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE, 2016 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Appendix A £�r Op Q � 13 � yx vy Gp • rr° s�arc, �S p� • • Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755 October 31, 2016 R.J. Burton - Victory Unlimited Construction, LLC 6831 East 32nd Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46226 Reference: NWS-2016-443 Victory Unlimited - Construction, LLC Dear R. J. Burton: We have reviewed your application to place fill in 0.18 of an acre of wetlands for commercial development at Federal Way, Washington. Based on the information you provided i to us, Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39, Commercial Development (Federal Register February 21, s 2012, Vol. 77, No. 34), authorizes your proposal as depicted on the enclosed drawings dated May 5, 2016, revised June 14, 2016, provided you implement the In -Lieu Fee Use Plan dated June 16, 2016. In order for this authorization to be valid, you must ensure the work is performed in accordance with the enclosed AWP 39, Terms and Conditions and the following special s conditions: a. You shall implement and abide by the City of Federal Way, King County, WA: In -Lieu Fee Use Plan, dated 16 June 2016, and herein modified to obtain It. 16624 In Lieu Fee (ILF) credits. b. You shall obtain 11.16624 In Lieu Fee Credits (ILF) from the King County Mitigation Reserve Program ILF sponsor, documentation of the completed ILF transaction in the form of a Statement of Sale. You shall submit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch a copy of the ILF Statement of Sale prior to performing work in waters of the U.S. authorized by this permit. All submittals must prominently display the reference number NWS-2016-443. c. Your responsibility to obtain the required In Lieu Fee mitigation credits as set forth in Special Condition "a" will not be considered fulfilled until you have received written verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. �J -2- We have reviewed your project pursuant to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. We have determined this project complies with the requirements of these laws provided you comply with all of the permit general and special conditions. The authorized work complies with the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Water Quality Certification (WQC) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZM) requirements for this NWP. No further coordination with Ecology for WQC and CZM is required. Our verification of this NWP authorization is valid until March 18, 2017, unless the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked prior to that date. If the authorized work has not been completed by that date and you have commenced or are under contract to commence this activity before March 18, 2017, you will have until March 18, 2018, to complete the activity under the enclosed terms and conditions of this NWP. Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of this NWP verification invalidates this authorization and could result in a violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. You must also obtain all local, State, and other Federal permits that apply to this project. You are cautioned that any change in project location or plans will require that you submit a copy of the revised plans to this office and obtain our approval before you begin work. Deviating from the approved plans could result in the assessment of criminal or civil penalties. Upon completing the authorized work, you must fill out and return the enclosed Certificate of Compliance with Department of the Army Permit form. Thank you for your cooperation during the permitting process. We are interested in your experience with our Regulatory Program and encourage you to complete a customer service survey form. This form and information about our program is available on our website at www.nws.usace.anny.mil, select "Regulatory Branch, Permit Information" and then "Contact Us." A copy of this letter with enclosures will be furnished to Mr. Tom Messmer, Federal Way Campus, LLC, at 8847 Imperial Highway, Suite H, Downey, California 90242. A copy of this letter with enclosures will also be sent to Mr. William Spiels, Talasaea Consultants, Inc., at 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast, Woodinville, Washington 98077. If you have any questions, please contact me at kaitlyn.r.white@usace.army.mil or (206) 316-3156. Sincerely, uk- Kaitly, rite, Project Manager Regulatory Branch Enclosures PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM BACKGROUND -INFORMATION A, REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 16 June 2016 B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD: Mr. R.J. Burton Victory Unlimited Construction LLC 6831 East 32"d Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46226 C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Seattle District, Victory Unlimited Construction LLC' NWS-2016.443 D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: WA County: KiLcn City: Federal Way Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 47.297199°N, Long. -122.294056°W Name of nearest waterbody: Hylebos Creek Name of any water bodies on the site, in the review area, that have been identified as Section 10 waters: Tidal: Non -Tidal: Identify (estimate) Non -wetland Wetlands: amount waters (total Stream Flow: 0,344 acres of waters in the review for site): linear Pick List Flow path: (total for site). area (if there are multiple feet 375 and width (ft) 3 or Unnamed Ditch - Hy. lebos sites, use the table instead): acres. Creek — Commencement Bay a Traditional Navi able Water Cowardin Class(es): Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Palustrine Forested Site Name Latitude Longitude Cowardin Classification Estimated amount of aquatic H dro eomor hic Class y g p resource in review area Wetland 47.298 22 -122.29266 Palustrine Scrub -Shrub 678 square feet Depressional DQ Wetland 47,29736 -122.29251 Palustrine Scrub -Shrub 3240 square feet Depressional DR Wetland 47.29311 -122.29269 Palustrine Scrub -Shrub 2430 square feet Depressional DT Wetland 47.296520 -122.292533 Palustrine Forested 1601 square feet Depressional EB Wetland 47.296088 122.293594 Palustrine Forested 821 square feet Depressional EC Wetland 47.2965971 -122.29387 Palustrine Forested 3234 square feet Depressional ED Wetland 47,298067 -122.293637 Palustrine Scrub -Shrub 1881 square feet Depressional EE Wetland 47.29399 -122.29399 Palustrine Forested 1115 square feet Depressional EF Ditch 47.29765 -122.29251 Ephemeral 375 linear feet N/A _. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 16 June 2016 ® Field Determination. Date(s):10 June 2016 SUPPORTING DATA, Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicanUconsultant: ® Data sheets preparedlsubmitted by or on behalf of the applicartUconsultant. ® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Explain: ❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ❑ Corps navigable waters' study: ® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: Accessed 16 June 2016, ® USGS NHD data. ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s), Cite scale & quad name: ❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey, Citation: ® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Accessed 16 June 2016. ❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s): ❑ FEMA/FIRM maps: ❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) ❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date): ❑ Photographs: ❑ Other (Name & Date): ❑ Previous determ [nation (s). File no., date (and findings) of response letter (determination and coordination): ❑ Other information (please specify): 1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site, Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in this instance and at this time. 2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g,, signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331, and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33 C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the information in this document. IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by -the Car sand should not be relied u on # r later jurisdictional deterrninations. Signature: W"-- 20 July 2016 Regulatory Project Manager Date Person' Requesting Preliminary JD Date I Permit applicant, landowner, a lease, easement or option holder, or individual with identifiable and substantial legal interest in the property; this signature is not required for preliminary JDs associated with enforcement actions. Jennifer Marriott From: Anderson, Paul S. (ECY) <paan461@ECY.WA.GOV> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 8:43 AM To: Jennifer Marriott Cc: RJ Burton; Bill Shiels; Tom Messmer, Eric LaBrie; Jack McCullough; White, Kaitlyn R NWS Subject: RE: NWS-2016-443; Victory Unlimited (TAL-1593) Jennifer: Thanks for copying me on this e-mail. Thanks also for taking time last week to meet with me and bringing me up to speed on the project. I wanted to let you know that I was able to complete my review of the critical areas report, wetland ratings and proposed mitigation before _ I left for training earlier this week. I didn't have any substantive concerns, which I let Kaitlyn know on Tuesday. I also dropped off the application at Ecology HQ yesterday. Paul Paul S. Anderson, PWS Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 - 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 -Phone: (425) 649-7148 Cell: (425) 765-4691 Fax: (425) 649-7098 Email: Paul.S.Anderson@ecy.wa.gov -----Original Message ----- From: Jennifer Marriott [mailto:JMarriott@talasaea.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 3:52 PM To: White, Kaitlyn R NWS <Kaitlyn.R.White@usace.army.mil> Cc: Anderson, Paul S. (ECY) <paan461@ECY.WA.GOV>; RJ Burton <rburton@victoryuc.com>; Bill Shiels <bshiels@talasaea.com>; Tom Messmer <tmessmer@industrialrealtygroup.com>; Eric LaBrie <eric.labrie@esmcivil.com>; Jack McCullough <jack@mhseattle.com> Subject: RE: NWS-2016-443; Victory Unlimited (TAL-1593) Kaitlyn, IAttached please find our responses to Karen Walter's comments regarding the Preferred Freezer project. + Hopefully Paul has a chance to call or email you once he's done with his training workshops this week with his concurrence based on our conversation last week. I'm cc'ing Paul on this email in case he wants to review our responses to Karen as they address buffer concerns. Where are we with ESA review? Are there any comments regarding mitigation? Thank you, Jennifer Jennifer M. Marriott, PWS Senior Ecologist Talasaea Consultants, Inc 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, WA 98077-7849 Office: 425-861-7550 Fax: 425-861-7549 -----Original Message ----- From: White, Kaitlyn R NWS [mailto:Kaitlyn.R.White@usace.army.mil] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 6:39 AM To: Jennifer Marriott <JMarriott@talasaea.com> Subject: NWS-2016-443; Victory Unlimited Jennifer, -Consultation under the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act are on -going. -Attached are comments provided by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Please address them within 30 days of the date of this email. Sincerely, Kaitlyn White Project Manager, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District (206) 316-3156 IGreenline Buildings A and B Existinq Conditions Report I I 1 I [I j APPENDIX B WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2016 AND 2017 1 December2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Appendix B WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal Wav/King Countv Sampling Date:12119/2015 Applicant/Owner: Federal Wav Campus. LLC State: WA Sampling Point: BD-UPL1 Investigator(s): JMM. DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21 N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-1 % Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.308979 Long:-122.290309 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam, 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PFO/PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showina samolina point locations. transects. important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ED Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 40 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Acer circinatum 35 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. Populus balsamifera 10 N FAC Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 N FACU Percent of Dominant Species 90 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total % Cover of: MUItiDly by: 3. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4, FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5, FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 0 = Total Cover FACU species 0 x 4= 0 Herb Straturn (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. Po/ystichum munitum 20 Y FACU Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B) 2. Lamiastrum galeobdolon 1 N NL 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Dominance Testis >50% 6. ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 7 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 21 = Total Cover ,W� gody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 30 Y FACU 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Rubus laciniatus 5 N FACU Hydrophytic 35 = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BD-UPL1 Profile Description: to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moist % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc' Texture 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) zLocation: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Impossible to dig- extremely compact and suspected old logging road. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of ne re uired: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (All) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 46)) ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (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: 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: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal WayXina County Sampling Date:1211912015 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: BD-WET1 Investigator(s): JMM, DRT Section, Township, Range: S15 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1-3% Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.308804 Long:-122.28969 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravel sandy loam. 0-8% slopes NWI classification: PFO/PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes E No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes E No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showino samolino point locations. transects. important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No E Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes E No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes E No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes E No ❑ Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) 1. Fraxinus latifolia 2. 3, 4, SapliagIShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Po/ystichum munitum 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: °% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 65 Y FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 65 = Total Cover 60 Y FAC 60 = Total Cover 15 Y FACU 15 = Total Cover 2 Y FACU 2 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 65 x 2 = 130 FAC species 62 x 3 = 186 FACU species 75 x 4 = 300 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 202 (A) 616 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.05 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ Dominance Testis >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No E US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: BD-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features !inches) Color [mdsti % Color (moist) % Tyoe' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pare 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 ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Structure obliterated because of surrounding ponded water. Difficult to describe but assumed hydric from hydrologic indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one required; check all thal a lv S econdary Indicators 2 or more re uired ® Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413)) ® High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (135) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 1-2 Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 1-2 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: j 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: TAL-1572 City/County: King Sampling Date:2/2212017 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Camous LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DP UPL1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5-9 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.294491 Long:-122.293744 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood -gravelly sandy loam 0-8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SIIMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showing samnlina noint locations. transects. important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Test pit between wetland and access road VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Trec Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 30 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 30 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) SapllnplShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Gau/theria shallop 10 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubusarmeniacus 5 Yes FAC Total % Cover of! Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species 35 x 3 = 105 15 = Total Cover FACU species 25 x 4 = 100 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species x 5 = 1. Polystichum munitum 15 Yes FACU Column Totals: 60 (A) 205 (B) 2. 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3_4 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ Dominance Testis >50% 6 ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 7 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. El Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Svaturn (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. mane 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2 Hydrophytic 0 = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP UPL1 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 0.6 10 YR 3/2 100 road 6+ impermeable laver 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) (if present): Type: road Depth (inches): 6 Remarks: Presumed fill from adjacent access road HYDROLOGY Presumed fill from adjacent access 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one re uired: check all that ao Iv) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (611) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413)) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) 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: 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: TAL-1572 City/County: King Sampling Date:2122/201'7 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DP WET1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21 N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslo a Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5-9 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.294461 Long:-122.293726 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly §andy loam 0-8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) CI IMMARY nF: Fitinim[-R — Affar_h cifp man shnwino samnlinri noint Incations. transects. imoortant features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Test pit located in center of wetland. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Alnus rubra 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Alnus rubra 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Juncus effusus 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. none 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 45 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 45 = Total Cover 15 Yes FAC 15 = Total Cover 5 Yes FACW 5 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ® Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP WET1 Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks Sandy gravellyloam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Ucation: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Ponded water made it difficult to dig soil sample. Soils assumed hydric HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one re uiredo check all that a ® Surface Water (Al) ® High Water Table (A2) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ IHydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ on strong hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology indicators. ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depth (inches): 6 Depth (inches): 0 Secondary Indicators-(2 or more required ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413)) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspectionsl, if available: 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: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal Way/Kind Sampling Date:418116 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Camou5 LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DT-UPL1 Investigator(s): JMM/KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21 N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslooe Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 5-15 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.295851 Long:-122.292911 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 0 to $ percent slopes NWI classification: None 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.) JUMMAKT Ur I-INUINUb — Attach site map snowing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ED Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Sample point west and uphill of the wetland VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Fraxinus latifolia 35 Y FACW Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 55 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) SaplinglShruh Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 5 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: _ Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 5 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species x 5 = 1. Rubus laciniatus 10 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Oemleria cerasiformis 1 N FACU 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Dominance Test is >50% g. ❑ Prevalence Index is s3.0' 7. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 30 Y FACU 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Hydrophytic 30 = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 671014 (Describe to the depth needed to document Sampling Point: DT-UPL1 or confirm the absence of indicators.] Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type'- Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/2 Loam 10+ Mechanical refusal 'Tvoe: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lfnfng, 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 (All 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 ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Large rocks located at 10 inches. Assumed to not be hydric based on lack of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimlim of one required., check 1l that apply) Second Indicators 2 or mar firedft ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413)) ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (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 ED includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: TAL-1572 City/County: Federal Wav/King Sampling Date:418116 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus. LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DT-WET1 Investigator(s): JMM/KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21 N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.295845 Long:-122.292824 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes E No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes E No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showina samolina point locations, transects. imDortant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes E No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes E No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes E No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes E No ❑ Remarks: Sample point in the middle of the wetland. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. None That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Saplingl5hrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Acer circinatum 20 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus spectabilis 15 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = 3. 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 35 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species x 5 = 1. Pha/aris arundinacea 15 Y FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 E Dominance Test is >50% 6 ❑ Prevalence Index is:53.0' 7 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. None 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Hydrophytic 0 = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes E No ❑ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DT-WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color moist % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/2 100 Loam 'T e: C=Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil is assumed HYDROLOGY on hydrology and vegetation. 2Location: PL=Pare Llninq, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one -required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required ® Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, ® Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413)) ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ® Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 4 Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): 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: 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: TAL-1572 CityiCounty: King Sampling Date:2/22/2017 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DU UPL1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21 R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): -33 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.294145 Long:-122.295521 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 0-8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showing samolina noint locations. transects. imnortant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: west of wetland, mountain beaver holes adjacent to test pit VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii_ 2. 3. 4. Sepling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Gaultheria shallon 2. Rubus spectablis 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. none 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 40 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: t (A) = Total Cover 60 Yes FACU 20 Yes FAC 80 = Total Cover 20 Yes FACU 20 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ Dominance Testis >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is _<3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DU UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10 YR 3/2 100 Silt loam gravelly with small rocks 8-18 10 YR 4/2 100 Silt loam oravell with medium rocks 'Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion, RM=Reduced tvlalrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (All) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY 2Location: PL=Pore Lininq, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators Iminimum of one required• check all that apPly) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Secondary Indicators (2-or more required) ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9 ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 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: TAL-1572 City/County: King Sampling Date:2/2212017 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DU WET1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5-9 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.294176 Long:-122.295435 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Aldenaood gravelly sandy loam 0-8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showing samDlina Doint locations. transects. important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Test pit located in western section of wetland VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. none 2. 3. 4. Saplfng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. none 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. none 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Spec€es? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 0 = Total Cover 40 Yes FAC 40 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ® Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DU WET1 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) % Tvpe, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10 YR 2/2 100 loam very aravellv 7-20 10 YR 3/1 100 clay loam with aravel 'Tvpe: 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 (Al 0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (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 ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: lots of small rocks from 7-20 in. Soils assumed hydric based on presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrologic indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one re wired• check all that apply) Secondary Indicators 2 or more r uired ® Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, ❑ Water Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413)) ® High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 6 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: 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: TAL-1572 City/County: King Sampling Date:2/22/2017 Applicant/Owner: Federal Wav Campus LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DW UPL1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21N R4E Landform (hillslopc, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5-10 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.294144 Long:-122.29586 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 0-8 percent slopes - NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site maD showina samolina point locations. transects. important features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: TP located North of wetland VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) 1. Corylus cornuta 2. Alnus rubra 3. 4. Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. Gaultheria shallon 2. Rubus spectabilis 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15) 1. None 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 80 Yes FACU 10 No FAC 90 = Total Cover 80 Yes FACU 5 No FAC 85 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) Prevalence Indexworksheet: Total % Cover of: MultiDly bv: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DW UPL1 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 10 YR 4/2 100 SiL Gravelly wi h lots of rocks 'Type.- C=Cericentration, D=De letion. RM= Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. rLocation: 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 ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required' check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations - Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches) Secondary Indicators (29r more reg u ired ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4113)) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9 ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (135) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes capillary frin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 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: TAL-1572 City/County: King Sampling Date:2/22/2017 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DW WET1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21N R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslopc Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1-3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.294155 Long:-122.295847 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 0-8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showing samnlina point locations. transacts. imnortant features- etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: test plot located in the north section VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Alnus rubra 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. none 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft ) 1. none 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 40 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 40 = Total Cover 35 Yes FAC 35 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ® Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0 RIeIA Sampling Point: DW-WET1 to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moist % Co€or {moist) % Type, Loci Texture _ Remarks 'Tvoe: C=Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) (if present): 2Location: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Ponded water made it difficult to obtain soil sample. Soils assumed to be hydric based on strong hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology indicators HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one re uired• check all that I Secondary Indicators [2 or more req reA ® Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 413)) ® High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (610) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 6-10 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 avai€able: Remarks: `j 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: TAL-1572 City/County: King Sampling Date:2/22/2017 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DX UPL1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21 R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5-10 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.293977 Long:-122.296010 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 0-8 peLcent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ED No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 5UMMAKY Ur FINUINGS — Attacn site map snowing sampling point locations, transects, important Teatures, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Wetlands DX and DZ share an upland point. Located to the south of both wetlands. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. A/nus ruhra 2. Thuja plicata 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Gaultheria shallon 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. none 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. none 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 35 Yes FAC 50 Yes FAC 85 = Total Cover 60 Yes FACU 60 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.6 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiplv by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 85 x 3 = 255 FACU species 60 x 4 = 240 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 145 (A) 495 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ® Dominance Testis >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DX UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10 YR 3/2 100 Loam Gravel) 1 p+ Rock (impermeable layer) 'Tvpe: 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 ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Rock Depth (inches): 10+ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ED Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one required: ch ck all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 er more required ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, ❑ Water Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 46)) ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (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 ca illary fringe Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: _j 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: TAL-1572 City/County: King Sampling Date:2122/2017 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DX WET1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21 R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1-3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.294023 Long:-122.295987 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 0-8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site man showing samniina Doint locations. transects. imaortant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes M No ❑ Remarks: TP along eastern edge of wetland. Test pit considered wetland despite lack of a hyric soil based on landscape position and relationship to adjacent wetlands. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Alnus rubra 2. 3. 4. SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus spectablis 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. None 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Nome 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 80 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 80 = Total Cover 40 Yes FAC 40 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ® Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DX WET1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color [moistl % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10 YR 4/2 100 Loam Very Gravelly 6-18 10 YR 3/3 58 5 YR 5/8 2 C M Clay Loam 7.5 YR 4/4 40 'TVDe: C=Concentration. D=DeDletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils do not meet an indicator, HYDROLOGY 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one r uired; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators 2 or more required) ® Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)) ® High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 6-8 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: 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: TAL-1572 City/County: King Sampling Date:212212017 Applicant/Owner: Federal Wav Campus LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DZ UPL1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21 R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5-10 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.293977 Long:-122.296010 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 0-8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes E No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes E No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important Teatures, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes E No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No E within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No E Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No E Remarks: Wetlands DX and DZ share an upland point. Located to the south of both wetlands. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Alnus rubra 2. Thuja pllcata 3. 4. Sapfing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Gaultheria shallon 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. none 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. none 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 35 Yes FAC 50 Yes FAC 85 = Total Cover 60 Yes FACU 60 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.6 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: MultiQIv bv: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 85 x 3 = 255 FACU species 60 x 4 = 240 UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: 145 (A) 495 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: E Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes E No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DZ UPL1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10 YR 312 100 10+ Loam Gravelly 'Tvpe: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Rock impermeable laver) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Rock Depth (inches): 10+ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Sqc-Qndary Indicators pr more required ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA 1, 2, ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413)) ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) []Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ 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 ED includes ca illa fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial phatos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: TAL-1572 City/County: King Sampling Date:2/22/2017 Applicant/Owner: Federal Way Campus LLC _ State: WA Sampling Point: DZ WET1 Investigator(s): KN Section, Township, Range: S21 T21 R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Deoression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1-3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.293999 Long:-122.296044 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 0-8 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation N, Soil N, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) JUMMAKY Ur 1-INU1NUb — ATtacn site map snowing sampiing point locations, transects, important Teatures, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes El No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: test plot located in center of wetland VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Alnus rubra 2. 3. 4. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 70 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Saallno/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 2. 3. 4. 5. 70 35 = Total Cover Yes FAC 35 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Juncus e{f'sus 45 Yes FACW 2. Carex obnupta 5 No OBL 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 50 = Total Cover Wgody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. none 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply, by,: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ® Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DZ WET1 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 Vie: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains_ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Layer (if prese Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Soil sample couid not be obtained due to standing water HYDROLOGY 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Assumed hydric based on strong hydrophytic plants and hydrology indicators Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required' eck all that apply) Seconds Indicators 2 or more re iced ® Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA 1, 2, ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 413)) ® High Water Table (A2) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ 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: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report APPENDIX C PHOTODOCUMENT, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2017 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.Vl .docx Appendix C Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions Report I I 1 I I I I I I [I I 11 The following photos were taken from December 2015 to February 2017 by Talasaea staff with the intention of helping reviewers of the Existing Conditions Report become familiar with the critical areas on both the Project Site and the Mitigation Site. Wetlands delineated were part of a larger effort to document all wetlands found throughout the Federal Way Campus, LLC property in Federal Way (formerly owned by Weyerhaeuser), which explains the irregular wetland labels. Included in this photodocument are photos of the fourteen (14) wetlands, one (1) stream, typical coniferous and deciduous upland, and gravel access roads throughout the site. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 1 Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions Report PROJECT SITE (PHOTOS 1 — 32) Wetland DP (Photo 1) Photo 1. Photo taken from the access road adjacent to Wetland DP. Wetland is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra). 1 December 2017 Copyright© 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 2 .. ' +��.�, ` -� ter_ ••3� ` r •' • e �.� �. • ��L :. « _ � J � Mkt►` Y - ' , �..w. .yam �I •. •'aM- +� -��"k - j,� _ -mil -- � _ _ _ ' � Y ls• � . 1 Vr S .� �. •fir"_ii�d�l�?:7 c,•...' .. - - � 1, - low Le PRIM I y r• • �i .r . - - w . t fir: , :c � . � �; � �, _� - y s' , ► LArL 7LITIm" wj�lr s+•^ • r y .•. S+� �ir ir"�`► p: • f -4n -�11a' • aL' -y i�= 4�j � ''�►; ...:'?�, s�`• '�-Yi _ r. ;vim •n �[, � �• ' � Y � '��.:"� Y • • r .�� V '-+»� . 1 `j ... Y'S SR. •f� �• -. _ �?� `•.. wry •K7�•_ '. �w1�� Greenline Buildinas A & B Existing Conditions Report Wetland DU (Photo 8) Photo 8. Photo taken from the north side of Wetland DU, facing south. Hydrology within the wetland was about six inches deep, and is dominated by salmonberry. Wetland DW (Photo 9) Photo 9. Photo from the south side of the wetland facing north. Hydrology within the wetland was up to six inches deep. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 6 Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions I I I j Wetland DX (Photo 10) Photo 10. Panorama from the north side of the wetland facing southwest. Hydrology within the wetland was up to 10 inches deep. Wetland DY (Photo 11) Photo 11. Photo from the south side of the wetland facing north. Wetland DY met the hydrology indicator for sparsely vegetated concave surface. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 7 j Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions Report Wetland DZ (Photo 12) Photo 12. Panorama from the north side of the wetland facing southwest. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 8 Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions Wetland EB (Photos 13 —14) Photo 13. Inside the wetland facing east toward Weyerhaeuser Way South, which is approximately 30 feet in front of the photographer. The culvert pictured is the outlet for Wetland EB. Photo 14. Panorama from the north end of the wetland facing southeast. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 9 Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions Re Wetland EC (Photos 15 —16) • , may¢ S � �i SO-97 P IT M!j Photo 15. From the northeast corner looking southwest into the wetland. Photo 16. Panorama from the northwest corner facing southeast. The middle flag indicated with an arrow is the location of the test plot. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 10 Greenline Buildings A & B Existina Conditions Wetland ED (Photos 17 —18) Photo 17. Panorama along the east end of the wetland facing west. This area of the wetland is dominated by western skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus), salmonberry and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina). Photo 18. In the northwest corner of the wetland facing southeast. This area of the wetland is dominated by non -wetland vegetation such as sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and False. Lily of the Valley (Maianthemum dilitatum), but exhibits seasonal ponding and hydric soils. 1 December 2017 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page 11 �" i :>� . �-; ��'i ti - •_ " ~+ � ram' -n ;a}k�. �: sae:•_ G z� Y�..."a ��`'-� ��+ -n.-.fir.` `i• i _ ��' _ . - - ti-rc •-�r� � �. , - 'ti'• ~ j h' fir- . �I •.� .� �,..y�' ,y._ _� _ tom_ s_�'�y ��- ; �1 �E� � � 1,. •r- � .. w ..tc Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions Report rr J j Wetland EF (Photos 21 — 22) Photo 21. Panorama from the northeast corner of the wetland facing southwest. Wetland EF is dominated by salmonberry, lady fern, western skunk cabbage, and red alder. Photo 22. Western skunk cabbage in the wetland. 1 December 2017 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page 13 j Greenline Buildings A & B Conditions Report Stream EA (Photos 23 — 24) Photo 23. Panorama of the stream channel along the access road. Stream flows from left (north) to right (south). Photo 24. Panorama of the stream crossing underneath the access road in the southeast of the site. The stream flows from the right (north) to the left (south), and continues under Highway 18. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 14 L >;;� i L.�. c �- .... - Y•: _ � r fir• - _,• _ ". r ,�•� .. 010� ' - S.•'M kA��-)�5�, Yr i H�aa t`;,' fir• .." _•,'Aa« �yi`�J-"�� . :IN' k `r `Z�91r°�p_ � ��, ii•• � s �j r��ccrrf f y � � 4�r .. �e _•• , k ! 5� w.�;ty, y7�_••�'�S7�•' SL r� . ter,. .. - ' L • f �a ..ill � � _ - ��. `• '%11ai'Y `• :?+ ire.:. !lt�'•.c? �. • ¢ f '• �`� � _ — ' � � 1. i .f+ � ` - � . _ - '�.}� r � !' r ' c • :a .� � ' it � r'F IWO �'"•f ""kip: � } f S� �� • yic .0 •�� fL�`=�'Y' .;x ,�Ii f,- � � .fir • 'a_t � �'>Y..i�� "� - _ r '. racy .+orris � � _. �� s _ . :. i.� ~:'! iAl .. S I �� f � �}' • S 1 -' .Y."� � 40"1 P _;' �i"1� !!i f-�'�•P'•�� ":r ° � �r - '�•�s: tit '•a.._ •.s- 'air Y _� • � r �} ti. _ -�� `' *.'c is �G'':FI' 4 °-�.v`:= - ��` . W = =.•erg • :a r Y —��Y. . n •i��.: i7 AC 4 Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions Re Access Roads (Photos 31 — 32) Photo 31. Panoramic view from the northeast corner of the site facing southeast. Photo 32. Start of the access road in the southeast corner of the site facing southwest. Weyerhaeuser Way South is approximately 150 feet behind the photographer. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 18 Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions Report MITIGATION SITE (PHOTOS 33 — 35) Wetland BD -North (Photo 33) LAT: 47.308968 LON:-122.290318 Photo 33. Typical vegetation within Wetland BD -North includes red alaer ana salmonberry. Passive Recreation (Photo 34) Photo 34. Typical view of the passive recreation trails on the Mitigation bite. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 19 Greenline Buildings A & B Existing Conditions Report Coniferous Uplands (Photo 35) LAT: 47.29.1176 LON:-122.293394 Photo 35. Typical coniferous uplands in the Mitigation Site adjacent to the boat ramp parking area. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Photodocument (11-29-2017).docx Page 20 Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Report I APPENDIX D 1 WETLAND RATING FORMS, WASH/NGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING SYSTEM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON (2074). l 1 I 11 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Buildings A and B Existing Conditions Rpt.V1.docx Appendix D Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): U-3P-tfGIrl{LD P TGL19 7Date of site visit: 2 � � Rated by Iv. t k'A Trained by Ecology?X Yes No Date of training 3 �t HGM Class used for rating Df�rrQ,i li 'btlOL I Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY T- [based on functions Y or special characteristics ] 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 rti Category III - Total score =16 -19 Category IV -Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality I j Circle the appropriate ratings ,ite Potential H NI L H L H M andscape Potential H S L H 111 L H M �7 Value M L H �ICII� L H 1C ) L TOTAL IRa.Score Based on 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above x Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6=H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5=H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 1 Wetland name or number PF Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of• To answer questions: Figure # _ Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperlods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfrgurej D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecolo y website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfrgure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1. 1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfrgure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question B. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? Na - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. r T CIgo to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats yaur wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The wetland is on a slope (slope can be verygradual), _The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, _The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. N - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number CN�i- go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 ES The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional B. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating _ Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE lfyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have J more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number 2L DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points =1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff laver) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 () D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/l0 of area points =1 - Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondingor inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 Z Area seasonally ponded is > X total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < X total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above (o Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H �Z_6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 G D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 C) D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source 1± fxla kza$ Yes =1 No = 0 I Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H ; 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 I D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H _1= M _O = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ' DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 C; Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points =1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 3 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storaige in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H '6-11= M O-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 - D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at O >1 resiidence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes =1 No = 0 - Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H y1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems, Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest scare if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points =1 I Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points =1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is. _2-4 = H1 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 J Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site fun Ctions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowordin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of if ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points =1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if. The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or X ac to count (see textfor descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ?Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland i. Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 C 5 -19 species points =1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. (:D (: 0 ) (*) None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above r RatinH of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M -<_0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 1(rA of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]—= % I Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 ! Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = i Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) — Z S 50% of i km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above O Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6= H _1-3 = M < i = L Record the rating on therlrst page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a f Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 Site does not meet an of the criteria above points= 0 Rating of Value If score is: _2 = H �L1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on me Jirsr page 14 Wetland name or number DP WDFW Priority Habitats Rdority habitats listCd by 31DCW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List Olympia, Washington. 177 pp• littli,llw fw.w .gov/publicatign5/0Q1 5/wdfw0016S.I d r or access the list from here: http-,Ifwdfw.wa.gov/conservation,/. hsf istl) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: 0 1 d - g;-L)wtli wcsl of i inica(]L- cres-( - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover maybe less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 - see web link above). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 I FBI I Wetland name or number 11 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland Category SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Cat. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less Cat. I than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat. II —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat. I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = CategoryI No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? htt wwwl.dnr.wa. av nh refdesk datasearch wnh wetlands. df Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number bp SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 conticuou5 acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. Yes — Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland In a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat.11 —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than I/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = CategoryI No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes — Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = CategoryI No — Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = CategoryI I No — Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number= RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): aWfloUl 'C 5'7� Date of site visit: -'�� Rated by Trained by Ecology?Z Yes _No Date oftraining—I/L.P HGM Class used for ratingWetland has multiple HGM classes?_YEN NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functionsyor special characteristics ^) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I — Total score = 23 - 27 Category II —Total score = 20 - 22 Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV — Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H L H M L I H M L (Landscape Potential H L H L H L Value H M L H M L H M Score Based on IRatinas TOTAL 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6=M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number DEPRESS[ONALAND FLATS WETLANDS Water:Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to.improve .wager quality 0 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface for duff layer,) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 Q D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > Yz of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/l0 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > %: total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H X 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 I D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 D D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H -X-1 or 2 = M �0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 ml) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above r�- L� Rating of Value If score is: K_2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page '1 Wetland name or number _ 7� DEPRESSIONAL AND !FLATS WETLANDS Hvdrololl:ic Functions - indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Detoth of storage durin wet erlods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. /1 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 J The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H Y 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page 5.0. Does the landscape have the potentiafto si functions of the site? 0 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? D 5.2. is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes=1 No=O O Yes=1 No=O I l D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at O >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes =1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above ' Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H ylorZ=M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landsca a that has floodin oblems r. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score it more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 1 I Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? k O Yes=2 No=0 I Total for D 6 tating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H _1 = M f0 = L Wetland Rating System For Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Add the points in the boxes above Record the rating on the first page 6 Wetland name or number �� These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes, HABITAT FUNCTIONS - indicators that site functions to provide important habitat ,11.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the ' Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 D Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if. The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points .11.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species 5 -19 species <5.species H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats points = 2 points = 1 Points = 0 Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or I the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. (:D None = 0 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points (:0:) Low = 1 point Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 (*) C405 Moderate = 2 points 13 0 V :J Wetland name or number H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least Y. ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H l7-14 = M X0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: %undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ = % If total accessible habitat is: > I/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use <- 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity Total for H 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H -3 = M 1= L H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? points = 2 points =1 points = 0 points = (- 2) points = 0 Add the points in the boxes above Record the rating on the first page H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 Site does not meet any of the Rating of Value If score is: _2 = H _1= M _X_0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 pints = 0 0 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number -D-0 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. lz w(ifw wa Tt)v -, 3b ' a'o - l w(ffta001 5. or access the list from here: littl):Z/wdfvv.w,i.gov/cotisci-v,itioll/l)lls/listl) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and (orbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade cres[ - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number -M RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): I&AIAM d bk T 2. Date of site visit. ro Rated by J • t Trained by Ecology?,- Yes ^No Date of training HGM Class used for rating I Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y _X N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions4 or special characteristics—) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 X Category III — Total score = 16 -19 Category IV —Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Water Quality Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H L H M L 'Landscape Potential H L H L H Value N M L H L H M L :score Based on :Ratings —7 r 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6=M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5=M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L, L, L Wetland name or number ❑EPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions,- Indicators that the site functions to.improve water quality J 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. ' points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff laverl is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 b D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondine or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > Y: total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < X total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H Y6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 I D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 i D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 O D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No = 0 O Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 or 4 = H k1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 I D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Z 4 Rating of Value If score Is:�2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number DEPRESSIDNAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions -.Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4,1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 0 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage durini2 wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3, Contribution of the wetland to storaige in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class paints = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_1Z-16 = H -&-6-11 = M _u-5 = c rtecora ine runny un u1r juaL NUy= 15.0. Does the landscape have the potential -to support hydrologic functions of the site? 15.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H j�1 or 2 = M _0 = L [- 21 Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 ■ Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient, points = 1 I Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? O Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above lating of Value If score is: _2-4 = H AI=M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number DR These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - indicators that site functions to provide important habitat 11.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if. - The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points i 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 W. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points = 1 < 5 spedes points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. (:D (:: 0 :) (*) (00 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 0 2 } Wetland name or numberPR H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least Y ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of 2 strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above J7 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M X_0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ = % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon 20-33% of 1 km Polygon 10-19% of 1 km Polygon < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 3 i points = 2 I points =1 points= 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 2 <- 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above I V Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M 7L< 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 Site does not meet any of Rating of Value If score is: _2 = H _1= M X0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 nts=0 lJ Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number PR WDFW Priority Habitats Eriprity i itats listed by WQFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. 65/wdfw00165 pdf or access the list from here: littpl/wdfw.wa.i ov/cgziservatiori,(1yhs/listi) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature Forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 1S8 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). — [nstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number -P-r RATING SUMMARY Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): L S .� Date of site visit: Rated by r Trained by Ecology?A Yes _ No Date of trainingS HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y -X N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions, or Special characteristics,) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV —Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L rH H M L Landscape Potential H L H L Value M L H L H M �' TOTAL core Based on -7 tatings �O 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal III III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 1 Wetland name or number PT DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality 0 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characterlstics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. I points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface for duff laverl is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 4 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > Y2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/l0 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > Y2 total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < / total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H K6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 Q D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes =1 No = 0 O Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H _!1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 I D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 T Add the points in the boxes above 2 �}- Rating of Value If score is:_,Y2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number PT DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions .Indicators that the site.funcfivn5 to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 ~ D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetiand unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 3 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? 0 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at 0 >1 resideni urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes =1 No = 0 1 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above I Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H l or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landsca Pe that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around J the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points =1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points =1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 j There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes=2 No=O } Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above J ating of Value If score is:_2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 �J Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number �3 r These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUN&IONS = Indicators that Site function$ to provide important habitat rl 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? i H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of 'a ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed Emergent Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 4 structures or more: points = 4 3 structures: points = 2 2 structures: points =1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if., The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or X ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points i 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoll, reed canarygrass, purple toosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species 5 -19 species < 5 species H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats points = 2 points =1 points = 0 Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. CO(:0) (*) None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row _ f are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 13 Wetland name or number �� 2 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) 2 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above L�— Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H ,7-14 = M XO-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use _< 50% of 1 km Polygon is high Total for H 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M )e< 1= L points = 2 points =1 points = 0 points = (- 2) ` 2 paints = 0 Add the points in the boxes above Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 not meet f the criteria above ,tating of Value If score is: _2 = H _1= M X0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 3 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number WDFW Priority Habitats PricrU, habitats €isted by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http:/Zwdfw.wa,gQvinubjication5J00165jwdfwO0165,i)LI or access the list from here: h ttp: / / wd fkv.wa.g_ov /co nscrvati on /I)€ts/ I iI i st II) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and fortis on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-giMMgh wet of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (OAS - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Imo. RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wf,±t Gi nDU - S[ Date of site visit: 2-f�2 Rated by K-• Trained by Ecology?X Yes ,No Date of training 3 HGM Class used for rating C>e_k.P-JJ i &Iwt ! Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY _ffl- (based on functions 'Y or special characteristics--) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II —Total score = 20 - 22 Category III —Total score =16 - 19 Category IV — Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H l�jj 1 L H L H M CL 1 Landscape Potential H M L H L H M D Value t-' M L H IR L H M j TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 3 , (o 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I llI Wetland of High Conservation Value i Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal 1 II III IV None of the above X Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M, M, M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.4, H 1.2 D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin 1. D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods _ Ponded depressions H 1.2 R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDIs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 I Wetland name or number HCM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question B. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? N V - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit~ _ go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). [l - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, _The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. 0 - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, _The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number t?(A. 9 - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 (Y3E - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE lfyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number _M DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 3 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points =1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface for duff laverlaverl is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 t) D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent Qlants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/l0 of area points =1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > X total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H ZC 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 b D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes =1 No = 0 C Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H _)1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 l D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: X_2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number--M. DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 4- Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points =1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of story a durin wet eriods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet "headwater" points = 3 The wetland is a wetland points = 3 _ Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to story a in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above % U Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H X 6-11= M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 I D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 O Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above / Rating of Landscape Potential If score is _3 = H 1<_1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a iandscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the hi_4hes_t score if more than ane condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): a Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points =1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points =1 r The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? D Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above / Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 6 Wetland name or number INA These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points =1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if. The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2, Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points =1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. if you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points C,a All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number O(k H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cutshrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures far egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M X 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_= % If total accessible habitat is: 03 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 f Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points =1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) _< 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _3-3 = M _< 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above oints = 0 Rating of Value If score is:_2 = H _3 = M _O = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number _Qa WDFW Priority Habitats Priori+ babitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. wdfw v u :rs 00 5 %,vd kv 1 5 F or access the list from here: hh Eck/ /wd fw.wa.gov (cons erva do n /121s /l istl) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: w w r - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. M atu re forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number W CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check; off any criteria that apply -to the wetland. Circle the category when the,appi oOttote�criterfd',are met. - SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. I —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or Cat. II contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category 11 SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat.1 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? h[t ://www1.dnr.vva.gov/iihplrefde!ik/daLasearch/wnliowettand:&.pd'i Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes =1s a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat.1 SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ply SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section I Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. I Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II —At least '/< of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category 11 SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category 11 No - Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number )w RATING SUMMARY —Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): akvf Qy(j "j-z;j,( -- tc;? 2- Date of site visit: 2 Izz Rated by . AJ Trained by Ecology? V Yes No Date of training 3 /LI HGM Class used for rating ii�PJJI,.D?1 Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions X or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I — Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV —Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings 'Site Potential H M L i H M L H M L Landscape Potential H &L H M L H M Value R M L H M L H M L TOTAL :score Based on Ratings � � 3 l_7 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above X Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = 10,10,10 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland name or number i Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington De ressional Wetlands map of.• To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of wrap of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods Ponded depressions H 1.2 R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland {can be added to anotherfrgure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2. R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Frin a Wetlands Map of.• To answer questions: Fi re # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 L 1.2 L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 3.1, L 3.2 Slone Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure e Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number nw HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question B. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO,-' go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. N p - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). N go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), _The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, _The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. i' -go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, _The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number !vr Ng)- go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points =1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface or duff layerlayerl is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent olants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points =1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/,a of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 �. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < / total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_i2-16 = H `�6-11= M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 p D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 p D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes =1 No = 0 O Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H X1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 ml) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 U D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 I D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above -2- 3 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 5 Wetland name or number ALZ DEPRE551ONAL AND FLATS WETLAND5 Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points W 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints - 2 4-- Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet eriods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest pan:. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 2_ Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H _6-11= M _0-S = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at G >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landsca a that has flooding -problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highast score if more than one condition is met. The wet€and captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): ■ Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points =1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = i The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the , water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M O = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 `� Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number" These questiom Apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y. ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points =1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, �. ( py, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or / ac to count (see textfor descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not Include Eurasian milfail, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number I ' Z H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood Is exposed) At least X ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) 2 Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of 2 strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 14- J Rating of Site Potential If score is:_35-19 = H _7-14 = M '-' ,0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_ + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 l 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ = % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points =1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If -` 2- > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) <- 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M < 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources Q — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has i or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 not meet above Rating of Value If score is:_2 = H _1= M , X O = L Wetiand Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 =0 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number WDFW Priority Habitats Priority. habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Intp: / Jwdfw-wa.ggyJI2ttblicationsJ00 I 6S Jwdfw001 65.pdf or access the list from here: s ) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest -Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0'm), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 J Wetland name or number _ i CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria out apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes —Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Cat. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less Cat. I than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat.11 —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category 11 SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes — Go to SC 2.2 No — Go to SC 2.3 Cat. I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category1 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? h ttp://www 1. do r.wa.eovin hp/ref d e s k/d at asea rc h/wn h pwet l_a n ds. pd f Yes — Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes — Go to SC 3.3 No — Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes — Go to SC 3.3 No =1s not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category 1 bog No — Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. I SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No =1s not a bog I Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number DVV SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? if you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. I Yes — Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? if you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland -Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes — Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = CategoryI No — Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = CategoryII No — Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number 1% X, RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington y �-,� Name of wetland (or ID #): Uy =(Q i)X T,GL( - [ S;2 P, Date of site visit: , 17 Rated by N rlGt- Trained by EcoIogV? Y Yes �No Date of training 3 &I HGM Class used for rating X- j :] i (j,lo�- Wetland has multiple H G M classes'?_Y )( N NOTE: Form Is not complete without the figures requested figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY _UL (based on functions_ or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 Category III -Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H �_M) L H' M L H M L Landscape Potential H L H L H M (� Value H1 M L H Mi L H M �L) TOTAL ;Score Based on I I I 3 Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above X Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: _ _ _ Cowardin plant classes To answer questions: _ D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Figure # Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2:2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure #_ Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigld trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) 54.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 I Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number PX HCM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? [ 0 - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. �NO�goto 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). (NO go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be verygradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. @> go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number VX NOT go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine 6TE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 (YES)The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 a, Wetland name or number lax DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 -� Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points =1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface or duff laver) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 I Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points =1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1110 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondiniz or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > Y2total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points .= 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I k Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H _L_6-11= M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 (� D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 l D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 U D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes =1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H i or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the just page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES Z if there is a TMDL far the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above .3 Rating of Value If score is:_�X_ 2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 5 Wetland name or number X' DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points =1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater' wetland points = 3 ' Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed; Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above f aZ Rating of Site Potential If score is:Y_12-16 = H _6-11= M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 (] D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 I D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 = H 'Y- 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points =1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points =1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? U Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above f Rating of Value If score is:-2-4 = H �1 = M `0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form -Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 11 Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all NGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points =1 . Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 U If the unit has a Forested class, check if. The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or X ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 >: Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not Include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points =1 <5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row Y are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 13 Wetland name or number . ; ` H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. _Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland _Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least X ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures foregg-laying by amphibians) y. Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above I2, Ratine of Site Potential If score is: 1S-18 = H 7-14 = M Y-0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/21_= % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10%of 1 km Polygon paints =0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2)_= % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 ) 1 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points =1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) — 2 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above b Rating of Landscape Potential If score Is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M�< 1= L Record the rating on the first page I H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? I H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highestscore that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above Doing = Rating of Value If score is:_2 = H _1= M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number }, WDFW Priority Habitats Priodly hahi�ojs listed 13y W IN'W (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http;IIwdf►v.wa.gov/puUIkaturns/U0165f wdf►a0Q 165.pdf or access the list from here. 11tttjJWdiw.w:I.g0V/c0:lser'V• iQII /PhS /1j.5LC) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and fortis on shallow soils over bedrock — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest -Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. -- Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number f1,1 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the categpry_when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes —Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = CategoryI No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. I —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat. II —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = CategoryI No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No — Go to SC 2.3 Cat. SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category[ No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wvvwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/reLdeskLdatasearch/wnhowetiands.pdf Yes — Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its junctions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes — Go to SC 3.3 No — Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes — Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes =1s a Category I bog No — Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. 1 SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. I Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than Iha ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat.11 for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Z- RATING SUMMARY -Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): W _et[ bA h� D-- Trc-Q • I57 R Date of site visit: a /2� :Z / A o 17 Rated by • N lil4'Y A_f-A_ Trained by Ecology? X Yes No Date of training 3 � D 11, HGM Class used for rating 0,eV IU-!Ij &1,rtGWetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY -M-- (based on functionsV_or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I -Total score = 23 - 27 Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 Category III - Total score =16 -19 Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water quality Circle the appropriate ratings site Potential H ) L H L H M (1) andscape Potential H L H L H M Value H) M L H L H M TOTAL core Based on iatings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above X Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H S = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5=H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 1 Wetland name or number W- Flaps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington ❑e ressionai Wetlands Map of.• _ To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfrgure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfrgure) Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 2.4 R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (con be added to anotherfrgure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 R 3.1 R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of. To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (con be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2 0 1 S Wetland name or number DZ HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 10 go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. 6p- go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). 0- go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. 0- go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 .j Wetland name or number VZ ONO go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional. wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE lfyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points =1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface for duff laver] is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 U D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/lo of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/l0 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal_ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > Y2 total area of wetland points = 4 L� Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = Ham, 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 G� D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 r D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 U D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.37 Source Yes =1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H X_1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 I D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: �, 2-4 = H _1= M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number 1 DEPRESS)ONAL•AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 h 7 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points =1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 '2 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 3 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above D Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H X6-11= M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 O D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 I D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes =1 No = 0 O Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H X_1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the hi hest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has .damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): ■ Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points =1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points =1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number D 4'- These questions apply to wsth mds of OR 1140MCbSiM. HABITAT FUNCrIO fS - Indicators that site functions to provide important WOW H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of D. oc or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points =1 . Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 rf the unit has a Forested class, check if.• The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or X ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 .IL5easonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland C) Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 W. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian mllfoll, reed canarypross, purple loosestrlfe, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points =1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. (:D (:: 0 :) (*) ( None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number -DZ 2 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least Y ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) !� I nvasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above h Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M -4 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ = % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 I 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points =1 Undisturbed habitat < 100A of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) — 2 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above d Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _,1-3 = M :' < 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above _ paints = 0 L_ Rating of Value If score is: _2 = H _1= M fir• 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number [�� WDFW Priority Habitats Priorily1habitats listed by WQFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. fw001 fiS.nd f or access the list from here: Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (Full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: 2 i-i;E-owth west at: Casc4ide crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: Ail vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat butarenot included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere, 't-6ult� TI '6 'A-�L�[�.f�"� S D w'm t 'i t��ttf 7 r- 7• -�, �t.� 6 h c bit - Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 j Wetland name or number ' - - CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Cat.1 Yes = Category 1 No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less Cat. I than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat. II —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category 11 SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat. SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = CategoryI No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http.-/Iwwwl.dnr.wa.p,ov/nho/refdesk/datasearich/WqihDp wetlands. df Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. if you answer YES you will still need to ►nte the wetland based on its junctions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. I SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog I Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 j Wetland name or number P'7- SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. I Yes — Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat.11 — At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = CategoryI No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes — Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No — Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category I I No — Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number " RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): 5 2 Date of site visit: J 6 �l Rated by Trained by Ecology?)( Yes No Date of training-1 Ir HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y ,Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions X or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category 11— Total score = 20 - 22 �C Category III — Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV —Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H & L H M Landscape Potential H L H M L H M Value I� M L H L H M TOTAL :Score Based on � � 3 1 1 Ratings I l� 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6=M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 1 Wetland name or number 2-f3 DEPRESSIONALAND FLATSWETLANDS Watelr quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 Iis true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface ❑r duff layer d D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > Yz of area points = 3 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants >'/,[)of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondine or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > Yz total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < y total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H X6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 s� V D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 7- Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H _X_1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 f D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No-_0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 2 �{- Rating of Value If score is:X2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions ;-,Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage d u ri ng wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H _X6-11= M _0-5 = L 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to su L) 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? b 9 M01 Record the rating on the first page c functions of the site? Yes=1 No=O 10 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H _Y 1 or 2 = M _0 = L D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to II Record the rating on the first page D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest scare if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 _j The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above ating of Value If score is: _2-4 = H X1 = M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number " These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS:FUNCTIONS:r indicators that site functions:to provide important habitat .11.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Xac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30%cover) 2 structures: points =1 f Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points 11.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points =1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you hove four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. . (: (: 0 ) (*) (0 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row �7 are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 0 Wetland name or number H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. K Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M V0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitatr+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2)! = % If total accessible habitat is: fop5'I-t owl ►n rrY > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon •�-yAt SySt�1� �t-ou points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon ,rasa points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon paints = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(`Yo moderate and low intensity land uses)/21—= % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use -< 50% of 1 km Polygon is high inten Total for H 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:-4-6 = H _1-3 = M %L < 1= L 2); points = 2 points =1 points = 0 points = (- 2) 2 points = 0 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Y-J -" Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that analies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 Ci+- Hi .c not moot An of thF- f-riteria above Rating of Value If score is:_2 = H _1= M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 all 101 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number F,'� WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW_ (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. w 1'w w v ub I i ca tig nsJQ0 wd FwD Fry. )d f or access the list from here: } ttt)-:j/wtliiv.wa.gav/conserva�ioi11_1ihs11istJ_] Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest -Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number _LP lt�qff RATING SUMMARY� Western Washington EL 1 �L. 1 Name of wetland (or ID #): �i L' 1 Date of site visit: Rated by Trained by Ecology?A Yes No Date of training—IA/F HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y )( N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functionsx or special characteristics,) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 ),� Category III — Total score = 16 -19 FUNCTION Site Potential Landscape Potential Value Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15 Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings H M L H L H M RL H L H L H M M L I H M L 1 H (K4 L I TOTAL Score Based on I � I r � � l Ratings b 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H, H, L 7 = H, M, M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5=H,L,L 5=M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3=L,L,L e;� 1 01 � ( (., 1 Wetland name or number C—D / DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water.Quality E:tlnt#iuns - IndiC-a#vrs that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 3 points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface for duff layerl is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes); Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > Y: of area points = 3 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondina at inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > YZ total area of wetland points = 4 2 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H _Y 6-11= M �0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 V D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 i) D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 (, D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H X 1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 f D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is:_42-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number _F�_p DEPRESSIBNAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation J 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 ' 1 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 (�I Wetland is a flat depression ( QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet eriods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 3 lThe wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 %3 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 JJ The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above �Q Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H 6.11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 O D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at 1 0 >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is- _3 = H _.)P or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has floodin roblems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. Points = i The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? O Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above .ating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page j Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ED tip'; C' / IFP These questions apply to.wetlands.of all HGM classes. 4AB1TAT FUNCTIONS Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat .11.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of4 ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 + Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if The Forested class has 3 out of S strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polvRon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see textfor descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points .11.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 W. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species 5 -19 species <5species H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats points = 2 points = 1 [Joints = 0 Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. CO(:D (:0:) (*) None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 0 Wetland name or number � Gl f-r 13 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree 3 slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least Y. ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) ,- Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ = % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 ' 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_= % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points =1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If 2 > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M _X_< 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highestscore that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 not meet aria above noints = 0 mating of Value If score is: _2 = H X1= M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number F� WDFW Priority Habitats ' , l by W (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish_ and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. w w 3 65 ' or access the list from here: htc wdfw.wa. ov - S rva 'inn �h. ) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and fortis on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: ] - gr w i west 9,f Cascade - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or> 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enoh]c cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in ,(30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): 7 S'72.Date of site visit: f �� Rated by Trained by Ecology?k Yes �No Date of trainingLrar HGM Class used for rating DAP riy,61.�.t' Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y _XN NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions_ or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category 11— Total score = 20 - 22 Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV —Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION WaterroQuty ngHydrologic I Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings 'Site Potential H M L M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H Value M L H L H M TOTAL Score Based on r _ d t b Ratings W T 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I 11 Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H, H, H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6=M,M,M 5=H,L,L 5=M,M,L 4=M,L,L 3=L,L,L 2C,ntII Le Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS �fllater Quality Functions - Indicators that the.site furieti(Ins. tb irnprove water quality 0 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface for duff lavers is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/,a of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondiniz or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > Y2 total area of wetland points = 4 t� Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < X total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above �b Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H ,&_6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page i 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 O D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No = 0 O D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No = 0 O Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 or 4 = H _i or 2 = M �0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Z Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 1 Wetland name or number fr DEPRESSIONAL AND I=LAT5 WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 4- Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storaige during wet eriods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Ratine of Site Potential If score is: X 12-16 = H 6-21= M 0-5 = L Hecord the raring on rnelirsr page 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? Li 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 Q D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes =1 No = 0 O Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H _l or Z = M ,u = L Kecora me roung on me just purr D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points =1 i Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? O Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above lating of Value If score is: _Z-4 = H 1 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number These questions apply to .wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functivns.ta provide important habitat 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the ' Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches maybe combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 6 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2 Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points rol 11.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name n the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoll, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle C/ If you counted: > 19 species 5 -19 species <5species H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats points = 2 points =1 points = 0 Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. CO0 E) (:*) None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 13 Z Wetland name or number�i H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree 2 slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least N ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures foregg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M X_0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % If total accessible habitat is': > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33 % of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use <- 50% of 1 km Polygon is high Total for H 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H - ev1-3 = M points = 2 points =1 points = 0 points = (- 2) points = 0 Add the points in the boxes above < 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: paints = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points Site does not meet any of the na above Rating of Value If score is:_2 = = M _ 0 = L r Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number a WDFW Priority Habitats i abits t ' sted l WD FW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List, Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. ItCtf Isvdltir.wa.vn� lni�i�lir.:�tinr�sj[_]❑ 1 f3. /wdfw[]i] i [i5_l7dF or access the list from here: h�3: J Iwd I'w.wa,gn��lcnnceiva t1i711�1i15/i iSt 1) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: O!d-gi-owtli west of C;is(,a c! cr st -Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and inine tailings. Maybe associated with cliff's. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are clead or dying and exhibit Sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diaineter at breast height of > 20 iu (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 IWetland name or number _ RATING SUMMARY —Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Date of site visit.�ZZ Rated by .D�'f'r i G� Trained by Ecology?,Yes —No Date of training l HGM Class used for rating i DVNPJ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions or special characteristics^) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 Category III — Total score =16 -19 Category IV —Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings Potential H L H L H M L Iscape Potential H L H L H M L Value l M L H M L M L I TOTAL 'core Based on q � � (� tatings l 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5=H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3=L,L,L 1 Wetland name or number VJ t,•� Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1. H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Frinae Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO-goto5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO-goto7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water. Quality Functions - Indicatorsthat the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. I points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface for duff Laver} is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > Y2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants >'/lo of area points =1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <'/lo of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal oonding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. n Area seasonally ponded is > Y: total area of wetland points = 4 L Area seasonally ponded is > Y total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H _46-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes =1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Z I Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES n if there is a TMOL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 L Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is:_)� 2-4 = H �1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number _G DEPRESSIQNAL AND FIATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to.reduce flooding and;stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points - 1 (f/ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage durinp, wet eriods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H )L6-11= M _ 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 ' D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes =1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Z Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H 1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landsca Ge that has flODdi ng problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): a Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 e Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: _2-4 = H �L1 = M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number _R EK These questions apply to Wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide: important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of '4 ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points =1 -.)—(Scrub-shrub Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrugs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 $-Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 W. Different patches of the some species con be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points =1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. (D (: 0 ) (*) (0 ) None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that hove not yet weathered where wood is exposed) Y At least X ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) q Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 1 17,4) 1 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H A7-14 = M _0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ = % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M �L< 1= L H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? Record the rating on the first page H 3.1, Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Si a meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet an of the criteria above Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H _1= M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 oints = 0 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number �D WDFW Priority Habitats -� Prioi-U ha : s I istc l h r WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177pp. hlQi://wdlaw.wsr.i;�_v/putjicatinjjsj0016S/wK1-[w00.1or access the list from here: littp: �#a s r ) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade cro5- Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. M:itit� a forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). 1 lnstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (OAS - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. - Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. -� Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1593 Wetland Rating Figures Legend CD ED CD- y iCD ni 1 ' C�S 341,'st St i� f i ti Google-earth N _ Q 2016 Google I 400 ft , letland Dating Figures Legend 15OF aea", 04"=t•1r.�j 1'LYF'�4 ��C'ehally f•lor""�cle a -.00sle earth mm 2016 Google 300 ft r� S 341 st`St I � AT Q 032-8th St _ 3 � -` CO r S -330th U) �C� _ ZT �A S 332n q S -333rd "S- S 334th St f f w d � ' �37th, St S 331 CD cu f ]y MC1r:Ijr Y co li r �= �r S 342}AN SCO C S 348th St - S 349th St i co S-351 st Stro r Q, ,Coosle earth N ,; - AN C) 2016 Google 3000 ft .NN N, \ -<X ' j ■ _s_— L co w W 0 1 �z p 4v.."= 0 ` z r ill r.. Lj It fN _ { ram. 1- •� � w �1.• �~J � V.. • ~-•F - • ■ F ►' 4 `- + ji -y, :F �y1 Y 1• 1pe ir • ■ �. Imo. - .a- -"` : � � 1T'��'fi'� ; � i � _' -� � '� A a ! �r1 ` Y �1'V �� - S Y Srl �� `� � .►�y, 1 r +r • _ .f �f.. =w� 't�",'-t=tea •'!. �' I '•-. -..-- t 1 *• ' -_ • 7 � OJT - , x y � - - • , , . r,-• •air �:rck r-= l.'. �� i� � 1 1j T''i'1 iT�?lr� ! 1 } * '.l 1 -G; a - � r • ice` �=1 • �. til.•' .'t� , . / - I •�..•-. - ..� M � -' ems. �y � • . i..11 �ii � -� I:�R:� ' FL `r r+r« t'•Yt��-T .�f' S',i�; y �•. r ..tea r<5.1 •� 1 a 1 il� trAAa • f Greenline Buildings A & B PCN Submittal Attachment 4 i Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan t l j j Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Tat-1572F CRITICAL AREAS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION PLAN GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Prepared For: FEDERAL WAY CAMPUS, LLC Los Angeles, California Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington 1 December 2017 I 11 j I j Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan Greenline Buildings A and B Federal Way, Washington Prepared For: Tom Messmer Federal Way Campus, LLC 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 850 Los Angeles, California 90025 Prepared By: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 150250 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 (425) 861-7550 1 December 2017 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Greenline Buildings A and B APPLICANT: Tom Messmer, Vice President, Federal Way Campus, LLC (FWC, LLC) PROJECT LOCATION: The Project Site is two parcels (King Country Parcel numbers 614250- 0005 and 614260-0200) located in Federal Way, Washington. The coordinates for the center of the Project Site are 47.296307,-122.294154. The Project Site is 28.7 acres in size. The Public Land Survey System location of the Project Site is Section 21, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. The Mitigation Site is a portion of King Country Parcel 152104-9178 located in Federal Way, Washington. The coordinates for the center of the Mitigation Site are 47.307676,-122.289997. The Public Land Survey System location of the Mitigation Site is Section 16, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. PROJECT STAFF: Bill Shiels, Principal; Ann Olsen, RLA, Senior Project Manager; Jennifer Marriott, PWS, Senior Ecologist; David Teesdale, PWS, Senior Ecologist; Richard Tveten, Senior Ecologist; Kristen Numata, Ecologist. PURPOSE: This report is intended to outline the proposed project, proposed impacts to critical areas, the on -site mitigation elements, and the off -site mitigation elements to compensate for wetland fill within the Project Site. Details on existing conditions can be found in the Existing Conditions Report, dated 1 December 2017 by Talasaea Consultants. PROPOSED PROJECT: FWC, LLC is proposing to develop two (2) buildings, Buildings A and B, on the Project Site. The proposed buildings will be approximately 225,000 square feet (sf) and 214,050 sf, respectively, with the associated infrastructure, parking, and stormwater facilities. A City -required 50-foot wide Managed Forest Buffer (MFB) along Weyerhaeuser Way S, expanded to 100-feet along Highway 18, will be maintained. ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: The proposed site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas to the greatest extent practicable while meeting the criteria for development of a viable project and conforming to the City of Federal Way standards and zoning. In attempting to avoid wetland impacts, several different configurations were evaluated to find the best fit for the project needs. Despite these efforts, some impacts to critical areas are unavoidable in order to achieve an economically viable project. IMPACTS SUMMARY: Construction of the proposed buildings and stormwater pond would directly impact (fill) 9,922 sf of wetlands. Buffer reduction with averaging will be used for on -site wetland buffers to compensate for unavoidable site development encroachments. Compensation for direct wetland fill will be compensated for through wetland creation at the off - site Mitigation Site. No compensation for wetland fill is required by the City of Federal Way per a zoning agreement between the Applicant and the City of Federal Way, and is only provided for the Corps and Ecology. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bidgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page i Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan MITIGATION PLAN: Wetland fill will be mitigated for through a multi -part mitigation plan including elements of wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer restoration and enhancement. Wetland creation is currently proposed at a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation proposed includes: • Off -Site Wetland Creation 19,844 square feet ■ Off -Site Wetland Enhancement 27,002 square feet ■ Off -Site Wetland Buffer Creation 77,113 square feet r • On -Site Buffer Enhancement 160,697 square feet e CRITICAL AREA PROTECTION: Fencing and signage will be installed around the critical area buffer perimeters on the Project Site to clearly delineate the buffer boundaries. Critical areas signs meeting Federal Way requirements will be installed at 150-foot intervals along the buffer boundaries. No fencing is proposed at the Mitigation Site, as this site is located within a forested area that will remain undeveloped. There is an existing chain link fence along the property boundary adjacent to the boat ramp road that will remain. PERFORMANCE MONITORING: All critical area mitigation will be constructed prior to or concurrent with site development activities. Performance monitoring for a minimum of 5 years for the City of Federal Way for on -site buffer enhancement work is proposed, while the wetland creation and associated activities on the Mitigation Site will be monitored for a minimum of 10 years for the Corps of Engineers. Performance monitoring and maintenance will commence following mitigation construction completion. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bidgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page ii Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ......................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ................... "' Listof Tables...................................................................................................................iv Chapter1. Introduction................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of Report ...............................................................................1 1.2 Statement of Accuracy........................................................................1 1.3 Qualifications.......................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project....................................................................................... 2 2.1 Proposed Project.................................................................................2 2.2 Stormwater Treatment......................................................................... 2 Chapter 3. Impacts Analysis........................................................................................ 2 3.1 Critical Areas Impact Summary ........................................................... 2 3.2 Buffer Impact Summary ....................................................................... 3 3.2.1 Standard Mitigation Measures.............................................................4 3.2.2 Indirect Wetland Impacts..................................................................... 5 3.3 Mitigation Sequencing......................................................................... 7 3.4 Site Development Alternatives............................................................ 8 3.5 Mitigation Analysis...............................................................................9 3.6 Listed Species Assessment............................................................... 11 Chapter 4. Proposed Mitigation................................................................................. 11 4.1 Agency Policies and Guidance..........................................................11 4.2 Mitigation Summary ...........................................................................12 4.3 Watershed Approach.........................................................................12 4.4 Proposed Mitigation Plan................................................................... 13 4.4.1 Wetland Creation (Mitigation Site).....................................................13 4.4.2 Wetland Enhancement (Mitigation Site)............................................14 4.4.3 Wetland Buffer Creation (Mitigation Site) .......................................... 14 4.4.4 Wetland Buffer Enhancement (Project Site) .................. 4.5 Mitigation Design Elements............................................................... 4.5.1 Hydrologic Support ............................................................................ 15 4.5.2 Grading..............................................................................................15 4.5.3 Plantings............................................................................................15 4.5.4 Habitat Features................................................................................15 4.5.5 Fencing and Signage........................................................................15 4.5.6 Temporary Irrigation System.............................................................16 4.5.7 Construction BMPs............................................................................16 Chapter 5. Mitigation Goals, Objectives, & Performance Standards .........................17 5.1 Goals ...........................--------------...............................................17 5.2 Objectives & Performance Standards...............................................17 5.3 Mitigation Construction Sequencing..................................................19 5.4 Post -Construction Approval............................................................... 20 5.5 Post -Construction Assessment......................................................... 20 Chapter 6. Monitoring Plan........................................................................................ 20 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page iii Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan 1 7 M 6.1 Monitoring Schedule..........................................................................20 6.2 Monitoring Reports............................................................................ 21 6.3 Monitoring Methods...........................................................................21 6.3.1 Methods for Monitoring Wetland Creation ......................................... 21 6.3.2 Methods for Monitoring Vegetation Establishment ............................ 22 6.4 Photo Documentation........................................................................ 23 6.5 Wildlife...............................................................................................23 6.6 Water Quality..................................................................................... 23 6.7 Site Stability....................................................................................... 23 Chapter 7. Maintenance Guidelines.......................................................................... 23 Chapter 8. Contingency Measures............................................................................ 24 Chapter 9. Financial Guarantee................................................................................ 24 Chapter10. Summary ................................................................................................. 24 Chapter11. References........................................................................................ 26 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2. Critical Areas Impacts Overview — Project Site Figure 3. Critical Areas Impacts Legend — Project Site Figure 4. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 1 Figure 5. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 2 Figure 6. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 3 Figure 7. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 4 Figure 8. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 5 Figure 9. Mitigation Overview Map — Project Site Figure 10. Existing Conditions — Mitigation Site Figure 11. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Overview Figure 12. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Grading Plan Figure 13. Conceptual Plant Communities Plan Figure 14. Conceptual Plant Communities Legend LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Critical Areas Impact Analysis.......................................................................... Table 2. Summary of Wetland Creation Required...................................................... 13 Table 3. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events ... 21 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page iv Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report This report is intended to outline the proposed development of Greenline Warehouses A and B, including critical area impacts and on- and off -site mitigation. See the Existing Conditions Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated 1 December 2017, for a summary of existing site conditions on both the Project and Mitigation Sites. This report has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) guidelines. This report will provide and describe the following information: • Proposed project; ■ Assessment of development impacts; • Impacts summary; • Proposed mitigation; • Site specific goals, objectives, and performance standards; • Monitoring plan; • Maintenance plan and contingency; and • Financial guarantees. 1.2 Statement of Accuracy Stream and wetland characterizations and ratings were conducted by trained professionals at Talasaea Consultants, Inc., and adhered to the protocols, guidelines, and generally accepted industry standards available at the time the work was performed. The conclusions in this report are based on the results of analyses performed by Talasaea Consultants and represent our best professional judgment. To that extent and within the limitation of project scope and budget, we believe the information provided herein is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. Talasaea does not warrant any assumptions or conclusions not expressly made in this report, or based on information or analyses other than what is included herein. 1.3 Qualifications Field investigations and evaluations were conducted by Talasaea staff including: Bill Shiels, Principal; Ann Olsen, RLA, Senior Project Manager; Jennifer Marriott, PWS, Senior Ecologist; David R. Teesdale, PWS, Senior Wetland Ecologist; Richard Tveten, Senior Ecologist; and Kristen Numata, Ecologist. Bill Shiels has a Bachelor's Degree in Biology from Central Washington University and a Master's Degree in Biological Oceanography from the University of Alaska. He has over 40 years of experience in wetland delineations and mitigations. Wetland mitigation design was prepared by Ann Olsen, Registered Landscape Architect, License #777. Ann has over 24 years in environmental planning, mitigation and landscape design, and project management. She serves as the firm's lead landscape architect and has successfully designed and implemented over 400 wetland/stream/shoreline mitigation projects in the Pacific Northwest for both the public and private sectors. Jennifer Marriott has a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree in Biology from University of Central Florida, and a second Master's Degree in Soil and Environmental Science from the University of Florida. She has over 13 years of experience in wetland delineations and 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 1 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan environmental permitting. David Teesdale has a Bachelor's Degree in Biology from Grinnell College, Iowa, and a Master's Degree in Ecology from Illinois State University. He has 20 years of experience in wetland delineations and biological evaluations. Richard Tveten has a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Biology from Western Washington University with a focus on terrestrial ecology and fire ecology, respectively. Richard has worked for the public and private sectors for 20 years in wetlands, water quality, and forest management. Kristen Numata has a Bachelor's Degree in Biology and Environmental Science from Santa Clara University. CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1 Proposed Project FWC, LLC is proposing to develop two (2) buildings, Buildings A and B, on the Project Site. The proposed buildings will be approximately 225,000 square feet (sf) and 214,050 sf, respectively, with the associated infrastructure, parking, and stormwater facilities. A City -required 50-foot wide Managed Forest Buffer (MFB) along Weyerhaeuser Way S, expanded to 100-feet along Highway 18, will be maintained. 2.2 Stormwater Treatment A stormwater quality control and detention pond is proposed along the south property line to address stormwater treatment and detention needs for the Project. Stormwater will be collected from the Site and conveyed to the stormwater facility through a drainage easement outside of the protected natural areas. Treated stormwater will be conveyed east to connect to the same outfall where the area drainage currently discharges under Highway 18. The stormwater facilities will be designed to meet the 2016 King County Stormwater Manual, which is comparable to the current DOE Water Quality Standards. An approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESCP) and/or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be in place prior to the start of construction and will remain in place throughout all earthmoving activities. The following BMPs are proposed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): silt fence and native growth protection fence (possibly combined into just orange silt fence), stake and wire fence (around dripline of trees to be retained), stabilized construction entrance, two temporary sedimentation ponds, storm drain inlet protection (for existing and proposed open lid catch basins), temporary and permanent seeding, mulching, sodding, dust control, straw waddles, interceptor dike and swales, as well as outlet protection. Other measures may be implemented as deemed appropriate for the site conditions and/or as directed by City inspectors. CHAPTER 3. IMPACTS ANALYSIS 3.1 Critical Areas Impact Summary Thirteen wetlands, one regulated stream, and one non -regulated upland -excavated ditch were identified on the Project Site. Construction of the proposed development would directly impact 9,922 sf (0.23-acres) of wetlands for the two buildings, parking, and a stormwater facility. No impacts are proposed below the ordinary high water mark 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 2 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan of the on -site stream. The remaining wetlands will be retained in their current conditions. Table 1 below outlines the Project Site wetlands, their total size, and their proposed impact acreage. The proposed wetland impacts are the minimum required in order to construct and provide access around the warehouse buildings. These wetland impacts are exempt from Federal Way regulations, consistent with Section XII.H.3 of the Concomitant Agreement between the Applicant and the City of Federal Way (please see the Existing Conditions Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated 1 December 2017, for more details). While no mitigation is required to offset wetland impacts through the City of Federal Way, mitigation for these impacts will be addressed through Corps and DOE permitting. One wetland (Wetland BD -North) occurs within the Mitigation Site that is associated with the proposed wetland creation. Wetland BD -North will be enhanced as part of the proposed mitigation. Table 1. Critical Areas Impact Analysis Feature ID Wetland Size (sf) Direct Impacts — Fill (sfl Wetland DP 300 0 Wetland DQ* 703 0 Wetland DR* 3,240 0 Wetland DT* 2,430 0 Wetland DU 373 373 Wetland DW 446 446 Wetland DX 392 392 Wetland DZ 59 59 Wetland EB* 1,601 1,601 Wetland EC* 821 821 Wetland ED* 3,234 3,234 Wetland EE* 1,881 1,881 Wetland EF* 1,115 1,115 TOTAL 9,922 'Wetlands were included within Corps Permit NWS-2016-443, and proposed impacts to these wetlands have not changed from this permit. 3.2 Buffer Impact Summary For permitting with the City of Federal Way, buffers will be applied consistent with the 1994 Federal Way City Code (FWCC), which prescribes a standard 100-foot setback to all wetlands (Article XIV, Division 7, Section 22-1357) and 50-foot setback to all minor streams (Article XIV, Division 5, Section 22-1306). The 1994 FWCC uses the term "setback" rather than the currently accepted term "buffer". This is different from building 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 3 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan setbacks, which can be required in addition to standard critical area buffers. This buffer width will only be applied to critical areas remaining in the post -development condition. A minimum buffer of 50-feet will be maintained for all wetlands post -development, and minimum 25-feet for Stream EA. The remaining buffer areas will be provided back through buffer averaging, such that the final wetland area will remain consistent with the full 100-foot buffer. While this minimum buffer width is less than the standard 80-foot buffer required according to Table 4. Width of Buffers Needed to Protect Category 111 Wetlands in the Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Joint Agency Guidance, Part 1), the final post -development buffers will not negatively impact these unimpacted wetlands. Buffer reduction with averaging will be used for Wetlands DQ, DT, and DR and Stream EA to compensate for unavoidable site development encroachments. Approximately 11,027 sf of wetland buffer will reduced and 19,248 sf of wetland buffer will be replaced, for a net gain of 8,221 sf of wetland buffer. Approximately 2,951 sf of stream buffer area will reduced and 3,023 sf of buffer area will be replaced, for a net gain of 72 sf of stream buffer. The reduced buffers will be replaced immediately adjacent to the existing buffers such that the total buffer area in the post -development condition will be no less than the pre -development buffer area. Minor impacts from construction will result in 4,484 sf of temporary buffer impacts for site development grading adjacent to Stream EA and Wetlands DQ and DR that will be restored post -construction. These areas will be fill slopes from Site construction that will be replanted afterwards. All temporary buffer impacts will be the minimum necessary to construct the project infrastructure. These temporary construction impacts occur outside of the minimum 50-foot and 25-foot buffers for Wetlands DQ, DR, and DT and Stream EA but are still included within the final buffers as these areas will be restored post -development. In total, the construction of the project will result in approximately 4,484 sf of temporary impacts to wetland and stream buffers. 3.2.1 Standard Mitigation Measures In addition to buffer averaging, the DOE standard mitigation measures will be used to further reduce impacts to the on -site wetlands remaining. These standard mitigation measures include addressing 1) lights, 2) noise, 3) toxic runoff/stormwater runoff/change in water regime, and 4) pets and human disturbance. 1. Lights — Lighting around parking areas will be directed away from the remaining wetlands onsite. 2. Noise — The remaining wetlands are already located adjacent to a heavily used city road and will continue to be exposed to this same road noise. A proposed buffer enhancement plan will provide a denser buffer around the remaining wetlands, and this should serve to buffer the wetlands from existing noise concerns to the greatest extent practicable. 3. Toxic Runoff/Stormwater runoff/change in water regime - A new stormwater system designed to the current King County standards will be installed for this project. All runoff from the project site will be routed through the stormwater system, and will be treated before being used to rehydrate the remaining 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 4 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan wetlands. Clean roof runoff will be routed as well to the remaining wetlands through their adjacent buffers to hydrate the wetland systems in the post - development condition. 4. Pets and Human Disturbance — Critical area fencing and dense plantings of native tree and shrub species will be added to the remaining wetland and buffer areas to prevent human intrusions into the buffer/wetland areas. Pets and children are not expected on or near the Site as this is a commercial development and no community parks or other facilities are in close proximity to the project site. 3.2.2 Indirect Wetland Impacts Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (2005, Ecology Publication #05-06-008) identifies four (4) primary factors that should be considered when determining an appropriate buffer width: • Quality, sensitivity, and functions of the aquatic resource; • Nature of adjacent land use activity and its potential for impacts on the aquatic resource; Character of the existing buffer area (including soils, slope, vegetation, etc.); and Intended functions of the buffer. Quality. sensitivity,- and functions of the aquatic resource The aquatic resources remaining include Wetlands DR and DT, which are excavated wetlands that appear at least partially man-made in origin. Weyerhaeuser Way South is adjacent to the east side of the wetlands. Wetland DR appears to tie into the existing stormwater facilities within the road for its outlet, while Wetland DT discharges into an existing swale associated with the Highway 18 right-of-way. Species diversity within these wetlands is low with typical plant species including willows and Douglas spirea. Almost no herbaceous vegetation occurs within the wetlands. Wetlands DR and DT are not unique systems nor sensitive systems, but rather are low quality systems that generally only function for water quality and water storage. These wetlands have limited opportunities to provide habitat features for commonly occurring species, and do not provide habitat for any listed species. There are no streams or lakes in close proximity, and the connection from these wetlands to the nearest stream run through a series of swales, ditches, culverts, and pipes before encountering an open stream system. No wildlife was observed using Wetlands DR or DT directly, though bullfrogs were identified within other wetland systems on adjacent sites. Several species of songbird were observed in the general vicinity of the Project Site. Mountain beaver holes were observed at several locations nearer the Douglas fir onsite, and signs of coyote were recently observed. There is a known coyote den offsite to the south and west of the Site near the rhododendron garden (approximately 3,000 feet from the subject wetland). 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 5 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan Nature of adjacent land use activity and its potential for impacts on the a uatic resource This area in and around the project site is zoned as Commercial Park (CP-1), and allows for corporate offices, research facilities, warehousing and distribution, production and light assembly of goods, etc. While there are large areas of undeveloped land in proximity to the Site, all of this land will potentially be developed in the near future as the land recently changed ownership from a single ownership to a new owner who will be subdividing the property into manageable parcels. The adjacent areas to the east and south are already developed as office parks. In addition, a large portion of the area uphill from Wetland DR is currently used as a landscape maintenance yard for debris disposal and materials storage. Runoff from this facility moves downhill towards Wetland DR. Character of the existinq buffer area(including soils sloe vegetation, etc. The existing buffer adjacent to Wetlands DR and DT is a mix of a native canopy with an understory mixed with native and invasive plant species. Weyerhaeuser Way South occurs adjacent to the wetlands to the east, so the buffer is only partially intact in its current condition. English ivy and Himalayan blackberry are common understory components within the existing buffer. Other species present within the understory include salmonberry, young red alder, vine maple, and red elderberry. The canopy is primarily western red cedar with some red alder present. A few larger individual black cottonwood trees exist in the vicinity as well, though they are far less common. Douglas fir are present at the higher (drier) elevations on the site. Consolidated till occurs typically at fairly shallow depths throughout this area — as shallow as 3 feet in places and closer to 6-8 feet in others, based on the geotechnical borings. There are no steep slopes in the area, and the area within the buffer is gently sloping from north to south, more or less, with minor variations in the contours present onsite. Intended functions of the buffer The existing buffer functions primarily for protection against water quality concerns, as well as protecting the wetland from potential contaminants from the adjacent land uses. The designed stormwater treatment system for the proposed development will address and compensate for most, if not all, water quality functions performed by the existing upland buffer. The incorporation of a full stormwater management system for the new development will greatly contribute towards the protection of Wetlands DR and DT from water quality impacts. However, Wetlands DR and DT will continue to interact with Weyerhaeuser Way South due to the close proximity of the wetlands to the road outside of the project area. Our buffer enhancement will protect these wetlands from negative contributions from those portions of the buffer occurring within the project area. Ultimately, the final buffer for Wetlands DR and DT and other remaining wetlands will be a net gain of adjacent buffer habitat realigned into a densely vegetated corridor barring a single access road. The entire remaining portions of the wetland buffers, plus all areas added for buffer averaging, will be enhanced through removal of invasive plant species and plantings of native trees and shrubs. Areas adjacent to development will be more densely planted to ensure a more immediately effective buffer to address habitat concerns. The proposed plantings will increase species diversity within the remaining buffer areas, as 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 6 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan well as provide protections to the wetland from encroachments from human activities. The remaining wetlands will be maintained as part of a larger forested buffer that will connect these wetlands with other forested areas so that a corridor will be formed that local wildlife can use. The proposed buffer enhancement will improve the quality of upland habitat and available forage and cover for enhanced wildlife usage. Based on the foregoing details, we feel we can achieve the equivalent buffer functions through the construction and management of the proposed stormwater management plan and densely vegetated planted buffer. 3.3 Mitigation Sequencing All agencies involved require that a sequence of actions be taken for proposals that will impact wetlands or waters of the U.S. This is referred to as mitigation sequencing. It is regulated under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) administered by DOE, as well as under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, administered by the Corps. The mitigation sequencing requirements are: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts. 3. Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. 6. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. During the site planning process, every effort was undertaken to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to critical areas to the maximum extent practicable while still allowing for an economically viable development and conforming to City of Federal Way requirements. However, these buildings have large rectangular footprints that do not lend themselves well to alternative configurations. The size and exact locations of the buildings have been adjusted to the greatest extent practicable to minimize wetland impacts. All of the proposed wetland impacts are necessary in order to meet the requirements for building, parking, stormwater facilities, and access for emergency services and trucks. The proposed development plan avoids impacting the largest and highest quality wetlands. The majority of the wetlands to be filled are relatively low -quality depressional systems that appear to have been created by poor land management activities in the last few decades and in conjunction with development over the years in adjacent areas. Every effort was taken to avoid wetlands that rated as higher quality, higher functioning wetlands. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 7 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan 3.4 Site Development Alternatives Per USACE Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, analysis of site development alternatives, including a No Development alternative, must be provided for review. We analyzed several site development alternatives for the Greenline Buildings A and B project. These alternatives reflect the avoidance and minimization sequencing steps as outlined in USACE Section 404(b)(1). The Site is zoned as Commercial Park, and is intended for a variety of commercial uses. The Project Site's proximity to both Interstate 5 and Highway 18 makes this an ideal location for commercial developments requiring any type of regular truck access. Alternative 1— No Action Under Alternative 1, existing plant communities, wildlife, and critical areas (wetlands, streams, and buffers) would continue in their present condition. No significant changes in habitat, species, or wetland functions and values would be expected other than those changes that might occur due to natural processes. Under this alternative, we expect that patches of existing non-native species, such as English ivy, will likely increase in density and size while spreading to the favorable growing conditions in open areas in the remainder of this Site. Existing gravel fill would remain within the onsite road system, which will continue to impede water movement and provide limited habitat elements for wildlife and water quality improvements. Alternative 2 — Original Site Plans The previously approved site plan under NWS-2016-443 was for a larger warehouse building with a stormwater pond south of the main building. Prior to this site plan, several earlier iterations evaluated different locations for the stormwater pond and parking geometry to meet local requirements. These alternatives had greater critical area impacts for the site footprint, as well as impinging more on the buffers of remaining wetlands. None of these initial iterations were considered suitable for a variety of reasons. Alternative 3 — Preferred Site Plan Alternative 3 is the preferred site plan that is reflected in this report and attached figures. This Site Plan is a reduced building footprint from what was previously proposed and permitted for Building A. Building B was not previously part of this Site development, but is now included with this application. Both buildings have been sized based on the demands of the market, and with the change in tenant, smaller buildings were determined to be appropriate. Efforts were taken to maximize the preservation of existing trees along the perimeter of the Site. The project design team has evaluated various building configurations on the property to finalize a design that avoids as many wetlands as possible while still functioning for the end user and the overall development purpose. With this site being zoned for commercial use, it is expected that any other similar type of warehouse/distribution use would be held to the same standards resulting in similar, if not more, impacts to the wetlands located on this Site. Unfortunately, industrial and 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 8 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan warehouse uses typically have large, rectangular footprints and need flat sites in order to meet the needs of these users. It is often infeasible to break these large footprints up into smaller structures and remain an efficient operation. Additional impacts have been reduced by combining the infrastructure of these two buildings, including using a single stormwater pond. This alternative would impact approximately 9,922 sf (0.23-ac.) of wetlands to accommodate the proposed warehouse building, associated infrastructure, and stormwater pond. Impacts to wetlands would be compensated through implementation of the proposed mitigation plan. 3.5 Mitigation Analysis The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers establishes a three-part process of mitigation sequencing to help guide mitigation decisions and determine the type and level of mitigation required to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Two additional steps are included to ensure that mitigation projects successfully achieve the design goal of no net loss of wetland functions and values. These steps are listed below in order or preference. The mitigation analysis guidelines are listed below, followed by a discussion (in italic text) of how the proposed project meets each criterion. i. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; The project cannot avoid impacts to some wetlands by avoiding certain actions or parts of actions and still have a viable project. The large, rectangular footprint of the buildings precludes any creative site planning that might avoid centrally located wetlands. Additionally, necessary project components, such as parking, roads, landscaping, and stormwater facility, take up additional project area. All of the wetlands proposed to be impacted are of relatively low quality, depressional features that mostly appear to have developed over the past several decades because of poor land management practices by the previous property owner. ii. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; The Greenline Buildings A and B project has been designed to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams to the maximum extent practicable, while maintaining a developable area suitable for a viable warehouse project. The size and scope of the necessary building space, infrastructure, and stormwater needs precludes much variability with avoiding wetland and stream impacts. Every effort was taken to avoid higher quality wetlands, and focus the necessary critical area impacts to those lower functioning wetlands. Several site plan iterations were evaluated to balance the needs of the Project against the constraints of the Site. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 9 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan iii. Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; The majority of the affected environment will not be able to be re-established, rehabilitated, or restored, nor are impacts to uplands generally regulated that would require such rehabilitation or restoration. The identified wetland impacts on the site will be permanent, and compensatory mitigation will be provided to offset those impacts. Opportunities do exist to enhance the remaining critical areas on site through buffer enhancement and restoration, though the majority of the compensatory mitigation will occur north of the Site near North Lake. Reduced stream and wetland buffers, as well as temporary construction impacts, will be restored on -site. iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Permanent impacts to critical areas cannot be reduced or eliminated over time. However, those critical areas that will remain in proximity to the new development will be protected over time through maintenance of their buffers and by ensuring their boundaries are clearly demarcated to prevent human intrusions. Mitigation activities include off -site wetland creation and enhancement and on - site buffer enhancement. Wetland creation and enhancement areas will be monitored for a minimum of 10 years with maintenance activities continuing beyond that time. The on -site buffer enhancement activities being provided to address City -related concerns will be monitored for a minimum of 5 years for the City of Federal Way. These areas are expected to function as a natural system and long-term maintenance is expected to be minimal. The stormwater facilities will be maintained as needed in the long-term. V. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. The Project proposes to compensate for wetland impacts by creating wetlands adjacent to existing wetlands off -site, further outlined below. Additionally, proposed buffer enhancement on the Site will provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical areas. Temporary impacts due to construction activities will be restored after construction to their pre -development condition. vi. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. The proposed on -site mitigation requires a performance monitoring and maintenance program for a minimum of 5 years for the proposed buffer enhancement. The proposed off -site mitigation requires a performance monitoring and maintenance program for a minimum of 10 years for the 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 10 Greenline Buildinas A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan proposed wetland creation and enhancement. The monitoring and maintenance plan will include goals and objectives for the mitigation plan, success criteria for which the mitigation will be assessed, a contingency plan in case of failure, and proof of a written contract with a qualified professional who will perform the monitoring program (see below). The monitoring program requires at least two (2) site visits per year by a qualified professional, with annual progress reports submitted to the Planning Official and all other agencies with jurisdiction. 3.6 Listed Species Assessment The proposed project was evaluated for potential impacts to listed species. The federally listed species potentially affected by this project would be salmonids. Project runoff and water quality concerns are the primary source of potential impacts, and those will be fully addressed before any Project Site runoff reaches a salmonid-bearing stream. The project will meet or exceed the current stormwater standards, and will be using the 2016 King County Stormwater Manual. The discharge from the proposed permanent stormwater detention pond will be designed to meet existing, pre -development conditions. The water discharged from the onsite stormwater pond will then flow through approximately 3,000 linear feet of swales, culverts, and wetlands before discharging into a fish -bearing stream. We assume that any discharges from our Site will reach ambient temperatures before this water is discharged into a fish bearing water. Stormwater flows through this conveyance pathway are expected to provide extensive additional polishing of the water exiting the project site to ensure no adverse water quality impacts to any fish species. Specifically for concrete handling and keeping pH within the required range, we are proposing concrete handling, saw cutting and surfacing pollution prevention, construction stormwater filtration, and construction stormwater chemical treatment (if needed, with prior written approval from DOE). As no listed species occur on or adjacent to the project site, we do not anticipate noise impacts to be a problem during construction. The nearest known species is a bald eagle whose nest may or may not occur approximately 1,300 linear feet east of the project site, adjacent to an existing office park. It is unlikely the proposed project would affect this nest due to the distance and developed features existing between the proposed development and the nest. CHAPTER 4. PROPOSED MITIGATION 4.1 Agency Policies and Guidance The proposed mitigation plan was designed in accordance with the policies and guidance provided in the following documents: ■ The Federal Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule (Title 33 CFR 325 and 332, April 10, 2008), and Title 40 CFR 230.93), effective June 9, 2008; 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 11 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Publication #06-06-011 a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, and Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1), dated March 2006; and Critical Areas Regulations set forth in the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Chapter 15 Shoreline Management (City of Federal Way, 2017). 4.2 Mitigation Summary Mitigation measures for the proposed development are provided in two parts. On -site mitigation is provided to offset the reduced buffers of non -filled wetlands that will remain in the post -development condition to include replacing reduced buffers and enhancing the remaining buffers, as appropriate (Figures 9-10). Off -site mitigation will include wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and wetland buffer creation (Figures 11-15). 9 Off -Site Wetland Creation 19,844 square feet • Off -Site Wetland Enhancement 27,002 square feet ■ Off -Site Wetland Buffer Creation 77,113 square feet • On -Site Buffer Enhancement 160,697 square feet 4.3 Watershed Approach Selecting a mitigation site using a watershed approach is a step -wise process of determining both the suitability and sustainability of a potential mitigation site within the landscape. The process aims to guide potential mitigation to those areas within the landscape where success is most likely to occur. The process is outlined in "Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach" (Hruby, et al., 2009). A watershed plan does not exist for this area. This mitigation site was chosen based on its availability (under same ownership) as well as its connectivity to other critical areas, consistent with the watershed approach. The King County In -Lieu -Fee Program (ILF) was considered for mitigation, but this program is cost -prohibitive, especially when suitable mitigation sites are both in close proximity to the impact areas and already under ownership of the Applicant. The proposed mitigation area is closer to the proposed impacts than what the ILF could provide, given the extent of Applicant -owned lands, and ensure wetland compensation remains within proximity to the impacts and within the same watershed. North Lake is a Shoreline of the State with existing adjacent wetlands. The proposed location of the mitigation overlaps an area that was formerly a beachfront recreational facility back in the 1950s that has since been left to revegetate naturally. Many of the soils are highly disturbed, very compact, and despite the years that have passed, trees and shrubs in this area are generally in poor condition and stunted. The area has not regrown as densely as one might expect in the intervening years. A sewer easement passes through this area, which has been avoided by the proposed mitigation. The mitigation design uses intercepted surface water from the uphill areas within existing flow ways where water currently flows during the rainy season. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 12 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan 4.4 Proposed Mitigation Plan Mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts will be achieved through wetland creation and enhancement, as well as buffer creation, to replace the functions and values of the wetlands impacted by the development. The acreage of mitigation for direct wetland impacts was derived using the ratios provided within Table 1 a of Chapter 6.5 of Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a) and reflected in Table 2 below. Table 2. Summary of Wetland Creation Required Wetland ID 2014 DOE Rating Category Wetland Size Square Feet Wetland Impact Square Feet Wetland Creation DOE/FWRC Square feet of Creation Ratios for Required to Creation offset impact DP III 300 0 2:110 2:1 2:1 0 0 DQ III 703 _ 0 DR ill 3,240 0 DT III 2,430 Ij 0 2:1 0 DU III 373 373 2:1 746 DW III 446 446 2:1 892 DX 111 392 392 2:1 784 DZ III 59 59 2:1 118 EB III 1,601 1,601 2:1 3,202 EC III 821 821 2:1 1,642 ED III 3,234 3,234 2:1 6,468 EE III 1,881 1,881 2:1 3,762 EF I!I 1,115 1,115 2:1 2,230 Totals 9,922 19,844 4.4.1 Wetland Creation (Mitigation Site) A wetland complex will be created around the west side of Wetland BD -North (Figure 11). The created wetland will be near North Lake but will not hydrologically connect directly to North Lake (Figure 12). Palustrine emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested wetland will be created. Wetland creation will include the following measures: 1) Clearing and grubbing all invasive, non-native weedy species in the wetland creation areas; 2) Grading to create a series of shallow depressions within upland areas. Hydrology will be provided by early growing season groundwater and interception of surface water flows; 3) Backfilling with organic soils, as determined necessary; 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 13 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan 4) Installation of habitat features such as rootwads, down logs, stumps, and snags with bird nesting and bat roosting boxes; and 5) Planting a variety of wet -adapted native tree, shrub, and emergent species to provide structural diversity and increased species diversity to the wetland system. 4.4.2 Wetland Enhancement (Mitigation Site) Wetland BD -North will be enhanced through minor regrading and plantings of native woody trees, shrubs, and emergent species as part of the adjacent wetland creation activities (Figure 12). 1) Grading within the outer portions of the wetland adjacent to the created wetland to tie in the new wetland contours to the natural wetland. 2) Backfilling with organic soils, as determined necessary. Any soils removed as part of the regrading will be stockpiled and reused in the new wetlands; 3) Installation of habitat features such as rootwads, down logs, stumps, and snags with bird nesting and bat roosting boxes; and 4) Planting a variety of wet -adapted native tree, shrub, and emergent species to provide structural diversity and increased species diversity to the wetland system. 4.4.3 Wetland Buffer Creation (Mitigation Site) Wetland buffer is proposed to be created/enhanced around the wetland creation area (Figure 12). Wetland buffer enhancement will include the following measures: 1) Clear and grub all non-native and invasive species; 2) Remove man-made structures and features, where necessary; 3) Place topsoil where necessary; 4) Place habitat features, such as rootwads, down logs, stumps, and snags, with bird nesting and bat roosting boxes; 5) Install 3 inches of bark mulch in all bare soil areas; 6) Plant a variety of native deciduous and evergreen tree and shrub species; and 7) Install critical area signs at buffer boundaries where appropriate. 4.4.4 Wetland Buffer Enhancement (Project Site) Buffer restoration will occur around the on -site stream and wetlands through the removal of invasive species, restoring buffer temporarily impacted through site grading activities, and planting native trees and shrubs where appropriate (Figures 9-10). Wetland buffer restoration will include the following measures: 1) Clear and grub all non-native and invasive species; 2) Install habitat features, such as rootwads, down logs, stumps, and snags, with bird nesting and bat roosting boxes; 3) Install 3 inches of bark mulch in all bare soil areas; 4) Plant a variety of native deciduous and evergreen tree and shrub species, where appropriate; and 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 14 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan 5) Install critical area fencing and signs at buffer boundaries where required. 4.5 Mitigation Design Elements 4.5.1 Hydrologic Support The proposed wetland creation will intercept surface water flows that are common in this area through the winter and spring months. This creation area is also located south of another wetland creation area for a different project so that discharges from that mitigation site will flow through this mitigation site before continuing to North Lake through Wetland BD -North. Great care has been taken to avoid larger existing trees, particularly conifers, and to incorporate those trees into the mitigation design. 4.5.2 Grading All proposed graded areas will be cleared and grubbed to a depth of at least 9 inches to remove the roots, rhizomes, and seed bank of non-native species, as well as, compacted gravel and debris. All cleared and grubbed vegetation/debris will be exported from the project site to an approved dump location. The mitigation areas will then be graded per plan (Figure 13). Once subgrades are complete and approved, stockpiled forest duff or imported topsoil will be spread over the graded areas to achieve final grades. 4.5.3 Plantings A variety of native woody and emergent species will be planted in the mitigation areas (Figures 14-15). Native tree, shrub, and emergent species were chosen to increase both the structural and species diversity of the buffer mitigation areas, thereby increasing the value of the areas to wildlife for food and cover. The specific plant species proposed in the plant schedule have been selected for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife, value as a physical or visual barrier, pattern of growth (structural diversity), and aesthetic values. 4.5.4 Habitat Features Snags, down logs, rootwads, and stumps will be incorporated into the buffer mitigation areas to provide ecologically important habitat features for wildlife (Figure 13). All down woody material shall be coniferous species (western red cedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock, or Sitka spruce) obtained from the project site or imported if necessary. Snags provide perching, feeding and nesting sites for a variety of native birds. Cavity nesting bird species, such as tree swallows, violet -green swallows, chickadees, and woodpeckers, would be expected to utilize such features. A bird -nesting box will be attached to each created snag to initially augment the natural habitat for swallow species. Down logs and stumps provide the slow release of nutrients as the wood decays, and also provide cover for amphibians, small mammals, and other wildlife. Boulders recovered from site excavation will be placed in small piles throughout the mitigation areas. These piles can provide habitat for reptiles and small mammals. 4.5.5 Fencing and Signage Fencing and signage on the Project Site will be installed around the critical area buffer perimeters to clearly delineate the buffer boundaries and help prevent human intrusion and disturbance, pursuant to FWRC 19.145.180. Critical areas signs meeting Federal Way requirements will be installed at 150-foot intervals along the buffer boundaries. No 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 15 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan :l J 1 3 i fencing is proposed at the Mitigation Site, as this site is located within a forested area that will remain undeveloped. There is an existing chain link fence along the property boundary adjacent to the boat ramp road that will remain. 4.5.6 Temporary Irrigation System An above -ground temporary irrigation system capable of full head to head coverage of all mitigation areas will be provided. The temporary irrigation system shall either utilize controller and point -of -connection (POC) from the site irrigation system or shall include a separate POC and controller with a backflow prevention device per water jurisdiction inspection and approval. The system shall be zoned to provide optimal pressure and uniformity of coverage, as well as separation for areas of full sun or shade and slopes in excess of 5%. The system shall be operational by June 15 (or at time of planting) and winterized by October 15. Irrigation shall be provided for the first two years of the monitoring period following installation. The irrigation system shall be programmed to provide 1/2" of water every three days (one cycle with two start times per week or every three days). A chart describing the location of all installed or open zones and corresponding controller numbers shall be placed inside the controller and given to the owner's representative. Prior to release of the bond at the end of the required monitoring period, all components of the above -ground temporary irrigation system shall be removed from all of the mitigation areas. 4.5.7 Construction BMPs The proposed project will implement BMPs during construction to minimize impacts to the on -site critical areas during the construction process. The proposed development will comply with the latest edition of the King County Stormwater Management Manual and all applicable construction site erosion control and stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). A Temporary Sedimentation and Erosion Control (TESC) plan will be prepared by the Civil engineer and submitted with the final project plans to the City, along with any required drainage and stormwater technical information reports required by the County. Stormwater and erosion control BMPs to be implemented for the proposed project will be defined in these reports and plans, and these BMPs will act to minimize erosion and sedimentation and protect water quality within the existing wetlands during construction. BMPs to be implemented may include, but are not limited to: Site runoff containment, such as temporary sedimentation ponds; ■ Silt fences; + Straw bale dams; J ■ Rock check dams; • Erosion control mesh, netting, seeding, or other cover for exposed soils; + Rocked road entries; and, ■ Covered, seeded, or otherwise stabilized soil stockpiles. 1 J 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 16 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 5. MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 5.1 Goals The primary goal of the proposed mitigation is to replace the functions and values lost through directly impacting 9,922 sf of wetlands. The secondary goal is to create, enhance, and restore critical area buffers. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will provide: ■ Off -Site Wetland Creation 19,844 square feet • Off -Site Wetland Enhancement 27,002 square feet • Off -Site Wetland Buffer Creation 77,113 square feet • On -Site Buffer Enhancement 160,697 square feet Mitigation actions will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. See Chapter 6 for a full description of the monitoring methods that will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards. 5.2 Objectives & Performance Standards The mitigation goals will be evaluated through the objectives and performance standards described below. Objective A (Mitigation Site): Following construction, the created wetland areas must exhibit wetland hydrology. Wetland conditions will be verified by the presence of hydrologic indicators. Performance Standard A 1— Wetland H drolo : After construction, the created wetland areas shall exhibit 30 or more consecutive days of hydrology during the growing season in each year of normal rainfall (based on a normal precipitation analysis). Indicators used for assessing hydrology in the created wetland areas will be limited to direct observation of one or more of the following: surface ponding, high water table, or saturation to within 12 inches of the soil surface. Objective B.(Mitigation Site: Create habitat structure and plant species diversity in the off -site created wetland, wetland enhancement, and wetland buffer creation areas. Performance Standard B7 (apipfies to al! Plant communities : At least 12 species of desirable native plants will be present in the created wetland, wetland enhancement, and wetland buffer creation areas combined during each year of the monitoring period. Species may be comprised of both planted and naturally colonized vegetation. Performance Standard S2 La lies to all plant communities): Percent survival of all planted woody species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contractor warranty), and at least 80% at the end of Years 2 and 3. Performance Standard B3 — Created Emergent Wetland: Coverage of herbaceous vegetation shall be at least 30% by the end of Year 1, 50% by the end of Year 2, and 65% by the end of Years 5, 7, and 10, excluding those areas 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 17 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan of the wetland that may have sparse herbaceous vegetation due to dense shade from woody species coverage. Performance Standard 64 — Created Scrub-ShrublForested Wetland: Native woody species (planted or volunteer) will achieve an average stem density of at least 3 stems per 100 square feet by the end of Year 1 and an average of at least 4 stems per 100 square feet by the end of Year 3. Total percent areal woody plant coverage must be at least 35% by the end of Year 4, 50% by the end of Year 5, 55% by the end of Year 7, and 65% by Year 10. Woody plant coverage may be comprised of both planted and recolonized native species; however, at no time during the monitoring period shall a recolonized native species (e.g., red alder) comprise more than 35% of the total woody plant cover in this community. Performance Standard B5 — Wetland Suffer Creation: Native woody species (planted or volunteer) will achieve an average stem density of at least 3 stems per 100 square feet by the end of Year 1 and an average of at least 4 stems per 100 square feet by the end of Year 3. Total percent areal woody plant coverage must be at least 35% by the end of Year 4, 50% by the end of Year 5, 55% by the end of Year 7, and 65% by Year 10. Woody plant coverage may be comprised of both planted and recolonized native species, however, at no time during the monitoring period shall a recolonized native species (e.g., red alder) comprise more than 35% of the total woody plant cover in this community. Obiective C [Mitigation_ Site : Increase the overall habitat functions of the created wetland, wetland enhancement, and wetland buffer creation areas by incorporating habitat features (e.g., swallow nest boxes, bat roosting boxes, snags, rootwads, down logs, stumps, and boulder piles, as appropriate). Performance Standard Cl: After construction and for the entirety of the monitoring period, the wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and wetland buffer creation areas will contain at least 18 habitat features per acre (1 piece per 2,500 so, including down woody material (logs, rootwads, stumps etc.) and snags with swallow nest boxes. Obiective D Project Site): Create habitat structure and plant species diversity in the on -site wetland and stream buffer enhancement areas. These performance objectives are intended for the City -required 5-year performance monitoring period. Performance Standard DI (applies to afl plant communities); At least 8 species of desirable native plants will be present in the created wetland, wetland enhancement, and wetland buffer creation areas combined during each year of the monitoring period. Species may be comprised of both planted and naturally colonized vegetation. Performance Standard D2 (apiolies to all jolant communities L Percent survival of all planted woody species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contractor warranty), and at least 80% at the end of Years 2 and 3. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 18 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan Note: No coverage performance standard is given for the enhanced buffer because these areas have almost 100% cover of existing native canopy; a coverage performance standard in these areas would not be appropriate. Obiective E (Proaect and_Miticliation Sites): Limit the amount of invasive and exotic species within the mitigation areas. Performance Standard E1: After construction and throughout the 10-year Corps monitoring period, areal coverage by non-native invasive plant species shall be maintained at 10% or less throughout the mitigation site. These standards apply to wetland and upland buffer areas combined. These species include, but are not limited to: Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, and creeping nightshade. Performance Standard E2: Per Corps requirements, after construction and throughout the 10-year Corps monitoring period, non-native invasive knotweed species (such as Polygonum cuspidatum, P. polystachyum, P. sachalinense, and P. bohemicum) will be eradicated throughout the mitigation areas (including buffer areas) for a total cover of 0%. 5.3 Mitigation Construction Sequencing The following provides the general sequence of activities anticipated to be necessary to complete this mitigation project. Some of these activities may be conducted concurrently as the project progresses. 1. Conduct a site meeting between the Contractor, the project Biologist or Ecologist, and the Owner's representative to review the project plans, work areas, staging/stockpile areas, material disposal areas, and existing vegetation to be retained. 2. Survey clearing/grading limits. 3. The project Biologist or Ecologist shall review clearing limits and shall flag trees and other existing vegetation to remain within the work area. They shall also flag any woody material to be saved and stockpiled for later use as habitat features (stumps, snags, down logs), as well as salvaged boulders. 4. Install silt fences and any other erosion and sedimentation control BMPs necessary for work in the project areas. 5. Install tree protection fencing around existing trees and vegetation to remain. 6. Clear and grub grading areas. 7. Grub out all invasive species from buffer enhancement areas as shown on plans. 8. Survey earthwork areas and set grade stakes as required. 9. Complete excavation of mitigation areas to subgrade per grading plan. 10. Install snags, buried ramp logs, and log cluster spillways. 11. Place topsoil. 12. Place woody debris (long & short down logs, rootwads, stumps). 13. Mulch all cleared/graded buffer areas. 14. Install temporary irrigation. 15. Complete site cleanup and install plant material as indicated on the mitigation plan. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 19 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan 16. Install critical area fence and signs, as appropriate. 17. Complete all work to plan specification for approval by Talasaea Consultants. 5.4 Post -Construction Approval Talasaea Consultants shall notify the Corps in writing when the mitigation planting is completed and request for a final site inspection and subsequent final approval. Once final approval is obtained in writing from the Corps, the monitoring period will begin. 5.5 Post -Construction Assessment Once the mitigation construction is approved, a qualified wetland ecologist/biologist from Talasaea Consultants shall conduct a post -construction baseline assessment. The purpose of this assessment will be to establish baseline conditions at Year 0 of the required monitoring period. A Baseline Assessment report, including as -built drawings, will be submitted to the Corps. The as -built plan set will depict any field changes to plantings or other features in relation to the original approved mitigation plan. ICHAPTER 6. MONITORING PLAN 6.1 Monitoring Schedule Performance monitoring of the mitigation areas will be conducted according to all applicable code/regulatory requirements and permit conditions. The monitoring period will be conducted for a minimum of five years for the City of Federal Way for the on -site -� buffer enhancement, but for a minimum of ten years for the Corps and DOE for the off - site mitigation activities. Monitoring will be conducted according to the schedule presented in Table 3 below. Monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist/ecologist. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 20 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan Table 3. Projected Schedule for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events Year Date Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to Agencies Year 0, As -built and Baseline Assessment Year 0 X X X 1 Spring X X Fall X X X 2 Spring X X Fall X X X 3 Spring X Fall X X X 4 Spring X Fall X X 5 Spring X Fall X X X* 6 Spring X Fall 7 Spring X Fall X X 8 Spring X Fall 9 Spring X Fall 10 Spring X Fall X X X** 'Obtain fnal approval to facilitate bond release from the City of Federal Way (presumes performance criteria are met). **Obtain final approval from the Corps (presumes performance criteria are met). 6.2 Monitoring Reports Each monitoring report will adhere to the requirements of the FWRC and also to the Corps document titled: "Annual Monitoring Report Format Requirements", (USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-03, OCT 2008). The reports will include: 1) Project Overview, 2) Requirements, 3) Summary Data, 4) Maps and Plans, and 5) Conclusions. If the performance criteria are met, monitoring for the City will cease at the end of year five, unless objectives are met at an earlier date and the City accepts the mitigation project as successfully completed. Monitoring reports for the off -site mitigation will continue with the Corps through year ten. Monitoring reports will be submitted by December 31st of each year in which they are required. 6.3 Monitoring Methods The following monitoring methods will be used to evaluate the approved performance standards. 6.3.1 Methods for Monitoring Wetland Creation Hydrology Indicators An assessment will be made of the hydrologic regime within the created wetland areas to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist and the hydrology performance standard is being met. Indicators used for assessing hydrology in the created wetland areas will be limited to direct observation of one or more of the following: surface 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 21 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan ponding, high water table, or saturation to within 12 inches of the soil surface. Monitoring for the presence or absence of these indicators will be conducted at each monitoring event, and potentially at other times during the growing season if additional data are needed to evaluate hydrology in the created wetland areas. Wetland Delineation In addition to evaluating wetland hydrology indicators at each monitoring event, a formal delineation of the combined wetland creation and existing wetland areas will be performed in the late spring of Years 5 and 10 to determine if the required square footage of wetland has been established, and to also determine whether there has been additional loss of wetland area beyond the originally permitted amount of wetland fill. Delineations shall be conducted according to the methods defined in the Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation and Identification Manual. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), May 2010, or as updated. Wetland Ratin In addition to evaluating wetland hydrology and delineating the created wetland in Years j 5 and 10, the wetland creation area will be rated using the most current wetland rating 1 system to ensure the creation area rates at least comparable to the wetlands being impacted. 6.3.2 Methods for Monitoring Vegetation Establishment Vegetation monitoring methods may include counts; photo -points; random sampling; j sampling plots, quadrats, or transects; stem density; visual inspection; and/or other 1 methods deemed appropriate by the City. Vegetation monitoring components shall include general appearance, health, mortality, colonization rates, percent cover, percent survival, volunteer plant species, and invasive weed cover. Permanent vegetation sampling plots, quadrats, and/or transects will be established at y selected locations to adequately sample and represent all of the plant communities within the mitigation project areas. The number, exact size, and location of transects, sampling plots, and quadrats will be determined at the time of the baseline assessment. Percent areal cover of woody vegetation (forested and/or scrub -shrub plant communities) will be evaluated through the use of point -intercept sampling methodology. Using this methodology, a tape will be extended between two permanent - markers at each end of an established transect. Trees and shrubs intercepted by the tape will be identified, and the intercept distance recorded. Percent cover by species will then be calculated by adding the intercept distances and expressing them as a total proportion of the tape length. The established vegetation sampling locations will be monitored and compared to the } baseline data during each performance monitoring event to aid in determining the success of plant establishment. Percent survival of shrubs and trees will be evaluated in a 10-foot-wide strip along each established transect. The species and location of all I shrubs and trees within this area will be recorded at the time of the baseline assessment, and will be evaluated during each monitoring event to determine percent survival. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 22 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan 6.4 Photo Documentation Locations will be established within the mitigation area from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi -quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Vegetation sampling transect/plot/q uad rat and photo -point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and yearly performance monitoring reports. 6.5 Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates observed in the wetland and buffer areas (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded during scheduled monitoring events, and at any other times observations are made. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 6.6 Water Quality Water quality will be assessed qualitatively; unless it is evident there is a serious problem. In such an event, water quality samples will be taken and analyzed in a laboratory for suspected parameters. Qualitative assessments of water quality include: ■ Oil sheen or other surface films, ■ Abnormal color or odor of water, • Stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, • Turbidity, and • Absence of aquatic fauna. 6.7 Site Stability Observations will be made of the general stability of slopes and soils in the mitigation areas during each monitoring event. Any erosion of soils or slumping of slopes will be recorded and corrective measures will be taken. CHAPTER 7. MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES Regular maintenance reviews will be performed according to the schedule presented in Table 3 above to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation project. Following maintenance reviews by the biologist or ecologist, required maintenance on the site will be implemented within ten (10) business days of submission of a maintenance memo to the maintenance contractor and permittee. The following list includes examples of maintenance actions that may be implemented during the course of the monitoring period. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other maintenance actions may be implemented as deemed necessary. • During Year 1, replace all dead woody plant material. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 23 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan • Water all plantings at a rate of 1/2" of water every three days between June 15 — October 15 during the first two years after installation, and for the first two years after any replacement plantings. • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, etc.) by manual or chemical means approved by permitting agencies. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval. All non-native vegetation must be removed and disposed of off -site. • Weed all trees and shrubs to the dripline and provide 3-inch-deep mulch rings 24 inches in diameter for shrubs and 36 inches in diameter for trees. • Remove trash and other debris from the mitigation areas twice a year, as needed. • Selectively prune woody plants at the direction of Talasaea Consultants to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs). • Repair or replace damaged structures including, signs, fences, or bird boxes. CHAPTER 8. CONTINGENCY MEASURES Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the yearly monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation. If, during the course of the monitoring period, there appears to be a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the permittee shall work with the Corps and the City to develop a Contingency Plan in order to get the project back into compliance with the performance standards. Contingency plans may include, but are not limited to, the following actions: additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, minor grading, soil amendments, irrigation, and plant substitutions of species, size, quantity, and/or location. Any required contingency plan shall be prepared and submitted to the agencies. CHAPTER 9. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE A financial guarantee will be provided by the Applicant pursuant to the requirements of FWRC 19.145.140(10). The financial guarantee shall be of a type and amount acceptable to Federal Way (bond, assignment of funds, or similar). The financial guarantee shall cover the costs of mitigation construction along with monitoring and maintenance per the monitoring and maintenance schedule included herein. CHAPTER 10. SUMMARY FWC, LLC is proposing to develop two (2) buildings, Buildings A and B, on the Project Site. The proposed buildings will be approximately 225,000 square feet (sf) and 214,050 sf, respectively, with the associated infrastructure, parking, and stormwater facilities. A City -required 50-foot wide Managed Forest Buffer (MFB) along Weyerhaeuser Way S, expanded to 100-feet along Highway 18, will be maintained. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 24 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan Construction of the proposed buildings and stormwater pond would directly impact (fill) 9,922 sf of wetlands. Buffer reduction with averaging will be used for the remaining on - site wetlands to compensate for unavoidable site development encroachments into the standard buffers. No compensation for wetland fill is required by the City of Federal Way, and is only provided for the Corps and Ecology. Wetland fill will be mitigated for through a multi -part mitigation plan including elements of wetland creation, wetland enhancement, and buffer restoration and enhancement. Wetland creation is currently proposed at a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation proposed includes: • Off -Site Wetland Creation 19,844 square feet ■ Off -Site Wetland Enhancement 27,002 square feet • Off -Site Wetland Buffer Creation 77,113 square feet • On -Site Buffer Enhancement 160,697 square feet Wetland creation areas will be hydrologically supported by intercepting surface water. All mitigation areas will be planted with a variety of native trees and shrubs to create or restore habitat diversity. Rootwads and down logs will be placed adjacent to or downslope of all outfalls to dissipate high flows during storm events and create an aesthetically pleasing transition. Habitat features such as stumps, snags with nest boxes, and down logs will be installed to further increase habitat structure and function. Fencing and signage will be installed around the critical area buffer perimeters on the Project Site to clearly delineate the buffer boundaries. Critical areas signs meeting Federal Way requirements will be installed at 150-foot intervals along the buffer boundaries. No fencing is proposed at the Mitigation Site, as this site is located within a forested area that will remain undeveloped. There is an existing chain link fence along the property boundary adjacent to the boat ramp road that will remain. All critical area mitigation will be constructed prior to or concurrent with site development activities. Performance monitoring for a minimum of 5 years for the City of Federal Way for on -site buffer enhancement work is proposed, while the wetland creation and associated activities on the Mitigation Site will be monitored for a minimum of 10 years for the Corps of Engineers. Performance monitoring and maintenance will commence following mitigation construction completion. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 25 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 11. REFERENCES City of Federal Way City Code. 1994. Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Article XIV, Sections 22- 1221 through Sections 22-1369 (City of Federal Way, 1994). City of Federal Way Revised Code. Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Chapter 15 Shoreline Management (City of Federal Way, 2017). Granger T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State -Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06- 008. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State - Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). Publication #06-06-011 B, Olympia, Washington: US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and US Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, 2006. Washington State Department of Ecology, US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and US Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State - Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Publication #06-06-011 a, Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology, 2006. 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Page 26 Greenline Buildings A and B Critical Areas Impacts and Mitigation Plan FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2. Critical Areas Impacts Overview — Project Site Figure 3. Critical Areas Impacts Legend — Project Site Figure 4. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 1 Figure 5. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 2 Figure 6. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 3 Figure 7. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 4 Figure 8. Critical Areas Impacts — Viewport 5 Figure 9. Mitigation Overview Map — Project Site Figure 10. Existing Conditions — Mitigation Site Figure 11. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Overview Figure 12. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Grading Plan Figure 13. Conceptual Plant Communities Plan Figure 14. Conceptual Plant Communities Legend 1 December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1572F Greenline Bldgs A-B Impacts -Mitigation Plan.docx Figures S 320 st 5 830th St ry S 333rd 5t n r, st �I 5 3410k in Pt1$rrrt6c7l i a i 5EGTION 16 4 21, TOWN5HIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. Bslrmr Mobile -6 Home Park i0l 5 N MITIGATION r 51 TE a - U n Pacific Bonsai '41" NORTH LAKE r� PROJECT 51 TE S 942nd St I 48, 5OURGE: 5000LE MAP5, WW1-4.MAP5.0000LE.GOM (AGGE55ED 10-20-2017) DRIVING VIRECTIONS TO PROJECT 51TE FROM 5EATTLE FROM PROJECT 51TE TO L1ITI&ATIQN 51TE I. MERGE ONTO 1-5 5OUTH 1. FROM PROJECT 51TE HEAD NORTH ON 2. TAKE EXIT 145 FOR 5 320TH 5T WEYERHAEU5ER ROAD 3. 5HARP LEFT ONTO 5 520TH 5T 2. TURN LEFT ONTO 1^EYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 4, TURN RIGHT ONTO 1,EYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 3, 5LIGHT RIGHT ONTO WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 J 5. AT TRAFFIC GIRGLE, TAKE 2ND EXIT ONTO 5 4. AT THE TRAFFIC GIRGLE, TAKE THE FIR5T EXIT 336TH 5T 5. GONTINUE ONTO WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 6. 5 336TH 5T TURN5 5LIGHTLY RIGHT AND 6. THE DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT BEGOME5 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 -f. TURN RIGHT ONTO WEYERHAEU5ER ROAD ARRIVE AT DESTINATION AT: 47.305612,-122.2&5574 ARRIVE AT DESTINATION ON LEFT NORTH N.T.5. FIGURE TITLE VICINITY MAP AND DRIVING DIRECTION5 DRAWN TAL# MW 15-12F TALASAEA REFERENCE APPLICANT 47.LAT&LONG. 47.29630-1,-122.2g4154 CONSULTANTS, INC. NHS-201 i-XXX FWG LLG PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE SIIILDIN65 A AND B DATE REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 3-27-2017 12-1-201-7 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast LOCATION:33663 HEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE # Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL k4A KINWA HYLZ505 GREEK Z:\DRAWING\1500-1599\TAL1572\1572B\Plans\TAL-1572E-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)Nvqppyright - Talasaea Consultants. INC. _j SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. WETLAND EE �► r 1�bI5F f WETLAND DO '103 5F Ix r VIEWPORT r ! r r BUILDING B i NON REGULATED ` VIEWPORT 2 UPLAND DITCH " WETLAND DR - 5240 5F WETLAND ED 3;234 SF WE L ND EF 1,115 5F — WETLAND EB I,f7OI 5F �O WETLAND EG &21 5F J WETLAND DT 2,430 5F VIEWPORT 3 BUILDING A — STREAM EA w w (MINOR) V I EWPORT 5 WETLAND DP 300 5F NETLANP 3773 5F HETLANP ON 446 5F WETLAND OZ 59 5F - C/ ORAPHIG 5GALE ( IN FEET) NORTH 1 O 150 300 600 SCALE: I"=300' VIEWPORT 4 PLAN LE ENr,> PROPERTY LINE - PROJEGT LIMITS WETLAND — — — — — — WETLAND BUFFER* — — 0- — — DITGH CENTERLINE �— STREAM GENTERLINE STREAM BUFFER'S " PER Ig94 FWG GODE SEE IMPACTS LEGEND ON FIGURE 3 / 9 TALA S AE A CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Wood Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 FIGURE TITLE GRITIGAL AREAS IMPACTS OVERVIEW - PROJECT SITE DRAWN MN TAL# 1572F REFERENCE NW5-201-7-XXX APPLICANT I FWG, LLG LAT. & LONG. 41.296301,-122.294154 PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE I REVISED 3-27-2017 112-1-2017 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE # 2 Of 14 NEAR/AT FEDERAL NAd COUNTY KINS I STATE WA I IN I HYLEB05 GREEK Z:DRAWING,1500--1599/TAL1572/1572B\Plana TAL-1572E-F 2017-11-27 (PUN FIGS)@v¢ppyright - Talasaea Consultants, f.N( 5EGTION 21, TOWN5HIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. IMPACTS LAC F.ND WETLAND IMPACTS LEGEND FilDIRECT WETLAND IMPACTS WETLAND DU 373 5F WETLAND DW 446 5F WETLAND DX 3c12 5F WETLAND DZ 5G 5F WETLAND EB I,601 5F WETLAND EEC &21 5F WETLAND ED 5,234 5F WETLAND EE 1,&&I 5F WETLAND EF 1,115 5F TOTAL DIREGT WETLAND cl c122 5F IMPAGT5: (0.23 AG) WETLAND BUFFER AVERAGING LEGEND WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION WETLAND BUFFER DO 1,473 5F WETLAND BUFFER DR 3,254 5F WETLAND BUFFER VT 6,320 5F TOTAL WETLAND 11,027 5F SUFFER REOUGTION: (025 AG) WETLAND BUFFER REPLAGEMENT TOTAL WETLAND BUFFER HG 24& 5F REPLAGEMENT: (0.44 AG) TEMPORARY IMPACTS LEGEND 1�TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS WETLAND DR BUFFER 2,08q 5F WETLAND DO BUFFER 55cl 5F STREAM EA BUFFER 1,836 5F TOTAL TEMPORARY 4,484 5F GON5TRUGTION IMPACTS: (0.10 AG) STREAM BUFFER AVERAGING LEGEND STREAM BUFFER REDUCTION STREAM BUFFER EA 2,c151 5F TOTAL STREAM 2,G51 5F SUFFER REOUGTIO14: (Op1 AC) STREAM BUFFER REPLAGEMENT TOTAL STREAM BUFFER 5,023 5F REPLAGEMENT: (0.01 AG) SEE FIGURE 13 FOR PROP05ED MITIGATION. J J FIGURE TITLE GRITIGAL AREAS IMPAGT5 LEGENI TALA S AE A APPLICANT NW5-2011-XXX FWG, LLG CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE SUILI71 Resource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE: COMMERCIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)661-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 NEAR/AT ICOUNTY STATE I IN FE ERAL NAA KIN& WA HYLI DRAWN TAL# - PROJECT 51TE MW 1512F LAT. & LONG. 41.2%301,-122.2c14154 �5 A AND E, DATE REVISED 3-21-2017 12-1-2017 FIGURE # 3 Of 14 I05 CREEK 'IGS')01A1b1Dvrieht - Talasaea Consultants, INC. Z:'DRAWING\1500-1599/TAL1572/1572B/Plans/ TAL-1572E-F 2017-11-27 (PCN 5EGTION 21, TOWN5HIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. ■ ■ ■ $U I Liz I NC B --- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ WETLAND EE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i YI�WPORT ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 5EE IMPAGT5 LEGEND ON FIGURE 3 PLAN LAC ENS PRO—EGT 51TE BOUNDARY WETLAND — — — — — — WETLAND BUFFER* w = M M MEN MEN P05T GON5TRUGTION BUFFER — — DITCH GENTERLINE 5TREAM GENTERLINE 5TREAM BUFFER PER 19g4 FWG CODE GRAPHIC 50ALE NORTH ( IN FEET) O 30 60 120 5GALE: I °=60' CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425j881-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 FIGURE TITLE GRITIGAL AREAS IMPAGT5 VIEWPORT I DRAWN MN TAL# 1512F NC ATALASAEA � LONG. 1XX 4i296301222G4154 PROPOSED PROJECT: OREENLINE BUILDING5 A AND B DATE 3-2-1-201-1 VISED �117-1-201-7 PURPOSE: COMMERCIAL LOCATION: 33663 WEYE .HAEUSER WAY 5 FIGURE # 4 of 14 NEAR/AT FEDERAL WA COUNTY KING STATE IN I WA HYLEB05 CREEK c:�unAniivu�la��-ioaa�lRi 1vrz�15 2ts�1'lans�"1'AL-157213-1?' 2017-11-27 (PCN i'IGSY�YvQppyright - Talasaea Consultants. INC. SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. l I J $UILC7INC $ I I 1 t� VIEWPORT 2 SEE IMPAGTS LEGEND ON FIGURE 3 Ji PLAN LEGEND ON FIGURE 4 ■■■■ 1, GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH ( IN FEET) D 30 60 120 SGALE: I "=60' FIGURE TITLE GRITIGAL AREAS IMPACTS VIEWPORT 2 6 TALASAEA NE�FE2EONCXXX FW,,LAPPLANT CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE ER)ILDING5 A A140 B Resource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast LOCATION: 33663 HEYERHAEUSER HAY 5 Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL WA KING JHA I HYLEB05 CREEK Z: DRAWING/1500-1590\TAL1572\1572B\Plaxis\TAL--1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)IA1vF&py DRAWN TAL# MN 1512F LAT. & LONG. 47.2G63O1,-122.2G4154 DATE REVISED 3-21-2017 12-1-2011 FIGURE # 5 of 14 — Talasaea Consultants, INC. SEGTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. ME ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ 171 1 1 ■ i W W 'v WETLAND ED �IllUf rf I �� ■ D 1 ■ !. WETLAND E1= ■ ■ ■ 5UILPING A ■ ■ ■ '1 as WETLAND EG ■ ■ ■ ■I■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ V I EWPORT 3 SEE IMPACTS LEGEND ON FIGURE 3 4 PLAN LEGEND ON FIGURE 4 ■■■■■■■■■■W■■■■ ' — WETLAND EB 1 I I I I W W �Y W WETLAND DT I � W ! 1 � I / ■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■pit » GRAPHIC 5GALE ( IN FEET) NORTH 0 30 60 120 SGALE: 1 "=60' CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning Wood Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 FIGURE TITLE GRITIGAL AREAS IMPAGTS VIEWPORT 3 DRAWN TAL# MN 15-12F REFERENCE .1TALASAEA NW5-2O11-XXX FWG, LLT 4.2G63O-1,G122.294154 PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE 3-21-2017 REVISED 12-1-201i PURPOSE: COMMERCIAL LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 FIGURE # b of 14 NEAR/AT FEDERAL WA COUNTY KIN& STATE WA IN HYLEBOS GREEK [.:\ui\n rrliYV\iilvu'-1Jtf tf\iHLia7 lG'la7lr. Li'YlanS'iAL-1❑leti-r- ZU1-1-11—G7 [11UN FIGSMW;ppyrighi - Talasaes Consultants, INC. SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ '95 ■ BUILVIN67 A i STREAM EA (M I NOR) I rf■ 1 1 / WETLAND MF _ 1 1 I i■■■■■■ ■■ ■Ai■■■■■■■■iI V I ENFORT 4 -5EE IMPAGT5 LEGEND ON FIGURE 3 g PLAN LEGEND ON FIGURE 4 TALASAEA iD CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 96077 Bus (425)881-7550 — Fax (425)081-7549 FIGURE TITLE Z:\DRAWING\ 1500— GRAPHIC 50ALE NTH ( IN FEET ) 0 3� 120 5GALE: I "=60' CRITICAL AREAS IMPAGT5 VIEWP( REFERENCE APPLICANT NI-2017-XXX FWG, I-LG PROPOSED PROJECT: &REENLINE MILDI PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL LOCATION:33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE I IN FEDERAL WA KING I WA I HYLI ?lans\TAL-i572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN DRAWN ITAL# 4 MN 1572F LAT. & LONG. 47.2g63O7,-122.2cI4154 p, AND g DATE REVISED 3-2-I-2017 12-1-2017 FIGURE # "I of 14 i GRl=EK SYAWmnvrjRhL -- Talasaea Consultants, INC. 5EGTION 21, TOWN51HIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. no ME ■ WETLAND DW WETLAND DU ■ \V r. 1 WETLAND DX WETLAND DZ ■■■L■■■■1■I■ VI EWPORT 5 5EE IMPAGT5 LEGEND ON FIGURE 3 4 PLAN LEGEND ON FIGURE 4 GRAPHIC 50ALE ( IN FEET) NORTH 0 30 60 120 5GALE: I "=60' FIGURE TITLE GRITIGAL AREA5 IMPAGT5 VIEWPORT 5 DRAWN MW TAL# 1512F TALASAEA N� �GT 201 IFW-. LLNCE 4 2%30-I,G122.2g4154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDIN65 A AND B DATE REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning 3-21-2011 1 12-1-2011 PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL o Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Winville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)881-7550 - Fax (425)881-7549 LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE n # 8 �T 14 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL WA KING WA HYLEB05 CREEK Z:\DRAWING\1500-1599\TAL1572\1572B/Plans\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGSQVQppyrighL - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. C Ic tp1 BUILDINC-7 B VIEHFORT � 11 11 BUILDING A to,, ViEw>�oRr I II WETLAND DUI WETLAND DW 1 II' WETLAND OXf 1 WETLAND DZ (1� — Ur777771J GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) ? 150 00 bo0 SCALE: I "=300' WETLAND EE WETLAND DO V I EWPORT NON REGULATED UPLAND DITCH -� WETLAND OR 41 WETLAND ED WETLAND EF WETLAND EB I„ WETLAND EG STREAM EA (MINOR) WETLAND DP �p 1 � o Lm �. m r WETLAND VT V I EWPORT 3 PLAN LEGENi7 PROPERTY L I NE PROJECT LIMITS WETLAND — — — — — — WETLAND BUFFER* — — — — DITCH CENTERLINE �-- • • STREAM CENTERLINE STREAM BUFFER * PER Igc`14 FWG GODE MITIGATION LECENV Cl BUFFER RESTORATION 4,4&4 SF (0.10 AG) (FROM TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPAGTS) NORTH BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 160,bg7 5F (3bcl AG) NOTE: SEE FIGURE 13 FOR PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION FIGURE TITLE MITIGATION OVERVIEW MAP -PROJECT DRAWN 51TE MW 77,764 1► REFERENCE APPLICANT LAT. & LONG. �i NW:)-2O1l-XXX FWG, LLG 47.2G63O1,-122.294154 NC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDIN�f� A AND B DATE REVISED 3-27-2017 12-1-201-7 TALASAE CONSULTANTS, I Resource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE. GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)6s1-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL WA KING WA HYLE505 c Z:\DRAWING1 1500---1599/TAL1572\1572B/P1ans\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS) FIGURE # q of 14 - Talasaea Consuftants, INC. SEGTION I6, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. /'61A BD-UPLI • BD -I idAf BI-1 BI-12 / AL F Ar o, "o . . ool 'EXISTINC -"• -' ^WETLAM7) 5D-NORTH CANOPY, TYP. '� : - , • , , • , - . • , FLAC-75 BD I-82, BI 1-12 MITI6ATION VIEWPORT PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE 1. -7`7— _] EXISTING WETLAND — — — — — — WETLAND BUFFER TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET) NORTH 0 50 100 200 SGALE: 1 "=100' FIGURE TITLE EXISTING GONDITIONS - MITIGATION 51TE REFERENCE APPLICANT NW5-2011-XXX I FWG, LLG PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A, PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL WA KING WA HYLEBO5 G DRAWN TAL# MW 1572F LAT. & LONG. 41.2G63O1,-122.2G4154 B DATE I REVISED 3-27-2017 12-1-2017 FIGURE # 10 Of 14 1500-1699\TAL157211572B/P1ans/TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)g)vQppyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SEGTION V2, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANEE 4 E, W.M. A` r r��/y rf +/" eelIle .+W Ile **MITI TION LEGEND WETLAND GREATI ON IG,844 5F r 1"WW�_•-"W.�. (WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 21,002 5F } �• . . W . - " - " . " + BUFFER CREATION 71,113 5F PLAN LEC �NI7 / W : y + , Y y , . • W .. _ . W _ V — PROPERTY LINE WETLAND BD—NORTH_7—T— , it EXISTING WETLAND 116,160 5F _ .. _ . — .., CREATED WETLAND BOUNDARY �' t- / ` • ` � WETLAND BUFFER - GRAPH I G SGALE NORTH NORTH ( IN FEET } / LAKE . � p 40 80 160 SGALE: 1 "=&O' 41 FIGURE TITLE DRAWN TAL# I PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION OVERVII=W MA 15-I2F TALASAEA REFERENCE APPLICANT LAT. & LONG. NW5-2017-XXX FWG, LLG 47.2G63O7,-122.2G4154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND 5 DATE EVISED rResource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 3-27-2017 1IR2-1-201-7 20 Bear Creek Road Northeast LOCATION:33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 FIGURE # II pf 1.Q.odinville, Washington 96077 425)661-7550 - Fax (425)661-7549 NEAR/AT COUNTY JESTATE I IN FEDERAL 1144 KING WA HYLEBOS GREEK Z:\DRAWING\1500-1599\TALI 572/1572B\P1ans\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 �PCN FIGS)gv4pyright - Talassea Consultants, INC. JEGTION I6, TOWN5HIP 21t N, RANGE 4 E, W.M. A. NNLA6 •IMPS - - x L . • �� Jr _k L r J - �* A. Los, JAY WETLAND BD -NORTH IIb,Iba 5F . I ' NORTH /- LAKE J PLAN LESENP _-- — PROPERTY LINE WI =TLAND — — — CREATED WETLAND BOUNDARY — — — — -- WETLAND BUFFER EXISTING 2-FT CONTOUR 10° PROPOSED 2-FT CONTOUR z x 5ILT FENCE WOODY DEBRIS (DOWN LOr5, ROOTWADW 5TUMP �C SNAG WITH NEST BOX GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET) NORTH 0 40 &0 f 60 5GALE: I"=80' FIGURE TITLE PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION GRADING PLAN DRAWN MN TAL# ---"N 1572F TALASAEA N�2aNCXXX FWG,LLGT 41.2%301,G122.2g4154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B DATE REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning Bear Creek Road Northeast Wood Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 - Fax (425)861-7549 3-27-2017 12-1-2017 PURPOSE: COMMERCIAL LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEU5ER WAY 5 FIGURE # 12 of 14 NEAR/AT ICOUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL WA KING I WA I HYLEB05 CREEK Z:\URAIPING\1500-1599\TAL1572\1572B\PIans\TAL-1572B-F 2017-11-27 (PCN FIGS)A)VQppgrighi, - Talasaea Consultants, INC. SEGTION 16, TOWNSHIP 21 N, RAhirE 4 B, W.M. -� � � � ^ ,� ` _ � � � V � � � �• �� 11 � � �> > � f71 '00 X 4 �Lla r yY. N k W •' i / -ilool It / y // F + *+ +Y r -�� •, � _may +y�x + .� �,,..�� rM- l � + . rW PLAN Lr6ENI;) PROPERTY LINE `� ' "� % • . " - *�. ;— - ,� w_, . �r A WETLAND J �+ _ CREATED WETLAND + W �. + f - - + + �r BOUNDARY — — — — — — P05T GONSTRUGTION • - i - • + WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND BD -NORTH r I16,16O SF r ,r++1 SEE PLANT COMMUNITIES LEGEND y _ ON FIGURE 1412 �r W NORTH LAKE ORAPHIG SCALE ( IN FEET) NORTH 0 40 80 160 SGALE: I"=50' FIGURE TITLE GONGEPTUAL PLANT GOMMlMITIES PLAN y TALA S AE A APPLICANT NWSE2ONCXXX I FAG, LLG CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINGS A AND B Resource & Environmental Planning PURPOSE: GOMMERGIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast LOCATION: 33663 HEYERHAEUSER HAY 5 Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)B61-7549 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL WA KING NA HYLEBO5 GREEK 2017-11-27 PCN FIGS ■f4ppp Z:/Dr2AiVING11500-1599\TAL157211572H/Plans\TAL-1572B-F DRAWN MW 47.2ci&3O7,-122.2G4154 DATE I REVISED 3-27-201-1 12-1-2017 FIGURE # 13 of 14 - Talasaea Consultants. INC. PLANT GOMMUN I TI E5 Lr:Gr=ND ENHANGED UNDISTURBED BUFFER (63,0&25F) FORESTEDISGRUB-SHRUB WETLAND (3q,005 5F) TREES i SCIENTIFIC NAME AGER GIRCINATUM GORNU5 NUTTALLII CORYLU5 GORNUTA 5HRUB5 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME VINE MAPLE PACIFIC DOGWOOD WESTERN HAZELNUT COMMON NAME AMELANGHIER ALNIFOLIA 5ERVIGEBERRY OEMLERIA GERA51FORMIS INDIAN PLUM 5AMBUGU5 RAGEM05A RED ELDERBERRY FORESTED BUFFER (I4,031 5F) TREES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME AGER GIRGINATUM VINE MAPLE AGER MAGROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE BETULA PAPYRIFERA PAPER BIRGH GORNU5 NUTTALLII PACIFIC DOGWOOD GORYLU5 GORNUTA WESTERN HAZELNUT P5EUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLA5 FIR 5ORBU5 51TCHEN515 51TKA MOUNTAIN ASH THUJA PLIGATA WESTERN RED CEDAR T5UGA HETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK 5HRUB5 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME AMELANGHIER ALNIFOLIA GAULTHERIA 5HALLON HOLOO15GUS DISCOLOR MAHONIA AGUIFOLIUM OEMLERIA GERA5IFORMI5 POLY5TIGHUM MUNITUM RIBE5 5ANGUINEUM RUBU5 PARVIFLORU5 5AMBUGU5 RAGEMOSA 5YMPHORIGARP05 ALBU5 5ERVIGEBERRY SAAAL OCEAN5PRAY TALL OREGONGRAPE INDIAN PLUM SWORD FERN RED CURRANT THIMBLEBERRY RED ELDERBERRY COMMON 5NOWBERRY TREES 5GIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME MALU5 FU5GA WESTERN GRABAPPLE FRAXINU5 LATIFOLIA OREGON ASH PIGEA 51TCHEN515 SITKA SPRUCE RHAMNU5 PUR5HIANA CASCARA 5ALIX LA5IANDRA PACIFIC WILLOW' THUJA PLIGATA WESTERN RED CEDAR SHRUBS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME GORNU5 ALBA RED-051ER DOGWOOD CRATAEGU5 DOUGLA511 BLACK HAWTHORN LONIGERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWIN -BERRY PHY50GARPU5 GAPITATU5 PACIFIC NINEBARK R05A NUTKANA NOOTKA R05E ROSA P150GARPA CLUSTERED WILD R05E RUBU5 5PECTA5ILI5 5ALMONBERRY 5ALIX 5GOULERIANA 5GOULER'S WILLOW"' 5ALIX 51TCHEN515 51TKA WILLOW" TO BE INSTALLED AS GUTTING5 5HALLOW EMERGENT WETLAND (CIM33 5F) EMERGENTS 5GIENTIFIG NAME COMMON NAME ALOPEGURU5 0ENIGULATU5 WATER FOXTAIL GAREX OBNUPTA SLOUGH SEDGE JUNGU5 EN5IFOLIU5 DAGGER -LEAVED RU5H 5GIRPU5 MIGROGARPU5 SMALL -FRUITED BULRUSH DEED' EMERGENT WETLAND (5,&-14 SF) EMERGENT5 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ELEOGHARI5 PALU5TRI5 COMMON 5PIKERU5H SCHOENOPLEGTU5 ACUTU5 HAR05TEM BULRUSH 5PARGANIUM EURYGARPUM BROAD -FRUITED BURREED FIGURE TITLE GONGEPTUAL PLANT COMMUNITIES LEGEND DRAWN MW TAL# 11 1572F T A LA S A E A REFERENCE APPLICANT LONG. XX FWG, LLG 4 2%30-I, 122.2c14154 CONSULTANTS, INC. PROPOSED PROJECT: GREENLINE BUILDINCG5 A AND B DATE REVISED Resource & Environmental Planning 3-27-201-1 112-1-201-1 PURPOSE: COMMERCIAL 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 - Fax (425)861-7549 LOCATION: 33663 WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5 FIGURE # 14 of 14 NEAR/AT COUNTY STATE IN FEDERAL WA KIN& WA I HYLE1305 CREEK a:�Licaniiru�lavu-laaa�inLia�c�l��is�YlanS�1A1 l�"/Llf-F LUIY-11-G7 {11[:N 1''1G5WAippyright - Talasuea Consultants, INC. l Greenline Buildings A & B PCN Submittal Tat-1572F Attachment 5A '1 Cultural Resource Report 1 Greenline Building A (TAL-1593) r 7 j j Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 * Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 J Please submit reports unbound Author: Frank Stipe M.A. Title of Report: Weyerhaeuser Property Cultural Resource Investigation Date: 8 08 16 County (ies): King Section: 21 Township: 21 North Range: 4 East Quad: Federal Way 7.5' Acres: 19 Does this re lace a draft? Yes X No Sites Found? Yes X No TCP(s) found? Yes X No DAHP Archaeological Site M REPORT CHECK LIST Report should contain the following items: • Clear objectives and methods • A summary of the results of the survey • A report of where the survey records and data are stored • A research design that: • Details survey objectives • Details specific methods • Details expected results • Details area surveyed including map(s) and legal locational information • Details how results will be feedback in the planning process Reports are now being accepted as single file PDF's and can be submitted on a cd along with the paper copy. (Attach additional sheets as necessary) TETRA TECH �l Ms. Jennifer Marriott i Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 re: Project#TAL-1593 1 Dear Ms. Jennifer Marriott Please accept the following predetermination letter for cultural resources in regards to the Talasaea Tl Consultants Project Number TAL-1593, Federal Way development project. In summary, based on data 4 provided by your office, the project area has a moderate risk (contingent upon project parameters) potential to impact pre-Euro American archaeological resources due to the presense of numerous lakes, -� ponds and stream in the vicinity of the proejct area. Additionally, based on a sight line analysis that shows the proposed construction will be hidden by a natural buffer of mature trees, the project area has a low potential to visually impact the nearby Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, Sincerely, Frank Stipe Archaeologist Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway Bothell, Washington 98011 direct: 425-482-7821 —� cell: 425-945-6659 frank.sti e tetratech.com J J J J J Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com TETRATECH Ms. Jennifer Marriott Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 As requested in your email dated June 2nd, 2016 regarding Talasaea project number TAL-1593 (hereinafter referred to as the Project Area) I am submitting this preliminary determination letter for cultural resources that may be impacted by project activities. Tetra Tech completed a review of the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation website Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) for known archaeological sites, National Register of Historic Places properties and completed cultural resource surveys located within mile of the Project Area. Tetra Tech researched BLM GLO Cadastral Surveys to determine if any known archaeological resources may be found in or near the Project Area. Additionally Tetra Tech completed 6 shovel test probes within the proposed project areas to determine subsurface conditions and possibly the presence of subsurface archaeological materials. No archaeological features or artifacts were identified in the 6 shovel test probes. The project's Area of Potential Effect (APE) is located in Federal Way Washington within the NE % of Section 21 of Township 21 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian. The project area is a forested portion of land located between Weyerhaeuser Way and 1-5 (Figure 1). This letter report will document known archaeological sites, surveys and National Register of Historic Places properties to determine likelihood for archaeological materials to be located within the project APE. Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com TETRA TECH I I I Figure 1. Project Area APE J Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com J TETRA TECH The WISAARD database identified no properties listed on the NRHP within 1 mile of the Project Area. One residential structure to the southwest of the project area has been determined Not Eligible, the nearby Weyerhaeuser Building has No Determination made for inclusion in the NRHP. A total of three cultural resource surveys located within 0.5 miles of the project area were identified on the WISAARD database search. The Project Area has not been included in any of these surveys. None of these surveys identified any archaeological sites or features on or adjacent to the project area property. The presence of lakes, ponds and streams in the area would have provided excellent resource gathering opportunities to pre -contact native peoples as well as early settlers to the region. The project area is covered with forest that was once partially used for a residential housing development and still retains dirt roads through the property from this use (Aerial Photo 1957, Figure 2). The project area has seen a close human presence since at least the 1950's and any surface or near surface features or artifacts that may have once been found in the area have likely been removed by former residents of the area. Currently the project area is used for walking trails. Six shovel test probes were completed within the project area, locations were determined at the time of survey and chosen based on likely hood for intact soils and likelihood for cultural materials. Shovel test probes were concentrated in the southern and southwestern portions of the Project Area where historic aerial photography show the ground surface covered with forest (Figure 2). Pedestrian survey of the project area showed an undulating surface which seemed to be the result of push piles, timber cutting, or general heavy vehicle traffic/work in the northern portions of the project area. A culvert crosses the existing walking path (former road) that is deeply incised and located in the southern portion of the project area. The southern portions of the project area showed less undulation although disturbance in the form of soil moving operations in the last 50 years can be observed in some areas. No features or artifacts were identified, former concrete signs for Reliance Insurance Companies were identified south of the project area along the access road. Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com NTETRA TECH Weyerhaeuser Property Cultural Resource Investigation C ; Project Area ■; APE r Y . 11' .� • 6 `y * Ft 4 t 4. �77 .� •�, . - x ►� tit{ .mow •. � - ..; Project Area APE O : Shovel Test Probe : 200 Meters Figure 2. Shovel Test Probe Locations 1 . OlbA-ATM Survey Information Survey Date: 7/15/2016 Affiliation: Tetra Tech No. of Surveyors:) Ground Visibility: Moderate Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com TETRA TECH The nearby Weyerhaeuser building is a unique structure not observed elsewhere and makes an important contribution to the built environment of Federal Way. Using a sight line analysis the proposed project has minimal potential to adversely affect the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters Building as mature trees have been kept in place to create natural buffers between the Weyerhaeuser building and any surrounding features. Due to geography the Weyerhaeuser building has views out to the north/northwest away from the proposed project area, one outside terrace associated with the Weyerhaeuser building has eastern views towards the project area which are tempered with nearby mature tree growth. The proposed building will extend 56 feet above grade while the trees between the Weyerhaeuser building and the Project Area are 71-88 feet tall (Lidar survey) blocking views from the Weyerhaeuser building towards the Project Area. Views from 1-5 towards the Weyerhaeuser building, an iconic sight along the 1-5 corridor, will not allow the proposed structure to be seen due to the presence of mature forest (Figure 3). Figure 3. View of Weyerhaeuser Building from 1-5. Tetra Tech proposes that the majority of the project area has suffered from significant disturbances in the form of prior residential development on the northern portion of the property, the southern portion of the project area has the most potential to hold any archaeological materials on the project area due to the lack of documented disturbances although six shovel test probes did not identify any archaeological material on the project area. A sight line survey has revealed that the Project Area will not be easily visible from the Weyerhaeuser building due to an existing natural buffer created with mature fir trees and the Project Area will not be visible from the nearby 1-5 corridor due to the same natural buffer. Based on these findings Tetra Tech recommends that the proposed project has a low potential to disturb archaeological materials or create harmful visual impacts to the nearby Weyerhaeuser buildings and iconic 1-5 corridor views. Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com TETRA TECH l Thank you, 1 Frank Stipe M.A. Archaeologist Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway Bothell, Washington 98011 1 I I J 7 Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com J Greenline Buildings A & B PCN Submittal Tat-1572F Attachment 5B Cultural Resource Report Greenline Building B (TAL-1572F) Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast 9 Woodinville, Washington 98077 0 Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 TETRATECH Ms. Jennifer Marriott Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 re: Project#TAL-1572F Dear Ms. Jennifer Marriott Please accept the following predetermination letter for cultural resources in regards to the Talasaea Consultants Project Number TAL-1572F, Federal Way development project. In summary, based on data provided by your office and a subsequent invesitgation by Tetra Tech the project area has a low risk (contingent upon existing project parameters) potential to impact pre-Euro American archaeological resources due to the presense of numerous lakes, ponds and stream in the vicinity of the project area. Additionally, based on a sight line analysis that shows the proposed construction will be hidden by a natural buffer of mature trees, the project area has a low potential to visually impact the nearby Greenline Headquarters building formerly known as the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building.Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, Sincerely, Frank Stipe Archaeologist Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway Bothell, Washington 98011 direct: 425-482-7821 cell: 425-945-6659 frank.stioe@tetratech.com Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com NTETRA TECH Ms. Jennifer Marriott Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 As requested in your email dated February 15Y, 2017 regarding Talasaea project number TAL-1572F (hereinafter referred to as the Project Area) Tetra Tech is submitting this preliminary determination letter for cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project activities. Tetra Tech completed a review of the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation website Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) for known archaeological sites, National Register of Historic Places properties and completed cultural resource surveys located within 1 mile of the Project Area. Tetra Tech researched BLM GLO Cadastral Surveys to determine if any known archaeological resources may be found in or near the Project Area. Additionally Tetra Tech completed 4 shovel test probes within the proposed project areas to determine subsurface conditions and possibly the presence of subsurface archaeological materials. No archaeological features or artifacts were identified in the 4 shovel test probes. The project's Area of Potential Effect (APE) is located in Federal Way Washington within the SE % of the NE % of Section 21 of Township 21 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian. The project area is a 13 acre forested portion of land located between Weyerhaeuser Way South and 1-5 (Figure 1). This letter report will document known archaeological sites, surveys and National Register of Historic Places properties to determine likelihood for archaeological materials to be located within the project APE. Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com TETRA TECH . Greenline Headquarters Building ' Cultural Resource Investigation ; s 'Yl ' ti i Historic Residential= ' �i ` =1 Y t .. Structure, Not Eligible. li ible ProjectAPE ]+rr.r•Y fi Weyerhaeuser BuildinOr ._ . 01 i oil �� * �y� �j '■wild 10 0-25 0.5 1 Miles Scale ,,, Figure 1. Project Area APE C-1 I 1v Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com N TETRA TECH The WISAARD database identified no properties listed on the NRHP within 1 mile of the Project Area. One residential structure to the west of the project area has been determined Not Eligible, the nearby Greenline Headquarters building has No Determination made for inclusion in the NRHP and is located approximately 350-meters north of The Project Area. Four cultural resource surveys were identified within 1-mile of the project area during the WISAARD database search. Approximately 3 acres of the Project APE were included in WA DAHP Survey# 1348206. Survey#1348206 "FINAL REPORT: Cultural Resources Discipline Report for 1-5 SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements" was completed in 2006 and identified no archaeological materials or features within the Project APE or nearby areas. Project# 1348206 did not complete any shovel testing on the Project APE due to access issues and appear to have surveyed the southern extent of the Project APE by pedestrian survey. The report author believes the presence of lakes, ponds and streams in the region would have provided excellent resource gathering opportunities to pre-Euro contact native peoples as well as early Euro- settlers to the region. Three small lakes are located within 1 mile of the Project APE, these are North Lake, Lake Geneva and Lake Killarney. A 1900 topographic map (APPENDIX A) shows the Project Area within a forested region with roads and structures found within 1 mile. Topographic maps and aerial photographs show that the Project APE is located over a former residential neighborhood that had three roads constructed through the Project APE (Figure 2). No maps or aerial photos were identified with structures shown on the Project APE and its possible residential construction extending south from the North Lake neighborhood did not reach the Project APE. Today the project area is covered with mature forest and retains a dirt road through the property that was likely one of the roads depicted on the historic topographical map (APPENDIX A). The project area has seen a close human presence since at least the 1950's and any surface or near surface features or artifacts that may have once been found in the area have likely been removed by former residents of the area. Currently the project area is used for walking trails. Pedestrian survey of the Project APE showed that the Project Area is covered with mature coniferous forest with heavy blackberry undergrowth over an undulating surface which appear to be the result of push piles, timber cutting, and general heavy vehicle traffic/work. A narrow (approx. 20 cm. wide) drainage canal was noted running E/W through the property and crossed the gravel road via a culvert. No evidence of residential housing was noted. A materials collection point for concrete scrap, concrete cobbles and a large concrete sign were identified near the center of the Project APE. The concrete sign is for "Reliance Insurance Companies", an internet search for the company found that it is no longer in existence. No archaeological materials or features were identified during the survey and none would be expected in this setting. As previously stated the report author believes the area has the potential for subsurface archaeological materials as pre-Euro American residents and early Euro-American settlers would likely have exploited nearby wetland and lake resources. Extensive disturbances were observed across the Project APE as previously described and four shovel test probes were dug in areas were disturbances appeared minimal and did not appear to be located overthe former roads identified on historic topographic maps (APPENDIX A). Soils in these shovel test probes all showed a thin dark brown A organic horizon with a quick transition to brown silty loam with 20% gravels down to approximately 30 cm. below ground surface (bgs). Soils below 30 cm. bgs were brown clayey silt with 30% cobbles and gravels. No archaeological materials or features were identified in any shovel test probe. Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com TETRA TECH 1 f � � f Project Area APE O : Shovel Test Probe 1 I 1: 0.5 Miles Survey Information Survey Date: 3/18/2016 Affiliation: Tetra Tech No_ of Surveyors:1 Ground Visibility: Poor Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com N TETRA TECH Figure 2. Shovel Test Probe Locations shown on the 1965 Aerial Photograph to illustrate STP locations in relative position to known disturbances. The nearby Greenline Headquarters building is a unique structure not observed elsewhere and makes an important contribution to the built environment of Federal Way. Using a sight line analysis the proposed project has minimal potential to adversely affect the Greenline Headquarters building as mature trees have been kept in place to create natural buffers between the Greenline Headquarters building and any surrounding features. Due to geography the Greenline Headquarters building has views out to the north/northwest away from the proposed project area. The proposed building will extend 44 feet above grade while the trees between the Greenline Headquarters building and the Project Area are 71-88 feet tall (Lidar survey) blocking views from the Greenline Headquarters building towards the Project Area. Views from 1-5 towards the Greenline Headquarters building, an iconic sight along the 1-5 corridor, will not allow the proposed structure to be seen due to the presence of mature forest (Figure 3). Figure 3. View of Weyerhaeuser Building from 1-5. Tetra Tech proposes that the majority of the project area has suffered from significant disturbances in the form of residential and road development and has minimal potential to hold any archaeological materials. Four shovel test probes did not identify any archaeological material on the project area. A sight line survey has revealed that the Project Area will not be visible from the Greenline Headquarters building due to the building having only northern views outward (project area is located approximately 350-meters south of the Greenline Headquarters building) and an existing natural buffer created with mature fir trees and the Project Area will not be visible from the nearby 1-5 corridor due to the same natural buffer. Based on these findings Tetra Tech recommends that the proposed project has a low potential to disturb archaeological materials or create harmful visual impacts to the nearby Greenline Headquarters building and iconic 1-5 corridor views. Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com TETRA TECH 1 IThank you, Frank Stipe M.A. Archaeologist Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway Bothell, Washington 98011 I j I j Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com J TETRATECH APPENDIX A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS Tetra Tech 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425.482.7821 Fax 425.482.7830 www.tetratech.com 7A Date: 1970 Enlargements Scale: Not To Scale Source: University of Washington �. •� . �-r-=— r'- +• �+r' .�+Y. `'� �� Eli" -' *k,i�r; '�-`Y^: - �t. r'. XlQ ir IN t 4 � � �••r f ii �` - ' .1 PI aIS f '_ ISO IF %- •�. 7trr d:M 4- . _ _--+ ._. .'.+., a ice` ��,do i t � � b.• .� W y ,. r . •. - If tiF••', � u,Ipi7l7/7ArixbSit1u�11►r�� . 'Wrt. 91 ' fJ M. rT4 ...T � •.r * � kHt*Hballr .111� s�31 .7 � �l i . � .__ .. j`��q+i''�y►ir•rir'rrirrt 1r;. Q g � r`at� �,it � y� Kea � r � is r�' � ' ��► �� •. -,r ' ■ Fiery,. 2 11 'T •. I io Date: 2002 Scale: Not To Scale Source: TerraServer 71 I j t— '! �. .` . i• .',yI •, I i Ir Ifr H. 1 ` 170 k,insal, Pr 1 -'i �� • - -- }yi • I'. ,` . .�.ti 1..�d - - BA � . e . I •j^" ,,�'.- - .V pah_(?T � 11, '} _ }} ..- I +� - •1j�� T`� j JJ3/ 'ri 1'iL .: — ! lJ lip NIL il I'I I'li1,F; f' Y. •��^;-:. � i ry•t � :li Nf:: - �- _ � "�i=. �. 1 �' �r � l- _, .}_, -�"* =`� 4�• ., i� tiyl:]�.�i1'� ;, _ -+ • ' `�I �',�tit,' �igV�r.�••'�"" . � "' ;YI' r4i1'•. — .; .1 � � • ' •'�- - � ...— • �. is — — i.;ti ;,�� . -��; �� -' ,"' - , -� �` j, ' _ � -- .'� ,� !n It r'• ':- ?r .. . \. • � i.� :, 7 1� :-. 1L� �•• � � � •i 1 p /Tii �:Nn� 3" aT"J L��r ,L "! S • , - - y it 4i 111111,• :` IY�:, f i .:. : ", � l y" ,' � �-ff,i .•�`-y� + as1-: tFrl•tu•t• -_ _ ., - ., �, " t�. III � I, I }-'.��I.- r.. } �;�. •� _ j.. ' - _ �.:r•' ��"� _ 1 •.r� _1.:". frl�r�w�y,�—✓ �.i .,r.•-� y`,L.f L r4 i lltki,l ,fir'• "^ .e. p 1 ' Y �!i �: � 1 �y,`l i', _ _•. ,''.+J•'- ,•�f ill �i•[�li' Vi I.rl'kl' �l =. .� ii I i _ •, '. � �r , . Y �f .. •�.tr - ; .. r�`I Source: University of Washington !, Quad: USGS 30-Minute Tacoma, Washington. 1900. Scale: 1:125,000 "{ di< ---•}• k'i, :--. l St �l I` 1 I : cw fvn .tl .y[l "-" qL %A 7 N Ir _ - ^�N'., ate. •�.- _ r•. -5ra-_ i't If Tr ram/ s: ••SYrrl ••Luke• Fed —al Wu Sahy �'$ _•• • ram► a "Slen1 L k.iCh *. �� r 10 r. j I ( AnLI yy Webb �E rgrcvn f -- :a Project, PE OV 20 21 • • .Y. , •r I • � I V .. �j•. {L Source: University of Washington zy�aL 2 ''+_ Quad: USGS 7.5-Minute Poverty Bay, Washington. �. 1949. Scale: 1:24,000 �I 13L ennx aopj. �w •'f a,: 1.' •� 's;: •;'••• " Itil:t� }• Skel Ux ke /f - �l� •�2.� SSS ,f :Ire-! ri:.._�� 1 r`., �:• i ? 'I '. "�' r::' - _ '�x rid.. '` �d �7 F,•:i-s E.: .;,_ try _ :r '§. }iJ FL: 'wAY r 1 I Jr HI6h Sch • •' 41rrny. l.n4r .... Ste.el Lxk c . r I r = r sc! �� __ " I �s ,•' i � l 1 •; � 1 � � it . {. l i Z '1 .M; Project APE �.. s 17 ��a �?. Sr_ . �_i ,•! 114 ' t - =�l � St4tlslGlirn'ur-S-ooxaul �• � I •. Fr'�tY1er�' � L.n7ur L • � - f n 19' 1+nnsk,•r l.uF. ,� f 1 . �rnvk j y.• . � .. I .�• ' ��• i0 • 1 r ■ir Source: University of Washington `��f '• 1 : ,:•- Quad: USGS 7.5-Minute Poverty Bay, Washington. , 1961. elf J ;i' i Scale:1:24,000 -7. k J K J -k� vi N N� r - 6 A X �_ - -•i, /� ' • 'ham y:* .. `� 4. 1 •: I• �•- ~.��_ .`_' i ff ( r qUl k =6 Me .-7 71 V 41 Is L wi R 1�'4 C, 66S. 1 J6 Zll" r I.; I J Lill n N 1 T Proj�6.ct,AF 611. A wrl, t Coo -Lj-- leti� Lt6l�P Jqilk. -7 ke lk `,- L k j k If, V lk -7� k source: university of Washington Quad: USGS 7.5-Minute Poverty Bay, Washington. kq 29, .7 1961, photorevised 1968 & 1973 Scale: 1:24,000 L 66 A I 1 PD -.ki. - w - '•y - .._ r`�• _ :r rrr .sr•=�].�•• �n'� ..k., _TIp 1]�Z�d{L+`!1�'AY a = i J11 Urf.�cl. .-.. :� �• * .r. .. '' +• AIiYr:r.'l��I : {A14 I rrr p Fr , it I rr s .4 fit: � ., 4l q�p kpject APE 6. 0) ,. ..�rililci� `�.F F �5 •� .. IC Jlaakr Source: University of Washington _,- Quad: USGS 7.5-Minute Poverty Bay, Washington. i 1961, photorevised 1981. + � r� Scale:1:24,000 Greenline Buildings A & B PCN Submittal Tat-1572F Attachment 5C Cultural Resource Report Mitigation Site (TAL-1572C) Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast 0 Woodinville, Washington 98077 9 Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Please submit reports unbound Author: Frank Stipe Title of Report: Greenline Business Park Pro er Cultural Resource Surge Date: 7 31 17 County (ies): Kind Sections: 15 16 Township: 21 North Range: 4 East Quad: Poverty Bay 7.5' Acres:120 Does this replace a draft? Yes X No Sites Found? Yes X No TCP(s) found? Yes X No DAHP Archaeological Site #: REPORT CHECK LIST Report should contain the following items: • Clear objectives and methods • A summary of the results of the survey ■ A report of where the survey records and data are stored A research design that: • Details survey objectives • Details specific methods • Details expected results • Details area surveyed including map(s) and legal locational information • Details how results will be feedback in the planning process Reports are now being accepted as single file PDF's and can be submitted on a cd along with the paper copy. (Attach additional sheets as necessary) Greenline Business Park Property Cultural Resource Survey Greenline Business Park Property Cultural Resource Survey King County, Washington Prepared for: GTALASAEA Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Rd NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Prepared by Frank Stipe - Archaeologist TETRATECH 19803 North Creek Parkway Bothell, WA 98011 July 2017 Greenline Business Park Property Cultural Resource Survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Talasaea Consultants, Inc. has consulted with Tetra Tech to complete a background research study and archaeological inventory of the Greenline Business Park (Talasaea Project# TAL-1572C) Property Project. The project proposes the construction of three warehouse buildings near an existing office building and four ponds excavated near the perimeter of the Greenline Business Park Property Project. The three proposed warehouse buildings will be approximately 44-feet in height with footprint measuring 290,000, 147,000 and 605,500 square feet (SF), this cultural �1 resource investigation was requested to determine the presence of archaeological materials or J features which may be disturbed during the construction process. The proposed Project Area is approximately 120 acres in size and located 1.3-miles southeast of downtown Federal Way. The project area is occupied by an office building with associated drives and parking lots all surrounded by mature forest. Portions of The Project Area have been I developed in the past for residential use. No archaeological resources were identified during the field investigation of The Project Area. It Fl is recommended that, in the event cultural resources are encountered during project related J excavation activities, all work in the immediate area of the find be halted until a qualified Archaeological Monitor can be summoned to the site to assess and evaluate the find. i I I I I J Van Lierop Property Cultural Resource Survey i April 2017 Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................... i 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Project Description................................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Cultural Setting...................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Previous Archaeological Survey...................................................................................... 3 3.3 History................................................................................................................................. 4 4.0 Methodology........................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 Inventory Results................................................................................................................... 8 5.1 Observations....................................................................................................................... 8 5.2 Shovel Test Probes............................................................................................................. 8 6.0 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 9 7.0 Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 10 Table page Table 1 Cultural Resource Surveys within 1 mile of the proposed project area ............... . ........ 7 AppendixA................................................................................................................._................... 1 AppendixB..................................................................................................................................... 1 AppendixC..................................................................................................................................... 2 Greenline Business Park Cultural Resource Survey ii July 2017 "-1 f 1.0 Introduction Talasaea Consultants, Inc. has consulted with Tetra Tech to complete a background research study and archaeological inventory of the Greenline Business Park Project (Project Area). The goal of I this inventory is to determine the presence of surface and subsurface archaeological resources as well as historic structures and properties that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); this effort included an archival and literature review, field reconnaissance of the project area through surface and subsurface survey, identification of historic buildings and structures within the project APE and the production of this report. 2.0 Project Description The project area is found approximately 1.3-miles southeast of downtown Federal Way, Washington. The project area is located west of North Lake and I-5. The project area is located within Sections 15 and 16 of Township 21 North, and Range 4 East (Figure 1). An existing 2-story office building will not be removed although the associated parking lots and drives will be altered to accommodate the new buildings. Several areas within the Project Area have been identified as wetlands. The project survey covered approximately 120 acres of land, see Figure 1. The project proponent plans to build three warehouse buildings constructed around an existing office building and 4 ponds built near the outer edges of The Project Area. The three proposed = warehouse buildings will be approximately 44-feet in height with footprint measuring 290,000, 147,000 and 605,500 square feet (SF), associated drives, parking and infrastructure. The proposed buildings and locations are shown in Figure 2. _ Aerial photography shows that portions of The Project Area have been developed for residential use in the past and are now forest lands now. The office building development with paved drives and parking lots occupy the majority of the Project Area. An environmental inspection completed by Talasaea Consultants revealed several wetland areas within the project area. It is expected that the ground surface will be disturbed across the entire Project Area, the proposed buildings will require excavations several feet below ground surface. J I Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 1 July 2017 J „1i�x"L• � 5tee} tak, - - 11 GREENLINE BUSINESS PARK PROPERTY PROJECT • n � ■ 71 t j; Itii.• f 1} s 2,1 + f ! ,s 1 0 0.25 0.5 Scale 1 /24000 r I, 4 �• ProjectArea .r ti n j y i v. .A •mil. � ,� 3� , • • 9 Survey Information I Affiliation: Tetra Tech 1 Mlles No. of Surveyors:l J Name of Surveyor: Frank Stipe Survey Dates: May -June 2017 Ground Visibility: Good Figure 1. Project Location Map Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 2 July 2017 1 I 1 I 3.0 Cultural Setting The Project Area has most certainly been occupied by aboriginal and Euro-American peoples in the past. The following Section describes the known archaeological history of the project area including known archaeological site. 3.1 Previous Archaeological Survey ey Tetra Tech conducted a literature review of previous cultural resource investigations within one mile of the proposed project area. The literature review was conducted at the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) website, WISAARD. The file search revealed that seven archaeological surveys have been completed within one mile of the proposed project (Table 1). That same file search revealed that no archaeological sites have been identified within one miles of the proposed project area. Table 1 Cultural Resource Surve s within 1 miles of the pro2osed project area. WA DAHP Authors) Data Title Report # Charles T. Cultural Resources Investigations for Washington State 1342699 Luttrell 2003 Department of Transportations SR 161: Milton Way to South 360t' Street Project. Amber L. Cultural Resources Assessment of the Thompson Park 1345011 Earle 2005 Project, Federal Way Charles T. Letter to Kimberley Farley Regarding I-5: Pierce County 1345762 Luttrell 2005 Line to Tukwila Sta e 4 HOV Project. James C. Final Report: Cultural Resources Discipline Report for I-5 1348206 Bard 2006 SR 161/SR18 Triangle Improvements. Gath Cultural Resources Assessment for the Pacific Highway 1685856 Baldwin 2014 South HOV Lanes Phase V (S 340th Street to S 359th Street) Project, Federal Way. Jennifer Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Edgewood, 1685866 Chambers 2009 Meridian Avenue Sewer LID No.1 Improvement project. Garth Cultural Resources Assessment for the South 356th Street 1686954 Baldwin 2015 Roadway Improvements Project, Federal Way. I None of the surveys described in Table 1 identified any cultural resources within the proposed J Project Area. Survey # 1348206 completed several shovel test probes near The Project Area to the south, no archaeological materials were identified in those shovel test probes. JThere are no known or recorded archaeological sites in the APE. The field survey and limited shovel testing (see Appendix C) did not produce any relevant findings. Tetra Tech did not find any �J archaeological resources in those areas of the APE that were surface -inspected and tested with shovel probes. The Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation database WISAARD identifies The Project Area as "High Risk" and "Moderate Risk" for cultural resources Jin areas near North Lake, the remainder of The Project Area is identified as "Moderately low risk." J J Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 3 July 2017 GLO maps available through the BLM indicate that the areas around North Lake were split into 40 acre parcels as early as 1860. 3.3 History The project vicinity was available for the first hunter -fisher -gatherers about 15,000 years ago, when this area was an island separated from the mainland by a marine fjord. Most likely, early hunter -fisher -gatherer use before about 6,000 years ago was hunting, plant collecting, and use of drainages as travel routes. Archaeological data from the region suggest that upland base camps were located along the bluffs that overlooked Puget Sound and the Green River Valley (Suttles and Lane 1990). The Hylebos Creek drainage lies within the large area assigned to cultural groups that spoke Southern Lushootseed of the Salish language family. Speakers of Southern Lushootseed (as well as Northern Lushootseed and Twana) are referred to as the Southern Coast Salish (Suttles and Lane 1990). The Project Area lies between the White River (now Green River) Valley to the east, the Puyallup River to the south, and Puget Sound to the west and is within territory attributed by ethnographers to the Puyallup (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Smith 1940; Spier 1936). The study area is also near the winter villages and use areas of the Muckleshoot and Duwamish people. The Muckleshoot had winter villages at present day Auburn and traveled through the study area to access fishing and shellfish camps on Puget Sound. They had strong relations with the Duwamish living in the Kent villages (who were known as the Lower White River people) (LAAS 2000). Peoples from east of the Cascades would visit the vicinity to trade and gather resources; their descendants are today represented by the Yakama Indian Nation (which claims this area of Puget Sound as part of their usual and accustomed areas). The Puyallup, Muckleshoot, and Duwamish were typical practitioners of the Puget Sound variant of the Northwest Coast culture complex. Salmon formed the bulk of the annual diet, with varying supplements of shellfish, land game, waterfowl, and plant resources. Most foods were dried and/or smoked over fires or steamed over heated rocks. Preserved foods (salmon and clams) were stored for winter use or traded with outside groups for goods and items not available in Puget Sound territory. Technology used to exploit these resources included elaborate fish weirs, aerial duck nets, snares, and pitfalls. The Puyallup lived in winter houses made from cedar planks attached to wooden frames consisting of house posts and cross beams (Suttles and Lane 1990). The Puyallup Indian Reservation was established in 1854 by the Treaty of Medicine Creek and later executive orders (Wright 1997). The original Puyallup Indian Reservation was too small and situated on poor lands (Wright 1997). The poor quality and location of the reservation was one of the main reasons the Puyallup fought against the U.S. in the 1855 to 1856 Indian Wars. After the end of the Indian Wars, the U.S. expanded the Puyallup Indian Reservation (Wright 1997). By 1868 land parcels that surround North Land had been split into individual 40 acre land parcels (Figure 2). Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 4 July 2017 GREENLINE BUSINESS PARK PROPERTY PROJECT ct Area '� 00 t ■ • If h-7• J$ s,r 3Z 0 n � 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Scale 1124000 Figure 2. View of the 1868 GLO map showing The Project Area outline. Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 5 July 2017 Federal Way began as a logging settlement in the late 1880's, one of the first sawmills in the area began in 1890 on Steel Lake approximately 1 mile North/Northeast of The Project Area. In 1900, Weyerhaeuser and 15 partners met in Tacoma to purchase between 800,000 and 900,000 acres of land in Washington from the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railway, including land in Federal Way (Historical Society 2003). Figure 3. 1965 Aerial Photograph with The Project Area outline shown. Note the residential development around the lake. The 1950's saw the community of Federal Way grow from a small lumber town to a metropolitan area. In 1968, Weyerhaeuser purchased 430 acres of land for its corporate headquarters located a short distance south of The Project Area (Figure 3), the headquarters building was opened in April of 1971 (Historical Society 2003). The headquarters building was built into the landscape and a pond was excavated north of the building (Figure 4). Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 6 July 2017 Figure 4. 1975 Aerial photograph with The Project Area outline shown. Construction of the Weyerhaeuser Building to the south would have taken considerable earth moving operations. l The existing office building located on the parent parcel was constructed in 1978 (King County Assessor), the small clearing seen in the 1975 aerial indicates that early work on the office building Jcomplex has likely begun. 4.0 Methodology of the archaeological resources contained within and around The Project Area lands Investigationgi ) involved a literature search of the project area and a physical survey of the project lands. The literature search was accomplished by reviewing Washington DAHP records and local historical society literature and GLO maps. The literature search at the Washington DAHP website WISAARD occurred on May 5th, 2017. Both historic structures records and archaeological site and survey records were consulted to determine the presence or absence of known archaeological materials in the area of the proposed project. J Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 7 July 2017 Survey of the project area included pedestrian surface survey and shovel testing. Field work was completed May 7-10, 13-16, 20-22 and June 26-28 of 2016. Surface survey consisted of transects spaced 15 meters apart and walked in cardinal directions. Shovel test units consisted of 30 cm. diameter probes dug to at least 50 cm. below surface level. The report author believes the presence of lakes, ponds and streams in the region would have provided excellent resource gathering opportunities to pre-Euro contact native peoples as well as early Euro-settlers to the region. Three small lakes are located within 1 mile of the Project APE, these are North Lake, Lake Geneva and Lake Killarney. Aerial photographs show that the Project APE is located over a former residential neighborhood (Figure 3). Today the majority of the project area is occupied by the existing office building complex with associated parking lots and open areas (Figure 5). The project area has seen a close human presence since at least the 1950's and any surface or near surface features or artifacts that may have once been found in the area have likely been removed by former residents of the area. Based on previous archaeological surveys, known archaeological sites in the project vicinity and known disturbances/conditions the proposed project area has a low potential for archaeological materials including farm and homestead remains and Native American artifacts. 5.0 Inventory Results No historic or prehistoric artifacts or features were identified during the survey of the Greenline Business Park Property. Fifteen meter spaced transects were conducted in all areas of the project and 52 shovel test pits were dug over the project area. 5.1 Observations The majority of the project area is occupied by the existing office building located near the center of the Project Area. Based on cut tree stumps and undulating ground surface conditions it would appear that the forested portion of The Project Area has experienced at least one round of timber harvesting. Woods in the northwest quarter of The Project Area have been planted on an even grid as with tree farms. Numerous wetland areas were noted throughout the forested portion of The Project Area. The forested portion of The Project Area holds numerous formal and informal walking paths that allow access to all parts of The Project Area. An open field is located on the southern end of The Project Area and provides a view of the Greenline Headquarters building from the Interstate 5 corridor. The office building, parking lots, pedestrian infrastructure and paved access roads cover a significant portion of The Project Area. Forested areas between parking lots are sloped or contain surface water, these areas also seem to have younger trees planted rather than the older surrounding forest. Several 3-4 foot diameters stumps were observed within the woods surrounding the office building. 5.2 Shovel Test Probes As previously mentioned a significant portion of The Project Area is occupied by the office building complex and parking lots. Additionally formal and informal pathways as well is access drives wind through the property. Shovel test probes were placed in locations most Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 8 July 2017 advantageous to identifying subsurface archaeological materials, sloping lands, areas of depleted soils and roadways were avoided. From Weyerhaeuser Road east to the lake the landscape slopes (great than 10%) east towards North Lake. This area was not shovel tested due to this slope, the area closer to the lake was significantly more level, several STP's were completed in this area. Treed areas surrounding the six parking lots which serve the existing office building have been intentionally planted and are located on slopes, the number of individual parking lots appear to be a result of using the A l sloping lands to the best advantage. The forested area east of the office building slops greatly towards North Lake, similar conditions were noted on the east side of Weyerhaeuser Road. 6.0 Recommendations 1 Based on the results of the literature review and subsequent survey of the project area, Tetra Tech j recommends that the project be implemented as planned, provided the following standard ` protections measure is adhered to: If artifacts or unusual amounts of bone or shell are uncovered during the construction activity, work will be stopped and a qualified archeologist will be contacted for on -site consultation. I 1 I With compliance to this protection measure, Tetra Tech believes the Greenline Business Park project will have no effect on any cultural resource property listed on, or eligible for nomination to, the National Register of Historic Places. Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 9 July 2017 7.0 Bibliography Historical Society 2017 The Historical Society of Federal Way home page. http:/Ifederalwayhistory.orgr' Accessed July 2017. King County Assessor 2017 King County Assessor home page. http://kin cg ounty.gov/dgpts/assessor.aspx Accessed July 2017. Spier, L. 1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology 3. Menasha, Wisconsin. Stein, Alan 2001 White River Valley (King County). HistoryLink Website. Accessed 5/19/2016. Website: http:llwww.historylink.orglindex.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=35 83 Suttles, Wayne and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 7, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 485-502. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Wright, J. 1997 History of the Puyallup Tribe oflndians. The Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Tacoma, Washington Greenline Property Cultural Resource Survey 10 July 2017 Appendix A Project Maps Van Lierop Property Cultural Resource Survey May 2016 1t ' .� 84-♦ sf N. Iq T a Ir- • 1 ProjectAr`•ea �r S Appendix B Project Photographs 11 Greenline Business Park Property Cultural Resource Survey July 2017 �J m tto •eaay 138foad aql jo uoilaod uaay:Pou ay} ui spoons aql JO Main •E 010gd •punoa2l:)eq ay} ui uaas si S alelsia}ul 'ease pafoid aqj jo ia:penb isamglnos aqj ui plait uado 8yl10 nnain •Z 010yd 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 -1J I i j •ea.ay Pafad ayl jo uoilaod lealuaa/yljou ay} ui smoi ui palueld saaal •S 0104d om Ailt A. 7� rt - ,� " 'eaab laafoad aql lnogSnoay} panaasgo sdwnls Ina Auew jo auo •t, o}ogd •Suiplinq a3i}}0 94110 }ua}xa W91s9m ayl •g 0104d •an.aasgo of (sea slios pasodxa papinoid speoi JanejS pauieluieW •L 0104d - � - �•�, �• •sue.. `�,,,: .. ;,. : _�'.:•` - 'f.. ''.:l. ; ��- f' �' - i ..1• 1. • .. v� , - •-r � 1./ `L_rl� • w�:9 •sleiialew le:)iSoloaey:)ae aol paAaasgo aaam g3igm sdwnls aaal palddol Jeaanas }o auo •Zi 0104d -peon aasneyaaAaM woaj ajej WON of umop peal adols siyl •tiZ 0104d " � ---- ru^ _ --��_:..±-ram_ •4 _ - - _ - - .-� __ - - L I OZ (Inf Xanin as-inosa eznl n A4zadoi ae ssauisng autluowD S 2II I � dX d 1 I I 1 1 I L,ieQ ogozd Isol lanogS _1 a xipuaddV I L i OZ Alnf AananS aotnosag leinllnD 4mdoid 31xo l ssautsng oupooiJ e[a umo[ umoiq jEft of uoq!sueq Laid lsolod IenpeA a pm jane.>$/salgqad %S ump ssej/ateoj,Cllis umoig 'uzo SS 8Z eja fuiuol umosq; ij of uogisueq eazv ISQJOJ lenpe.8 a pm jane.8/sajgqad %S vegl ssol/uteol,Sills umoig 'uzo LS LZ • eja 4uieol umoiq lq lj of uogisuag 13aty lsalo3 [enpeA a glim lanet2/salgqad %S uetp ssoj/tueoj ,14ps umoig 'uzo SS 9Z elo uteoi umoiq; Il of uogisneq Laly lsalol jenpea a pAk lanetd/salgqad %S uetg ssal/uteoj fops umoig 'ulo 9S SZ eja meol umoiq l tj of uog►stmal Laly lsolo3 Ienpea a glim Ianea3/salgqad %S uetjl ssal/ttteol fQj!s umoig 'uzo LS bZ soutj ltj regs ui plueld lujo fmuol umotq lg011 of uotllsueq pie saail lugiv lsalod jenpe2 a diem laneA/salgqad %S uetp ssol/meol (;lis umoig 'uzo SS £Z soutj lq reels ut poluEl ,Ce o,(iueo umoi St o not jsue I I q .l 1 1, a1E soaq `�a saio �i 3 ,3 lenpe.� a glrm janet�/sa[44ad %S aegl ssal/uteol �Clj�s umoig Lu g 'uzo 9S ZZ sautj lu reels ut polueld hjo fuieol umojq lqfil of uogisuag On saail `UQJV lsalod jenpe.S a gltm janeJf/sajgqad %S uegl ssoj/tueoj Cljts umoig 'ulo OS TZ sautj lt; reels u[ palut?j lujo .Cuteoj umoiq ltj$ll of uoillsueq olu wail eaxv lsaao j jenpmiS a pm Ianedl/salgqad %S uet[l ssoj/tueoj r4jis umoig 'uzo 99 OZ elo Aumol umoiq; ij of uogjsue.q 73ald lsaio3 jenpe2 a tgim janeif/so[ggod %S uetll ssal/uieol fgl!s umoig lao 09 61 'Aujo fuiuol umoaq ltl q of uogisue.q >?aj, lswo3 Ienpea a tll!m Ianea/salgqad %S ump ssoj/tueoj Clgs umoig 'ulo gS 81 *Aujo Auii3ol umoiq; q of uogisuug Eat/ lsalo j lenpea a tg!m lane.2/s3lgqad %S uetg ssal/uteoj A4ps umoig 'uzo $$ LT ela uteoj umoiq lq II of uogrsueq 13ald lsolod jenpea a gllm [aAwS/sajgqad %S uetg ssol/tueol ,44gs umoig 'MO LS 91 Piag uod0 %OZ tueol Sup umoiq `slanea3.ielaue qns %01 `tueol XoAulo umoig 'Ito SS ST Piag uad0 SJQAluin2uu qns %OZ uteol Aulo umoiq `slanea juInSue qns %01 `meol Aofu[o umoig 'uio 9S tbI Piag u3d0 %OZ tueol Aujo umoiq `sl3nea.teltt3ue qns %01 `uteoj AoAulo umoig 'ulo gS £T Piag uad0 sjan -I ue qns %OZ tueol Avlo umoiq `sjane.S .teln3ue qns %01 `uleoj Aofiujo umoig 'iuo OS ZT •luaTa ojanap 5uippnq iosnougja iaM of polujaz oq pjnoo `slods ul XIluoA? solejnpun slaneJ2 ielaue qns Piai3 aql `pjag uadO %OZ uteol Aup umoSq `slanea .telaue qns %01 `tueol AoAujo umoig 'uzo L S 11 Piag uod0 sjan ie[ ue qns %OZ =ol Avlo umoaq `sjaneJ2 m[n2ue qns %01 `uieol AoSulo umoig u13 SS OT Piag uadO %OZ tneo[ Aejo unmo.tq `sjaneJ2 reln2m qns %01 `uteoj AoAulo umoig 'uzo 9S 6 slaneJ2 nlaue qns Piag uadO %OZ uteoj Aujo umolq `sjanet2 ielnBue qns %01 `tueol AaAelo umoig 'uzo OS 8 Piag uad0 sjan .tel ue qns %OZ -Lol Aulo umoIq `slanea ieltt8ue qns %01 `umol AoAvlo umoig 'MO LS L s[anet�i .telnaue qns Piag u3d0 %OZ uteol Sup umoiq `sjaneuJ aelam qns %01 `uieol AaAulo umoig 'iuo 9S 9 Piag uod0 slap n[ ue qns %OZ uceol Aejo umoiq `slanea.telauu qns %01 `uteol AoXEio umoig 'iuo SS S Piag uad0 sjan -j ue qns %OZ —ol Aulo umoiq `sjanei2 ieln2ue qns %01 `tueol AoAulo umoig MO LS ti Piag uod0 SIOA= aej ue qns %OZ meol AiRlo umoiq `slanea.t laue qns %01 `tueol Aolulo umoig 'uzo SS £ alujnpun spu al `pjag uod0 SIOAPa.iulnSuu qns %OZ uteol Auto umolq `sjaneJ2 .n?ln3ue qns %01 `tueoj AQAL'io umoig IUD g S Z slane.12 nlaue qns Piag uad0 %OZ uteol Avlo umoiq `sjanet2 ielnaue qns %01 `uteol KoAplo umoig 'uzo OS T gjdau # saloK/pnnog sj>:i za;>:W uoijd! iasa(l poS d LS d LS l LIOZ Ainf AanrnS aoinosag IrnulnD SIadoid )laud ssouisng ouiluaarD -ju!od sup ju Isom agl of suml pup sut2oq pool paAud,ijjuiUred `uaxv lsama •Aulo Agis umorq gsoCar2 o; aOuugo dregs u g;tm uiuol umoig TaO LS ZS Earl JsaiO.3 •Aulo Allis umolq gslAar2 o; a2uego dregs r tgim umol umolg •IuO SS is SpuujlaIA Bajv lsaz03 •Aulo Agis umorq gsiAaj2 of oSuego drugs a grim uiuol umoig 9S OS SpusjlaM 133jv18310a •Aulo Agis umorq gsiAaa o; a2uego drugs a tgim uteol ttmorg uIO SS 617 spusjlann `LaJV JSQJOJ •Aulo Agis umorq gsiAa-i2 o; a2trego drugs r t[lim uteol umorg juO 99 sb Laj, JSaiOJ ,Cola Agis amorq gsiAai$ o; o2uugo drugs a tllim m801 iumalg uSO OS Lb Ealv lsaso3 Arla A;lis umorq gsiAaB o; o ttego drugs a g;im utuol umorg -ujo SS 917 Eaiv 1SOIod gulo Allis umorq gsLOB of o2uego drugs a tglm uiuol umorg *M3 99 St, •a ojs do3js a lu uALop sauloo Isom agl of lsoioj gsnoglje janaj Daze `LaJV lsalo3 Arlo Allis umorq gsiAoj2 of oSuego drugs a q;im utuol umorg LLTO OS Vb lsuo 2utp1eaq puoi paned moz3 adojs daals `Ea1V ;saio j •Aelo Aumol umorq;g2q o; uot;isue-q lunpur2 a pm utuol Allis umorg MO LS £ti 730iy lsaso_4 •Aelo Aumol ttmorq;g2q o; uoi;istmq lunpua a tl;im umol Allis umorg AIO 99 Z� Lam, 1saiO.3 •Aulo Atneol umorq lg2il o; uoipisuag lunpr-i$ u tllim umol Allis umorg U10 9S it, Ea3V 1SaiO3 Aelo Auteol umojq jg2q of not;Isuu4lenper2 a tptm umo[ A;l4S umoig -uao SS 0t, 1RQJV lsajo3 -Arlo Autuol umorq;g2q o; uoi;isuag Iutpu.2 r g;im meol Allis "0r9 1 LS 6£ 133zy 1Sa103 -Arlo Aumol umoIq;ggtl o; uoijisurr; lenpeA u q;tm turol A;[Is umorg SS g£ satlint;oU 2UTISOAJBII as q Toipuu ajid gsnd •Aulo Auteol umorq;g2il o; uoq!suug puu sdualls Inc) `Bali' lsazo3 lunpeif u tllim lanra/salgqad %S usgl SSaLAUU01 Mps un ore U10 9S L£ smIjA tole gugszAnq oa q ro/puu opd gsnd •Aelo Autrol umorq IgOil o; uouisue-q pue Sdumis lno `BaxV lsoio j lenprr2 u tl;im lanea/salgqad %S urtg ssal/amol Allis umorg TaO LS 9£ soujj;g2m.4s ut poluejd •Aelo Atuuol umorq;g2q o; uogisueq on S0334 'UOJV 1sQ.IO j lrnpu-i2 r tl;im lane>2/salgqad %S uetg s-l/—Ol Allis umorg uIO SS S£ soutj lg2!ujjs ul powuld -Arlo Auteol umorq jq!l o; uor;isuu-q an Saazl `Bazv lS0.10d lenpur2 a qlim lanr->S/-Iggod %S -tg ssallttt001 Alps w+nnxg •LUO 9S ti£ elo AUJUOl umorq; q of uogisue>; Band lsalo3 lunpea r tgim lama/saiggod %S uutp ssoI/tuuoi Allis umorg uIO OS ££ Arlo Auirol umoiq IqWit o; u0gisttu-q U;)Jv lsaro3 Ienpea a gltm lanr-t$/salgqad %S uutg ssa[/atuol Arils ttmorg n13 OS Z£ •Arlo Aumol umorq 1 ll o; uogisur-q Bazv 1SaiO3 lenpra u term lanua/salgqad %g uetg ssal/tueol Allis umorg MO LS i£ elo Amuol umojq jqSil o; uoijisneu B3jv lsa3o,d lenpr12 u tl;im lanur2/salgqad %S truth ssai/tuuol Allis umorg 'Lao 9S 0£ •Aelo Atueol utAojq lq2q o; uogisueq Baj, lSazo3 lunpra u tUyA lama/salgqad %S uetg ssoUmuol Mils umorg I MO 99 6Z