Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
18-102593
CITY OF T. Fede3001% 101 Way July 17, 2018 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Lucas Clements Emailed: lucas(@stillwatemw.com Rock River Homes 19655 151 Ave. S., Suite 204 Normandy Park, WA 98148 Re: File #18-102593-00-PC, PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY Goldmaur Lots 14 and 15, Parcel #'s 282410-0140 & 282410-0150, Federal Way Dear Mr. Clements: Thank you for participating in the preapplication conference with the City of Federal Way's Development Review Committee (DRC) held July 12, 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 Water and Sewer 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 Leila Willoughby -Oakes, 253-835-2644, leila.willoughby- oakes(@.citk,offederalMLay.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 Proposal to construct two single family homes on two platted lots encumbered with a wetland and wetland buffer. Wetlands and a stream are located off site potentially within 225 ft. Reasonable use exceptions required prior to building permit submittals to determine feasible residence and site improvements locations. 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. Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 2 ■ Planning Division • A separate Process III application will be required for Lot 14 and 15. • The proposed site contains several critical areas: wetland, wetland buffer, off -site wetland buffer and a potential on -site stream buffer associated with an off -site stream to the northeast (applicant to provide information on the stream location). • A Critical Areas Report - Wetland Delineation/Rating to include mitigation sequencing, a mitigation plan, buffer enhancement planting plan, monitoring plan and five-year performance bond posted before building permit approval. • The applicant must also identify and characterize all wetlands and buffers on and within 225 feet of the subject property. For off -site areas with limited or no access, the applicant's biologist to estimate conditions using best available information. It is expected that the applicant put forth a reasonable effort to obtain permission from abutting property owners as the proposal may not impact the values and function of offsite critical areas. • Process III `Project Approval' review required for Reasonable Use request. The city will grant the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with some reasonable use of the subject property; single family home footprints restricted to 1,500-1,600 sf with minimal site improvements. ■ Public Works Development Services Division • Once building permit can be issued, Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment and Conservation Flow Control. • The applicant shall depict final stormwater management facilities on the reasonable use plan. Changes to drainage during construction review would be subject to revisions to the reasonable use decision. • Public Works Traffic Division ■ Transportation Concurrency Management (FWRC 19.90) — Transportation concurrency permit with application fee of $1,669.00 is required for the proposed project. • Traffic Impact Fees (FWRC 19.91) — Traffic impact fees are required for each residential dwelling unit and will be assessed at building pen -nit issuance. • Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135.040) — Construct street improvements on S 320' St. and 44"' Ave S to a Type "W" street. • Access Management (FWRC 19.135.260) — The development shall meet access management standards. 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — PLANNING DIVISION Leila Willoughby -Oakes, 253-835-2644, leila.willoughby-oakes@cityoffederalway.com 1. Zoning — The site is zoned Single -Family High -Density Residential (RS 9.6); the minimum lot size is 9,600 sq. ft. A single-family residence (detached dwelling unit) is a permitted use in this zone. 18-102593-00-PC Doc ID: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 3 2. Setbacks, Height, and Lot Coverage — Dimensional requirements are contained in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.200.010 `Detached dwelling unit. 'Minimum yard requirements are 20 feet in the front, five feet on the sides, and five feet in the rear. Side yard setback for a corner lot for that portion of the lot not adjacent to the primary vehicular access is 10 ft., otherwise five feet. Maximum permitted height in this zone is 30 feet above average building elevation (AABE). Maximum lot coverage is 60%. Staff will verify compliance with these requirements with the single family building permit application that is submitted for each individual lot. 3. Land Use Application — Per the proposed scope of work and impacts to the wetland buffers/critical areas, the following review processes are required: Intrusions into a wetland, and in this case, a Reasonable Use request require a Process III Land Use review. Process III is an administrative review subject to conditions and restrictions reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the reasonable use exception, conducted by city staff with a final decision issued by the Director of Community Development. The Process III decision criteria are contained in FWRC 19.65.100.2(a). See FWRC Chapter 19.145 for additional requirements and the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to meet these criteria. Meeting follow-up: The applicant must reduce the proposed house footprint to 1,500-1,600 square feet; which provides a residential gross floor area (including the garage of 2,000 square feet. This is the minimum necessary for the city to grant some reasonable use of the subject property. The applicant shall also orient the structures in a way to reduce wetland buffer impacts. For example, Lot 15, a corner lot, shall face 441' Avenue South, which establishes a rear yard as far as passible from the wetland complex and the least wetland buffer encroachment. Optimally, critical: area fencing and signage along the northern/side property line will prevent enforcement issues or unauthorized buffer removal in the future. Lot 14 should consider an L-shaped or rambler style home to reduce the amount of impervious surface within the wetland buffer and subsequent backyard. As depicted, the building footprint can be located closer to the western property line (min. 5 ft. setback). Please document how you have attempted to reduce intrusions into the wetland buffer. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.090, the applicant must demonstrate that no feasible and reasonable on -site alternatives to the proposal are possible, such as changes to site layout and/or reduction of impervious improvements. A client's desired house plan may not fit on such encumbered lots and a custom building plan might be necessary to create the minimum possible impact to the function and value and/or risks associated with proposed improvements on affected critical areas. 4. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) —The project is exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as the proposed development does not exceed exemption thresholds pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800(1). 5. Public Notification — Process III applications require a 15-day comment period. Within 14 days of issuing the Letter of Complete Application, a Notice of Application will be published in the Federal Way Mirror, posted at the subject property, and the official notice boards within the city. Mailed notice to all properties zoned RS, RM, SE within 300 feet of the subject property required. The 18-102593-00-PC Doc ID: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 4 applicant is responsible for submitting stamped mailing envelopes for property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The cty's GIS Division can provide this service for a nominal fee. Please see the enclosed handout for further information. 6. Critical Areas — As shown on the City's critical areas snaps, the properties contain two critical areas and/or associated buffers: wetlands and a stream (potentially). Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.080, a critical areas report that adequately evaluates the proposal and probable impacts is required. The report must also demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to the critical areas. Off -Site Reconnaissance — As a meeting follow-up, an offsite reconnaissance is necessary for wetlands and a stream when preparing land use application pursuant to FWRC 19.145.410. ■ No development may take place within a stream or stream buffer areas... Buffer widths shall be measured outward on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark or top of bank if the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall identify and characterize all wetlands and buffers on and within 225 feet of the subject property. For off -site areas with limited or no access, estimate conditions using best available information and evaluate the functions of the wetland and buffer. The critical area report [requirements] may be modified if the director determines the applicant cannot obtain permission to access off -site critical areas or buffers. The wetland biologist will be expected to estimate conditions using best available information, site reconnaissance from the subject property and mapping, etc. Wetlands — Delineation and rating of the on -site wetland and wetlands within 225 ft. of the subject property will be required to determine the exact impacts to the wetland and wetland buffer, off -site wetland to the north and wetland buffer. See FWRC 19.145.410-420 for wetland delineation and rating standards. A buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be incorporated into the critical area report. The plan shall assess the habitat, water quality, stormwater retention, groundwater recharge, and erosion protection functions of the existing buffer; assess the effects of the proposed modification on those functions; and address the six approval criteria of this section. Reasonable Use of the Subject Property — The provisions of FWRC Chapter 19.145 may be modified or waived on a case -by -case basis if their implementation would deprive an applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.090, an applicant may apply for a modification or waiver of provisions of this chapter using Process III land use review. The city may approve a Reasonable Use request based on the following criteria: a) The application of the provisions of this chapter eliminates all reasonable use of the subject property; b) No feasible and reasonable on -site alternatives to the proposal are possible, such as changes to site layout and/or reduction of impervious improvements; 18-102593-00-PC Doc 1D: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 5 c) It is solely the implementation of this chapter, and not other factors, that preclude all reasonable use of the subject property; d) The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition that forms the limitation on the use of the subject property, nor in any way contributed to such limitation; and e) The waiver or modification will not lead to, create, nor significantly increase the risk of injury or death to any person or damage to improvements on or off the subject property. Mitigation Plan & Sequencing — The applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas pursuant to FWRC 19.145.130. Mitigation sequencing shall be incorporated in the applicant's critical area report and reviewed by the city's third party reviewer. Acceptable methods to mitigate wetland impacts include the following, in -kind wetland types within the same drainage basin that results in no net loss of wetland area, function, or value. • Creation; • Re-establishment; • Rehabilitation; and, • Enhancement. Stream — It appears there is an off -site unclassified stream, to the northeast of the proposal sites hydrologically connected with the wetland on Goldmaur Lots 14 and 15. Please classify the stream and buffer width pursuant to FWRC 19.145.260-270. If stream buffers exist on the proposal sites (if any on Lot 14), please depict the stream and buffer reasonable use on the site plan. BSBLs — Unless otherwise approved by the Community,Development Director, structures shall be set back a distance of five feet from the edges of a critical area buffer. Landscaping, building overhangs, and fences and railings six feet and less in height may be allowed in the building setback area. Markers — Permanent survey stakes delineating the boundary between adjoining property and critical area buffer shall be set, using markers capable of being magnetically located and as established by current survey standards. Signage — Development proposals approved by the city shall require that the boundary between a critical area buffer and contiguous land shall be identified with permanent signs. Permanent signs shall be a city -approved type designed for high durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 150 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner or homeowners' association in perpetuity. The wording, number and placement of the signs may be modified by the director based on specific site conditions. ■ Find the PW Engineering Development Standards for critical area signs ee end Fencing — Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer on account of the reasonable use request. Fencing will be necessary to protect the functions of the critical area from further encroachments and/or unauthorized clearing, vegetation removal or grading within a wetland buffer by future homeowners. Please place fence and critical area sign posts in crushed gravel, not poured concrete. 18-102593-00-PC Doc ID: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 6 7. Clearing, Grading, and Vegetation and Tree Retention — The proposal is subject to the provisions of FWRC 19.120, "Clearing, Grading, and Vegetation and Tree Retention." A clearing and grading plan that meets FWRC 19.120.020 and FWRC 19.120.040 must be submitted with the Process III application, if clearing and grading work is proposed. Further, please provide a tree survey, indicating species types and spacing and trees to be removed within the wetland buffer for site development. As many trees as possible should be retained on site on account of the critical area function. Each lot is subject to tree density requirements of FWRC 19.120.130(1); note that 25 tree -units per acre are required for single-family zoned sites, minus any regulated critical areas. Trees located within critical area buffers (but not within the wetland itself) can be credited towards satisfying the tree units per acre requirement. Tree unit credits are in table 2 of FWRC 19.120.130-2. The tree density calculation must be depicted on each single family building permit site plan. Please note trees located in the wetland proper cannot be credited towards tree unit requirements. 8. Application Fees —Please contact the Permit Center at 253-835-2607 or permitcenter@cityoffederalway.com for updated fee schedules for land use applications, SEPA checklist, and building permit fees. 9. School Impact Fee — A school impact fee is due at the time of building permit application for the new dwelling units. The fee amount is subject to change as determined annually by the Federal Way School District; please contact the Permit Center for current fees as these change annually. PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Cole Elliott, P.E., 253-835-2730, cole.elliott(a,cityoffederalway.com Land Use Issues — Stormwater 1. Surface water runoff control and water quality treatment will be required per the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the manual. This project meets the requirements for a Directed Drainage Review. At the time of building permit submittal, a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), addressing the relevance of the project to the nine core and five special requirements of the KCSWDM will be required. A Level 1 downstream analysis shall also be provided in the preliminary TIR. The City Addendum can be found at the following website: www.cilyoffederalway.com/node/1467. 2. The project lies within a Conservation flow control area, thus the applicant must design the flow control facility to meet this performance criteria. In addition to flow control facilities, Best Management Practices (BMP's) are required as outlined in the KCSWDM. The project also lies within an Enhanced Basic Water Quality Area. Water Quality Treatment shall be designed to meet the treatment criteria of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. 3. If infiltration is proposed, soil logs prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer or septic designer must be provided to verify infiltration suitability. 4. Show the proposed location and dimensions of the detention and water quality facilities on the preliminary plans. 18-102593-00-PC Doc ID: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 7 Right -of -Way Improvements See the Traffic Division comments from Sarady Long, Sr. Transportation Planning Engineer, for traffic related items. 2. If dedication of additional right-of-way is required to install street frontage improvements, the dedication shall be conveyed to the City through a statutory warranty deed. The dedicated area must have clear title prior to recording. All stormwater treatment and detention requirements outlined above may apply to any improvements within the public right-of-way. 4. FWRC 19.135.280 requires that driveways serving residential uses may not be located closer than 25 feet to any street intersection. Lots and intersections within new subdivisions or short plats must be designed to meet this standard. Building Permit Issues Engineered plans are required for clearing, grading, road construction, and utility work. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the City. Engineering review fees are $209 for a single family permit. Engineering review for the combined frontage improvements would be $209 times the number of lots for first submittal. Additional review time is charged at $139 per hour. A final TIR shall be prepared for the project and submitted with the engineering plans. Both the TIR and the plans will require the signature/seal of a professional engineer registered/licensed in the State of Washington. 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: www.cityoffederalwgy.com/node/1467 to assist the applicant's engineer in preparing the plans and TIR. 3. Bonding is required for all street improvements and temporary erosion and sediment control measures associated with the project. The bond amount shall be 120 percent of the estimated costs of the improvements. 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. 5. 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. 6. Provide cut and fill quantities on the clearing and grading plan. 7. Temporary Erosion and Sediment -control (TESC) measures, per Appendix D of the 2016 KCSWDM, just be shown on the engineering plans. 18-102593-00-PC Doc 1D: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 8 8. The site plan shall show the location of any existing and proposed utilities in the areas affected by construction. PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC DIVISION Sarady Long, 253-835-2743, sarady,.long rggityoffederal►vay.c_ym Transportation Concurrency Analysis (FWRC 19.90) 1. Based on the submitted materials for two Single Family Detached Housing, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation - 10`h Edition, land use code 210 (Single Family Detached Housing), the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately two (2) new weekday PM peak hour trips and 19 daily trips. 2. A concurrency permit is required for this development project. The PW Traffic Division will perform concurrency analysis to determine if adequate roadway capacity exists during the weekday PM peak period to accommodate the proposed development. Please note that supplemental transportation analysis and concurrency mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The estimated fee for the concurrency permit application is $1,669.00 (less than 10 pm Trips). This fee is an estimate and based on the materials submitted for the pre -application meeting. The concurrency applicant fee must be paid in full at the time the concurrency permit application is submitted with land use application. The fee may change based on the new weekday PM peak hour trips as identified in the concurrency trip generation. The applicant has the option of having an independent traffic engineer prepare the concurrency analysis consistent with City procedures; however, the fee remains the same. Transportation Impact Fees (FWRC 19.91) The current adopted traffic impact fee is $3,875 per lot. The total amount of the impact fees will be assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit is issued, using the fee schedule then in effect. The applicant may request, at any time prior to building issuance to defer the payment of the impact fee to final building inspection. If this option is selected, a covenants prepared by the city to enforce payment of the deferred fees will be recorded at the applicant's expense on each lot. Please, refer to defer payment of impact fee code for process. Street Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135) l . The applicant/owner would be expected to construct street improvements consistent with the planned roadway cross -sections as shown in Map III-4 in Chapter III of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shown as Table III-10 (F)A7RC 19.135.040). Based on the materials submitted, staff conducted a limited analysis to determine the required street improvements. The applicant would be expected to construct improvements on the following streets to the City's planned roadway cross -sections: • South 3241h Place and 441h Ave S shall be a Type "W" street, consisting of a 28-foot street with curb and gutter, 4-foot planter strips with street trees, 5-foot sidewalks and street lights in a 52- foot right-of-way (ROW). Assuming a symmetrical cross section, half street improvements are I8-102593-00-PC Doc ID: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 9 required. It appears the existing right -or -way width is adequate to accommodate the improvements. 2. The applicant may make a written request to the Public Works Director to modify, defer, or waive the required street improvements (FWRC 19.135.070). These modification requests have a nominal review fee currently at $278 plus recording fee. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — BUILDING DIVISION Scott Sproul, Scott. Sproulci offedera3lsr•a-k,.cojzz Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), 2015 Washington State Amendments WAC 51-56 & WAC 51-57 International Fire Code (IFC), 2015 Washington State Amendments WAC 51 -54 National Electric Code (NEC), 2017 International Residential Code, 2015 Washington State Amendments WAC 51-51 Washington State Energy Code, 2015 WAC 5 1 -11 Building Criteria Occupancy Classification: R-3 Type of Construction: V-N Floor Area: UNK Number of Stories: UNK Fire Protection: may require NFPA 13D system. Consult SKFR fire marshal. Wind/Seismic: Basic wind speed 85 Mph, Exposure, 25# Snow load, Seismic Zone D-1 A completed building permit application and residential checklist required with the submittal of plans. (Additional copies of application and checklists may be obtained on our web site at www.cilyoffederalway.com.) Submit 2 sets of drawings and specifications. Specifications shall include: 2 Soils report, 2 Structural calculations, and 2 Energy calculations, 2 Ventilation calculations. Note: A Washington State Registered architects' stamp is required for additions/alterations (new or existing) of 4,000 gross floor areas or greater unless specifically listed as an "exempt" structure per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Energy code compliance worksheets are required to be completed and included with your permit application. 18-102593-00-PC Doc ID: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 10 A wet stamp and signature is required on all sheets of plans and on the cover page of any calculations submitted. Federal Way reviews plans on a first in, first out basis; however, there are some small projects with inconsequential review requirements that may be reviewed out of order. Some project may require a third party review or inspection. The cost to cover these fees is the responsibility of the applicant. Any third party fee is in addition to regular permit fees and costs. Review Timing The first comment letter can be expected within 4-5 weeks of submittal date. Re -check of plans will occur in one to three weeks after re -submittal. Revised or resubmitted plans shall be provided in the same format, size, and amount as the originally submitted plans. Revised/resubmitted drawings shall indicate by means of clouding or written response, what changes have been made from the original drawings. Plans for all involved departments will be forwarded from the Community Development Department. Other Permits & Inspections Separate permits may be required for electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire suppression systems, and signs. Applicants may apply for separate permits at any time prior to commencement of construction. When required, special inspections shall be performed by WABO approved agencies or by agencies approved by the building official prior to permit issuance. Construction must be approved by all reviewing departments prior to final building division inspection. Plumbing and mechanical cannot be deferred or by separate permits for single family homes. All concerned departments (Planning, Public Works, Electrical, & Fire) must sign off before the Building Department can final the structure for occupancy. Building final must be approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Construction projects may be required to have a pre -construction conference. If a pre -con meeting is required, the general or representative, all subs, the architect or representative, the engineer or representative, electrical contractor, and any other interested party, should attend this meeting. Meetings will occur at the Building Department and will be scheduled by the inspector of record for the project. The information provided is based on limited plans and information. The comments provided are not intended to be a complete plan review and further comments are possible at time of building permit plan review. LAKEHAVEN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT (Brian Asbury, 253-946-5407, BAsbury(a-),lakehaven.org) Water • A Water Certificate of Availability issued separately by Lakehaven may be required to be submitted with any land use and/or building permit applications (check with land use agency for requirement). Certificate is valid for one (1) year from date of issuance. If Certificate is needed, allow 1-2 work days to issue for typical processing. 2018 cost for a Water Certificate of Availability is $60.00. 18-102593-00-PC Doc ID: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 11 • Fire Flow at no less than 20 psi available within the water distribution system is a minimum of 1,000 GPM (approximate) for two (2) hours or more. This flow figure represents Lakehaven's adopted minimum level of service goals for residential areas regarding performance of the water distribution system under high demand conditions. If more precise available fire flow figures are required or desired, Applicant can request Lakehaven perform a system hydraulic model analysis (separate from, or concurrent with, an application for Availability). 2018 cost for a system hydraulic model analysis is $220.00. • A water service connection application submitted separately to Lakehaven is required for each new service connection to the water distribution system, in accordance with standards defined in Lakehaven's current `Fees and Charges Resolution'. • Service pressure(s) greater than 80 psi indicated, Pressure Reducing Valve(s) indicated, contact local building official for requirements &/or additional information. • Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven water service connection fees/charges/deposits (2018 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees/charges/deposits & are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges and deposits are typically reviewed & adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. • Water Service/Meter Installation, 1" preliminary size: $4,430.00 dig service deposit. Actual size TBD by Lakehaven based on UPC plumbing fixture count. ■ Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Water: $4,018.39 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). Please contact Lakehaven for further detail. • ROW Permit Fee (City of Federal Way): $770.00 (per lot). Sewer ■ A Sewer Certificate of Availability issued separately by Lakehaven may be required to be submitted with any land use and/or building permit applications (check with land use agency for requirement). Certificate is valid for one (1) year from date of issuance. If Certificate is needed, allow 1-2 work days to issue for typical processing. 2018 cost for a Sewer Certificate of Availability is $60.00. • A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement (Goldmaur Sewer Extension-6317003) will be required to construct new sanitary sewer system facilities necessary for the proposed development, including extend-to-far-edge(s) in accordance with long-standing Lakehaven policy. • A separate Lakehaven Sewer Service Connection Permit is required for each new connection to the sanitary sewer system, in accordance with standards defined in Lakehaven's current `Fees and Charges Resolution'. • The associated DE Agreement must achieve a point of either Substantial Completion or Acceptance, as determined by Lakehaven, prior to activating any new sewer service connection(s). • Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven sewer service connection fees/charges/deposits (2018 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees/charges/deposits & are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges and deposits are typically reviewed & adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. • Sewer Service Connection Permit: $303.52 fee (per lot). • Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Sewer: $3,803.76 per ERU. • Service Agreement Charge (Private Grinder Pump): $150.00 per lot, if applicable. 18-102593-00-PC Doc ID: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 12 • County Document Charges: $105.00 (+/-) per lot, if applicable. General All Lakehaven Development Engineering related application forms, and associated standards information, can be accessed at Lakehaven's Development Engineering web pages (http://www.lakehaven-org04/Develo ment-En ineerin ). All comments herein 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 Water Supply A Certificate of Water Availability including a hydraulic fire flow model* shall be requested from the water district and provided at the time of building permit application. *A hydraulic fire flow model is required for single family residences that exceed 3600 square feet including garages and covered areas. The existing hydrant meets hydrant location requirements. Emergency Access Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all requirements of Fire Access Policy 10.006 (enclosed): h ://southkin fiire.or DoctimentCenter/Home/View/24 Fire Sprinkler System Detennination of requirements for fire sprinklers, if any, are made at the time of building permit application. 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 as per FWRC 19.40.070 (4). 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, Leila 18-102593-00-PC Doc 1D: 77903 Mr. Clements July 17, 2018 Page 13 Willoughby -Oakes, 253-835-2644, leila.willoughby-oakes@cityoffederalway.com. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, �76" r-lo� Leila Willoughby -Oakes Associate Planner enc: Preapplication Sign -in Sheet Master Land Use Applications Process III Submittal Requirements (Lot 14 & 15 "separate applications") Mailing Labels Handout FWRC 19.145 `Notice on Title' FWRC 19.145.090 `Reasonable Use' Approval Criteria Sign Installation Certificate Tree Calculation Worksheet NGPA/Critical Area Sign Standards SK Fire & Rescue Fire Access Standards Right -of -Way Modification Bulletin c: Mike Davis, Rock River Realty, Goldmaur LLC, email: mike Ca) rockrivernw.Com Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Sr. Transportation Planning Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven, emailed Chris Cation, South King Fire & Rescue, emailed Steve Quarterman, Landau Associates Inc., email: Nuartermanoajandauine.coln 18-102593-00-PC Doc ID: 77903 Wetland Delineation Report for the Goldmaur Property, Lots 14/15, in Federal Way Located at 4242 & 4250 S 324tb Place, Federal Way, WA 98001 Tax Parcel Nos. 282410-0140 (Lot 14) & 282410-0150 (Lot 15) Situated in the SW t/4 of the NE'/4 of Section 15-T21N-R4E, W.M. King County, Washington Prepared for Mike Davis, C/o Rock River Homes (formerly Kingston Realty NW) 19655 1 It Ave. S., Suite #204 Normandy Park, WA 98166 Mobile: 206-948-9997 Phone: 206-388-6949 E-mail: miked rockrivernw.com June 4, 2018 .'Nb. x W Prepared by JOHN COMIS ASSOCIATES, LLC �consulting for wetlands. Streams & Mitigation Designs since l98 1027 North Oakes Street Tacoma, WA 98406 Phone:253-272-6808 Mobile: 253-686-4007 E-mail: icomisr' hricomisassoei7les.com QCA Job # 170329) RECEIVED JUN 19 2018 CITY OF COIN UNITY ERAL DDEvELOPl41Fy4T ;JOHNCOMIS ASSOCIATES, LLC onsulting for Wetlands, Streams, & Mitigation Designs_ since 198 1027 North Oakes Street Tacoma, WA 98406 Office: (253) 272-6808 Mobile: (253) 686-4007 E-mail: icamis r �jaltncomysacsnaiatcs,Cam June 4, 2018 Mike Davis C/o Rock River Homes LLC (formerly Kingston Realty NW) 19655 lst Ave. S., Suite #204 Normandy Park, WA 98166 Mobile: 206-948-9997, Phone: 206-388-6949 E-mail: mikedl'ia rockrivernw.com Subject: Wetland Delineation Report for the Goldmaur Property, Lots 14/15 in Federal Way, located at 4242 & 4250 S 324th Place, Federal Way, WA 98001, Parcel Nos. 282410-0140 (Lot 14) & 282410- 0150 (Lot 15), situated in the SW '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 15-T21N-R4E, W.M., King County, WA (JCA Job#170329) To Whom It May Concern: On 4/4 and 4/6/2017, John Comis Associates (JCA) completed a field investigation that identified and delineated a regulated wetland that was designated as Wetland "A" by this study. The wetland was found to extend offsite to the north of this property and included a smaller wetland area to the west that is associated with the onsite wetland, which was designated as Wetland "AT'. This work was done in accordance with current City of Federal Way Municipal Code (FWMC) requirements for Critical Wetland Areas.l' The wetland evaluation included all of the onsite areas and offsite areas located within 225 feet 1 of the Project site (see figures included with this report for details). The adjacent offsite areas were examined in detail where they were located just north and west of this property as shown on the maps and figures provided with this report (see Figure 1). A perimeter drainage ditch appears to effectively drain much of the adjacent portions of onsite and offsite areas situated to the south and east of the project site. Please refer to Figures 5 and 6 for details of terrain mapping that show the main drainage features and the tributary areas that drain surface water toward the "Mill Creek" stream corridor that is located within Peasley Canyon, about 150 feet east of the project site. The work included a detailed delineation of the wetland boundary situated within this property and adjacent to the north. JCA estimated the extent of the offsite portions of wetland located west and north from the ' Please note that wetland delineations were made by JCA per the current Washingwn Stow Wetlands Iden-4fs ti n at eltneahan M (WDOE, 1997). This manual method has been updated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) using the current Regional Ter»enf to dte Cor s E ineers We nd Deli t' Momr 1. We temp Mou,rt iris Fall sand Coast Region (USACE 2010). z The 225-foot distance is the maximum buffer width for the highest rated Category 1 wetland. This represents a reasonable distance from which a "regulated activity" should not impact a "regulated wetland per the FWMC. Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 1 of 35 property by available topography and aerial photo mapping. Please refer to the Field Note Sketch Maps (FNSM) by JCA provided with this report in Appendix 2 for details about data points and vegetation that were marked by JCA for this analysis. These data points were marked with flags and ribbons tied to vegetation at angle -points around the wetland, or as needed to mark features used in this analysis throughout the site. The points are numbered as shown on the FNSM and survey located by the project surveyor, Olympic Surveying LLC, as shown on the Existing Conditions Survey for Mike Davis (see Figure 7). Summary of Fla in for Field Data Points The delineated data points are survey located and plotted to scale on the Existing Conditions Survey Map for Mike Davis by the project surveyor, Olympic Surveying LLC. These data points are flagged with colored ribbon marked as follows: • Wetland 'A' (#Al to #A29, including A3.1 thru A3.7) ■ 8 Test Plots (TP1 thru TP8) [Note that other test holes were examined in various locations, but these were not recorded or flagged for this study] The data points are flagged with colored ribbon marked as follows: ■ "WETLAND DELINEATION -number" (� ribbon, tied to vegetation, see circled numbers on sketch map) ■ "TEST PLOT -number" (blue and grreen ribbons, tied to vegetation, see triangles on sketch map) ■ "TRANSECT-distance" blue ribbon, tied to vegetation, as measured by hip chain and GPS by JCA) [NOTE: When flagged data points are tied to vegetation, locate the point on the ground directly below the flagged location. However, if a line of sight is impaired, locate the nearest point on the ground that is tangent to the flagged point(s) along the same contour and/or in line with the last (or next) data point.] Summary of Wetland Findines Generally, for an area to be determined a "jurisdictional wetland", it must meet all 3 scientific ctite'rid of the triple parameter test. These criteria are limited to the presence or absence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and persistent wetland hydrology. The absence of any one of these criteria may be used to determine that a sample test plot is a "non -wetland" area. This means that to make a positive wetland determination for an area, all 3 criteria must be present. The absence of one, two, or all three of the criteria should result in a non -wetland determination for that area. "Field indicators" are used to determine if a criterion is met. If one field indicator is absent, then an indirect or secondary indicator may be used. For example, the absence of water saturation during a dry summer investigation could result in the hydrology criterion not being met. However, the presence (or absence) of secondary indicators such as encrusted detritus on twigs or blackened leaves on bare ground in a depression may be used to help determine that sufficient saturation or inundation was present during a wetter period of the recent early growing season. Knowing that this secondary indicator was present (or absent) may be sufficient evidence to determine that the area does (or does not) have persistent wetland hydrology. The 2010 Regional Supplement Manual stipulates 3 key provisions for the definition of wetlands include: a. Inundated or saturated soil conditions resulting from permanent or periodic inundation or saturation by ground water or surface water (saturation within 12 inches of the surface for at least 20 to 30 consecutive days during periods in the Mesic growing season [March thru October]). In accordance with the USACE 2010 "Manual" (pages 65 & 123): "This standard requires 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, ponding, or a water table 12 inches (30 cm) or less below the soil surface, during the growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (50% or higher probability) (National Research Council 1995) ..." Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 2 of 35 b. A prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (i.e. dominance of hydrophytic vegetation). c. The presence of "normal circumstances". Vegetation classes within the delineated portions of Wetland "A" were clearly established by forested vegetation including understory vegetation in 3 canopy layers. These included skunk cabbage, red alders, salmonberry, red osier dogwood, and Himalayan blackberries at the wetland edges. Wetland "A" is evaluated in accordance with the FMWC for wetland areas that are generally characterized in accordance with Cowardin et al 3 as follows: WL: SYSTEM I CLASS I WATER REGIME abbreviation A Palustrine P) Forested FO) seasonally flooded C) PFOC Evaluation of offsite wetland vegetation was done by JCA to verify the existing wetland areas that were delineated as Wetland "Al". This offsite wetland was found to be located within 225 feet of a Project site. This also included offsite wetland areas that were mapped using the best available data for this study area that JCA obtained from the King County Geographic Information System (iMAP) or the National- Wetland Inventory (NWI) data (see Figure 4). Please refer to the figures included with this report for these details. Soils within the site area were found to be hydric based on the matrix color (10yr2/1) and general presence of redoximorphic features (red mottles). Hydric soils were defined as "a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upperpart" (USDA-NRCS 1995, Federal Register, 7/13/94, Vol. 59, No. 133, pp. 35680- 83). The hydric soil determination was generally made based on the black matrix color. The soil color and redoximorphic features ° in at least 3 of the 8 test plots included primary field indicators for a hydric mineral soil determination that extends across the wetland. Please refer to the Field Note Data in Appendix 2 for details of soil color, texture, and saturation that was found onsite on 4/4/17 and 4/6/17 by JCA. The drainage patterns in the surrounding area were generally evaluated based on field observations by JCA during a wet spring condition, when runoff was evident in the adjacent drainage ditches and culverts, and standing water was present within the wetland area. The drainage patterns around the site were shown on the "Area Terrain Map with Tributary Basin & Drainage Patterns" (Figure 5), and the "Aerial Terrain Map with 150, 250' & 330' Radii" (Figure 6). At the time of this field investigation, there was standing water found onsite and on adjacent properties to the north of the site. Furthermore, surface water saturation was found onsite in all of the test holes that were dug within the delineated boundary of Wetland "A" (see field data forms and field notes in Appendix 2). The offsite stream located about 150 feet east of the project site (called Mill Creek) generally flows from north to south through Peasley Canyon. It is situated along the toe of a steep, high bank that is densely forested, and appears to be near or within the adjacent road right-of-way for Peasley Canyon Drive South. There appears to be a direct connection between the onsite wetland and this stream course. This stream is classified as a "Category 5" on the WDOE Water Quality 303(d) List (see map with rating form in Appendix 3). This information is used to help rate Wetland "A" as described below. JCA found that there was a portion of offsite Wetland "Al" that extended north and west of the project site. Wetland "Al" does appear to be directly associated with Wetland "A" and it is included for the wetland 3 US Fish and Wildlife Service's "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States", FWS/OBS-79/31 (Cowardin et al, 1979) 4 "Redoximorphic features" are formed by the processes of reduction, translocation, or oxidation of Fe and Mn oxides (formerly called mottles and low chroma colors). Redox concentrations (reddish mottles) occur as pore linings along root channels and ped faces (Vepraskas, 1994). "Distinct" and "prominent" are defined in the glossary of the reference text Field Indicators offf dric SOs in the United States. Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 3 of 35 rating. However, JCA did not delineate the entire area of "Al" in detail for this study. We used the available terrain mapping and photogrammetric data for this area in order to evaluate the extent and conditions of Wetland "Al". The onsite and offsite wetland areas were evaluated based on existing conditions in order to complete a rating in accordance with the City of Federal Way critical area review requirements. For details about the wetland rating and mapping used for this analysis, please refer to the completed 2014 WDOE Rating Form and map figures in Appendix 3 that are included with this report. Summary of Wetland Rating and Suffer Requirements The FWMC 19.145.420 (Wetland rating and buffers) provides for wetland rating and buffer requirements. [see the excerpt portions of the FWMC in Appendix 1, Part E of this report for applicable standards and details. Items shown in italics below are copied from the FWMC.] JCA prepared a detailed wetland rating for the onsite and adjacent offsite portions of Wetland "A", including "Al". The wetlands were rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the current "Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update ", effective January 2015 (WDOE Pub #04-06-029). Please note that offsite wetlands were evaluated if they are located within 225 feet of the Project Site, but not with the same detail as onsite areas. The onsite and adjacent offsite portions of Wetland "A" were rated Category III with a moderate level of functions that score between 16 and 19 points based on functions. The habitat value score was 6 points (see enclosed rating form in Appendix 3). A standard buffer width for this category of wetland with a habitat score of 6 points is required to be 165 feet. This buffer width should be measured landward from the edge of the delineated wetland (see table in Appendix 1, Part E of this report for more details). In accordance with the FWMC 19.145.420, the following provisions apply to the 2 Lots #14 and #15 in the established Plat as follows: (5) Lighting shall be directed away from wetland buffers unless otherwise determined by the director; (6) All lots approved in a recorded subdivision ar bindin .rite &an that contain wetlands and their associated buffer in a native mwih protection easement or tract mgH be improved pursuant to casement or tract boundaries established in the plat regardless of subsequent regitlatary buyer increases or natural mi —tion (7) All wetland and wetland buffer boundaries shown on an approved use process decision and/or building permit shall be honored regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or natural migration. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) Furthermore, the FWMC 19.145.430 provides for development within wetlands for these 2 lots in the established Plat as follows for "Development within wetlands": (2) The specific location and extent of development within a wetland must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment as determined through application of mitigation sequencing set forth in FWRC 19.145.130. The city will review and decide upon development within a wetland using process IV in Chapter 19.70 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (b) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (c) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space; (d) It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value upon completion of compensatory mitigation; (e) The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare; (fl The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project; and (p) The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 4 of 35 Finally, the FWMC 19.145.420 (3) stipulates that "Requirements for compensatory mitigation shall ONLY [emphasis added] be used for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions." Based on the limited size of both lots and the fact that a 165-foot wide buffer would extend across the entirety of these lots, some residence use of each lot cannot avoid potential impacts by filling and using a portion of the buffer and wetland area for new building sites. Therefore, the following recommendations are made by JCA at this time to minimize potential impacts to the wetland and buffer areas. Recommendations: Since much of the site is covered by wetland, and the rest of the site is covered by buffer area, JCA recommends that a Reasonable Use Exemption (RUE) or wetland variance should be applied for each lot in accordance with the FWMC. This should be reviewed first by the Planning Department and then referred to the Hearings Examiner for final decision. The RUE should be based on existing zoning for this area and any covenants that may be applicable from the Plat of Goldmaur, for Parcel No. 282410-0140 (Lot 14) & Parcel No. 282410-0150 (Lot 15). JCA recommends that at least a 50' x 50' building envelope should be provided on each lot for a reasonable single-family residential use. Based on the fact that both lots front onto 3241h Place South, the new residential building envelopes for each lot should be constructed in the southern part of each lot. This would be the portion of each lot that is nearest to the City Street and existing public utilities. Furthermore, based on the wetland delineation, the least impacting area for a new building site appears to be situated in the southern part of each lot (see Figure 7 for details). A small portion of wetland may necessarily need to be filled by this plan and the final size, proportions and location of the building envelope on each lot may have to be adjusted by the City to further minimize potential impacts to the wetland area. JCA does not recommend enhancement measures be added to the existing wetland due to dense vegetation and existing conditions which already exist in this area. Standard of Care Please be advised that John Comis Associates (JCA) has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the performance of this environmental evaluation. Wetland determinations and/or delineations, classifications, ratings and other analysis should be reviewed and approved by the City official with permitting authority, and potentially other agencies with regulatory authority, prior to extensive site design or development. No warranties are expressed or implied by this study until approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. The findings expressed in this report are based on field investigations by JCA, best available data, and our professional judgment. If you have questions or comments, please call me at your earliest convenience. Respectfully, 2r, 6/04/2018 John G. Comis, PWS Date Certified Wetlands Specialist Professional Wetland Scientist (SWS-PCP #00810) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 5 of 35 XM c cams 0=10 � File: \Davis-GoldmaurLotsl4-15@FedWayWLRpt.doc (JCA Job#170329) Enclosures: (1 copy of each Figure and Appendix) FIGURES: Piaure 1, Vicinity Map with 1 Km & 330' Radii Overlay (by King County iMAP & JCA details) Figure 2. Parcel Map of Project Site & Vicinity (by King County Assessor) Figure 3. Aerial Photo Map with Onsite Details (by King County iMAP) Figure 4. Critical Areas Map (by City of Federal Way) Figure 5. Aerial Terrain Map with Tributary Basin & Drainage Patterns (County iMAP & JCA details) Figure 6. Aerial Terrain Map with 150', 250' & 330' Radii Overlay (County iMAP & JCA details) Figure 7. Existing Conditions Survey Map with Wetland Delineation (by Olympic Surveying LLC) APPENDICES: Appendix 1. Methodology Used for Wetland Delineation, Regulation and Buffer Standards Appendix 2. Field Note Sketch Maps and Field Data Forms by JCA Appendix 3. Wetland Rating Form including 303(d) List of Water Quality Areas and other map data Appendix 4. Photographs of Existing Onsite and Adjacent Offsite Areas Appendix 5. Resumes for Wetland and Wildlife Consultants Appendix 6. References for Wetland Analysis Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 6 of 35 - - - - -J 262,000sf (6.015ac), �.�_, �r - .;�;� •:�?"f,�h Z,.'-.F relatively undisturbed offsite wetland and buffer• ; �' 9 �• �~� � t�;rl �� � Project Site: � µ.� ,Y 4242 & 4250 S 324 Place, areas north and west of k..� ;fix .:.5 Federal Way. WA 98001_,Parcel the project site-` N 282410- t 14 282410-_0150 (Lot 15). situated in AWr :�+; .. i ',' c: ..s► •t ;~ . zl r,.r.;the SW I/4qf aNE'/.of �';'++'� Y ' ��, Secti n 15-T21N- 4E W.M. .r•� 'tli%'.y �'f'�r.r �l�yri..���� ����•rM4 1[3gpUi44Y. ►r L� r q1` '01 eAl ol �S 32Otn� ►' Mil tr r f & 4 , •' r t ,.. 2 s i :► sofa As j r 4 Ill L 9111. •'. �-! 1 rCal .s � �iA �•r.�r�� r � s y � •rt � 330' Radius f 0 around Wetland "A' r i ,� • J r Center of Sec. 15 -. I Krn Radius JL .� . around Wetland "A" or •�Hti p•- r�� 'i - rt "►' L �� � t - ,1'-' Rr'a",.3-! wf�i. 'r]'�i • 9 _ .� ri�yi-i ,�i�lti4 . The sgfarmallorn lnclyded on d}IS map tsa been acl lled by King Couriy Batt from il of sources and Is subject to efum a wlthcul nonce. Kill Cal makes ro representill8 orwrfrani los, a)press or1mpl Ed, N King County as to accuracy, completeness, llmekles6, or rl td the use of such infor maWn. TM6 0cGui nl ianot IMelded ♦7r use as asurveyprod l Kilo Coumyarnal noh be fable forany general, special, Indirect, Incldsnlal, or �•\`\1 �7�*�; cclirse mlatdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profls resulting fromthe use or mill GIS CENTER d the Iformation donl$ned on thb mac. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 4/11/2018 Notes: Vicinity Aerial Map with 1 Km & 330' Radii Overlay Figure 1 L Lot 14 Lot 15 Zpir•e. � tc I 76 _ `I ONG 'tFnL^ S.314TH. PL. " I;, ■ ��o7ni♦ Fell ^I 6 170iQU8�Fd s. rol - j t8 nh j tIm 47 .. 49 I 5art77tGC c. Om j '• n p 15 „ "C1S: Sate 93• - S31 @C' a pt4 Y;? t _ - ' s 0" 5 i Iw q ;r y • •I . -. A AC 4 W :i.: - w 1 r •'. � 55 a r 5S - tm ii. �, ^ i. 4 try t �r • =A. 14 s 2P n, .1.•�. Gp4It / 43 DOG 62 !w 57 25 t 0960 5BU Ob20 p�h, Parcel Map of Project Site & Vicinity Situated in the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 15-T21N-R4E, in Federal Way, King County, Washington Figure 2 4� P_iRMA U Jvr U M *m �4 rX4 A 4-3 Q1 4J f6 �4 P4 4-4 2.E Tj E a 04 A Its E chi! L ZO -IR -0 E E j* w Ins E 7 "Wh Figure 3 4 Critical Areas Map Legend: Drainage Basins- Critical Areas: Water Features: L„ Hylebos Creek Erosion Hazard Area Lakes Lower Green River Landslide Hazard Areas Streams Lower Puget Sound Wetlands (1998 City Survey) Mill Creek Write River Boundaries are approximate. Remember, ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE AREAS MAY EXIST. See Map Notes below for more information. Scale: �- L 0 0,25 0.5 1 2-, 20 N i= 50 AcresJ:lstandardVefereneelsensitive.mxd Miles 5 King County E Creek Figure 5 - aerial terrain map w tributary basin boundary CID .- .�. ,�,.._ � . �' *'�► v' ''ail Pr 00 �T^ - l' •- �• '� to - �';, �,� - •1 fix. r� F ry r • ' � - y. '•'1- I .~ ..I i JO co a r �. Watershed Basin `��• r, f Boundary for Wetland "A" = ..-A � �� 215;860sf (4,955 ac) Fit. �1•• ��• ` � '1 .,�! +. �r� ti } r �. ti. - '� it ... ,3•_ f 4 '� W �� � ■ ' 167 feet • Pt The nfwmaticm Oclided on this map tas beep Compiled by King County Batt ham a valley of aourcea and Is sub)ant to change "rout notice. Khg County makes no represemetions or wirrentieSL express or Impgad, N King County as to accuracy, odmMtenesa, timolooss, errighls to the um of such Irionmatnn Thisdocunent In not Intended LQ br uW as asurvey prodxt- Khg Countyshat not de table for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or GIS CENTER damage s indudhg, but not Imied to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or ilformalon on this map is prohibited excep by written permission of King County. Date: 4/11/2018 notes: Aerial Terrain Map with Tributary Basin & Drainage Patterns Figure IvrLegend Parcels index contours - - 100 foot ' contours - 5 foot eill A (below 1000 feet) -'�► and 10 foot V 4 • .�; Stream s Drainage basins Mill Creek, situated in the bottom of Peasley Canyon Al 150-11 Radius around Wetland "A'• ti II All } 4 7.' 15 . _ I1VL- 10 250-ft Radius It "-J. 330-11 Radius n ��,�: � � * _"•-- � � ;�i •i+� around WL-"A" - l y, ,•-. • (also see Fig. 1) :- v`y41T� It to Pir) The nfonnallon ncluded on this map tas been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to cf ange wlthail nottds. KF,g County males no rapresanlationso warengaS mwrees v nnplled. N King County as so accuracy, gampAstenesq umetneaa, wdQmsfo thg uIa of audr Idormsl en. Thl.doeumem Is not Iruetded iar use as aawvayproduel. Khg County ahal not be [able for any general spacial, indirect. titE�ntal, or 7+�+ consequentlat damages including, but not Imied to, lost revenues orlon profis meu7lflg from the use or misule GIS CENTER I.R of the Infemtatidat eonlai ned on this map. Any sale of this map or i+facmalon on Ihie map is Prohibited weep by written perrtission of King County Figure 6 Date: 4/11/2018 Notes: Aerial Terrain Map with 150', 250' & 330' Radii Overlay 1 v 'Iliy / L ---------------- ---------- S. rw) V- r I, II• O• ' a �— • In 1 �rTtt I: Q •ter' �_ `� 4 Q r Z 'x 1� ❑ 17 aim ....... ... &.. ..•G" , I `I 1 ! fit.. ..ya. . ..... tLL x• h* T Z ; 1 1 (pj) I'rF r.� l j, . 9- x nyi i I am r �I. 1L 4•L 9 —�— —: :.� jf— _ --- ----- i?SIR `. omlro na,u�r eartsvr � -- T 44th AVE. S. --�{------ 1---- - - --- _ WAI9, MN1------ P ¢¢ EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FOR: s ; _ MIKE DAVIS, KINGSTON REAL ESTATE KINGSTON REAL ESTATE J MDR Id AVE 8O. Hpfril4N01' pWtlt WA. WA 98166 PH (206) 386-690 r ll�l 2 IP RC w Mfl� �. 44_ I h B g 5urveying LLc 19912 9aln 91, o Eo ninglan 99391 u F9n(2C61396W2022 •ane pio o^q em �� p,u�.cnamcnmco�l gel APPENDIX 1 METHODOLOGY USED FOR WETLAND DELINEATIONq REGULATION AND BUFFER STANDARDS Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 7 of 35 METHODOLOGY A. Manual Methods Used for Wetland Determination and Delineation The identification of `wetlands" by JCA for this analysis was consistent with applicable manual methods and in accordance with the City of Federal Way Municipal Code (FWMC) requirements. JCA used the most recent editions of the federal and state wetland manuals and applicable regional supplements as approved and adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). This appendix describes the methods used including key definitions, criteria, abbreviations, regulation standards and applicable portions of code requirements used in this analysis. "Wetlands" are delineated using the updated 2010 US Army Corps of Engineers Re Tonal Su lement to the Cor s o En 'veers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010).5 The field investigation is limited to a determination of the presence or absence of "regulated wetlands" on or near the project site, including offsite areas within 200 feet g of the site boundary. If an offsite wetland or stream is known or suspected to be within 200 feet of the project, then the wetland or stream must be evaluated and delineated based on the best available data for offsite areas. [See report figures for depictions of radii around the wetland unit that were used for this analysis.] For an area to be determined a "wetland" it must necessarily meet the scientific definition and triple parameter criteria. These criteria which an investigator must use to determine if a sample test plot is in a "wetland" or "non -wetland" area is limited to the presence of all 3 wetland criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and persistent wetland hydrology. This means that to make a positive wetland determination, all 3 criteria must be present. The absence of one, two, or all three of the criteria should result in a non - wetland determination. The presence or absence of "field indicators" is used to determine if a criterion is met. If a field indicator is absent, then an indirect indicator may be used. For example, the absence of inundation or saturation during a dry summer field investigation could result in the hydrology criterion not being met. However, the presence or absence of encrusted detritus on twigs or blackened leaves on bare ground in a depression may be used to help verify sufficient inundation during a wetter period of the growing season. The 2010 Regional Supplement Manual stipulates 3 key provisions of the definition of wetlands include: a. Inundated or saturated soil conditions resulting from permanent or periodic inundation or saturation by ground water or surface water (saturation within 12 inches of the surface for at least 20 to 30 consecutive days during periods in the Mesic growing season [March thru October]). In accordance with the USACE 2010 "Manual" (pages 65 & 123): "This standard requires 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, ponding, or a water table 12 inches (30 cm) or less below the soil surface, during the growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (50% or higher probability) (National Research Council 1995) ..." b. A prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (i.e. dominance of hydrophytic vegetation). c. The presence of "normal circumstances". 5 Wetlands are delineated using the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE Publication #96-94). The WA State Wetlands Manual is required to be used by all state agencies in the application of any state laws and regulations as well as any city or county in the implementation of any regulations under the Growth Management Act. This methodology has been modified to be consistent with the 2010 US Army Corps of Engineers Regional l ment to the, CQW of En&neers Wedand DelinegfM Mmunk Westem Mounr_ams Valleys, and C sr Region (USAGE 2010). hltrrllwww tisaee.arrnv.mil/Portals/3/dncstcivil,,vorks/rcrulatit su pAtie,St t iinir� alsupp.pdf 6 The 200-foot distance is the standard buffer width for the highest rated Category 1 wetland, which represents a reasonable distance from which a "regulated activity" should not impact a "regulated wetland". Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Regon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 8 of 35 The selection of a specific method and procedure for identi in wetlands may follow one of the following methods: • the "routine determination method" for undisturbed and non -problem area wetlands; • the "offsite determination method" for areas within 225 feet of the site boundary; and/or • the "disturbed area and problem area wetland determination procedures" for areas with disturbed or atypical vegetation, soils or hydrology. If an area is disturbed, then a higher level of analysis such as a "Comprehensive" determination method may be required. The preferred and simplest method is the "ROUTINE Determination Method" for ical, generally undisturbed areas with normal environmental conditions. The routine method is used in areas where the vegetation, soils and hydrology condition can be readily observed. For areas that are complex, atypical, disturbed or altered environmental conditions, a "COMPREHENSIVE Determination Method" may be used. The comprehensive method employs transect sampling procedures that may require deeper test holes to be dug in areas that have been filled or graded. Generally, the investigator is looking for a portion of the site (called a test plot) where a "typical condition" exists --where a well -established plant community is present with no evidence of recent clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, or soil drainage activities. This situation should occur during a period when "normal circumstances" are present. That is during periods of the year when normal environmental conditions such as moderate rainfall and average antecedent moisture conditions (AMC) exist within a wetland or a watershed area. For the hydrophytic vegetation criterion to be met, a dominant number (i.e. more than 50%) of "OBL, FACW and/or FAC" indicator species must be present in the sample plot (see the discussion of these abbreviations in a later section of this appendix). The vegetation analysis is based on the 3-dominant species in each of 4 vegetation layers (or strata: trees, saplings/shrubs, herbs/grasses, and woody vines). Or if only 1 or 2 vegetation layers exist at the test plot, then 5 dominant species are used to make the determination. If a test plot has no well -established vegetation due to recent clearing and grubbing, or the soils have been severely disturbed due to excavation, filling or grading activities, the test plot is called an "atypical situation". In atypical or disturbed situations, the wetland determination may be based only on soil borings into the undisturbed soil stratum below the fill line and by hydrology criteria. If an area is disturbed, then a higher level of analysis such as a "comprehensive" determination method may be required. The procedure used for each test plot is indicated on the individual data sheets. The environmental conditions that exist at the site on the day of the field investigations are indicated in field notes and marked in the appropriate "normal" (or not normal) blank at the top of the data sheet. If the vegetation, soils or hydrology are found disturbed, this is explained at the bottom of the sheet. The results for each test plot are recorded on data forms and included with this report in Appendix 2. B. KEY DEFINITIONS USED For this study, "wetlands" are defined using the adopted State oL Washington's Growth Management Act definition in RCW 36.70A.030(21): "Wetland" or "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (Corps of Engineers Regulation 33 CFR 328.3, 1988) (1=ederaI Resister, 1982), the Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Register 1985), the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and the Growth Management Act (GMA) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 9 of 35 In addition, the SMA and GMA definitions added: "Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands." Other key definitions may also apply that are in the adopted City of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), Chapter 19, Critical Areas Re lations [Note that the City uses a 3-tiered rating system for categorizing wetlands, see part E. of this appendix for details]. Also see Section E in this appendix for more details about applicable City regulations. C. WETLAND IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION CRITERIA By Vegetation_ When "normal circumstances" exist on the site, vegetation is used where plants are established and relatively undisturbed. These circumstances are considered "typical" situations as compared to "atypical salutations" where one or more of the 3 parameters (vegetation, soil, and/or hydrology) have been sufficiently altered or disturbed. The legal definition of wetlands 1 contains the phrase "under normal circumstances," which was included because there are instances in which the vegetation in wetlands may have been inadvertently or purposely removed or altered as a result of recent natural events or human activities. "Recent" is defined to mean that period of time since legal jurisdiction of an applicable law began. Field Data Form is used for "routine wetland determination" when the 3-parameters (vegetation, soil and/or hydrology) have not been sufficiently altered by recent human activities or natural events to preclude the presence of wetland indicators.! Test plot in which vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology have not been significantly altered are indicated on the forms by YES for "Do normal circumstances exist?" and by NO for "Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)?" Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No❑ Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes❑ No® Is the area a potential problem area? Yes❑ No® "Problem areas" apply to certain wetland types (or difficult conditions) that may make application of field indicators of one or more parameters difficult to determine, at least at certain times of the year. These are not considered to be "atypical situations". Instead they are types of wetlands in which an indicator(s) of one or more parameters may be periodically lacking due to normal environmental conditions or seasonal or annual variations in environmental conditions that result from causes other than human activities or catastrophic natural events. 2 For this study, vegetation is used as a primary field indicator, documented at 8 individual test plots (TP's) and recorded on Field Data Forms (see Appendix 2). The interpretation of data for determining areas as "wetland" or "non -wetland" is based on dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, which means that the presence of hydrophytes is more than 50% of the listed indicator species at each test plot. A plant species is considered dominant in a test plot if more than 10% of the plants growing in that area appear to be the same species. This is an estimate of the relative density of a species in a sample area. By 7 WDOE 1997 Manual, paragraph 25a, page 9, Definition (from Federal Register, SMA and GMA) 8 Based on WDOE 1997 Manual, Appendix A, Glossary definition for "Atypical situation" 9 WDOE 1997 Manual, paragraph 77, page 81, Section G: Problem Areas Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 10 of 35 routine methods, this is usually made by visual inspection of the dominant plants in a representative sample area. As defined in the USACE 2010 Manual, a dominant species exerts a controlling influence on or defines the character of a plant community. Dominance on the other hand is used as a descriptor of vegetation that is related to the standing crop of a species in an area, usually measured by height, aerial cover, or basal area (for trees). This should not to be confused with a vegetation class that must comprise more than 30% of the aerial cover in the entire wetland (or upland). The TP locations are shown on the Wetland Delineation Map (Figure 7) and on our Field Note Sketch Map (FNSM, Appendix 2). Onsite data are extrapolated to adjacent offsite areas where applicable. Plant indicator species are listed on the Field Data Forms in all the areas where vegetation is relatively well established and can be identified. Onsite vegetation is not significantly disturbed and are generally used for "wetland" and "non -wetland' determination. If more than 50% (i.e. 51 or more percent) of the dominant plant species in a test plot are OBL, FACW and FAC, then the hydrophytic vegetation criteria is said to be met and it is marked "yes" on the field data form. The specie identifications are based on available plant keys such as Hitchcock and Cronquist's flora a the Pacific Northwest (1973). To determine whether plant species exhibit hydrophytic adaptations, if they are native or non-native (introduced), and which strata (tree, shrub, herb) they normally occupy, we use the National List of ftnt &ecies That Occur in Wetlands. NwZY vest (12egiart }, published by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, May 1988. The indicator statuses for the various species found in the area are determined based on the National List together with the December 1993 supplement for the Northwest Region. The indicator status describes the estimated probability of a plant species occurring in wetlands. Parenthesis ( ) around an indicator signifies the status is assigned by JCA. A question mark (?) after an indicator signifies it is tentative based on JCA field experience & observations. Indicators are: OBL = Obligate Wetland species: "almost always occurs", >99% probability FACW = Facultative Wetland species: "usually occurs", 67-99% probability FAC = Facultative species: "equally likely to occur", 34-66% probability FACU = Facultative Upland species: "usually occurs in non -wetlands", 67-99% probability UPL = Upland species: "almost always occurs in non -wetlands", >99% probability NI = No Indicator assigned: if a species does not occur in wetlands in any region of the National List, then "no indicator is assigned". + = Slightly more frequently found in wetlands - = Slightly less frequently found in wetlands * = Tentative assignment based on either limited information or conflicting reviews from the 1993 Northwest Supplement of the National List. By Soils: For wetland (or "hydric") soil determinations, we use the hydric soil criterion prescribed in Part III of the 1993 Washington State Wetland Manual. Hydric soils are defined as "a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part" (USDA-NRCS 1995, Federal Register, 7/13/94, Vol. 59, No. 133, pp. 35680- 83). The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) has established the `criteria' for soil classification and `field indicators' for hydric soil determination (see Reference in Appendix 6). In general, a hydric soil determination is made based on primary soil color indicators and secondary indicators in representative sample test plots that we examine onsite in the upper 12" to 16" of the soil profile. If a soil is saturated long enough, then that soil may be determined as hydric based on its color indicators. Notice that the hydrology criteria usually mean that the soil remains saturated for at least 20 or more consecutive days during the early growing season when soil temperatures are above biologic zero (41oF) as measured at a depth of 16" below the soil surface. Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 11 of 35 In general, "organic hydric soils" develop as a result of prolonged anaerobic conditions with long periods of saturation impeding decomposition (peat or muck) and have greater than 16" of organic matter in the surface layer (Histosols). "Mineral hydric soils" have less than 16" of organic matter (if some is present, then it may have a'histic epipedon'). They are saturated for more than 15 consecutive days during the growing season (the period when soil temperatures are above biologic zero, 410F, as defined by "Soil Taxonomy", 1975; usually March -October), and contain dominant gleying and/or redoximorphic features. The soil color and/or presence of redoximorphic features 10 or gleying in a sample are primary field indicators of whether a mineral soil is either hydric or non-hydric soil. Non-hydric soils are generally a dark brown to rusty red or yellowish brown in their matrix color. Hydric soils are generally black, very dark brown, grayish brown to gray, or washed out in color. A field indicator for a saturated organic hydric soil is a rich black matrix color of say 2/1 or 2/2. A field indicator for a saturated mineral soil is a leached matrix color of say 3/1 or 4/1 or 511 or 6/1). A hydric mineral soil may have a low chroma color feature (at least 1 if no redoximorphic features are present or a chroma 2 if prominent redox features are present in the soil matrix). Gleying and prominent redoximorphic features are color indicators of prolonged saturation and indicate that anaerobic conditions probably exist for sufficient periods of time to develop wetland soils. Gleyed soils are generally bluish -green to grayish -green in color throughout the soil mass or in mottles (spots or streaks) interspersed within the dominant soil color (matrix color) in a layer (soil horizon). Gleying results from the leaching of the dissolved (reduced) iron and manganese minerals out of the soil matrix. Soils gleyed to the surface or to the surface layer of organic material are generally considered hydric. Soils that are saturated throughout the year are usually uniformly gleyed to the surface (Tiner and Veneman 1987). Redoximorphic features or "mottles" are generally yellow to reddish brown blotches or spots accumulating in mineral soil due to a fluctuating water table during the growing season. The size, number and color of redox features reflect the duration of soil saturation and thus whether the soil is hydric. Redox features in hydric soils should be "distinct" or "prominent" in the upper horizon. Mineral soils that have a dark grayish matrix color (chroma 2 or less) with distinct or prominent redox features are hydric if the features are not relic. Mineral soils with a predominantly brown or yellow matrix color (chroma of 3 or more) and light gray redox features are not usually hydric. lib The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils has developed criteria for identifying hydric soils and a list of the Nation's hydric soils is maintained by the National Resource Conservation Service (MRCS [formerly Soil Conservation Service, SCS], 1987). A federal manual has also been published by the USDA-NRCS that describes current methods and limitations for identifying hydric soils for the National and State lists. The NRCS maintains the list of hydric soil map units for each county in the US. The list is used for identifying which soils are hydric based on the local soil series descriptions. These soil series descriptions for soil map units are indicated by this study as within or associated with the project site. The soil descriptions for the mapped areas may be found in the 1973 [NRCS] Soil Survey of King County (see the References appendix for information about the King County Soil Survey Report). I3v Hvd rolo 10 "Redoximorphic features" are formed by the processes of reduction, translocation, or oxidation of Fe and Mn oxides (formerly called mottles and low chroma colors). Redox concentrations (reddish mottles) occur as pore linings along root channels and ped faces (Vepraskas, 1994). "Distinct' and "prominent" are defined in the glossary of the reference text field Indicators of r _ l in the United States. 11 Hydric Soils Guidebook, Washington State Department of Ecology, Pub #90-20, July 1990 Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 12 of 35 Hydrology observations at each sample plot are indicated on the Field Data Forms provided with this report in Appendix 2. The saturation and water level data together with the respective date that the measurement was made are shown on the data form. For wetland hydrology determination, we use the "USACE Manual, 2010" for wetland hydrology indicators. The presence of inundation and/or saturation for a sufficient "hydroperiod" is determined based on the depth to saturation including capillary fringe. This depth must be 12" or less as measured from the ground surface. In wetland margins this may also include observations or assumptions based on the presence or absence of hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation when there is a general lack of saturation or standing water due to observations made during dry periods during the water year. Other field indicators are also used to help determine the presence or absence of sufficient hydrology for positive or negative wetland determinations. These indicators include topographic features and elevations, encrusted detritus or debris, silt lines, hydraulic gradients, free -water in a pit or soil probe hole, and tributary area analysis of onsite and offsite drainage. If the saturation level is determined to be below 12" for more than 7 consecutive days during the growing season, then the primary indicator for saturation may not sufficient for a positive wetland determination. If the saturation level falls below 12" during the period before or after the 12" measurement is made, then the test plot is determined to be non -wetland by hydrology. After a wetland determination is made, the wetland area is analyzed to determine if it is a high -quality wetland or if it has any of several irreplaceable ecological functions. The wetland is then analyzed for any significant habitat values such as size, classifications, plant species diversity, structural diversity, special habitat features, buffer conditions, and connection to streams or other habitat areas. D. WETLAND CLASSIFICATION (NON -TIDAL) CATEGORIES Different types of wetlands are separated from one another on the basis of wetland class and wetland category. Wetland class is a scientific system based upon dominant plant communities, substrate conditions, hydrologic regime, and location in the watershed. Wetland classification is a categorization system used to regulate land uses adjacent to wetlands. Wetland Class: a science -based classification system is used based on a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service publication titled Classification ❑ W'etl and Dee voter Habitats a the United States that was edited by Lewis M. Cowardin, et al, and published in December 1979. Cowardin divides wetlands into five systems (Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine), eight subsystems (Subtidal, Intertidal, Tidal, Lower Perennial, Upper Perennial, Intermittent, Limnetic, and Littoral), 10 classes, and numerous modifiers. A combination of the system name, subsystem, name, class, and a modifier code are used to designate the wetland class. WDOE expanded the term wetland class by incorporating use of the Hydrogeomorphic Method (HGM) classification into the "Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update" (WDOE Publication No. 04-06-029). The HGM is based on the "landscape" location of a wetland or portion of a wetland. The HGM classes are Depressional, Riverine, Lake -fringe, Slope, Flats, and Freshwater Tidal. Wetlands identified by this study are classified using a hierarchical multi -level approach developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for their scientific classification system. The classification system is published in the report titled EI i rcatian Wetlands and ee Water Habitats a the United States FWS/OBS-79/31, by Cowardin, et al. (December 1979). Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 13 of 35 The system of classification divisions is based on habitats that share the influence of similar hydrology, geomorphology, chemical, or biological factors. The wetland systems involved in the project site are generally limited to "Palustrine" systems. Palustrine wetlands (these are the only wetlands identified within this study area) are divided into 9 classes with 24 different subclasses. These are determined by either the substrate material or the `dominance vegetation' associated with a respective non -tidal area. The classes of non -tidal palustrine systems are as follows: CLASS [NON -TIDAL] (RB) Rock Bottom (UB) Unconsolidated Bottom (AB) Aquatic Bed (US) Unconsolidated Shore (ML) Moss -Lichen (EM) Emergent (SS) Scrub -Shrub (FO) Forested (OW) Open Water (unknown bottom) The subclasses are not identified in this study area but if assigned they would be based on the substrate material or `dominance vegetation' associated with the non -tidal area. `Dominance types' may also be characterized within freshwater Palustrine Systems based on different invertebrate fauna that typically inhabit these areas. Water regimes are assigned for each class based on the hydroperiod or duration of flooding (inundation) or saturation associated with the non -tidal area. These are defined for non -tidal (freshwater) areas as follows: WATER REGIME [NON -TIDAL] (A) Temporarily flooded: flooded (inundation by surface water) for brief periods during growing season but the water table is otherwise well below the soil surface (B) Saturated: substrate is saturated for an extended period during growing season but surface water is seldom present (C) a oval l fla ed: flooded for extended periods during the growing season, but usually no surface water by the end of the growing season (D) Seasonally flooded/welI drained (E) Seasonally fl odedl turated: flooded for periods, but usually saturated by groundwater at or near the surface thru most of the growing season (F) Semipermanently flooded: flooded throughout growing season in most years, when surface water is absent, water table is at or near the surface (G) intermittently exposed: flooded throughout year except in years of extreme drought (II) Pennanently flooded: flooded (water covers land surface) throughout the year in all years (J) Intermittently flooded: surface is usually exposed with surface water present for variable periods with no seasonal pattern (K)Artificial f flooded (W) Int ittently fla ded/tem ra (i) Saturated/semi- rmanentl easonal (Z) Intermittently exnosed/permanent (U) Unknown SPECIAL MODIFIERS (b) beaver (d) partially drained/ditched (f) farmed (h) diked/impounded (r) artificial substrate (s) spoil (x) excavated Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 14 of 35 Other modifiers for water chemistry and soil may also be employed to more adequately describe the wetland and deepwater habitats. These may be applied at the class or lower level in the hierarchy. The farmed modifier may also be applied to the ecological system. The class of a particular wetland describes its general appearance in terms of either the dominant vegetation or the substrate. When over 30% cover by vegetation is present, a vegetation class is used (e.g., "emergent", "scrub -shrub" and/or 'forested'). When less than 30% of the substrate is covered by vegetation, then a substrate class is used (e.g., "unconsolidated bottom", "aquatic bed', or "moss -lichen"). Typical demarcations of these classes of palustrine wetland systems are shown in the Cowardin report. [Also, reference is made to the current (1988) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map and legend.] Wetlands that have a single vegetation species that dominate 90% of the total wetland area are called a "mono -type". This may occur where more than the one species is present but the total area of their coverage is less than 10%. If another vegetation class or species dominates more than 10% of the wetland, then it has higher habitat diversity. This can be based on the number of plant species found in a class, the number and quality of the structural layers and the interspersion of classes which creates increased "edge effect" and habitat diversity. This may also result in a higher wetland "rating". E. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS AND BUFFER STANDARDS The standards adopted in the City of Federal Way Municipal Code (FWMC) for Environmentally Critical Areas are covered in Chapter 19.145 of the City's code (revised 2015). The sections that cover "Wetlands" are found in Article IN: 19.145.410 Wetland identification and delineation 19.145.420 Wetland rating and buffers 19.145.430 Development within wetlands 19.145.440 Development within wetland buffers 19.145.410 Wetland identification and delineation. (1) Generally. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. All areas within the city meeting the wetland designation criteria are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this chapter. Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. (2) Evaluation. If the city determines that a wetland may exist on or within 225 feet of the subject property, the director may require the applicant to submit a wetland report prepared by a qualified professional. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information: (a) Critical area report information identified in FWRC 19.145.080. (b) Identification of all local, state, and/or federal wetland related permit(s) required for the proposal. (c) Documentation of fieldwork, including field data sheets, rating system forms, and baseline hydrologic data. (d) Description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, rating system forms, or impact analyses, including references. (e) Identification and characterization of all wetlands and buffers on and within 225 feet of the subject property. For off -site areas with limited or no access, estimate conditions using best available information. Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates QCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 15 of 35 (f) Provide the following for each wetland identified on and/or within 225 feet of the subject property. Acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings shall be based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the subject property: (i) Wetland rating and score for each function; (ii) Required buffers; (iii) Hydrogeomorphic classification; (iv) Wetland acreage; (v) Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; (vi) Habitat elements; (vii) Soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and (viii) To the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/ outlets, estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, and flood debris). (g) An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer. Include reference for the method used and data sheets. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.420 Wetland rating and buffers. (1) Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met: (a) Category I wetlands represent a unique or rare wetland type; are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The following types of wetlands are Category I: (i) Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/Department of Natural Resources; (ii) Bogs; (iii) Wetlands with mature and old growth forests larger than one acre; and (iv) Wetlands that perform functions at high levels (wetlands that score 23 points or more based on functions). (b) Category II wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. Category II wetlands are those wetlands that score between 20 and 22 points based on functions. (c) Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions that score between 16 and 19 points based on functions. (d) Category W wetlands are wetlands with the lowest level of functions (scoring less than 16 points based on functions) and are often heavily disturbed. (2) Wetland buffers shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary as delineated and marked in the field. Buffer widths are established as follows: Minimum Buffer Buffer Width Buffer Width Buffer Width Width (wetland (wetland scores (wetland scores 6 (wetland scores 8 scores 3 — 4 habitat 5 habitat — 7 habitat — 9 habitat Wetland Category points) points) points) points) Category I: 190 feet 190 feet 190 feet 225 feet Bogs and wetlands of high conservation value Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates QCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 16 of 35 Minimum Buffer Buffer Width Buffer Width Buffer Width Width (wetland (wetland scores (wetland scores 6 (wetland scores 8 scores 3 — 4 habitat 5 habitat — 7 habitat — 9 habitat Wetland Category points) points) points) points) Category I: 75 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Forested and based on function score Category 11 75 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category 11I 60 feet 105 feet 165 feet 225 feet Category IV 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet (3) No wetland buffer is required for those isolated wetlands 1,000 square feet or less in total area. (4) All compensatory mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this section. Buffers shall be based on the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site. (5) Lighting shall be directed away from wetland buffers unless otherwise determined by the director. (6) All lots approved in a recorded subdivision or binding site plan that contain wetlands and their associated buffer in a native growth protection easement or tract may be improved pursuant to easement or tract boundaries established in the plat regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or natural migration. (7) All wetland and wetland buffer boundaries shown on an approved use process decision and/or building permit shall be honored regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or natural migration. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.430 Development within wetlands. (1) Generally. No development or improvement may be located within a wetland except as provided in this section. (2) Development within wetlands. The specific location and extent of development within a wetland must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment as determined through application of mitigation sequencing set forth in FWRC 19.145.130. The city will review and decide upon development within a wetland using process IV in Chapter 19.70 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (b) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (c) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space; (d) It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value upon completion of compensatory mitigation; (e) The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare; (f) The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project; and (g) The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. (3) Requirements for compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation shall be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 2: Developing Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 17 of 35 Mitigation Plans — Version 1 (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011 b or as revised) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication No. 09-06-32). (4) Mitigation. Acceptable methods to mitigate wetland impacts include creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement of in -kind wetland types within the same drainage basin that results in no net loss of wetland area, function, or value. If approved by the city, the applicant may locate a portion or all of the compensatory mitigation using alternative mitigation including, but not limited to, an approved and certified in -lieu fee program or mitigation bank, and/or advanced mitigation if it is determined that off -site, out -of -basin, and/or out -of -kind mitigation would provide a greater overall benefit to the watershed and not result in adverse impacts to the city's stormwater management system and/or wildlife habitat. Alternative mitigation methods are discretionary and may become an option following an operating agreement between the city and mitigation receiving area. (a) In -lieu fee. Credits from an in -lieu fee program approved under state and federal rules may be used at the discretion of the city and when all of the following are met: (i) The city determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts; (ii) The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved in -lieu fee program instrument; and (iii) The compensatory mitigation agreement occurs in advance of the authorized impacts. (b) Mitigation bank. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank that is certified under state rules may be used at the discretion of the city and when all of the following are met: (i) The city determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts; (ii) The proposed use of credits and replacement ratios are consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified bank instrument; and (iii) The compensatory mitigation agreement occurs in advance of the authorized impacts. (c) Advance mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre -identified impacts to wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts at the discretion of the city and if the mitigation is implemented according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation, and state water quality regulations. (5) Wetland mitigation ratios. The following are ratios for providing creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement of impacted wetlands. Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment pursuant to Table la, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance Version 1 (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-01 la, or as revised). Creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement definitions and intent shall be pursuant to Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011 a, or as revised. Category and Type of Wetland Creation or Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement Category I: High conservation value and bogs Not considered possible Case -by -case Case -by -case Category I: Mature and old growth forests greater than one acre 6:1 12:1 24:1 Category I: Based on functions 4:1 8:1 16:1 Category 11 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category 111 2:1 4:1 8:1 Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 18 of 35 Creation or Category and Type of Wetland Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement Category IV l 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011, or as revised) if approved by the director. (6) Compensatory mitigation plan. As part of any request under this section, the applicant shall submit a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional that includes the following minimum standards: (a) Contents of wetland delineation report identified in FWRC 19.145.410(2). (b) Compensatory mitigation written report and plan sheets. Full guidance on the following report requirements can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-01 lb, or as revised): (i) Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands; (ii) Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be altered. Include acreage, water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. Describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and wetland rating; (iii) Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing condition: acreage of wetlands and uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions; (iv) Description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and categories of wetlands; (v) Description of the proposed mitigation construction activities and timing of activities; (vi) Discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the subject property has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs; and (vii) Bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including the following elements: site preparation, plant materials, construction materials, installation oversight, maintenance twice per year for up to five years, annual monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency action for a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring. (c) Scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation that contains the following contents: (i) Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffer, proposed areas of wetland impacts, location of proposed wetland compensation actions. (ii) Existing and proposed topography measured at two -foot intervals in the proposed compensation area. Existing and proposed cross sections of the proposed compensation area and impact area measured in one -foot intervals. (iii) Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas. Illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic conditions were used to determine the estimates of future hydrologic conditions. (iv) Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water regimes. Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 19 of 35 (v) Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed compensation areas. (A) Plant schedule for compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, and timing of installation. (vii) Performance standards that provide measurable benchmarks reflective of years post - installation for upland and wetland communities, monitoring schedule, and maintenance schedule. (d) Alternative mitigation plans (in -lieu fee, mitigation banks, and advanced mitigation) shall provide items (6)(a), (b)(i) and (ii) from this section, responses to subsection (4)(a), (b), or (c) of this section, and any other information deemed necessary by the city to adequately consider the alternative mitigation proposal. (7) Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a minimum of five years to establish that performance standards have been met. The mitigation plan shall include monitoring elements that ensure certainty of success for the proposal's natural resource values and functions. The applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions if the mitigation goals are not obtained with the five-year monitoring period. Additional monitoring and corrective actions may be required by the director in order to meet goals within the approved mitigation plan. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) 19.145.440 Development within wetland buffers. (1) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no development or improvement may be located within a wetland buffer. (2) Trails. The director may provide written approval for passive pedestrian recreation facilities designed in accordance with an approved critical area report and the following standards: (a) Trails are composed of pervious surfaces no more than five feet in width. Raised boardwalks and wildlife viewing structures composed of non -treated pilings may also be considered; (b) Trails are generally located parallel to the perimeter of the wetland and within the outer 25 percent of the buffer; and (c) Trails shall avoid the removal of mature trees. (3) Stormwater managementfacilities. The director may provide written approval for stormwater management facilities limited to stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioswales within the outer 25 percent of the buffer of category III and IV wetlands if the location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. (4) Permanently altered buffer. The director may provide written approval for a buffer reduction when existing conditions are such that portions of the required buffer exist in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved parking lots, and permanent structures) and do not provide any buffer function. The buffer may be reduced up to the area where the altered conditions exist. (5) Buffer averaging. The city will review and decide upon buffer averaging using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the following criteria that shall be added to the critical areas report: (a) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; (b) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 20 of 35 (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. (6) Buffer reduction with enhancement. Buffers may be reduced by up to 25 percent on a case -by -case basis if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan that clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values. Buffer reductions may not be used in combination with buffer averaging. The city will review and decide upon buffer reductions using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland or buffer wildlife habitat; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property or the city as a whole; and (f) All exposed areas are stabilized with native vegetation, as appropriate. A buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be incorporated into the critical area report. The plan shall assess the habitat, water quality, stormwater retention, groundwater recharge, and erosion protection functions of the existing buffer; assess the effects of the proposed modification on those functions; and address the six approval criteria of this section. (7) Buffer increases. The director shall require increased buffer widths, on a case -by -case basis, when a larger buffer is necessary to protect functions, values or hazards based on site -specific conditions. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that additional buffer width is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the wetland, and/or protection of public health, safety and welfare. Such determination shall be attached as permit conditions. The determination must include but not be limited to the following criteria: (a) The wetland contains habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, monitored, or documented priority species or habitats by state or federal agencies, and additional buffer is necessary to maintain viable functional habitat; (b) The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or (c) The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 30 percent. (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 21 of 35 APPENDIX 2 FIELD NOTE SKETCH MAP (FNSM) AND FIELD DATA FORMS Completed by John Comis Associates (JCA) Date: 4/4 and 4/6/2018 Source: US Army Corps of Engineers Regional SupBlement to the Cor s o En ineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010). INTRODUCTION: For test plot locations, see Figure 6 in the report and the Field Note Sketch Map (FNSM) and GPS Survey Map in this appendix. These sample test plot data are recorded to verify the "wetland" and "non -wetland" conditions identified by JCA for regulatory purposes using the updated 2010 USACE Regional Supplement to the Wetland Delineation Manual. This information is included to support a determination made by JCA in accordance with current City of Federal Way Municipal Code requirements. Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 22 of 35 4 17 74 T J_ CD,., 4;inDmus' 1113 1 p,: See next sheet for more details of wetland delineation Field Note Sketch Map(FNz5vil by JCA, 4/4 & 4/6/2017 Appendix 2a 14, i t N 0I3 1IS �L. - •_ ti Wet -land -..A.. * PFOC (by Cowardin); � * Depressional-Slope; Pondrig water & some flow - in central ,part and north: end of WL-A. - QL � Z v �. Appendix 2b �1 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Goldmaur Property, Lots 14/15 in Federal Way_ City/County: King County Sampling Date: 4/412017 Applicant/Owner: Mike Davis Clo Rack River Homes State: WA Sample Test Plot: TP-1 Investigator(s): John G. Comis, PWS, John Camis Associates, LLC Section -Township -Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): rolling, concave w/in wetland Slope (%): 3.6° Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts CLRR A Lat: 47-18'-40.3"N Long: 122-15'-46.4"W Parcel No.: 282410-0140 (Lot 141 & 282410.0150 (Lot 15) Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood. gravelly sandy loam (Ag. Q NWI classification: PFOC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? (NONE) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks. No problem SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — 5ee Site Plan Mal) for sampllnp point locations, transepts, Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: This is definitely within Wetland "A" by all 3 criteria. This is typical for wetland determination within most of Wetland "A'. VCCst I A I IUN — Use SCIenlinc names OT pianis Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 2. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. Red -osier dogwood (Comus sericea) 2. Salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis) 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. etc. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 40 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 WB) 10 Y FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 20 Y FAC+ Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: OBL species x 1 = Column Totals: (A) (B) = Total Cover = Total Cover Woody Vine_ Stratum (Plot size: ] 1. 2. 100 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10% due to standing water, see Pholos) Remarks: dominants are hydrophytes Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: X Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is s3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 SOIL Sample Test Plot: TP-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth: Inches Ma ft. Color moist % Redox fealum*. Color moist % Type' Loc' Texture Rem : 0-15" 10y2/1 90 None due to High Saturation Gray.sandy silt loam Bottom at 15", hit hardpan 'Type, C=Concentration, D=De letian, RM= Red uced Matrix. CS=Govered or Coated sans Urans, •Location: ru=Fore Untn , Mh PAZJ nx. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': X 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 (TF-12) 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) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) X Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: definitely hydric soil in this area is typical of most of Wetland "A". HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA X Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (1311) X Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): a surface Water Table Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): _V-3" deep Saturation Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No includes ca illa fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: hardpan appears to be at — 15" deep, and saturation and inundation are present above 12" deep. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Goldmaur Property. Lots 14116 in Federal Way City/County: King County Sampling Date: 4/4/2017 Applicant/Owner: Mike Davis Clo Rock River Hams State: WA Sample Test Plot: TP-2 Investigator(s): John G. C,omis. PW . John Comis Associates, LLC Section -Township -Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): rolling, concave wiin wetland_ Slope (%): 3.6% Subregion (LRR): Northwest FQrQts and Coasts.(LRR A) Let: 47-18'-40.3"N Long: 122-16'-46.0"W Parcel No.: 282410-0140 Lot 14 & 282410-0150 Lot15 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood. gravelly landyloam A C NWI classification: PFOC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? (NONE) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks. No problem SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — See Site Plan Map for transecis, lmpartant tea11J1Us, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes. Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: This test plot appears to be on the line between Nve[land and non -wetland areas. See TPl and TP3 for comparison. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 2. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 3. 4. Saciincl/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Indian plum (Oemletia cerasiformis) 2. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Western sword fem (Polysticum munitum) 2. 3. 4. 5. Wad Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% No X Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 40 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheets 20 Y FAC+ Total % Cover of: MUltioly bV: OBL species x 1 = Column Totals: (A) (B) = Total Cover Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 10 Y FACU X Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is s3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' = Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic 100 = Total Cover Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: dominants are still hydrophytes, but mixed FAC & FACU US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 SOIL Sample Test Plot: TP-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1 Depth: inches Matrix: Color moist % Red❑ fea ures: Color moist % Tvpel Locx Texture Remarks: 0-10" 10yr2/2 40 None Gray.sandy silt loam Bottom at 15" 10-15" 10 r3/2 40 10 r4/6 10 C M Some redox features at 10" 'Type: C=Conce ntral ion. D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, QS=Govered or uoatea Sand grams. -uocanan: ru=rpre Lining. m=FVRSI rx. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) X Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ 2 cm Muds (Al0) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF-12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: same soil profile but color appears to be less hydric wyni2r1i new . Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators fminimum of one reouired: check all that appal) Secondary Incliq ators. (2 or more required _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 413) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): below 12" Saturation Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): elf oV 12T Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: hardpanlaquitard appears to be deeper and saturation is below 12" deep; just outside of wetland edge. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 1 t WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Goldmaur Property, Lqts 14116 in Federal Way City/County: King County Sampling Date: 4/4/2017 Applicant/Owner: Mike Davis C/o Rock River Homes State: WA Sample Test Plot: TP-3 Investigator(s): John G. Comis-P _ S, John ComlgAssaciatssLLC Section -Township -Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): rolling. concave wlin wetland Slope (%): 3.6% Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47-18'40.3"N Long: 122-16'-46.0"W Parcel No.: 282410.0140 {Lot 14) & 282410-01SO (Lot 15) Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood, gravelly sandy loam (AsrC) NWI classification: PFOC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? (NONE) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks. No problem SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — See Site Plan Map for sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Soils and hydrology do not meet hydric conditions for this normal area. Saturation and freewater (FW) were present on 4/4/17, measured after 10 min., but not saturated above 12" in test hole; not sufficient hydrology for wetland determination at this time. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 40 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) SagiinglShruh Stratum (Plot size:________) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) 10 Y FACU 2. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 10 Y FAC+ Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 Column Totals: (A) (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: y Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1. Westernsword fem (Polysticum munitum) 20 Y FACU X Dominance Test is >50% 2. Prevalence Index is s3.0' 3. _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 4 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5• _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' = Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. 100 = Total Cover Hydrophytic % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: dominants are still hydrophytes, but mixed FAC and FACU US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 SOIL Sample Test Plot: TP-3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth: (Inches) Matrix: Color (moist) % Redox Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks: 0.4" 1 Dyr312 Very ravel No redox found above 12" 4-14" 10 r3/3 Sand loam Faint redox found at 12-14" Bottom at 15" 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or CoalW Ziand 111g, rvrEvl¢ulx. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sotls3: Histosol (All) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): _ Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ 2 cm Muck (Al0) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF-12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: soil color and texture do not meet hydric soil determination in this test plot outside wetland delineation boundary. I K k1A al crEl <6TN A . Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary, Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secorid a ry Indicators f2 or more rea uirred _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): 13" to FW Saturation Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): 14" to sat Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: saturation and frmvater (FW) were present on 4/4/17, measured after 10 min., but not saturated above 12" in test hole; not sufficient hydrology for wetland determination at this time. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Goldmaur Property, Lots 14115 in Federal Way City/County: King County Sampling Date: 4/4/2017 Applicant/Owner: Mike Davis C/o Rock River Homes State: WA Sample Test Plot: TP-4 Investigator(s): John G. Comis. PWS.John Comis Associates, LLC Section -Township -Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): rolling, concave wlin wetland Slope (%): 3.6% Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts (LRR A Lat: 47-19'-40.3"N Long: 122-16'-46.0"W Parcel No.: 282410-0140 (Lot 14) & 282410-DI50 (Lot 15) Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood, gravelly sandy loam (AQCNWI classification: PFOC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? (NONE) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks. No problem SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — See Site Plan Map for samp$inq point locations, transects, im oriani features, eic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: Generally, this is the same as at TP1 and TP2, but situated within the central part of the wetland area. Saturation and freewater (FW) were present on 4/4/17, re -measured on 4/6/17 after --0.5" of rainfall for past 24-hours, and water in test hole was above 12" with sufficient hydrology for wetland determination VEGETATION — Use scientific names of olants Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 40 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) SaolinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 10 Y FAG+ Total % Cover of; Mu 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 Column Totals: (A) (B) 5. Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: J Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1. WesternswordDominance sword fem (Polysticum munitum) 20 Y FACU Test is >50% 2. Prevalence Index is s3.0' 3. _ _ Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 4• data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5• Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' = Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) � Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 • be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. 100 = Total Cover Hydrophytic % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: sword fem is situated on hummocks; generally, dominants are hydrophytes. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 Sample Test Plot: TP-4 SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) D the Inches Matrix- Color moist % Redox features: Color moist % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks: 0-8" 10 r2/2 5 r4/6 C. M Very ravel May be hardpan at 8" deep. To 10 r312 Sandy silt loam Bottom at 8" on 4/4/17 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains, Location: PL=Pare Limn , 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 (Al0) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF-12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) X Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: color and redox features are distinct that indicate hydric soil characteristics. rWj-*1 cTiZl<eTA'1 . Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one r auired: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more_,Lgquire� _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) — Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) — Algal Mat or Crust (134) — Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Shallow Aquitard (D3) — Iron Deposits (65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) — FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) — Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations, Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): FW at 4-5" after 15 min on 414117. rechecked on 416117 and FW at 3" after — 0.5" rain last 24 hgur_s, Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): 6"on 4/4117 includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: saturation and freewater (FW) were present on 4/4/17, re -measured on 4/6/17 after --0.5" of rainfall for past 24-hours, and saturated above 12" in test hole with sufficient hydrology for wetland determination. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Goldm ur Pro a Lq 14116 in Federal Way City/County: King County Applicant/Owner: Mike Davi Clo Rock River Homes Sampling Date: 4/4/2017 State: WA Sample Test Plot: TP-5 Investigator(s): John G. Comis PWS ohn Comi ociates LLC Section -Township -Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): rolling, concave wlin wetland Slope (%): 3.6% Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts JLRR A Lat: 47-18'-40.3"N Long: 122-16'46. " Parcel No.: 282410-0140 [Lot 14) & 282410-0150 (L_o_t 15 Soil Map Unit Name: A! erwood, gravelly sandy loam WiQ NWI classification: PFOC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? (NONE) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks. No problem SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — See Site Plan Map for sam etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: None of 3 meet .vcdand criteria. This is typical 2' growth forest area in onsite and offsite upland areas around Wetland "A" but has been more than 20 years since last logging so well -established plant community and no significant disturbance. Found some saturation coming into bottom of hole at this time and 2 inches of freewater (FW) at 14"in bottom of 16" deep test hole after 10 min. No saturation above 12" deep. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of Twee Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 2. Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesb) 3. 4. saniinolShrub Stratum (Plot size ) 1. Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) 2. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 3. elderberry, red (Sambucus racemosa ssp. pubens) 4. 5. Herb S ra m (Plot size: ) 1. Western sword fem (Polysticum munitum) 2. Bleeding heart, Pacific (Dicentra formosa) 3. wake robin, western (Trillium ovatum) 4. 5. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet: % Cover 5pe� Status Number of Dominant Species 20 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 20 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 8 (B) Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 10 Y FAC+ Total % Cover of: Mulfinly_by: 10 Y FACU OBL species x 1 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 10 Y FACU Dominance Test is >50% 10 Y FACU* — Prevalence Index is 53.0' 10 Y FACU — — Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' = Total Cover — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic 100 = Total Cover Vegetation Present? Yes No X Remarks: This is typical 2 d growth forested area of onsite and offsite upland areas around Wetland "A", but more than 20 years since last logging so well - established plant community. This is early growing season so some plants may not be leafed out and not easily identified US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 SOIL Sample Test Plot: TP-5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth: Inches Matrix: Color moist % Red ox Color moist % Type Lvc2 Texture R rk — ti 0-61 1 Dvr 212 None or faint Gravel 6-15" 1 Dyr 312 No redox Sandy loam No hardpan or a uitard at bottom at 16" deep IT e: c:=nonce ntration, U=ue :euon NPA=Keouceo nnamx, UZP-U, vereu or L.Oa WO aarsv v161FC6, LUUdtFV11. L-r VIG LII1111 , ]YI-IY1 at'lA, Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (All 0) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (T172) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF-12) _ 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Non-hydric soi I by color and redox indicators. uvncnr n�±v Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: -check all that a I Secondary Indicators (2 or more reauireM _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): 7 14" at this Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X time (includes capilla fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Found freewater (FW) in bottom of test hole after 10 min. at 14" and some saturation coming into bottom of hole at this time. No saturation above 12" deep. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Galdmaur ProperLots 14115 In Federal Way City/County: King County Sampling Date: 414/2017 Applicant/Owner: Mike Davis Clo_Rock River omes-_ State: WA Sample Test Plot: TP-6 Investigator(s): John G. Comis PWS John Comis Associates, LLC Section -Township -Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): rolling, concave w/in wetland Slope (%): 3.6% Subregion (LRR): Northwest F rests and Coasts (LRR All Lat: 47-18'-44.3"H Long: 122-161.46.0"W Parcel No.: 282410-0140 (Lot 14) & 28 2410-015 0 (Lot 15] Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood, gravelly sandy loam 1AgQ NWI classification: PFOC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? (NONE) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks. No problem SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — See Site Plan Map for sampling point Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X Na Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: Typical wcIIand vegetation, soils and hydrology are present within all of this area of Wetland ' A'. VEGETATION — Use scientitic names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: _] 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 2. 3. 4. SapiinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Red -osier dogwood (Comus sericea) 2. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size. 1 1. Skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) 2. lady fem (Athyrium fi/ix-femina) 3. 4. 5. etc. Yes X No Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test works heat: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 40 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 10 Y FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 20 Y FAC+ Total % Cover of: McltiolY_bY; OBL species x 1 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover 10 Y OBL 10 Y FAC = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 100 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10% due to standing water. see Photos) Remarks: dominants are all hydrophytes. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: X Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is s3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 SOIL Sample Test Plot: TP-6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth: Inches MQtrix: Color moist % Redox featuME- Color moist % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks: 0-14'+ 10r2l1 100 None found Due I To Saturation Gravely Hard pan appears to be at 14" deep Siltv clay Bottom at 14" Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion. RM=Reduced matrix. L;S=t;overeo or t;oated Sand grains. -Location: rL=r'QM Ldnur , iai=rviM+x. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': X Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): _ Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: hydric soil is typical in this part of the wetland. 14VnRAI nr.V 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF-12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one re uiredm check all that apply) Secondafy Indicators 2 or more required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): at surface Water Table Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): aoultard at 14" Saturation Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): Gat surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Typical wetland hydrology is present within this area of the Wetland "A" US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Goldmaur Property, Lots 14115 in Federal Way City/County: King County Sampling Date: 4/4/2017 Applicant/Owner: Mike Davis Clo Rock River Homes State: WA Sample Test Plot: TP-7 Investigator(s): John G. Corn is, PW5 John Comis Associates LLC Section -Township -Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): rolling, concave wlin wetland Slope (%): 3.6° Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts (LRR Ai Lat: 47-18'-40.3"N Long: 122-16'-45.0"W Parcel No.: 282410-0140 Lot 14 & 282410-0150 (Lot 151 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood, gravelly sandy loam A C NWI classification: PFOC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? (NONE) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks. No problem SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - See Site Plan Map for sampling point locations, transacts, important reatures. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Generally, same as at TP3. Soils and hydrology do not meet hydric conditions for this normal area. Saturation and freewater (FW) were present on 4/4/17., but not saturated above 12" in test hole; not sufficient hydrology or hydric soil for wetland determination at this time. VEGt I A I IL)N - use scientltic names ❑T plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 2. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpe) 3. 4. Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 40 Y FAC 20 Y FAC = Total Cover SaplingfShrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) 10 Y FACU 2. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 10 Y FAC+ 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: j 1. Western sword fem (Polysticum munitum) 2. 3. 4. 5. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: J 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% = Total Cover 20 Y FACU = Total Cover 100 = Total Cover Remarks: dominants are still hydrophytes, but mixed FAC kind FACU Dominance Testworksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by., OBL species x 1 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: X Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is s3.0' _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 SOIL Sample Test Plot: TP-7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth: Matrix: Redox features: Texture Remarks: (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LocZ 0-14" 10 r'3f3 Very ravel No redox found above 12' Sandy loam Faint redox found at 12-14" Bottom at 15" 'Type. C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solle: 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 (TF-12) _ _ 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) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if prose nt): f Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: soil color and texture do not meet hydric soil determination in this test plot outside wetland delineation boundary. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one required: check all that a 1) SecondaN Indicators 2 or more re uired _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 413) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No_ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): 14" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if Remarks: saturation and freewater (FW) were present on 414117., but not saturated above 12" in test hole; not sufficient hydrology or hydric soil for wetland determination at this time. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Goldmaur Propody. Lots 1411§ in Federal Way City/County: KingCCounty Sampling Date: 4/4/2017 Applicant/Owner: Mike Davis C10 Rock River Homes State: WA Sample Test Plot: TP-8 Investigator(s): John G. Comis PWS hn Comis Associates LLC Section -Township -Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): _rolling. concave Win wetland _ _ Slope (%): 3.6% Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts (LRR A)- Let: 4748'-40.3"N Long: 122-16'-46.0"W Parcel No.: 282410-0140 fLot 141 282410-0150 (Lot 15) Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood, gravelly sandy loam A C NWI classification: PFOC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? (NONE) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks. No problem SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — See Site Plan Map for sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Generally, same as at TP7. Soils and hydrology do not meet hydric conditions for this normal area. Saturation and freewater (FW) were present on 4/4/17 , but not saturated above 12" in test hole; not sufficient hydrology or hydric soil for wetland determination at this time. VEGETATION — Use sclentltic names or plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 2. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarps) 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) 2. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: ] 1. Western sword fern (Polysticum munitum) 2. 3. 4. 5. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0% Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 40 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 10 Y FAC+ Total % Cover of: MUltiDly bv: OBL species x 1 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A= = Total Cover 20 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: X Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is s3.01 _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' = Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 100 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: dominants are still hydrophytes, but mixed FAC and FACU US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 SOIL Sample Test Plot: TP-8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth: (Inches) Matrix: Color (moist) % Redox features: Color (moist) % Type' Loe Texture Remarks: 0-14" 10 r3/2 Very ravel No redox found above 14" Sandy loam Faint redox found at 14" Bottom at 14" 'Type. C=Concentration, D=De letion RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=fore Limn , 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 (TF-12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dario Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dario Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: soil color and texture do not meet hydric soil determination in this test plot outside wetland delineation boundary. UMERU-9190T 3'1 Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Sgcondary Indicators (2 or more re uired _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 413) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (1311) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No_ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No _ Depth (inches): 14" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X includes ca illa fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: saturation and freewater (FW) were present on 4/4/17., but not saturated above 12" in test hole; not sufficient hydrology or hydric soil for wetland determination at this time. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost —Version 2.0 APPENDIX 3 WETLAND RATING FORM Completed by John Comis Associates (JCA) Date: 4/4 and 4/6/2018 Source: Washington State Department of Ecology, "Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington, 2014 Update", WDOE Pub #04-06-029 INTRODUCTION: The categorization (or rating) of wetlands is done for regulatory purposes based on the 4-tiered system as required and specified by the City of Federal Way Municipal Code (FWMC). This rating is applicable to buffer standards and setback requirements. The current WDOE Wetland Rating Form is used by JCA to support the rating that may be approved by the City in accordance with FWMC requirements. This appendix includes a copy of the 303 d List and other ma data for this area that are used by JCA for this analysis. Various radii are used for this analysis. These include the 1 Km radius as the maximum area for rating a wetland in accordance with the 2014 updated WDOE manual (see Figure 1); the 150-foot, 250-foot, and 330-foot radii (see Figure 6) that are used for various parts of this analysis as described in the manual. (Also see list of figures provided on page 2 of the rating form). Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 23 of 35 1 Wetland name or number "A" Davis - Goldmaur Property, Lots 14/15, in Federal Way RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): wetland "A" Rated by John Comis, PWS 4/4/2017 & (onsite & offsite)Date of site visit: 4/6/ 017 Trained by Ecology? X Yes No Date of training 2005,2007 11/5/2014 HGM Class used for rating Depressional 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 Goggle Earth with King County iMap overlay data, includes onsite delineation and survey by Olympic Surveying LLC, dated 5/2/2017. OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY I I I (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 X 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 M L H Q L Landscape Potential H L H L I H M Value H M L H M M L TOTAL Score Based on 7 4 6 17 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three rati ngs (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 "A ii 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 5&66cFN Hydroperiods (see report) D 1.4, H 1.2 5&7&FN Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydraperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 5 &7 &FN Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 6 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 4&A dx. 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 1 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Apdx. 3 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 (none) #kti rive 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 ed to another figure) Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 2.4 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 .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. , 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 in a 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 p L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be adde erfrgure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - inclu in 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) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.1, L 3.2 L 3.3 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 herb lants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceo is (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 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 N M NI Wetland name or number "A" 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 1 your we and 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 - 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 "A" NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NO 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 � WL-A 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious epression 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 If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number ii A ii DEPRESS IQNAL 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. �-=l 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing p 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 duffjayerl is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4CO- = 0_3 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 <Dints = Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > %: of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal.Loonding 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 2 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland <aims = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 1 g Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H Z__6-11 = V _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 0 = 0 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =.PNo = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? es =__1'JNo = 0 1 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2. Source Homeless encampments situated near WL unit (see Fig. 6 & Appendix 2) Yes = No = 0 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 or 4 = H x 1 or 2 V 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 on the 303(d) list? ( see WDOE Water Quality Map page in Appendix 3) es = ; o = 0 1 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Qe.s = 1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (ans ES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? (no TMDL found listed) Yes = 2 Na = 2j Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 0 2 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4 V _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 "A" 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 out[ pints = Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch pain s = 2 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 0 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water poi = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) <— ❑ints = 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 a 9S5acres*/a, seasf/a3, s6ost= points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit 400;;P 3 zs times) The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit Entire wetland is in the Flats class see Figures 5 & 7 points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above sob 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H _6-11= M -z_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(Z0 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = jQ0 = 0 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? residential at Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H X 1 or 2 V _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 ;Surraf� water outletpointspoints = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. buffer into catch basin and pints = 0 Piped outlet to hillside} D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control�Ilan?Yes=2 No 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H _1= M X 0 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 —"A[' 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 (all of the onsite wL 3 structures: poi = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) is Ss within the delin- 2 structure pints = 1 _x Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) eated boundary) 1 structure: pain s = 0 1 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• x 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 pints = 2 x Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 2 x 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 milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 1 5 -19 species oints =1 < 5 species porn s = 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. FpRESTEC0 Q None paints Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points 0 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 "A 11 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. X Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). X 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 4 where wood is exposed) X 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) X 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 g Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _1�_7-14 0 _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 o_8 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2). 65 If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon 6 . 0ac . /776*ac . =0 . 008=0 . 8 points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon 10ac . /776ac . =0 . 013=1 .3 /2=0 . 65 points = 2 0 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon <-- - Dints = H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat31.6+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2112.0 = 43.6 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon 245.1ac./776ac.=0.316=31.6 points =3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches 186 . 2ac. /776ac . =0 .240=24 . 0/2=12 . 0 points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches < & more than 3 patches oints = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon pom s = H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use <— points = (- 2 -2 550%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity (See Fig. 1 for HI areas) points = Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -1 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 highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = — 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 2 — 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 anv of the criteria above Doints = 0 Rating of Value If score is: X 2 1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update * A=pi *r2 14 Rating Form- Effective January 1, 2015 A=3 .14*32802/43, 560 A=775.5 acres Wetland name or number "A" 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. 177pp.http-//wdfw.wa.gov/P_Ltblic-ations/QQI-651vclLwOO16S.p(If or access the list from here- litti):I/wdfw.wa.gov/con5ervatioiii,Qhs/list ) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE, This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — 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 Sri - 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). -X 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). 2- Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream €isl`rai wildlife resources. (amphib . & terrestrial) — 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. 2- 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 '&- « o a` a o a o a o Q N ri Vl O N 0� O O � tdi ,-i ip ,-i LO N o O C m O 4 C M Ul Q OD p i n Lq M O C . Q W M O 't O v M O� O rn C OI Q C N t � A d � �0 q � d Vl N Cl C> m N Ul a'�L C .-a C j w c o�y7ai o�^0N o'o >�^°� a E Q CL v v o e¢ L t N a> E �m0 v v> E a�ov a v v v > E >�oar O o U— a¢ c�— O. ¢Yin w m— n c¢ U =� x11 m`e� m V LL U +' Y u�i Q ¢ ¢ w O F `S F- H APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING ONSITE AND ADJACENT OFFSITE AREAS By John Comis Associates (JCA) Taken: 4/6/2018 INTRODUCTION: The photographs in this appendix were taken at the Project site by JCA during a site visit on April 6, 2018. These photos document onsite conditions within the project site showing existing vegetation, drainage features, topography, vegetation, soils in test holes, etc. around the existing wetland area. The location and direction a photo was taken is described in the caption under each photo, together with what of note was observed by JCA at that time. The image (IMG) numbers after each description match the digital photos on file at JCA. Additional photos were taken by JCA at that time and may be obtained from JCA upon request if they are needed. Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 24 of 35 Photo # 1: Looking south at the Type II Catch Basin that is in "0 Ave S right of way near the NE corner of this property. This CB receives overflow runoff from Wetland "A", which flows down the bank from WL Delineation #A20 (see Figure 5 for drainage map and flow arrows, and Figure 7 for surveyed point locations). (IMG-001, 4/6/18) Photo #2: Looking north along the 44'h Ave S. right of way at the roadside ditch near NE corner of Lot 15 and the CB in the background (red arrow). This CB receives overflow waters from the wetland area and from the roadway ditches. Note the roadside ditches along 44th Ave and S. 324t4 Place intercept offsite drainage and route it around the site and into the CB in Photo 41. All drainage waters flow to NE as shown on the survey map, Figure 7. (IMG-003, 4/6/18) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 25 of 35 Photo #3: Looking S W from WL Delineation #A21 along the pink flag line that marks the edge of the wetland that extends through Lot 15 (see survey map Figure 7). Note the forested condition extends across the entire wetland area throughout Lots 14 and 15. (IMG-007, 4/6/18) Photo #4: Looking west from #A21 along the clearing line cut by the surveyors through the dense vegetation that extends across the entire wetland. Note the pink flags mark the edge of Wetland "A" in the offsite area that extends just north of the property lines of Lots 14 and 15. (IMG-008, 4/6/18) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 26 of 35 r� •i��� '_��: �T �r['t 1: ��: [�1� ">�''� r9i 'a 's: i!.. �/( r`ii '•�+1 it e t r ri'•" � G� . •j k! Photo #5: Looking generally north at Test Plot #1 (blue and green flags tied to vegetation). Note the standing water and dense forested and understory vegetation has about 3" of standing water in April in this area of Wetland "A", but the maximum depth that we found was less than 6" in the lowest part of this wetland. (IMG-027, 4/6/18) Photo #6: Looking generally south toward TP#1 with the standing water and dense overstory and understory vegetation that extends to the south side of the site (see Photos #9 & # 10 for the view looking back to the north from the roadway into this same area. (IMG-024, 4/6/18) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 27 of 35 T I t, f i }' Ai, Photo #7 Looking generally east from TP# 1 along the SE side of the wetland. Note that the pink flags mark data points #Al2, #A13, etc. along this side of the forested wetland edge. (IMG-029, 4/6/18) Photo #8: Looking generally northwest from TP#1 along the SW side of the wetland. Note that the pink data points #A10, #A9, etc. along this side of the forested wetland edge. (IMG-030, 4/6/18) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 28 of 35 mark Photo #9: Looking generally north from the roadway, S. 324"' Pl. toward the forested buffer and Wetland "A" in the background. Noted leaning "danger trees" that appear to be marked along the road right of way. (IMG-043, 4/6/18) Photo # 10: Looking generally northwest from the roadway toward the forested buffer and wetland. Note the sign and green painted trees appear to mark the leaning "danger" trees (red alders & cottonwoods) that may need to be removed for public safety. The southern parts of Lots 14 and 15 are recommended by JCA for new single-family residential development, together with some unavoidable filling in the southern parts of Wetland "A". (IMG-048, 4/6/18) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 29 of 35 APPENDIX 5 RESUMES FOR WETLAND AND WILDLIFE CONSULTANTS Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates QCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 30 of 35 Resumes for Consultants: Wetland Delineations, Mitigation Plans & L_andscane Designs, Mitigation Monitoring & Wildlife Biolol JOHN G. COMIS Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS, Certification No. 000810, dtd Nov 27, 1995) Wetlands Specialist (Listed as Certified "Wetlands Specialist" by Pierce County, since 1992) EDUCATION. Bachelor of Science, Environmental Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, 1973 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: Consoer, Townsend & Associates, junior engineer, 1974-77 Pierce County Public Works, civil engineer H, planning & drainage engineer, 1977-89 John Comis Associates, principal as a sole proprietorship, 1989-2005 JCA, Incorporated (Inc.), 2005 to 2010 JCA, Limited Liability Corp. (LLC), 2010 to present QUALIFICATIONS: Mr. Comis has worked a total of 44 years in both public sector surface water management (15 years) and private sector wetland consulting (29 years). Mr. Comis' education, research, and experience combine the highly technical fields of water biology and water engineering. John has applied his experience and knowledge to preparing wetland delineations and mitigation plans for clients for all manner of large and small-scale projects. Private projects have dealt with all aspects of wetland consulting including identification, delineation, mitigation, restoration, and simply setback avoidance for new developments. Wetland projects include over 800 sites and developments in Pierce, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Thurston and Grays Harbor Counties, including work that was done within the City's of Algona, Auburn, Bellevue, Bothell, Bonney Lake, Buckley, Enumclaw, Edgewood, Federal Way, Fife, Fircrest, Issaquah, Kent, Lakewood, Milton, Olympia, Ocean Shores, Pacific, Puyallup, Renton, Sumner, Tacoma and University Place. John has also assisted clients with flood plain and drainage studies including runoff modeling and backwater analysis. Public sector experience involves many aspects of drainage and surface water management from basin level planning to site specific analysis and design. John has experience with computer models used for estimating runoff, routing stream flows, calculating flood plain elevations and sizing retention/detention facilities. On many projects, John has worked closely with soil scientists, fishery biologists, civil engineers, surveyors, and regulatory agency staffs at all levels of government. He has frequently been involved with interdisciplinary project teams at both the planning and implementation stages of project development. In academic research, John directed two National Science Foundation projects for an interdisciplinary research team on Kelsey and Coal Creeks, King County, Washington while he was attending the University of Washington. He has conducted drainage and flood studies at all levels of project development. This has provided opportunities to put theory into "on -the -ground" applications for stream studies, FEMA flood plain analysis and mapping, and writing flood plain management regulations together with other aspects of surface water management. AFFILIATIONS: Member, Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS-PNW Chapter); Society for Ecological Restoration (SER); Washington Native Plant Society (WNPS); National Audubon Society File: ORES-JGCl.doc (Jan. 2018) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 31 of 35 CATHERINE A. COMIS Wildlife Biologist and Native Landscape Designer EDUCATION: Bachelor of Arts, Near Eastern Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, 1972 Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture (BSLA), University of Washington, Seattle, 1978 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY.• US Army, Lieutenant, Military Intelligence Corps, 1972-1976 TRA, landscape designs, park plans, and comprehensive master plans, 1978-1982 Richard Haag & Associates, landscape designs, 1983 Edward Chaffee & Associates, residential & commercial landscape designs, 1983-1987 Natural System Designs, woman owned business for native landscape designs, restoration construction, habitat assessments and small mammal (bat) studies, 1989 to present QUALIFICATIONS. Kate has continued her studies in wildlife science with courses in Basic Bird Biology Cornell University 10-week Pro ram 1995, and Master Birding Workshops for avian identifications and general habitat assessment. Kate has continued to work and study both in the US and abroad with wildlife biologists at Bat Conservation International (BCI) workshops and suonsored research projects. 1998 thru 2009. The bat research projects include "Bats in the Mexican Coffee Agro- ecosystem", Chiapas, Mexico in 2007; "Founder's Bat Conservation International Workshop Instructor", western Uganda in 2008; and "Vertical Canopy Utilization of Bat Carnivores and Frugivores", Barro, Panama in 2009. Bat management and research training include protocols for netting, handling, and acoustics identification at the Bat Grid Workshops in Mos" Coulee. WA. June 2419... Kate Comis has served as both a designer and project manager for numerous residential and commercial landscape design and comprehensive master plan projects including park projects. She has served as a team member for landscape designs and recreational plans that included studies of wildlife habitats, wetland and stream mitigation and restorations. Her experience includes stream corridor restoration for park and recreation facility design; multi -use equestrian, pedestrian and bike trails. Preparations of site plans include all aspects of site surveys, cost estimating, construction drawings, specification writing, project inspections and management. She has worked on wildlife studies and consulted with other project biologists doing habitat evaluations and enhancements on Public Utility District (PUD) projects. Various parks and recreation projects in eastern Washington State include the Chelan County "Entiat Park", "Lincoln Rock Park" and "Daroga Park Master Plan" at the Rocky Reach Reservoir. She has worked on the Chelan County PUD projects for "Mason Park" at Lake Chelan and "Douglas County River Park" at Rock Island Reservoir. These parks were established as a minimum requirement for recreational area development along the reservoirs after damming of the Columbia River. She also worked for private clients on designs for recreational projects such as Camp Benbow @ Lake Tanwax, Pierce County Jewish Camping Association; Camp Orkila @ Orcas Island, YMCA of Greater Seattle; and Camp Sealth @ Vashon Island, Seattle -King County Campfire Council. AFFILL4TIONS: Society for Ecological Restoration; National Audubon Society; the Wildlife Society, Bat Conservation International (BCI), American Society of Mammologists and Acta Chiroptera. File: \RES-CACl.doc (Jan 2018) Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 32 of 35 APPENDIX 6 REFERENCES FOR WETLAND ANALYSIS Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 33 of 35 PROJECT -SPECIFIC REFERENCES 1. City of Federal Way Municipal Code (FWMC) for Environmentally Critical Areas are covered in Chapter 19.145 of the City's code (revised 2015) (Ord. No. 15-797, § 22, 6-16-15.) [See Appendix 1, part E for excerpts and details] 2. Cooke, Sarah Spear (Editor). 1997. A Field Guide to the Gartman Wetland Plants o 'Western Washington & NW Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society & Washington Native Plant Society, Seattle, Washington. 3. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golat and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classi icati n of Wet! nds and Dee Water Habitats of the United Stales. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., Publication FWS/OBS-79/31, 131 pages. (Also referred to in the Federal Geographic Data Committee Standard, FGDC-STD-004, see reference below) htt :I/www.n wrc.us s. ov/resoureelwetlaiids/classwet/index.litin (Version 04DEC1998), or httl2://www-fws.gov/,.vetlands/ documents) NSDIIClgsifscationWetlandsDee waterHabitatsUS. df 4. Guard, B. Jennifer. 1995. Wetland Plants a Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, Washington. 5. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora ofthe Paci is Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 6. Hruby, T. 2006. 1 i'aslri►tgton State Wetland Rating System For Western Washington. Updated 2F114. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Publication #04-06-029 [original published: Aug 2004; revised v.2 2006; updated Oct 2014, effective Jan 2015]. htt s:l/fortress.wa. aviec 1 ublicationsidocuments/ l 406029. df 7. Jacobson, Arthur Lee. November 2001. Wild Plants of Greater eattle, a field guide to native and naturalized plant of the Seattle area, published by Arthur Lee Jacobson, Seattle, WA. 8. Knobel. 1980. Field Guide to the Grasses. Sedges and Rushes of the United States. Dover Press, New York. 9. Kollmorgen Corp. 1975. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore, Maryland. 10. Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants ❑ the P ci tc Noriktesr oast. BC Forest Service Research Program. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, Canada. 11. Tiner, R-W. 1993. Primary Indicatas Method - A Practical ,4 pp•oach ta_Weilrrtrd Recognition and Delineation in the United States. Wetlands 13(1): 50-64. This method is typically used for verifying USFWS Wetland Database wetlands on the ground, http://www.f%vs.poy/wetlands/ documentslgOther/PrimarylndicatorsMethod_pdt' 12. Tiner, R.W. 2003. Geo Q hicalI Iso!qted Wetlands QLIhe United State . Wetlands 23(3): 494-516. This is prepared for the Society of Wetland Scientists, August 23, 2002; Revised: February 12, 2003; Accepted: June 4, 2003, ha s:I/dol.or 10.1672/0277-5212 2003 023 0494:GI WOT(J 2.0.CO:2 13. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Re Tonal &u lement to the Cops Qf En ineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains Valleys, and Cast Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble at Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. [see Washington (WDOE) Manual reference, below] http://%vww.usace as•niy mil/Missions/Civ's1WorL%/ldegulatorvPro rramandPermits/re supp.ast�x Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 34 of 35 14. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012 (updated 2014). National Wetland Plant List (NWPL). Replaces the 1988 NWPL of Species that Occur in Wetlands for use in Clean Water Act wetland delineations or determinations: htip://?_eo.usace.ai-iiiv.mil/wetland !ants/index.html 15. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Field Indicators of Hvdric_Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, most recentversion: ftp://tp-fc.sc.egov.usda.goy/NSSCIHydric Soiis/FieldIndicators v7.pd€ 16. USDA, NRCS, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 1973 to current. $oil Survey of ICin� CartntyArea. Wash trr tg�on. County Soil Surveys: httn_Ilwww.nres.usda. ovlwpslaortal/nres/surveylist/soilslsurvey/state/?statetd=WA 17. US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1987. Flood Insurance StttdyMaps Kin Count& Was i n'ncor orated gMaA and QtE ❑ Federa W Wa him on FIRM/FLOODWAY maps, used to determine flood hazard areas including base 100-year and 500-year computed flood elevations and floodways in the study area. 18. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Current. National Wedand nve W1 , used to identify mapped wetlands in the study area (original map data published in 1988). Digital wetland map information is maintained at httv://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.htm] 19. US Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. 7.5` uadran le To o ra hie Ma s or Di 'tad Ila.rrer Gra h (DRG). Topography map showing base map data from 1953 with photo -revisions dated 1981, used to illustrate tributary watersheds, drainage features and streams in the study area at 1:24,000 (1"=2000') or 1:12,000 (1"=1000') scales, maintained at 17ttp:l7topomaps.usg. og v/drg 20. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Seattle District, and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 10. March 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washin ton State — Parr 1: Agency Policies and Guidance(Version I . WDOE Publication #06-06- 01Ia. Olympia, WA. Davis-Goldmaur Property WL Recon. in Fed. Way By John Comis Associates (JCA) Date 06/04/18 Page 35 of 35 I ;;AA-j"rcp wuViyvI—) 152104 9169 11521,Q4 91 ' D4 ' 4114 2104 -MCT,� 324TH-ST �" RM2400 152104 9078 �19 FW Pating: 11 15-21-4-233 =ML =Mn Am9196 I� 282410 0090. 282410 0100282410 U110282410 01 _ 42a -- r " 140 � 32410 150 4210 421$ 422s 282410 RM 60 9195894200 0000 82410 008 4201 i 4211 282' 4207" 282410 00: 131 32426 2824O 0060 104 9132RS9.6 ' 32440 152104 9147 32'448 �152104 9148 32423 152104 9057 "'' 104 9149 32456 - - - RS9 32466 =2104 9036 282410 0040 32443 7p __ 1602410 0030 .�1732449' S 324TH PL 2.82410 0490 4235 1 d 0470282410 0480. 404 RS9�§LDMAUR 1:2282410 0460 282410 0520 4318 32422 4312 82410 0450 282410 054� 4308 32432 82410 0440 4306 282410 055r 82410 0480. 32442 282410 0560 4301 82410 016 ?82410 01`' �s r 282410�7 L 24100590 N 282410 061 282410 0580 won thn nr_� 32241 15" 32259 152104 9093 152104 9115 32249 1521 04 9158 152104 9180 132104 9124 1 152104 9162' 32405 ; 9262�0 0175 32405 32423 152104 9159. '132521 152 3240 9262$0 0180 926280 0177 15 926280 0176 324; 926280 0181 32 926280 0192 3204 926280 0190 3244i 32528 Figure 5 -aerial terrain map w tributary basin boundary l � •,-: may, lA kit ,• - ► a J 7 Mill creek r' f } r '':'- y Lk ` . Watershed Basin `Boundary for tll. x Wetland "Aht = :•- -' , . , 215,860sf (4.955 ac} i f r 167 feet The information included on this map tea been complied by Kling County staff from a variety of sources erd Is wbjpcllo dhenge. withcut notice -King County makes noraprownletlonsorwarrantles, oWass or lrrplled, N King County as to a umcy, comptetenes& timelmess, or rights to the use of such information. Thisdoeunsnt is not intended LQ t7r use as asurveyprvduct- King County shot not 11e liable forany general, speda4 Indirect, hcidantal, or consequontial damages Inducting, but not lmted to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use orm®um GIS CENTER of the inTormation amumned on this map. Anysals of this map or informafon on this mapis p-ohhited except by writlen perrdsslon of King County. Date:4/11/2018 Notes: Aerial Terrain Map with Tributary Basin & Drainage Patterns Figure 5 Figure 1 - vicinity map for Goldmaur 262,QQQsf (6.015ac), 14 � j.p,�� "�.t ` r•k'`' ri. relatively undisturbed -J ' offsite wetland and buffer '� .� , -�z ~ �!I Project Site: r� �' '' fiti. >" ' 4242 & 4250 S : areas north and west of i ` ` F.! `� ";:? . ,rk>L t i Federal Way.V the project site.�,T ,` 282410-01 ;r. ' ! .. •, �- '4R :. •' ,' .: s�[ # 282410-0150 CL +'� ;-'''; Sec inn 15-'r`211 ice: rw "..:•1 .+►•i'iilt1 jne_Csi� .'.-r lam+ fRL ••11,.. e Lf��'i F f S•� t 1 .. 'I-�iJ�'�Ft1�. •�11.L�t ���j� Ci* s �•ift _y r r ,N11111111111111330' Radius around Wetland "A" Center of S -W 1 Km Radius around Wetland "A" �: ` + . ..�_ =} ✓ YYYiiiaaaa ' R7 •raF bi•+�r I .i. *,-Los�� �- •� i•32' .� �' K _ i + L. /II` yt E • + hCl i° Ali — The nfonnallon Included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a vadely of sources and Is subjectto change wllhoht notice. King County makes coreprasentadonsorwarrantles, ehmfew orinplled. N kg King County as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, ordghtsto the use of such information. This document Is not intended br use as asumeyprodict King Countyshal not be fable forany general, special, Indirect, ncidental, or conseRuo'l l damages including, but not limited to, lost revenuesorlosl profits raseltng fromthe use ormisuss GIS CENTER R of the infrinnation conhined on this map. Any sale of this map or nformalon on [his mapis prohibited enter. by wdtlen perrnission ofKing County. Date:4/11/2018 Notes: Vicinity Aerial Map with 1 Km & 330' Radii Overlay Figure 1 G019-0D1B Lot 14 Lot 15 2A z v 'LS _ .9-!L Parcel Map of Project Site & Vicinity Situated in the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 15-T21N-R4E, in Federal Way, King County, Washington Figure 2 King County Map r '7 :. i:� }i �' {• w I' - �� Milt Creek situated within the IP-0-42 12+ R i22Ci �✓}' M1 I bo[tam at-E'easley Csn)ran 240 2 0- A� yidl - i �v^ i 404 •� �l .t 0 A lr al + b 3 �- .fi a hfwmdonlne6da d on I NO map la a tNw damp lad ayicnp Cwmy WTf kom a varW pfau % end Is woad to do rod N WJFMJ nMM Ming Cavgmras ao+vpra 10 Bona or vermeaa. MPloaa OF lmPoad. as to a MvA vomvw new, Imeln.ea, A Lg King County at rtt>Y p daa uta davdl INarmptlm.7Na dpmrmm M r.s Iriamd gar nr rs away podup. MMq tawny s1Wl nd he It N w arypneN epaJal, ha acL kxFk tel.nfco aagsennxdrnapa. vdua Lb at noeiFnlEeal0.laurrrenur vrhupwAM GIS CENTER Ia W dry tvn ma use pr mwuw d l In h/p-=d Gn ow PIW d oa aiI my -My e df aN mop w Lntr-aV Pnan ttw mAP Is (D arrnetmd a Pl NWrIU a Parmas<and IGry GWrq. W Date' 211712017 Notes: Aerial Photo Map of Project Site & Vicinity Figure 3 Critical Areas Map Legend: Drainage Basins_ Critical Areas: Hylebos Creek Erosion Hazard Area Lower Green River ® Landslide Hazard Areas Lower Puget Sound Wetlands (1998 City Survey) Mill Creek Water Features: Lakes Streams White River Boundaries are approximate. Remember, ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE AREAS MAY EXIST See Map Notes below for more information. Y 1 Scale: 5 0 0.25 0.5 1 N Mlles 50 Acres J:lStandardlreferencelsensilive.mxd 20th St _ ■ w. _ J C. M E 5 1 I Figure 4 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 18, 2018 TO: Cole Elliott, Development Services Manager Scott Sproul, CBO Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue Jennifer W., FWPS, (emailed) FROM: Leila Willoughby -Oakes, Planning FOR DRC MTG. ON: July 5, 2018- Internal July 12, 2018- 11:00 AM with applicant FILE NUMBER(s): 18-102593-00-PC PROJECT NAME: GOLDMAUR LOTS 14 & 15- SFR Reasonable Use PROJECT ADDRESS: S. 324th P1. & 44th Avenue S. Parcel #Is 282410-0140; 282410-0150 ZONING DISTRICT: RS 9.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Building two single family homes on two separate vacant lots with wetlands. Off -site wetlands and buffer may impact property. Stream (Mill Creek) to the northeast of Lot 15 at the end of 44th Ave. S. LAND USE PERMITS: Process III- Reasonable Use Administrative Decision - Peer Review of Wetland Delineation/Mitigation Plan PROJECT CONTACT: Lucas Clements 19655 lst Avenue S. Normandy Park WA 98148 1 lucas@rockrivernw.com MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Site Plan Critical Area Study S-T-R Mapping Aerial Photo Emails with C of FW Staff r MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - A_k� RECEIVED 33325 8`h Avenue South CITY OF Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Federal Way JUN 13 2018 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 w ww.citvaf'Fedcralwgy.coi�t CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO(S) I v — 59 —00 � � � Date Project Name 6(7/0Acur T G/ Property Address/Location ` 1X S • 3 P-1. Parcel Number(i) / 10 ON V , Ol t Project Description PLEASE PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director's Approval) Process 11(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 Zoning Designation nl Comprehensive Plan Designation V Value of Existing Improvements (/X Value of Proposed Improvements International Hudding Code (IBC): �QIAO-5 Occupancy Type Construction Type Applicant Name: �.,VS' n64fs Address: �qf St Ave, City/State: Np/'pwwp !y awk WA Zip: Rirj l+y Phone: 206 — 7314 Email: 1W,0V_5 / pockrriwilld. COA Signature: Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: Address: City/State. Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature; Owner Name: lix'k 9 Vtf i dev Address: lq�04-5- is 5 City/State: n rviay zip: n[ $'�y �J Phone: �LD4 73Lt 20 If Fax: Email: 4.u.5p + wnW . C0M Signature: Bulletin #003 — January 1, 2011 Page I of 1 k:\Handouts\Master Land Use Application Pre -application Conference Sign in Sheet City of Federal Way COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE July 12, 2018 11:00 a.m. Project Name: Goldmaur Lots 14 & 15- Reasonable Use City Hall Hylebos Room Address: *No Site Address* (Parcels: - � File Number: 18- 102593-00-PC qZ H r U - O! c-(U 1 a- g D-�-v Cr—oIKO *The applicant will receive a pre -application summary letter within 1-2 weeks. NAME DEPARTMENT / DIVISION TELEPHONE NUMBER Leila Willoughby -Oakes Associate Planner CD/Planning 253-835-2644 Lei Ia. wiIlov hh -cakes ci offederalway.com 1. Brian Asbury Lakehaven 2. Cole Elliott PW/Dev. Svcs. 3. 4. Chris Cahan South King Fire & Rescue �,T (. c- � 0C - 5. �ock kver �a~_s ZZ 73zf- E05_Lf 6. Mlk ZOO-9 y$ - �i `7 T 8. 1 LL, O�E L60 -) L, W S� -2,53-9Y5-I62 c,o @_ LA ►CCHA C- A o U-1 (z� G,,,A.J Gam- 2-- IIs3 `i4� ?2�3 9. GUIN 961 . ar 10.�� 11.J , 12. RIN s City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory Field Form Wetland Number a ��° r 1/4 SecVTwn/Rng Location (address/cross-streets) -(-* A b-e , S Team Members Al Date Field Check: Base Map #: —"-a --f— Windshield Accessf.Site Acce Site Not Accessed FIELD DATA Cowardin Class Dominant 5nn % total W L i O A ��4' Notable Wildlife Features /%a Snags:#'s z6" z12" Z24" Heights: ,-1 Inlet present: Y N; width flow: Y N / Outlet present&Y N; widtha flow: d1'7N None Observed None Observed Water Sources (Y/N) stream culvert: (diam) sheet flow floodplain asps Human Disturbances: /�Gjti�•� Buffer Conditions: �'o% OFFICE DATA NRCS Soil Unit: f U - ' E `� �" WL Rating Approximate Size: 500 tos 2,500 sq.ft 2,500 sf, s 'h acre Z'/z acre, s 1 acre COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS __i acre, s 2 acre —�_ Z 2 acre, s 5 acre z 5 acre Lakehaven WATER & SEWER DISTRICT 1521049078 32200 1049058 28241000100 12824100110 f 28241000120 1 2824100130 1 282234 4100140 2824100150 2" PVC _24 2824100050 4211 J V aQ N 1521049057 32423 S 324TH PL 2824100470 1 2824100480 l 32404 4231 2824100490 4235 2824100160 V 32404 Q to 6, 2824100170 6" A as 'p y 2824100180 2 32412 n m� t4 y c� 2824100190 32436 2824100460 32412 2824100520 4318 2824100530 A�� 4312 qC 2824100450 32422 $325,TH $T -Ac � a a+ n NUI�_ LaKenaven water ana sewer GOldmaur Lots 14 $ 15 District neither warrants nor guarantees 18-102593-00-PC the accuracy of any facility information 0 100 200 provided. Facility locations and conditions are subject to field verification. Feet 7/2/2018 BIA --� TP LOTS 14 AND 15, GGLDMAUReD� �.��� TPs BEING A PORTION OF L Ii •i I ,_� THE S.W. 714 OF THE N.E. 114 OF SECTION iS, TOWNSHIP 27 NO , P I I � nn 1C� t cl� RANGE 4 EAST OF THE W.fYl., CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, - DENOTES t5gr AT FIFE A pA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. GRAPHIC SCALE r Al ~ A22 __ N DENOTES EXISTING VALVE l 1C l �/ • \ r r!r r� r DENOTES MON ff 4/\ A'27 jr IN CASE. O41 IWyJ IN PE10 ) f �` • r a l �rr..i! ��••' rl\� A I FOR THIS SURVEY. +1P Ls 30429 11ncn=10 rl ���� Au r SET "Al` f A-2 TP 9 + ��-A-T5 \ `\ T� L� TES CABLE T.V. V \ l(/ Wetla,�d 11 / /� AS II Awe \ `, ►J . © TES POWER r / _ DENOTES PHONE / / y 1 \` J/ f EVEiGRFBJTii O DLS ENOTES M 1/2' 1NCA9 / f �L �, A. / I,,, yI ► r If\�\ a • \I . AEfa \ DENOTES OF FLOW ` \ 8250' (1 VJ Oe %��. \ ID I g:m I I I f � � 4 C�H �� r � r Drains to MIII Creek, / �/� \I A e TOP 100.l8' !! i'r f rsee Figure 6 / \ • �O -UfH) i I C\�v� I_ J 1 p\� yy �i{l I te-sSss[tz�EAsr) A e r cttJC1 .. 4 I I I 1 1 I I ` 1 Y�}� 1D'eM 2B' Y y\ . I I +l 1 I #'BTCViN •9376{ CON- EST) � 1st I �NET�AND-A- Ar� I1fIY I __ -; , 7 E-9796'i,2'DOND.SOUTH) (8,584 sq.ft )OQ Rai a, �1L �� 7 n I I I U 1 ;II �f 1 &qoL �% y t Or TPa 4.rdzf : 1 Y I I I I I Y' l Ilj i f _` r� °�` [ y . _ _ _ ggt f do, o01 yy1`O2r ` Oa°f A % Y! 7f r VECj Ll �V`����'���n� �/ •mil I �` Nntllx�'4r: y.u•■. ■.■s� r. ...L■�i..4.�.. .i .{i..ti ��■u.. ■�r■. • `......■.■.■■■■.■■■Ov µ�■4 ■. e, fI I III°I•�lxxl III i TFI A13 / \I I / y, _ a'. �- - _\\ r. \ 'ri•-.!" 1!r{ i Ia `d iP TP2 + — O24' -� ' / , $Ise / I 1 !n rl1 I + d 10 Or \ 1 •r• \ Ov r1 _ I - 1 + y r I I ► IR { 3 I BASIS OF BEARING `Jr` r 1/1 w II PLAT OF GOLDMAUR. VOL B7. Pa 69 Du, \ \ \ 1 \ �' j !f �; $, � IKeNG COUNTY, WASHMTON n ,+\ I T WIDE Pa8Wl .7703220877 ' I � I /r� 1 � 1 j 1 � p� t I � ELEVATION DATUM OB. lr l\ ",,�,�■,./ / c I J ! + 7 fgr / R I i� �(.� MON AT ASSUMED a- 100.00 ON THE TOP OF THE BRASS }�y�/ I r • ' ,� 1-� 5 ,? irEC NR aJS957! ��.!/ �FA ,� + [ A' / r I THE INTERSECTION OF S 3261h PL AND 44th AVE Y� Ia.■u.�. T...;.i.�u.r.�.. ■. ■. u..u....■ •� — — _•................... r...... ■..r........ u sue! I + y Dal= t- — — --- — _ _ _ i r f 1 1 r". Ems- gN TMfl ENT USED - LEITZ SOKKIA 1" TOTAL STATION ____________ __ram-__- IFIELATWEMEET ACCURACY PROCESS WERE USED TO J TO MEET OR EXCEED THE ACCURACY FOR LAND � r ' a eea+•4Gr E , � 9R00 C . � � .11.r�r � � r �;� f f (BOUNDARY SURVEYS PER WAD 332-130-090. _ _ _ '� -~ � f ••r rr _ /f f r 'y I I LEGAL DESCRIPl10N {sllC I1�,rf {i _ r __ ~~ - - II I j LOTS 14 AND 15, GCLL`MAUR ACCORDWO TO PLAT _ „� - l ~ - _ - - I I-f14REOF FIECORUEU W VOLUME 97 OF PLATS AT ' ` L M1 WAS HE ` r �•�` - WATER A/AM _ 1 PACES COUMY, WAS7iWGTON USIVE. F�COF�JS OF KING A LOCATOAi BBRHCE [Y�PlFtM-�OR TD±\ L� ` • �, , TAX LOT NO'6 282410014009 AND 2e24101500d y p t {vruars �� ?_ _ a I vrare �� l \ T�ii IS 9�JECTTY]THE FRANCH{SE AGREE.fENT $I ` yy I FfKw OF At8UR N TO LAKEiAVEN Unlm V ` K14 t NO 200211200009os pY` %%�� [��J •j/'�' ram'] . 1 g�gy - \ _ \I -- - _ �I EXISTING ASPFi�.LT ROAD _- _ \\\ 1 1 E E ! E .L.J / N B9'44'4T W ! 7 _- --1— __ - _ I _— - [}!� l\/ ll [l/ ! r iTYPE I cATCN�BnarN C"] ' �r`"'`� �� bil'Neari aTHO"`i "' ' MY OF FEDERAL WAY (ji /, � 1E-,0a]rttYlVCH01lIN7 COMMUNrFY DEVELOPM1EW raevrslaHNs � o J go- m , er E 1►`�r�J W OQ W Cr) W co ] J Q N w a co� cf)z Z 0 (n W Z J 0) F5 cO Z �L 0 W o d _" 3 Z Q Z gQ LLI � F- ri) Q Z `m Q X LOM z L0 W Z one rig UViL aceierrm e, . c..cc�rn ar. 4sa+n 6/4/2018 by JCA Fiqure 7 ,. I D, -5 rJ�G� yLoiQG`e��- L. J