Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-102851
ES—N Adolf so, December 14, 2007 Ms. Janet Shull City of Federal Way 33325 Eighth Avenue South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 5309 Shilshole Avenue N'. Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax www.adolfson.com 13 C0MMUNrtYDEELOPMN TTDEPAHTMF✓ T .OEC 2 0 2007 RE: File #06-105489-00-AD Federal Way Village -Wetland Review; 33701 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, Washington Dear Ms. Shull: ESA Adolfson (Adolfson) is pleased to present our comments regarding the proposed buffer averaging plan for the Federal Way Village project. The Federal Way Village site is located in the southwestern corner of the intersection of South 336 h Street and Pacific Highway South in the City of Federal Way. The Federal Way Village project proposes to average the buffers of two on -site wetlands (Wetlands #1 and #2) in order to accommodate on -site development. Adolfson has reviewed materials pertaining to this project in the past, including a wetland delineation performed by Raedeke and Associates. Our most recent comments regarding this project were contained in a letter to the City dated November 9, 2007. In our November 2007 letter we recommended that in order to satisfy the requirements of FWCC 22-1359, the applicant would need to revise the buffer averaging plan to either propose buffer averaging and provide adequate buffer widths for each on site wetland, or propose buffer reduction and include buffer enhancement as part of the proposal. Document Review Adolfson reviewed the following document which we received from the City of Federal Way on December 10, 2007. 0 Buffer Averaging Plan Sheet 1 of 1, J.S. Jones and Associates, Revised December 4, 2007. The revised buffer averaging plan now specifies that the buffer area for each wetland is equal to or greater than before averaging. Based upon our review of the revised buffer averaging plans provided by the applicant, the plan as proposed now satisfies the requirements of FWCC 22-1359 (b.) buffer averaging. Thank you for the opportunity to continue our work on the Federal Way Village project. If you have any questions, please call me at 206-789-9658. Sincerely, ESA ADOLFSON Lizzie Zemke Senior Scientist CITY OF �. Federal December 6, 2007 CITY HALL Way 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Ms. Lizze Zemke Adolfson Associates 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98107 Re: File #06-105489-00-AD; WETLAND REVIEW — DECEMBER 5, 2007, RESUBMITTAL Federal Way Village; 33701 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way Dear Ms. Zemke: Please find enclosed for your review and comment a revised proposed wetland buffer averaging plan for the above -referenced project received on December 5, 2007. This revised plan was prepared in response to your comments provided on the applicant's October 17, 2007, submittal. Your comments and any recommendations for conditions of approval shall be incorporated into the report to the hearing examiner. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of comments provided by Ann Dower of the Public Works Department on the October 17, 2007, submittal for your information. Sincerely, 1 LSJa et B. Shull, AICP for Planner Enc: December 4, 2007, Letter From J.S. Jones and Associates Buffer Averaging Plan Sheet lof 1, J.S. Jones and Associates, Revised December 4, 2007 November 30, 2007, Memorandum From Ann Dower, Engineering Plans Reviewer Doe. I D. 43335 J. S. cones grad Associates, December 4, 2007 Ms. Janet Shull City of Federal Way 3325 Eight Avenue South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 RE: File #06-105489-00-AD Federal Way Villages, Wetland Buffer Averaging Dear Mr. Shull: The J_ S. Jones and Associates, Inc., Federal Way Villages BufferAverraging Plan, has been revised according to recommendation #1 of the ESA Adolfson, November 9`", 2007 review letter. The buffer area is equal to or greater after averaging than before averaging. The reduction areas are replaced on the same on -site wetland. The revise averaging plan will not have a negative effect on wetland functions. Thank you for your help with this review. Sincerely, Jeffery S. Jones Professional Wetland Scientist cc: Dan Biles, SBI Development, Inc. 06-105489 35316 28th AVENUE SOUTH -44ESUBMITTED FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003 DEC 052007 253-874-9588/FAX 253-874-9579 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. �ESAAd®Ifs®r November 9, 2007 Ms. Janet Shull City of Federal Way 33325 Eighth Avenue South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063-9710 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax www.adolfson.com COMULWI7YRECEIVED D OPME TDEPAHTMENT DEC 0 6 2007 RE: File #06-105489-00-AD Federal Way Village -Wetland Review; 33701 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, Washington Dear Ms. Shull: ESA Adolfson (Adolfson) is pleased to present our comments regarding the proposed buffer averaging plan for the Federal Way Village project. The Federal Way Village site is located in the southwestern corner of the intersection of South 336`h Street and Pacific Highway South in the City of Federal Way. The Federal Way Village project proposes to average the buffers of two on -site wetlands (Wetlands # 1 and #2) in order to accommodate on -site development. Adolfson has reviewed materials pertaining to this project in the past, including a wetland delineation performed by Raedeke and Associates. Our most recent comments regarding this Project were contained in an e-mail message to the City dated February 1, 2007. Following our February 2007 comments, the City of Federal Way directed the applicant to provide a buffer averaging plan that addresses the requirements of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC 22-1356 through 22-1359). Document Review Adolfson reviewed the following documents which we received 2007. 'roiil file City of Federal Way on October 26, • Functional Assessment of the Federal Way Village Buffer Averaging Plan, J.S. Jones and Associates, October I7, 2007; and • Buffer Averaging Plan Sheet 1 of], J.S. Jones and Associates, Revised October 17, 2007. In order to determine which functions the on -site wetlands perform and whether or not these functions would be negatively affected by the buffer averaging proposal, J.S. Jones and Associates applied the functional assessment methodology contained in Methods fa- Assessing Welland Functions -Volume 1: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in Lowlands of Western Washington (Hruby et aI., 1999). The document prepared by J.S. Jones included assessment data sheets and a summary of the assessment results. According to the assessment results, Wetlands # 1 and #2 received moderate rating for providing water quality improvement functions and habitat functions when compared with other wetlands. Based on these results, J.S. Jones concludes that buffer averaging proposal will not have a negative effect on the wetlands and their ability to perform the functions they currently perform. � ESA Ad®Ifs®r Janet Shull Letter 11 /09/07 Page 2 In addition to the functional assessment, the J.S. Jones document includes a table that itemizes the proposed buffer decreases and increases, showing that once the project has been completed, the overall area of buffer will increase by 252 square feet. The letter also describes how the proposed buffer averaging will actually improve habitat connectivity and contains a description of how the FWCC requirements regarding buffer reduction and buffer averaging have been satisfied. The buffer averaging plan prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates proposes to decrease the "buffer width to no less than 50 feet at any location around either Wetlands #1 or #2, and proposes to increase the buffer width beyond 100 feet in six locations around Wetland #1. The majority of the buffer decreases occur around Wetland #2. The plan does not include buffer enhancement, and fencing and signage around the buffers are not shown on the plans. Based upon our review of the buffer averaging plans provided by the applicant, the plan as proposed does not satisfy the requirements of FWCC 22-1359 (b.) buffer averaging. According to the FWCC, the result of buffer averaging must cause the new buffer of a wetland to be as large as or larger than prior to implementation of the buffer averaging plan. As currently proposed, while overall there will be more wetland buffer on the site, the buffer of Wetland #1 will be larger and the buffer of Wetland #2 will be smaller than prior to the implementation of the buffer averaging plan. Such a proposal could be made under FWCC 22-1359 (e.) buffer reduction, however buffer enhancement would need to be included in the proposal. Recommendations In order to satisfy the requirements of FWCC 22-1359, the applicant will need to revise the buffer averaging plan to either 1) Propose buffer averaging and provide adequate buffer widths for each on site wetland; or 2) Propose buffer reduction and include buffer enhancement as part of the proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to continue our work on the Federal Way Village project. If you have any questions, please call me at 206-789-9658. Sincerely, ESA ADOLFSON Lizzie Zemke Senior Scientist CITY OF �. Federal Way October 25, 2007 Ms. Lizze Zemke Adolfson Associates 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98107 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederal way. com Re: File #06-105489-00-AD; WETLAND REVIEW Federal Way Village; 33701 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way Dear Ms. Zemke: Please find enclosed for your review and comment the proposed wetland buffer averaging plan for the above -referenced project. Your comments and any recommendations for conditions of approval shall be incorporated into the report to the Hearing Examiner. At this point, we are anticipating a hearing sometime in December. Since your scope includes attendance at the H.E. meeting, could you please let me know what dates in December you are unavailable? I am now a permanent employee at the City of Federal Way. Therefore, my contact information has changed to the following: Phone: 253-835-2644 E-Mail: janet.shull@cityoffederalway.com Sincerely, Jan t B. Shull, AICP S or Planner 1 ones and Associates, Enc: Functional Assessment of the Inc, October 17, 2007 Buffer Averaging Plan Sheet Doc 1. D 43834 --r BILE September 5, 2006 Mr. Kurt Wilson Federal Way Village, LLC c/o SBI Developing P.O. Box 73790 Puyallup, WA 98272 RECE ED OCT 2 6 Z006 CITY OF FEDERAL WAIF BUILDING DEPT. RE: . Wetland Delineation for Federal Way Village, Federal Way, Washington (RAI Project No. 2006-060-001) Dear Mr. Wilson, At your request Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff visited the Federal Way Village property on July 20, 2006. The Federal Way Village property is approximately 46 acres located with portions of Section 20, Township 21 North Range 4 East, W.M. Specifically the property is located in the City of Federal Way, in the southwestern corner of the intersection of South 336t1' Street and Pacific Highway South corresponding to King County tax parcels # 2021049070, 2021049001, 2021049090, 2021049086, 2021049069, 2021049072, 2021049004, and 2021049080. The study area for the current project is limited to Wetland 1, located in the northwestern corner of the property, previously delineated in 1992 (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1995), and reconfirmed by Raedeke Associates, Inc. in 2003 (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004). This letter describes Wetland 1, existing condition, permit history, and changes in the City of Federal Way Code since the previous investigations. Further we will describe the likely wetland and stream ratings under the current City of Federal Way Code (2004). This summary letter draws from inforniation gathered and analyzed during previous studies of the site contained in our 2004 report, Kitts Corner Wetland Assessment (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004). DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGIES Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986:41251). We based our wetland investigation upon the guidelines of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as RAEDEKE A&S'OCIATES, Ii\.JC . ect!e, C981155i11 Crcl -8122 Mr. Kurt Wilson September 5, 2006 Page 2 revised in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual published by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 1997). The WDOE wetland manual is required by state law for all local jurisdictions (including the City of Federal Way), is consistent with the 1987 COE wetland delineation manual with respect to wetland identification and delineation, and incorporates subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1994). As outlined in the COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and WDOE (1997) Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, wetlands are distinguished by three diagnostic characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation (wetland plants), hydric soil (wetland soil), and wetland hydrology. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) ratings are used to define whether hydrophytic vegetation is present (Reed 1988, 1993). The WIS ratings define plant species based on their ability to withstand saturated soil conditions. Plants are rated, from highest to lowest probability of occurrence in wetlands, as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), and upland (UPL), respectively. In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when "snore than 50 percent of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC on lists of plants species that occur in wetlands" (Enviromnental Laboratory 1987:19). Soils are specifically examined for hydric indicators immediately below the A horizon or 10 inches, whichever is shallower. Hydric soil indicators include, but are not limited to: (1) gley conditions, (2) mottling in a low chroma matrix, (3) histic (organic) soils, and (4) saturated or inundated conditions. In order for an area to have wetland hydrology according to the 1987 and 1997 manuals, soils must be saturated within a major portion of the vegetation rooting zone (usually within 12 inches of the surface) for at least 5% of the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1991b, 1992). BACKGROUND RESEARCH In -preparation for our investigation, we reviewed the background information for the property, especially in regard to Wetland 1. We reviewed maps and information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS 1987) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) snap, the USDA Soils Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey (Snyder et al, 1972), the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR 2006) Forest Practice Activity Map, and the Federal Way Wetland Inventory (2006). Mr. Kurt Wilson September 5, 2006 Page 3 FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND DATA ANALYSIS Prior to our July 2006 site visit, portions of the wetland boundaries established in 2003 were re-established by professional surveyors at Otak, Inc. Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff then reviewed these boundaries during a Feld visit on July 20, 2006. We collected information on existing vegetation, soil, and hydrology in the vicinity of Wetland 1, as needed, to determine the current wetland edge and describe the surrounding upland buffer areas. PIant communities were inventoried, classified, and described by field inspection. General vegetation patterns were noted. Scientific nomenclature of plant species generally follows Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), with nomenclature as updated by Pojar and MacKinnon (1994) and Cooke (1997). Two quantitative indices were used to analyze vegetation data in order to determine if the Plant community meets the definition of "hydrophytic vegetation." The first index represents the percentage of dominant species with a WIS rating of facultative or wetter. We used the Braun-Blanquet cover -abundance method (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974) as a way to objectively describe homogenous vegetation "cover types." A species with a cover class value of 2 (5% to 25% canopy cover) or greater on the Braun-Blanquet scale is considered a dominant. The second vegetation index was a weighted mean of the WIS ratings, after Wentworth and Johnson (1986). This weighted mean index (WMI) calculates the average WIS rating of all species in the plot by weighting each species based upon its relative cover. The WMI is a measure of the plant community's adaptation to saturated soil conditions (Wentworth and Johnson 1986). The WMI provides an objective parameter for determining whether a plant community is indicative of wetland or upland conditions. Ideally, the "breakpoint" between wetland and upland vegetation is a weighted mean index of 3.0, with wetland vegetation characteristics indicated by a WMI less than 3.0, and upland vegetation characteristics indicated by a WMI greater than 3.0. When the weighted mean index is near 3.0, however, vegetation may not clearly indicate whether an area is wetland or upland. In such cases, soil and hydrologic conditions must be r carefully considered. As the weighted mean index of a plant community or plot approaches either extreme on the scale (i.e., approaching I,0 or 5.0), the probability of the vegetation indicating wetland or upland, respectively, increases. Wentworth and Johnson ( 19 86) confirmed the effectiveness of this methodology for a wide variety of plant communities in different regions of the United States. We excavated pits to at least IS inches below the soil surface using both a shovel and a soil auger, where possible, in order to describe the soil and hydrologic conditions at the site. Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Mansell Color 2000). Mr. Kurt Wilson September 5, 2006 Page 4 RESULTS We identified and delineated additional wetland area during our July 20, 2006 site visit. The new boundary flags, as surveyed and plotted by Otak, Inc., are shown on the Wetland Exhibit map produced by Otak Inc., and received in our office August 11, 2006. BACKGROUND RESEARCH All background information for the property show Wetland 1 in the northwest corner of the property. The NWI map (1987) describes Wetland I as a palustrine scrub shrub seasonally flooded wetland (PSSC) surrounding a palustrine aquatic bed permanently flooded (PABH). The SCS map (1972) shows Wetland 1 as a wet spot within Everett- Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. The WDNR Forest Practice Activity Map (2006) depicts a non-fishbearing stream flowing generally southward from a wetland feature in the northwestern corner of the property. Finally, the Federal Way Wetland and Stream Inventory (2006) depicts a wetland in the northwestern corner of the property as well. WETLAND 1 DESCRIPTION Wetland 1 is approximately 2 acres in size. The southern boundary is defined by a steep area of fill, the western edge by a relatively steep bank of native soil, and the northern and eastern edges by gentle upland slopes. Wetland I likely receives water from overland flow off surrounding uplands. The wetland may also receive some water from groundwater discharge; however, significant seepage into the wetland was not observed at the time of our July 2006 visit. Wetland I drains into an excavated drai the southeastern edge. nage ditch on As described in our 2004 report, the wetland consists of a central area dominated by yellow pond lily (Nupharpolysepalurn, OBL) (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004). The central area was ringed by a zone of emergent vegetation dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arurrclinelcea, FACW) at the north end and by inflated sedge (Cwex vesicar-ia, OBL), common cattail (T} pha latifolia, OBL), and burreed (Sparganizrrla spp. Not rated) at the south end. The outer edges of the wetland consist of scrub -shrub vegetation dominated by hardhack spirea (Spiraea douglasii FACW) , wit(Mahrs f csca, FACW) on the higher areas along the edge of heh ern crabapple DELINEATION UPDATE We based our re -delineation on the presence of facultative or wetter vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology. Because our field study was during the driest time of year, direct indicators of wetland hydrology were not present. Thus we based the wetland edge largely on the predominance of hydrophytic plants and hydric soils. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included sediment stains on vegetation and debris that was suspended in vegetation. The only areas where we diverged from the 2003 delineation were on the north and y eastern portions of Wetland 1, where the slope to the upland was fairly gentle (less than e Mr. Kurt Wilson September 5, 2006 Page 5 2% slope). Tn general the updated wetland edge was found to be no more than 8 to 10 feet from the former mapping. Where the slope was steeper, as found on the western side Of the wetland, we did not make any changes in the wetland edge. Within the areas where we changed the wetland Iine, we found a gradual change from upland vegetation, dominated by Douglas -fir (Pseudotsatga menziesii, FACU) and salal (Gaultheria shallon, FACU), to a community of plants adapted to wetland conditions, comprised of Western crabapple trees and saplings, with occasional trembling aspen (Popitlus trernuloides, FAC+) saplings, and an fairly dense understory of hardhack spirea and Pacific willow (Sralix hicida, FACW+) saplings with very sparse ground cover. The soils within the wetland edge were consistently hydric. The surface horizon (A horzon) i was generally black (1 OYR 2/I}silt Ivan to fine sandy loam varying in depth between 7" to 15". The soil beneath varied from very dark grayish brown G OYR 3/2) loam to gravelly sandy loam with redoximorphic features (mottles). Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology in these areas included algal mats, bare ground (due to water fluctuation and high biological activity), water marks on the persistent vegetation, and debris left from flooding earlier in the year. As described in our 2004 report, Wetland 1 would still be classified as a palustrine, aquatic bed, rooted vascular (PA133), palustrine, emergent, persistent (PEMI), and palustrine, scrub -shrub, broad-leaved deciduous (PSS1} wetland according to the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1992) wetland classification system. Theoutlet channel that extcnds from the south end of Wetland I to the metal pipe at the south parcel bound does not _ appear to meet criteria #o a regu a as a stream un er Cit of Federal Wa 2004 cede because it is an artificial cvnve ce that was constructed where no na�rai stream existed previously. UPLAND DESCRIPTION The area surrounding Wetland 1 was upland coniferous forest. The vegetation was dominated by Douglas -fir trees with a subdominant component of a red alder (111nus rubra, FAC) trees and a dense understory of sa.lal growing on well -drained very gravelly sandy loam. The soils were a very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) gravelly loam overlying a dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) very gravelly sandy loam. The soils at the time of our site visit were dry to at least 14" below the surface. PERMITTING The City of Federal Way (2004) currently regulates activities within and adjacent to wetlands and streams under Federal Way City Code, Chapter 22, "Environmentally Sensitive Areas." However, an agreement was reached between Campus Gateway Associates, Merlinos, Chase/MacLeod, and the City of Federal Way (1996) to set the wetland boundaries and the required buffers for Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 on the Federal Way Mr. Kurt Wilson September 5, 2006 Page 6 Village property. The negotiated buffers for Wetland 2 are 100 feet. As stated in the 1996 Settlement Agreement, "The Property Owners are to benefit from any changes in the City's regulations, however, if the regulations require greater buffers, the City shall Wn not require increased buffers on the Property" (Federal Way 1996 Section C. 1. d). The agreement with the City also addresses mitigation for construction of the regional detention facility impacts that would result in filling Wetlands 3 and 4 A wetland fill permit for impacts to Wetlands 3 and 4 wiII be re aired b the City, but this should be a Fro forma process due to the agreement being set in place (Federal av -q-a Wetland 1, our current area of study, is not covered by the above mentioned agreement and would be regulated under current (2004) City of Federal Way Code. It appears that the updates to the Federal Way Code have not changed the wetland rating or the required buffer. According to Section 22-I 57 WetIand�I would be a Class II wetland and therefore assidne a fl fnnt_-- LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Federal Way Village LLC and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Federal Way Village LLC. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. r We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then -current technical guidelines and criteria. Tile conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Mr. Kurt Wilson September 5, 2006 Page 7 We hope that this information will be useful to you in preparing development plans for your property. If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 525-8122. Sincerely, RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. Val Spooner Kelly, M.S. Wetland/Forest Ecologist -��Cc: Mr. Jon Potter LITERATURE CITED Cooke, S. 1997. A field guide to common wetland plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Cowardin, L., F. Golet, V. Carter, and E. LaRoe. 1992. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service Publ. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rile. Vol. 5 1. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. - Federal Way, City of. 1996. Settlement Agreement and Covenant between Campus Gateway Associates, Merlinos, Chase/Mcleod; and the City of Federal Way. May 15, 1996. 16 pps. Federal Way, City of. 2006. Environmental Maps, htt1)://Www ritur,FF ,4�-.,i..,- - - - -. -. cit 'ma sici7ti is i onniental11119sis�. Accessed August 2,2006. Federal Way, City of. 2004. Federal Way Municipal Code, Article XIV, Critical Areas. Effective November 16, 2004. Mr. Kurt Wilson September 5, 2006 Page 8 Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp. Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Jahn Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell soil color charts. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, NY. Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. B.C. Ministry of Forests; B.C. Forest Service; Research Program. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004. Wetland Assessment for Kitts Corner, Federal Way, Washington. September 7, 2004 report Campus Gateway Associates, Bellevue, Washington. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9). 89 PP. Reed, P., Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9) May 1988. Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1995. Kitts Corner Area Wetlands Assessment. Prepared for the City of Federal Way Surface Water Management. February 8, 1995. Snyder, D., P. Gale, and R. Pringle. 1973. Soil Surrey of King County area, Washington. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 100 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Amly Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991- 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of tile 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Artlzt32- E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. Mr. Kurt Wilson -� September 5, 2006 Page 9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation lli�inual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory. 1987. Poverty Bay, 7.5 minute quadrangle. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington state wetlands identification and delineation manual. March 1997. Publication No. 96-94. 88 PP. plus appendices. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Forest Practices Base Map for Section 20, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M. August 9, 2006. Wentworth, T. and G. Johnson. 1986. Use of vegetation in the designation of wetlands. Final report to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina Agricultural Service and N.C. State University, Raleigh. 107 pp 07429012 aIU 36 Nn; wox ` - ` - `FND. woN- - - - - pQ�GN OF THE N 1 2 OF THE NE i 4 OF SEC. 'iWP, 21 N, RNG. 4 E, W.M., KING COUNTY WASHINGTON S e6'44'44' E �. w ._ �. - - - - � - - - -..�, . - - - - - �CWiC, fHmC�E S9s,32' _ IN CASE ••- •-• •- r Fiib. HON. - J �IR_ SE022 UNE 1 _ 3-2a-1t4 __ - 04,1110- S. 336TH ST. -J- ,o ' 42.01. 699.64' 2a1-. -` �.. e1a.77 I r . s3• 1 N ay '40. ' �- W. 200' OF E. 599' 1 I PARC t "C" N ' .....�.,. # I 100' WETIL BUPARCEL B I �x ao.o +j FFER. ice•) - y ' �.. `� ?�� TL 2021049069 y9 1• y y _ ;,r' .. NOTE: ALL RAE7N5' 100.0' S Kau iae1C0c7 I k1j I w.tip• _� i . j J low:: w Ir, rs r N I WEiLAHO 1$•FkAC0E0 BY,: [� r 1 L32, FIEUP JULY• l49I. z � p'T,tERS AN6'.�p�1TED •' . • r 1 . ) �•3,a'a2'•E •{. .ft SCALE 1'-100' � 1 FNG. 2' I?tON PIPE W\WOOD PLUG\TACK\TAO LS 011191 N 66'4S REC 6512200807 • 1' I EAST 319' �, I f PARCEL "A" �� I 10,00, I • _ ,=OTHERS " LACATEA= F1ErN7 } j '< i:" : I•• J f G Jinr, tt192 7 ' I (tYp �• r'.r J� ;Te: ;_'` • S 01.11•58• W , I E r ...�:Yrn ` •..W •y. S B6'29'43'.(R) 100 50 0 1�0 $QO - 300 ~~ � t1 .. AS T' . - .. � � - .. .E 1264.2E`1;,• '-,''- aa.at I -i 1 I ,•. 1 �'�6\6� N.ILf1$ti 1 ��,..,s rC• E +I BASIS OF BEARINGS EAtT UNE OF THE •}4E 1/4 OF SET'20 F ``• I�I II 1 1k31'12'44• E SFa''':•,••• ••• •• L ` W&USHLP OF THIS AiiC& IS IN., • I LIRE Bc"a ANCf L1 N T3512 W - 43.77 L2 N SS2106 31.36 L3 H 29'453P •1f} 22.78 L4 N 5742 61 W .26 Is w 4a+a32 w 42zD. Ls N 6S1s w iE.Ta L7 @ 17 04 W 22.20 L6 S R74a 52 w 50.76 Le S 74r"-Or W e622 L10 S. 43'3416 w 67.13 Ll, S 2L'24 W 13.36 L12 S 729'21 w 43Ai L14 S 700'17P E 70.24 L14 S 1:242 E 40.77 415 S TIOW E 60.33 Ua s 172e 4 E t7.6a L17 S 2720 E 34.40 Lis IS 16'OS ss E 21.77 L79 E FOUND 2' IRON PIPE # q . , ■1 .. �' F �'I ' = JIS FLAGGED H CURVE ARC DELTA C1 134.02 771 05 C2 n9.1a Si•OS 51 CS 10'104 WU 7as tirworCe ,B 16C7 RZL02 OS es72Ca 1s'72'C70 53'4734 C11 94M 484136 C12 64.i6 4C300 03 36.21 22'2 014 mm W474 C15 74.79 43'S6S1 C76 SL67 WI C'44 C17 a .es SOY 14 CID 110.63 Bl6a+s .66.5E 3i'1 04 C29 1 7P22 23 C21 3&W 31'S4'1 36.30 -- 44 1 N 4 SEC PARCEL „p,. G aN i° THE nu°aa'a'H of r l I 1 ' Q •' ~ 1 / SAa �yy %31 �>] * THE so UNI<AF PARCEL V (893.70i IS eMWEO TEVNE IN ERROR'BASED ON A SURVEY BY E0. F0U•'O. 1249. CrfR0i1 GUY ANCHOR S' WEST OF UNE f Y I - .• 100' ` 1, yif 6 TM WA5 OBT OHR PAVENFM 18' WEST OF LNE rf• 1GO' WETLAND BUFFER (TYP.) 1 1 RECOROSVRVI:Y fj, mill N aW27'02' E (R} I IF .. •Ljj :17me•.• cn w •N •j q ROS#8010279015 ffI TL 2021049086 1 I •'1: a I! %� SW27�?". E e93.7a'(R] �BB3.70' is nT4a'2a' E / M ~ o h- ��• 1 es,=a-•Y•+.: 1 5 BS43ri1" E .': a -114. _ . S aS45'17' Eco T 1 '.•z . - •$ 1 .a •;:: M.H. 27' SOUTH OF UNE L r •: :., . ,• : s' :' ABANDONED HOUSE 1+' WEST OF UNE `V-E'� + + 7 13' WEST r! 0 TL 2021049080 Ijr m TOPSA OF OK •��-''• JJ Z a7 FERRI(A>3Y, 1995 .T -J ' 1i�w-' �f I .'�• .. PARCEL „E: 7 FNLL I1,N, �o I U .�' • �/"�:'•. .•• -.•. WEST 1sr I n BUFFER C".) •rs• - 3„�• r 1 I � ' a �' •�'_ • •• _ W I 1 30.00, (yJ S E9'27'13' E f :• -;• - 1 1 FND. REBAR k CM KING CO. 1 N 43 'W 1la•7.75 . M1 ' - :. G.oe' WEST, 0.52' soUn1 TL 20210490004 s2? :Ffl x 1/2' T.P. _ . �! ! FND•RF{,ffr aCAP 20-T21N-R4E WM ACAD DRAWING NO 1342R4 o.sr SOUTH 0 Fs-V2?'30' E 7.a2 I INDEXING DATA N 1 2, E 1 SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE E`"'fir `Fi T.: H ;'y" E H 7GRDING NO. Thia map correctly represents a survey made by me or RECORD OF SURVEY 100 w. eruoJ.ay 10W H.E. eth S6:' 72o S, sa1 SL 44w2a� L209 0yui, SL, �y I=-0 s¢22e :ORDER'S CERTIFICATE under my direction in conformance with the requirements ;� `+, st.. sa90 7LN flpef F►d.� %hes WA 9eDD3 adxns,nncifA 2OP604 gas 6 a292 S6a 734 zo2 d for record thisl�' dayof 19� .T- . of the survey recording act at the request of [r FOR L."y 6.e.N, CA 9oeo2-4443 s.lwwc'• 310 496-4449 2aa 464- 494'. DRAWN BY: T. BLOOM DATE ;' -:' JULY••198 JOB tf ,. #182401.DH 'R•VJAm In bookCL_of•-sww at p13gtzfAL KAREN VALUE in JULY 1996�� CAMPUS GATEWAY MERLINO the re Da of Tim � I 7 •e,r.+f� CHECKED BY: SCALE SHEET=:: I �- �` r .«• f iL LIPCRASE MOTHM WECKHAM 7"�`-4� �1 T. WICKHAM 1"�100' _ I.OF 2:: Supt. of Records Certificate No. 21$01 9607129012 110 36, PORTION OF THE N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 20, TWP. 21 N. RNG. 4 E, W.M., KING COUNTY WASHINGTON PARCL A. PARCEL D: PARCEL I - Of THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE THAT PoRrIGN OF THE NOKIHI HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER THAT PORTION OF 'THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER THE 4AST 312 Fmw TikLw NQRME45T QUARTER OF SECTION 20. TOWNSHFP 21 WORTH� RAINOE 4 EAST, W.M., IN OF THE NoRTNtosT QUARTER OF SECMI 20, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M.. OF THE NORTMEkST QUARTER OFF 20, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH. RA�M 4 EAST. W.M.. fTY. WAkH1NaTCR'DMEPT W KPITH-42 THEREOF CONVEYED FOR IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FMOA! LYING WEST OF THE SEATTLE-ThrOMA HIGHWAY, AS VAMM By Dr DOEGMSOMBER 11 -KR40 cow, 7 CUWIL aNi ";Rm BY DE1M9--REO0F*ED UNDER RECORDING M' 41-0600V; AND EXCEPT THAT 1947 UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 3722662; EXCEPT ROADS ANO PORTION THEREOF LYING WESTERLY WPRIWAF1Y STATE HIGHWAY NO. I (PACIFIC EpEGJNH No AT THE NWTHW CORNER OF MO SEMON 20; AND RUNNING THENCE AS ODNVEYED BY DEEDS RECORDED U RECORDING NOS. 177111234 SOUTH 0`37'30* EAST ALONG THE S&SMLY UHL THEREOF, 657.37 FEET TO THE KGKOFAT %V 41 WINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE SEATTLE-TACDMA HIGHWAY AS IT EXISTED MO 371!L4,74: AND,tXCEPT ,16Wv246 FEET OFPORTION OF THE SOUTH 223.6 NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAD SUEIVMSION: THENCE SOUTH 69'2W4r WEST ALONG ON APR7L 27, 1948. 30 FEET NORTHEASTERLY Of A POW WHEM THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID HIGHWAY -THE NO INTERSECTS THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTHZI�Sl` QUARTER OF THE NOMEAW FEET Qf' 265-4 F OF THE OAST 319 FEET THE NORTH KmY OF THE THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF 70 THE WESTERLY WRON OF STATE WKWAY NO, 1, OF TK- RTHEMT WARTM CF St;CMN 20, TOWN rp 21 KNOWN U.S. HWKNAY NO. DO) AND THE THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF OUNRTCR OF SECTION 211 TOWMSWP 21 RANGE 4 LIZ, W.M,; RUNNINO THENCE WEST 1;1,�. 1%1yfAwn& 9 EAST. W.qm,- LYING WESIMY OF ;IRMMY STATE )WHWA 861"1 (ALSO HA DESCRIBED; THENCE OQtM9JING SOUTH 82`26'Q' WEST PARALun, wrrH THE i6RH LINE OF THE HomwAst oumTER OF THE N09MEASr ...... HIG RECORDED RECORDING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY UNE. TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUEMASION; 4UARTER OF SECTION 29� TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, WOE 4 EAST. WA-, 200 FW-, RUNNING K PoRnow p BOF KINO<OUHTY LOT UNE THENCE SOOT,LAST To THE NORTH UNE OF THE SOUTH W OF THE -H - T29'Jil', EART ALONG THE WIESIMY Lrtd THEREOF S26-58 FEET TO THENCE NORTH (rjOrj2 ADJUSIM • No. gal 7. UNDER R K!NO. 88MOO1507) THE SOLIM*EST CORNER TH00DR THENCE NORM SF27*02' MTI` ALONG THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID NORTHEAST 41VARTER OF THE moRTHEW QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE W ALONG SAID LINE OF SAID SWIM R46LF OF THE SOUTH HALF SWTHEIRLY UNE OF SAD StIBDIMSION, a9Z.70 FEET., THENCE NORM W37'30' WEST V* PARC�I,-B- TO SAID E45TEBO LINE OF SMIVISION. 101,68 FEET. THENCE NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER Of SW SECTION 20 10 To sm SOUTHERLY UNE OF SUBMISION TO THE THE WW BOUNDARY CP THE SE46TRE-TACOMA WKWAYj THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY THE WEST kQ-ff#'OP THE EA!�p SSg MT-LOF 7KE:NORTH HALFA; THE HQ8*tAsr 02" EWT. P WESTERLY =MSTATE Y. GE M. Rl� THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG MO THE P010T OF SWINNIING. QUARTER OF TAt--NGR1IW" OIUARTD� of MCTIDN40, TOWNSHIP 21 HORT%,,.dWGE 4 "NO THE WEST LIKE OF SEATTUE-TACOMA HIGHWAY TO ORTIZ� -),I FEE WESTERI WAR TO THE EAST, W.M., N KIM COUNTY. WSHINGTOWEXCEPT.'THE H 7 'W CONVEYED FOR ROAD BY 741001UN. (KS0 M• SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON XNOKNOWNAS PORTION OF PARCEL I. OF acuoly LOT UK.-ADju 9�T No. RECORDED UNDER RECOWG No. Wf=Dson. PARCEL C.- THE NORTHEAST 4UARTTR OF THE NORTHWEST QUWIT. N�?Jr THE NOR7HE4ST QuAlitrat 41 WMJN "a CQUIRryt, OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH. RANGE 4 WiT., ALSO THE ROM HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF .00ARnA or so EXCEPT THE EAST Sig FEET OF SO NORTH HAL%Nq=EPY THAT SECTION 20; r F. THEREOF ONO W"tN THE NORTH 42 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID - SECTOR 20, AS CONVEYED FOR ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING No.,, 7 7410050ov. 41 FND 2 JP FND 2" IP FwD. % EE OETAIL "Is .Y &I'M ST 17 H ST. ........ % S 8W4444' t 2=.I;Y 339 -T FND, OR" GAP NON. IN Om wm Puma MARK Puwr POWER "c 3-20-94 42* 1 t.22' - S. 33 E63 -TH,-tT -tT 17 z SEE DETAIL 5 W4+ E II 20 1 S sr.. D -/FHD. 3 11r 50 S W40 2-14-25 2- E (CALG) L) X - - - - - - - - - - w 137 MS W45'2a- g:i a- S GT+5-gur. t� &LA Lulaw I Q. C&C. cum V. STATE Offa-ti122=07 ...... DATA DATA DATA 02- -21'37' z L :10el.7W L 1000 Z R 2885.00' R 2365 00' T -547.41' T :547.iii FND. 2' BRASS CAP MON. IN CASE s rflr 223.W 7-02--93 20 w 05.w —4�WF 0 S 66.46'1 I" E • 2827.16%-: 20 IQ ar Q FIND. MON IN CASE�' / 7-02-93 w FND 3-1/2- SO LEGEND_ * SUP" o FWD. AS NOTED SO UNDARY LINE PARCEL LINE RIGHT Of WAY UNE (CALL) CALCULATED (MEA) MEASURED (R) RECORD FND. GONG. MON. FND. 2 1/2- BRASSCAP MON. 7-06-93 7-28-93 20 P1 SUBDIM51ON SECTION-2& TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. N.T.S. EQUIPMENT USE EQUIPMENT UTILIZED FOR THIS SURVEY LETZ SET 4 (rorrAL STATION) TECHNICAL DATA THIS SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS PRECISION REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN WAC 332-130-090. FIELD TRAVERSE METHOD NOTE THIS SURVEY DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ANY EASEMENTS EXCEPT THOSE AS SHOWN. DETAIL OB" '---.-..CAt-bULATE0 COMLINE •0%= N.T.S. ON HOLOINO fECOAD RADIUS AND MEASURED DELTA" zv/ 9 z FND. 2' 1. Ipj. 0 CoNr. w/HuB&Tmx: e DETAIL *A" N.T.S. j RECORDING NO. RECORD OF SURVEY FOR CAMPUS GATEWAY VOLUME / PAGE MERLINO CHASE - ��DEXING �DA A- N 02. 46- 1-/4, SEG' 20-T2 100 W. emdw IWOO N.E. Bth St. 70 S. IM SL AIW 12W MV-9 3L, W 2 St. 5000 7th Floor :Fdwd fty, I"*96DO3 Long Bosch, CA 00302-4443 W."' Wok 310 405-4449 206 455--9494 DRAWN BY: DATE: �69NO. JULY 1 gee , NO, T. BLOOM 61,522401.001 CHECKED BY: SCALE; SHEET T. WICKHAM NONEI 2 OF 2 IEN NAUUHY LLACE P L L.0 A T T O R N E }- S .4 T L A %V April 30, 2008 Laura K. Hathaway City Clerk City of Federal Way P_ O. Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 C , 1 R APR 3 0 r. � i �f City Clerks e City Of FederalOrricWay N. Kay Richards Legal Assistant 206-447.2231 krichards @ oinwlaw_ cone Re: Federal Wav Village Decisions - 06-106382-00-SU and 07-102851-00-UP Dear Laura: At the request of Phil Olbrechts, enclosed are copies of the executed originals of the above - referenced decisions_ Very truly yours, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE- P.L.L_C. �- Ily kt�� N. Kay Richards, Legal Assistant to Phil Olbrechts /nki- Enclosures Established 1902 A Member cl the International La,vvers Nets.ork v ith independent member low firms worldwide 1601 Filth A.jenue, Suite 2100 - Seattle, VVA. 98101-1686 . 206 4477000 Fox: 206.4470215 - ' Veb: v,,,,,,\n omv lov.- com I P.A0694675 DOC: a 13041900000/ 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Federal Way Village, LLC 1 l� ' ' 1 APR 3 0 J ;i ?RA ' WAY � 1i City Clerks Office City of Federai Way FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF File No_ 06-106382-00-SU LAW AND RECOMMENDATION INTRODUCTION The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide 25.47 acres into 95 zero -lot line townhouse residential lots. The Examiner recommends approval subject to conditions recommended by staff. ORAL TESTIMONY Staff summarized the staff report and staff and the applicant answered some questions from the Examiner. There was no testimony in opposition and the staff report and exhibits contained all information necessary to evaluate the proposal. EXHIBITS See list of exhibits at pp. 21 and 22 of the April 4, 2008, staff report prepared by Senior Planner Janet Schull. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicant is Federal Way Village, LLC. 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 10:00 a.m. at Federal Way City Hall on April 16, 2008. Substantive: 3. Sife/Pro osaI Descri tion. The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximate 25.47 acre site into 95 zero -lot line townhouse residential lots. The proposed preliminary plat map {Exhibits A)-A3), along with conceptual grading and utility plan (Exhibits A6-A7), tree retention plan (Exhibit A8), and a preliminary landscape plan (Exhibits A9-All) have been submitted into the record. Two large wetlands with 100-foot buffers are located to the east and west of the proposed zero -lot line townhouse development. Subdivision development would occur in a portion of the site located between the wetland buffers. On the east side of Wetland 2 is the site of the proposed commercial mixed -use portion of the Federal Way Village Master Plan, which will include over 300,000 square feet of commercial, retail, office, and multifamily residential development. The site is located in (lie east -central portion of the City, southwest of 1 PA0694672.DOC_ 1 / 13041-900000/1 Preliminary Plat Recommendation P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation the intersection of South 336'h Street and Pacific Highway South (Exhibit B). The site is accessed from South 336th Street via a proposed new Road A and from Pacific Highway South via a new Road C. The subject site has a land area of approximately 44 acres. As shown on the preliminary plat map, Sheets 3 and 4 of 14, by ESM Consulting Engineers (Exhibit A2-A3), all lots in the zero -lot line townhouse plat meet or exceed the underlying code -required minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet (RM 2400). These lots range in size from 1,560 to 3,343 square feet, with an average lot size of 1,976 square feet. The subject site contains two wetlands (Wetlands I and 2). They are both regulated as Category II wetlands, with 100-foot buffers_ Two small Category III wetlands (Wetlands 3 and 4) are located on the adjacent BC -zoned, proposed mixed use portion of the overall Federal Way Village Master Plan site. Wetlands 3 and 4 are proposed to be eliminated with development of the adjacent commercial mixed use development. Mitigation for the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 has already been implemented as part of the South 336th Regional Stormwater Detention Facility located just south of the subject site. In addition, the site is located within ten-year contour areas associated with Critical Aquifer Recharge and Wellhead Protection Areas_ 4. Characteristics of the Area. The surrounding land uses are business and office parks and community business. There is also a regional storage facility to the south. The property is situated southeast of the central portion of the City in an area with a mixture of existing uses and vacant property. The area to the north of the property and across South 336th Street is largely developed with office uses_ A senior housing development is located to the immediate west of the property_ A mixture of light industrial, business park development is located to the southwest_ Immediately south of the property is the South 336th Street Regional Storm water Detention Facility. Immediately to the east of the proposed zero lot line subdivision is vacant land zoned Community Business (BC). This BC -zoned area represents the balance of the proposed 44-acre Federal Way Village Master Plan development- 5- Adverse Immpacts_ The project has undergone a SEPA review and was issued a 1vIDNS_ The mitigation measures identified were a transportation improvement plan and various improvements to traffic signal. Approval of the preliminary plan will be subject to submittal and approval of a tree clearing plan. Mitigation measures for wetlands on site have been addressed separately_ Protection of the Aquifer Recharge and Wellhead Protection Areas will be addressed during the design and construction phase_ The existing 336th Regional Stormwater Detention Facility should be able to handle the additional stormwater runoff resulting from the project. 6_ Adequacy of Infrastructure and Public Services. As mitigated by staff, adequate infrastructure will serve development as follows: • Transportation: As proposed and as required by the FWCC, all internal and external public rights -of -way must be dedicated by statutory warranty deed to the City of Federal Way and improved to all applicable FWCC street standards. Internal streets are designed in accordance with the City's local access street standard with certain modifications that were reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department (see modification letter, Exhibit N). ■ 0 e� n Space.- To comply with the common open space requirements, the applicant has proposed 34,679 square feet of common open space located in two tracts (Tracts { PA0694672-DOC: I / 13041-9000001) Preliminary Plat Recommendation p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation G and N) located along the eastern edge of the development and western edge of the buffer area associated with Wetland 2_ Within these open space tracts, there is a pedestrian trail system and three lots. The total proposed square footage devoted to lots is 2,428 square feet (minimum required is 10 percent of 19,000 square feet, or 1,900 square feet). The common space and pedestrian trail is proposed adjacent to the edge of the buffer area associated with Wetland 2_ A text note addressing dedication and maintenance provisions shall be noted on the face of the final plat and pursuant to the subdivision code, homeowners association covenants are required to be submitted for City review prior to final plat approval_ • Drainage: Development of the site will create additional run off from new impervious surfaces such as streets, driveways, and rooftops. Storm drainage facilities are being designed in accordance with the 1998 KCSWDM and the City's amendments to the manual. The existing South 3361h Regional Stormwater Detention Facility provides mitigation for the runoff rate increases under improved conditions of the development. Per the settlement agreement (Exhibit J), a portion of the overall Federal Way Village Master Plan site will be permitted to discharge to the existing South 336th Regional Stormwater Detention Facility. For areas of the site not covered by the agreement, rights to detention will be purchased for a fee of $5,022.0 per gross acre_ Stormwater water quality shall be mitigated using approved facilities in accordance with the 1998 KCSWDM and the City's amendments to the manual_ Final review and approval of the storm drainage facilities as shown on the engineering plans will occur in conjunction with full drainage review. Stormwater design and plat drainage elements must conform to the standards, policies, and practices of the City of Federal Way's Surface Water Management Division, as outlined in the adopted KCSWDM and City amendments, the Comprehensive SU/face Water Management Plan, and the Stormwater System Operation and Maintenance Manual. The approved storm drainage facilities must be constructed per City code requirements, prior to final plat approval and recording of the subdivision. • Water: The applicant proposes to serve the subdivision with a public water supply and distribution system managed by the Lakehaven Utility District. The August 30, 2006, Certificate of Water Availability (Exhibit R) indicates Lakehaven's capacity to serve the proposed development through a Developer Extension Agreement (DBA). • Sewage: The applicant proposes to serve the proposed plat by a public sewer system managed by Lakehaven Utility District. An August 30, 2006, Certificate of Sewer Availability (Exhibit Q) indicates the district's capacity to serve the proposed development through a Developer Extension Agreement (DEA) between the applicant and the district_ • Schools: As part of the City's review of the proposal, the preliminary plat application was referred to the Federal Way School District for review. Panther Lake Elementary, Ilahee Middle School, and Todd Beamer High School will serve the proposed subdivision. All middle school and high school students from this development would receive bus transportation to and from school, as these schools are over one mile from the subject site. Students attending Panther Lake Elementary 1 PA0694672. DOC;1 / 13041900000/ Preliminary Plat Recommendation p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation will walk to school via sidewalks proposed along Road A, connecting to existing sidewalks on South 336"' Street and 1st Way South. School service areas are reviewed annually and may be adjusted to accommodate enrollment growth and new development. School impact fees, as authorized by City ordinance and collected at the time of building permit issuance, are currently $1,729.50 per zero -lot line townhouse unit. School impact fees are determined on the basis of the District's Capital Facilities Plan and are subject to annual adjustment and update. • Fire Protection: The Certificate of Water Availability from the Lakehaven Utility District indicates that water will be available to the site in sufficient quantity to satisfy fire flow standards for the proposed development_ The exact number and location of fire hydrants will be reviewed and approved by South King Fire and Rescue. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural- I- Authority of Hearing Examiner: FWCC 20-110 (4) and (5) provide the Examiner with the authority to conduct a hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on preliminary plat applications. Substantive: 2_ Zoninr7 Designation: Multifamily Residential - RM2400_ 3. Review Criteria and Application. FWCC 20-126(c) governs the criteria for preliminary plat approval. Those criteria are quoted in italics below and applied to the application under corresponding Conclusions of Law_ FWCC 20-126(c): Decisional Criteria. A Hearing Examiner shall use the following criteria in reviewing the preliminary plat and may recommend approval of the plat to the City Council if: (1) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; 4. The application is subject to the adopted Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), which designates the property as Multifamily. The proposed land use, Residential Multifamily 2400 (RM-2400), with 1,500 square foot minimum lot size, is consistent with density allowances and policies applicable to this land use as established in the FWCP. FWCC 20-126(c)(2): It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan: 5. The preliminary plat application is required to comply with the provisions of the FWCC Chapter 18, "Environmental Policy", Chapter 20, "Subdivisions"; Chapter 22, "Zoning"; and all other applicable codes and regulations. Future development of the residential subdivision will be required to comply with all applicable development codes and regulations. As proposed, and with conditions as recommended by staff, the preliminary plat will comply with all provisions of the chapter- ( PA0694672. DOC;1 / 13041_900000/ ) Preliminary Plat Recommendation p_ 4 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation FWCC 20-126(c)(3): It is consistent with public health, safety, and welfare. 6. The proposed preliminary plat would permit development of the site consistent with the current Multifamily Residential land use classification of the FWCP and map. Proposed vehicular access and fire hydrant locations must meet all requirements of South King Fire and Rescue. Sidewalks are proposed to provide safe access to schools and school bus stops. Future development of the plat in accordance with applicable codes and regulations should ensure protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. FWCC 20-126(c)(4): It is consistent with the design criteria listed in FWCC 20-2: FWCC 20-2: This chapter is adopted in furtherance ,of the comprehensive plan -of the City. It is hereby declared that the regulations contained in this chapter are necessary to: (1) Promote the health, safety and general welfare in accordance with the standards established by the state and the city; 7. As noted in the Washington State Growth Management Act, the Washington State Legislature has found it to be in the public interest to prevent urban sprawl and to promote the efficient use of infrastructure_ The infill development proposed by the applicant at urban densities meets these objectives. Also, as previously discussed, the project, as mitigated, creates no material or significant adverse impacts and there is adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of the new development. For these reasons, the project promotes the health, safety, and general welfare in accordance with the standards established by the state and the city. FWCC 20-2(2): Promote effective use of land by preventing the overcrowding or scattered development which would injury health; safety or the general welfare due to lack of water supplies, sanitary sewer, drainage, transportation or other public services, or excessive expenditure of public fitnds for such services: 8_ As previously noted, the project constitutes infill development in an area that is already characterized and developed by residential development. Also as previously discussed, the project is served (or as conditioned will be served) by adequate infrastructure_ For these reasons, the above criterion is satisfied_ FWCC 20-2(4): Provide for adequate light and air. 9. The density of the project meets the density requirements for the RM 2400 zoning district. The applicant will have to comply with the dimensional requirements of the zoning code for any structures it builds in order to get through building permit review. The dimensional standards of the City's Zoning Code set the standard for adequacy of light and air and for these reasons the above criterion is satisfied. FWCC 20-2(5): Provide for water, sewage, drainage, parks and recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds and other public requirements: 10. As noted in the Findings of Fact, the project is served by adequate infrastructure. t PAOG94G72.DOC_ 1 / 13041.900000/ ) Preliminary Plat Recommendation p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation FWCC 20-2(6): Provide for proper ingress and egress: 11- According to staff, as conditioned, access to all lots will comply with City design standards_ FWCC 20-2(7): Provide for housing and commercial needs of the community: 12. The project provides for infill development and urban densities and therefore satisfies the above criteria_ FWCC 20-2(8): Require uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance of accurate legal descriptions. 13. FWCC 20-111(b) requires that the survey of the proposed subdivision must be made by or under the supervision of a registered land surveyor who shall certify that it is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed. This and other requirements like it help ensure that the objective of uniform monumenting of land divisions and accurate legal descriptions are satisfied. FWCC 20-2(9): Protect environmentally sensitive areas: 14_ As noted previously, the project has gone through a review under the State Environmental Policy Act, which ensures that all environmentally sensitive areas are protected and mitigated. As noted above, mitigation measures for the nearby wetlands have been completed or will be in conjunction with the approval on the fill and buffer averaging. FWCC' 20-200): Provide for flexibility and site design to accommodate view enhancement, protection, protection of streams and wetlands, protection of steep slopes and other environmental significant or sensitive areas_ 15. The project incorporates features designed to comply with the above criterion vis-a-vis the wetlands and their buffers. FWCC 20-125(c)(5): It is consistent with the development standards listed in FWCC 20-151 through 20-157, and 20-178 through 20-187. 16_ Development of this site is required to comply with the provisions of FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions"; Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection"; Chapter 22, "Zoning"; and.all other applicable local and state development codes and regulations. As proposed, and as recommended by City staff, the preliminary plat application complies with all applicable statutes, codes, and regulations_ I PA0694672_DOC:1 /13041.900000/ ) Preliminary Plat Recommendation p_ 6 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation RECOMMENDATION The Examiner recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat as set forth in the staff report for 06-106382-00-SU by Senior Planner Janet Shull, subject to conditions 1 through 10 therein noted. h Dated this `c7�� day of April, 2008_ Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner City of Federal Way I PA0694672. DOC;1 / 13041.900000/ ) Preliminary Plat Recommendation p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 22-447 Appeals. (a) Who may appeal. The decisions of the hearing examiner may be appealed by any person who is to receive a copy of that decision under FWCC 22-443. (b) How and when to appeal- The appeal, in the form of a letter of appeal, must be delivered to the department of community development services within 14 calendar days after the issuance of the hearing examiner's decision. The letter of appeal must contain: (1) A statement identifying the decision being appealed, along with a copy of the decision; (2) A statement of the alleged errors in the hearing examiner's decision, including specific factual findings and conclusions of the hearing examiner disputed by the person filing the appeal; and (3) The appellant's name, address, telephone number and fax number, and any other information to facilitate communications with the appellant. (c) Fee. The person filing the appeal shall include, with the letter of appeal, the fee established by the city- (1) In addition to the appeal fee, the appellant shall pay an amount sufficient to cover the cost of preparing the written transcript of the hearing examiner hearing, at the cost of $16.00 per hour. (2) In lieu of payment of the transcript preparation costs, the appellant may choose to prepare the transcript from tapes of the hearing provided by the city, at appellant's sole cost. The prepared transcript shall be submitted to the city hearing exarruner secretary for distribution no later than 20 days prior to the date of the hearing on appeal, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit or certification by the appellant as to the accuracy and completeness of the transcript. (3) The appeal will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee and appropriate costs- (4) The cost of the transcript shall be refunded to the appellant if the appellant substantially prevails on appeal_ The city council shall decide whether appellant substantially prevailed on appeal and that decision shall be final. The transcript refund shall be limited to actual costs of transcript preparation as follows: a. City staff preparation_ Hourly cost of preparation- b. Appellant preparation from tapes. Actual costs as shown by certified receipt or other evidence sufficient to the city- (d) Jurisdiction_ Appeals from the decision of the hearing examiner will be heard by city council. I PA0694672.DOC;1 / 13041.900000/ 1 Preliminary Plat Recommendation p_ 8 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINERl 2 rLHgd ) 4L WAY Phil Olbrechts, HO - Ex�*er d 20(o RE: Federal Way Village, LLC f t� M ING VS�I.u+�Y CON MONS OF File No. 07-102851-00-UP N INTRODUCTION The applicant seeks approval to fill two Category III wetlands and buffer averaging within the environmentally sensitive areas of two Category II wetlands. The Examiner approves the request with conditions_ See tape / transcript of public hearing_ TESTIMONY EXHIBITS See list of exhibits at page 11 of the staff report for 07-102851-00-UP by Senior Planner Janet Shull_ FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant_ The applicant is Federal Way Village, LLC. 2_ Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 2:00 p-m. at Federal Way City Hall on April 16, 2008_ Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description_ The overall proposal includes construction of 326,450 square feet of mixed use commercial, office, and multifamily residential space, and a 95-unit zero -lot line townhouse subdivision on an approximated 44-acre site (Exhibit A). The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 336th Street and Pacific Highway South, in Federal Way (Exhibit B)_ There are four wetlands on the subject site. The applicant is requesting the filling of two Category III wetlands (Wetlands 3 and 4), which represent approximately 0.30 acres of wetland area_ Approximately 0.90 acres of new wetland was established along the southern edge of Wetland 2 as part of the construction of the South 336110 Street Regional Stormwater Detention Facility. The applicant is also requesting buffer averaging within an environmentally sensitive area (Category II wetland buffer area) associated with Wetlands 1 and 2, in order to facilitate development of zero -lot line townhouse buildings, construct a public right-of-way, and construct a pedestrian trail connecting a series of common { PA0694663.DOC_ 1 / 13041.9000001) Wetland Buffer Modification p_ 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision open space areas. Proposed buffer averaging results in a total additional buffer area for the two wetlands of 39 square feet of buffer area_ 4. Characteristics of the Area_ The surrounding land uses are business and office parks and community business. There is also a regional storage facility to the south- 5- Adverse Impacts. The loss of the wetlands 3 and 4 and buffer averaging for wetlands I and 2 may impact water quality, wildlife habitat, drainage, and erosion_ The impacts of the proposed variance are moderate. As noted below, however, mitigation measures either have already been implemented or will be implemented to minimize the effects to acceptable levels as set forth in the city code. Mitigation measures proposed performed and proposed by the applicant have been reviewed by the City's consultant, who found them to be code compliant. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner: FWCC 22-1358 provides that wetland modification must be approved through a Process IV Review. FWCC 22-1359 provides that buffer averaging must be approved through a Process III Review. FWCC 22-388 provides that if the component requiring a Process III Review is part of a project requiring a Process IV Review, then the entire project shall be subject to a Process IV review. FWCC 22-431 through 22-460 provides that the Examiner shall issue a final decision on a Process IV review, which is appealable to the City of Federal Way City Council. Substantive: 2_ Zoning Designation: The project site presently has a zoning designation of Community Business (BC) and Multifamily Residential (RM 2400)_ The comprehensive plan designatiolss are Community Business and Multifamily. The proposed uses are allowed in the BC and RM 2400 zoning districts. 3. Review Criteria and Application. FWCC 22-1358(d) addresses the impacts to regulated wetlands (wetlands 3 and 4) and FWCC 22-1359(b) addresses buffer averaging (wetlands 1 and 2). FWCC 22-445(c) contains additional decision criteria that apply to all projects reviewed by the Hearing Examiner during Project IV Review. The criteria are quoted in italics below and applied to the project under corresponding Conclusions of Law. Wetlands 3 and 4 - Fill. FWCC 22-1358(d)(1): It will not adversely affect water quality. 4. According to staff, mitigation measures dealing with water quality have already been implemented_ The proposed elimination of Wetlands 3 and 4 will not adversely affect water quality because the wetland elimination was considered and has already been mitigated as part of overall plans for construction of the Kitts Corner/ South 336' Regional Stormwater Facility System_ t PA0694663_DOC:1/13041.900000/I Wetland Buffer Modification p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision FWCC 22-1358(d)(2): It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat. 5. The elimination of Wetlands 3 and 4 will result in a loss of wildlife habitat associated with these wetlands. However, the combined 0.30 acres of wetland that is to be eliminated has been mitigated through the creation of 0.90 acres of forested wetland as provided in FWCC 22- 1358(e). Mitigation of these two wetlands was accomplished as part of the South 336th detention facility construction on a 3:1 basis. Specifically, 0.90 acres (of a total 1.23 acres) of forested wetland was created south of the earthen dam at the south end of Wetland 2 to compensate for 0.30 acres of wetland impacts resulting from the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4. FWCC 22-1358(d)(3): It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. 6. As noted above, the proposed filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 was anticipated in the, design of the regional stormwater detention facility system. This system has been in place and is designed to accommodate the drainage requirements for the proposed development of the subject site. FWCC 22-1358(d)(4): It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards- 7- The construction of the proposed project is subject to City review and approval, during which time the applicant will be expected to provide final stormwater drainage, grading, and erosion control plans. This process should ensure compliance with the above criterion. FWCC 22-1358(d)(5): It will not be inaterially 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. 8. The wetlands proposed to be eliminated are located entirely within the subject site. As noted above, they have been mitigated with replacement wetland area within the same wetland system contiguous to Wetland 2, located at the south end of the subject site. The above criterion is satisfied. FWCC 22-1358(d)(6): It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value. 9. As noted above, mitigation for the two wetlands to be eliminated was accomplished as part of the South 336th detention facility construction on a 3:1 basis. Specifically, 0.90 acres (of a total 1.23 acres) of forested wetland was created south of the earthen dam at the south end of Wetland 2 to compensate for 0.30 acres of wetland impacts resulting from the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4. As a result, there will be no net loss of wetland area, function or value. FWCC 22-1358(d)(7): The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare. 10. The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety, or welfare because the eliminated wetlands have been replaced with three times the amount of wetland area at the south end of Wetland 2_ This replacement wetland area is part of a wetland system that is a higher classification and provides better retention, water quality, and habitat functions than the eliminated wetland areas. t PA0694663_DOC; I / 13041.90MO/ } Wetland Buffer Modification p_ 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision FWCC 22-1358(d)(8): The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project. 11. The mitigation measures have already been completed. FWCC 22-1358(d)(9): The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. 12. As noted above, the mitigation measures have already been completed. The mitigation site has been established and according to staff, the City of Federal Way has been monitoring it as part of its ongoing maintenance of the regional stormwater facility. Wetlands I and 2 - Buffer Averaging. FWCC 22-1359(b)(1): Reduced buffers will not affect the water quality entering a wetland or stream_ 13_ According to applicant's environmental report, "Functional Assessment of the Federal Way Village Wetland Buffer Averaging Plan" (Exhibit F), the proposed wetland buffer reduction should not adversely affect water quality because the minimum proposed buffer width is 50 feet. The wetland buffers are densely vegetated with mature, native plant communities, which will remain_ Thus, the proposed reduction still leaves enough buffer width to effectively filter sediment, and pollutants out of water before they reach the wetlands_ FWCC 22-1359(b)(2): Reduced buffers will not adversely affect the existing quality of :vlcZlifi habitat within the wetland or the buffer_ 14. According to staff, the proposed averaged buffers will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the wetlands any more than the standard buffer width would. Mature forested areas will be minimally impacted. The mitigation plan proposes to offset the loss of wetland buffer area associated with Wetlands 1 and 2 through the addition of wetland buffer areas contiguous with a portion of the remaining 100-foot buffer areas. As a result, total buffer area will be increased by 39 square feet, which should provide additional wildlife habitat. FWCC 22-1359(b)(3): Reduced buffers will not result in unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. 15. According to staff, the project should not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards because the existing wetland buffers are densely vegetated, not steeply sloped, and not narrow enough to create erosion from surface flow into the wetland. The above criterion is satisfied. FWCC 22-1359(b)(4): Reduced buffers will not be detrimental to any other public or private properties, including the loss of open space. 16_ The proposed buffer averaging will result in less lost open space than the standard 100- foot buffers, because as noted above, 39 square feet of area will be added to the total buffer area. t PA0694663.DOC;1/ 13041.900000/ ) Wetland Buffer Modification p_ 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision The buffer averaging should not be detrimental to other properties because the wetlands and buffers in question are contained on site. Miscellaneous Criteria for Process IV Review. FWCC 22-445(c)(1): It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. As noted above, the mitigation measures for the requested fill and buffer averaging is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), Chapter 9, "Natural Environment," Wetlands sections: "Protect and enhance the functions and values of the City's wetlands," (Goal NEG7). "The City will protect its wetlands with an objective of no overall net -loss of functions or values," (Policy NEP43). "Mitigation sites should replace or augment the wetland values to be lost as a result of a development proposal. Sites should be chosen that would contribute to an existing wetland system, or, if feasible, restore an area that was historically a wetland_" (Policy NEP49)_ "The City will protect wetlands by maximizing infiltration opportunities and promoting the conservation of forest cover and native vegetation_" (Policy NEP51). FWCC 22-445(c)(2): It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this chapter and all other applicable laws. 18_ Staff has found no inconsistencies with any other provisions of the Federal Way City Code. FWCC 22-445(c)(3): It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. 19. As noted above, the mitigation measures will increase both the net amount of wetlands and buffers, which should result in better habitat and benefits associated with wetlands such as conservation and scenic resources. FWCC 22-445(c)(4): The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. 20. The streets and utilities in the area have been evaluated in accordance with all applicable codes, policies, and regulations, and determined to be adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal, provided all recommended conditions of preliminary plat and master plan approval are met. The utility extension is a component of the overall infrastructure as required for the plat and Federal Way Village Master Plan. FWCC 22-445(c)(5): Proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access. t PA0694663_DOC;1/13041.900000/) Wetland Buffer Modification p_ 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 21. The access to the subject property is provided at optimal locations and configurations as determined through the City's SEPA, Process III Director's Design Review, and prelirWriary plat " review of the proposed overall master plan and zero -lot line subdivision. pedestrian trail is at the optimal location,The proposed connecting both ends of the plat within a network of connected common space areas. DECISION The Examiner approves the applicant's request as set forth in the staff report for 07-102851-00- UP by Senior Planner Janet Shull, subject to conditions 1 through 4 therein noted. Dated this. day of , 2008. ( PA0694663.DOC; 1/13041.900000/) Appeal of Notice of Violation Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner City of Federal Way p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 22-447 Appeals. (a) Who may appeal. The decisions of the hearing examiner may be appealed by any person who is to receive a copy of that decision under FWCC 22-443 (b) How and when to appeal. The appeal, in the form of a letter of appeal, must be delivered to the department of community development services within 14 calendar days after the issuance of the hearing examiner's decision. The letter of appeal must contain: (1) A statement identifying the decision being appealed, along with a copy of the decision; (2) A statement of the alleged errors in the hearing examiner's decision, including specific factual findings and conclusions of the heari and ng examiner disputed by the person filing the appeal; (3) The appellant's name, address, telephone number and fax number, and any other information to facilitate communications with the appellant- (c) Fee. The person filing the appeal shall include, with the letter of appeal, the fee established by the city. (1) In addition to the appeal fee, the appellant shall pay an amount sufficient to cover the cost of preparing the written transcript of the hearing examiner hearing, at the cost of $16.00 per hour_ (2) In lieu of payment of the transcript preparation costs, the appellant may choose to prepa c tl, transcript from tapes of the hearing provided by the city, at appellant's sole cost. The prepared transcript shall be submitted to the city hearing examiner secretary for distribution no later than 20 days prior to the date of the hearing on appeal, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit or certification by the appellant as to the accuracy and completeness of the transcript. (3) The appeal will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee and appropriate costs. (4) The cost of the transcript shall be refunded to The appellant if the a ant substantial ly prevails on appeal. The city council shall decide whether appellant substanitially prevailed on appeal and that decision shall be final The transcript refund shall be Iirnited to actual costs of transcript preparation as follows: a. City staff preparation- Hourly cost of preparation- b. Appellant preparation from tapes. Actual costs as shown by certified recei sufficient to the city, pt or other evidence (d) Jurisdiction. Appeals from the decision of the hearing examiner will be heard by city council. t PA0694663.DOC;1 / ] 3041.900000/ 1 Appeal of Notice of Violation p- 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision CIT Federal Way COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS IV HEARING EXAMINER REVIEW OF PROPOSED WETLAND ELEVIINATION AND WETLAND BUFFER MODIFICATION FEDERAL WAY VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Federal Way File No. 07-102851-00-UP PUBLIC HEARING April 16, 2008, 2:00 p.m. Federal Way City Hall City Couneii Chambers 33325 8tn Avenue South Table of Contents I. Project Information and Background..................................................................................................1 II. Summary of the Requests...................•..............................................................................................-3 III. Analysis of Requests and Decisional Criteria at FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIV, `Environmentally SensitiveAreas.. .................................................................................................................................. 5 IV. Analysis of Request and Hearing Examiner Decisional Criteria......................................................... 7 V. Findings for Process IV Approval......................................................................................................9 Vl. Staff Recommendation.....................................................................................................................10 LISTOF EXHIBITS........................................................................................................................................ 11 Report Prepared by: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP April 4, 2008 I. PROJECT INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND Name: Federal Way Village File No: 07-102851-00-UP and 06-106382-00-SU Applicant: Federal Way Village LLC Dan Biles, P.E. PO Box 73790 Puyallup, WA 98373 253-848-0820 Process IV Request: The applicant is seeking approval pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Article XIV, "Critical Areas" (FWCC Section 22-1356, "Regulated Wetlands"). Overall Project: The overall proposal includes construction of 326,450 square feet of mixed use commercial, office, and multifamily residential space, and a 95-unit zero -lot line townhouse subdivision on an approximated 44-acre site (Exhibit A). Additional description of the project is provided in Section I, B below. Site Location: The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 336`h Street and Pacific Highway South, in Federal Way (Exhibit B). Tax Parcel No(s): 202104-9001, 202104-9004, 202104-9069, 202104-9070, and 202104-9072. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations: The project site presently has a zoning designation of Community Business (BC) and Multifamily Residential (RM 2400). The comprehensive plan designations are Community Business and Multifamily. The proposed uses are allowed in the BC and RM 2400 zoning districts. Relevant Dates: Master Plan Application Filed December 19, 2006 Preliminary Plat Application Filed December 19, 2006 Process IV Environmental Determination Filed May 25, 2007 Application Determined Complete May 30, 2007 Notice of Application Published June 2, 2007 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Issued September 12, 2007 Director's Design Decision Issued January 11, 2008 Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance Re -Issued February 16, 2008 Staff Representative: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, 253-835-2644 Staff Recommendation: Process IV Approval with Conditions Federal Way Village Master Plan File #07-10285 1 -00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 1 A. Decision Requested Process IV Approval — The Process IV application for a wetland elimination and wetland mitigation is subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner following a public hearing. In addition, the applicant proposes wetland buffer averaging to accommodate construction of the public right- of-way, pedestrian trail system, and zero -lot line townhouse buildings on individually platted lots within the townhouse portion of the site. An analysis of the applicable Process IV decisional criteria, findings, and recommendations is provided under sections III, IV, V, and VI of this report. B. Background Information The applicant, Federal Way Village LLC, made an application for a master plan for development of a mixed use commercial, office, and residential development, as well as a 95-lot preliminary plat for zero -lot line townhouse development on a 44-acre vacant site located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 3361h Street. The Functional Assessment of the Federal Way Village Wetland Buffer Averaging Plan, prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates October 17, 2007 (Exhibit F), indicates that four wetlands exist on the subject site. The applicant has proposed the following impacts to wetlands associated with site development: (1) Request to fill Wetlands 3 and 4 for development of the mixed use commercial development on the western portion of the site; and (2) Request for wetland buffer averaging of a required 100 foot buffer area of Wetlands 1 and 2 in conjunction with internal roadway construction, development of townhouse lots, and creation of a pedestrian trail within the required buffer area. Approximately 0.30 acres of wetland will be eliminated; 0.90 acres of wetland has been created to mitigate this impact as part of construction of the Regional Detention Facility per the Kitts Corner Settlement Agreement (Exhibit.]). Pursuant to the FWCC, this request requires a Hearing Examiner review and approval under the provisions of Use Process IV. Through buffer averaging for Wetland 1, 919 square feet of wetland buffer will be eliminated, and 93 8 square feet of buffer will be created, for a net addition of 19 square feet of buffer area. Proposed buffer averaging for Wetland 1 will accommodate construction of zero -lot line townhouse buildings on individually platted lots. Proposed buffer averaging for Wetland 2 will result in the elimination of 9,472 square feet of wetland buffer and 9,492 square feet will be created, for a net addition of 20 square feet of buffer area for Wetland 2. Proposed buffer averaging for Wetland 2 will accommodate construction of a required public right-of-way to provide access and internal circulation through the site, construction of a pedestrian trail to connect a proposed open space, and construction of zero -lot line townhouse buildings of individually platted lots. Pursuant to the FWCC, this buffer averaging request requires review and approval under the provisions of Use Process I11. However, per FWCC Section 22-432, proposals that require approval through Process III that are part of a proposal that also requires approval through Process IV will be decided upon using Process IV if the Director of Community Development Services determines that this will result in more efficient decision making. In this case, the Director has determined that it is more efficient to consider all wetland and wetland buffer related decisions to be considered as part of this Process IV decision. Federal Way Village Master Plan File 407-102851-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 2 H. SUMMARY OF THE REQUESTS 1) Request to fill Wetlands 3 and 4 for commercial mixed use development. Located in the central portion of the western half of the site, Wetland 3 (.22 acres) and Wetland 4 (.08 acres) are proposed to be filled in conjunction with development of a commercial mixed -use project on the western half of the 44-acre site. In order to mitigate the anticipated filling of Wetlands 3 and 4, 0.90 acres of wetland area was created as part of the construction of the South 336t' Street Regional Stormwater Detention Facility and per the Kitts Corner Settlement Agreement (Exhibit .). The 0.90 acres of new wetland area expanded the southern end of Wetland 2 in an area located just south of the subject site as shown on the Buffer Averaging Plan (Exhibit G). While mitigation has been completed in advance of this proposal, this proposed wetland elimination still requires review under the provisions of FWCC Section 22-1358(d). A discussion of the request follows. Wetland 3 — The Wetland Assessment of the Kitts Corner Property (Exhibit 1) notes that Wetland 3 is approximately .22 acres in size, consisting of forested and scrub -shrub wetland vegetation classes dominated by Oregon Ash, black cottonwood, and Scouler's willow trees, as well as hardback spirea and salmonberry. The wetland is classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO1), and meets the Category III rating as it is between 2,500 square feet and 1 acre in size and contains only one wetland class. An inlet to the wetland was not observed. Prior to construction of the gravel road to the north of the wetland, the wetland discharged to a ditch that conveyed flow to Wetland 2. Because of the construction of the access road, the ditch was filled and surface water connection between Wetland 3 and Wetland 2 ceased to exist. Thus Wetland 3 would be considered hydrologically isolated. Wetland 4 is described in the Wetland Assessment of the Kitts Corner Property (Exhibit 1) as approximately .08 acres in size, consisting of a forested vegetation class dominated by Scouler's willow trees. The wetland is classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved decidouos (PFO1), and meets the Category III rating as it is between 2,500 square feet and 1 acre in size and consists of a single wetland vegetation class. An inlet to the wetland was not observed. Prior to construction of the gravel road to the north of the wetland, the wetland discharged to a ditch that conveyed flow to Wetland 2. Because of the construction of the access road, the ditch was filled and surface water connection between Wetland 4 and Wetland 2 ceased to exist. Thus, Wetland 3 would be considered hydrologically isolated. In order to mitigate the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4, compensatory wetland area was created at the south end of Wetland 2 that incorporated 0.90 acres to mitigate for the loss of the total 0.30 acres that are represented by Wetlands 3 and 4. The mitigation area location, grading, and planting plans are depicted on Sheets L-1 through L-4 of construction documents for the Kitts Corner and South 3361h Street Regional Stormwater Detention and Wetland/Stream Restoration Project, prepared by CH2Mhi11(Exhibit K). 2) Request to allow buffer averaging of 100-foot buffer area associated with Wetlands 1 and 2. Wetland 1 (two acres) is located in the northwestern portion of the project site. Wetland 2 (2.46 acres) is located in the central portion of the site and includes a portion of tributary 0014A, which is a tributary to Hylebos Creek. Buffer averaging is proposed for both wetlands in conjunction with development of a public right-of-way, pedestrian trail system, and zero -lot line townhouse buildings on individually platted lots. Specifically, buffer averaging is proposed for Wetland 1 to Federal Way Village Master Plan File #07-102851-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 3 accommodate the development of Lots 92-94. Buffer averaging is proposed for Wetland 2 to accommodated the construction of an extension of 13`h Avenue South (an essential public facility) southward through the site, development of a north -south pedestrian trail system along the eastern boundary of the proposed subdivision along the western edge of the Wetland 2 buffer, and development of Lot 64. Wetland 1— The Wetland Delineation for Federal Way Village (Exhibit H) notes that Wetland 1 is approximately two acres in size. The southern boundary is defined by a steep area of fill, the western edges by a relatively steep bank of native soil, and the northern and eastern edges by gentle upland slopes. Wetland 1 likely receives water from overland flow off surrounding uplands. The wetland may also receive some water from groundwater discharge; however, significant seepage into the wetland was not observed. Wetland 1 drains into an excavated drainage ditch on the southeastern edge. The wetland consists of a central area dominated by yellow pond lily. The central area is ringed by a zone of emergent vegetation dominated by reed canary grass at the north end and by inflated sedge, cattail, and burreed at the south end. The outer edges of the wetland consist of scrub -shrub vegetation dominated by hardhack spirea, with Western crabapple on the higher edges along the edge of the wetland. The wetland is classified a palustrine, aquatic bed, rooted vascular (PAB3); palustrine, emergent, persistent (PEM1); and palustrine, scrub -shrub, broad-leaved deciduous (PSS1) wetland. It is designated as a Category II Wetland. There is an outlet channel that extends from the south end of Wetland 1 to a metal pipe at the south parcel boundary. Since it is an artificial conveyance that was constructed where no natural stream existed previously, it does not meet the criteria to be regulated as a stream under the FWCC. Wetland 2 is described in the Wetland Assessment of the Kitts Corner Property (Exhibit I), as approximately 2.46 acres in size. The wetland extends north to south through the center of the property from South 336d' Street to the earthen flood control dam that was constructed as part of the South 336"' Regional Storage Facility. The wetland consists of a forested vegetation class dominated by an overstory of black cottonwood, Oregon ash, and red alder Pacific willow trees, with a shrub layer that is dominated by Scouler's willow, clustered wild rose, snowberry, Pacific ninebark, Himalayan blackberry, western crabapple, and salmonberry. The south end of the wetland has a canopy of Pacific willow, red alder, and black cottonwood trees, and a well developed understory dominated by slough sedge, northern mannagrass, creeping buttercup, Robert's geranium, Watson's willow —herb, and stinging nettle. West Hylebos Tributary 0014A flows southward through the wetland from a 36 inch diameter culvert at South 336`h Street to an 18 inch culvert at the earthen dam. The stream channel ranges from 3 to 6 feet in width and 6 to 18 inches in depth. Wetland 2 also receives water from the Kitts Regional Storage Facility located east of Pacific Highway South via a pipe that conveys run-off to a discharge point on the east side of the wetland. The wetland is classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved decidouos (PFO 1), and meets the Category II rating. The West Hylebos Tributary has been rated as a "major" stream by the City of Federal Way 2002 stream inventory. Both Category II wetlands and major streams require a 100-foot buffer. The applicant has proposed buffer averaging to compensate for a series of proposed buffer intrusions that would accommodate development of zero -lot line townhouse structures, development of a contiguous pedestrian trail network, and construction of a public right-of-way (extension of 13`' Avenue South) through the commercial mixed use portion of the site. Proposed buffer averaging for Wetland 1 would accommodate development of zero -lot line townhouse structures. Proposed buffer reductions represent a total of 919 square feet and proposed buffer additions represent a total of 938 square feet, for a total net gain of 19 square feet Federal Way Village Master Plan File #07-102851-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 4 of buffer area. Proposed buffer reductions are in the southern portion of the wetland where steep fill is present. The proposed buffer additions are along the eastern boundary of the buffer area where gentle upland slopes are present. Proposed buffer averaging for Wetland 2 would accommodate development of zero -lot line townhouse structures, a pedestrian trail system, and alignment of an extension of 1301 Avenue South with the existing intersection of the section north of the subject site at South 336h Street. Proposed buffer reductions represent a total of 9,472 square feet and 9,492 square feet will be created, for a net addition of 20 square feet of buffer area for Wetland 2. M. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST AND DECISIONAL CRITERIA AT FWCC CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE XIV, "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS" Separate decisional criteria are required to consider displacement of regulated wetland area and intrusions or displacement of regulated wetland buffer areas. Impacts to regulated wetland areas are considered under FWCC Section 22-1358 and wetland buffer averaging is considered under FWCC Section 22-1359. Each required decisional criteria is evaluated below. 1) Request to fill Wetlands 3 and 4 Table I below analyzes the request to fill Wetlands 3 and 4, located within the eastern half of the Federal Way Village site in an area proposed for internal roadway network and future building pads. Mitigation for the proposed wetland loss has already been completed by the City of Federal Way per the settlement agreement executed in conjunction with construction of a regional stormwater detention facility just south of the site. The decisional criteria that pertain to the proposed wetland elimination are contained in FWCC Section 22-1538(d), "Structures, Improvements, and Land Surface Modifications within Regulated Wetlands — Modification." FWCC Section 22-1358(d)(3) requires a minimum acreage replacement or enhancement ratio of 3 to 1 for forested wetlands. This replacement ratio pertains to the proposal. In order to compensate for the loss of 0.30 acres of Wetlands 3 and 4, wetland mitigation in the amount of 0.90 acres in area of replacement has been incorporated into the project, meeting the 3 to 1 ratio for forested wetlands. Mitigation consists of the creation of 0.90 acres of wetland that was created from the Wetland 2 buffer at the south end of Wetland 2, which is located just south of the subject site. This wetland mitigation area has been created per the construction drawings prepared in conjunction with the South 336th Street Regional Detention Facility (Exhibit I). The mitigation area is shown on the Buffer Averaging Plan (Exhibit G). Table I ANALYSIS OF REQUEST AND "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS" DECISIONAL CRITERIA (FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIV) Request: Fill Two Category III Wetlands — "Wetland 3" and "Wetland 4" Decisional Criteria Staff Analysis "It will not adversely affect water The proposed elimination of Wetlands 3 and 4 would not adversely affect water quality." (Criterion #1, FWCC quality because the wetland elimination was considered and has already been 22-1358[d]) mitigated as part of overall plans for construction of the Kitts Corner/ South 336th Regional Stormwater Facility System. Federal Way Village Master Plan File #07-10285 1 -00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 5 Table I ANALYSIS OF REQUEST AND "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS" DECISIONAL CRITERIA (FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIV) Request: Fill Two Category III Wetlands — "Wetland 3" and "Wetland 4" Decisional Criteria Staff Analysis "It will not adversely affect the The elimination of Wetlands 3 and 4 will result in a loss of wildlife habitat existing quality of the wetland's associated with these wetlands. The combined 0.30 acres of wetland that is or buffer's wildlife habitat." proposed to be eliminated has been mitigated through the creation of 0.90 acres (Criterion #2, FWCC 22-1358[d]) of forested wetland as described in response to Criterion #6 below. "It will not adversely affect The proposed filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 was anticipated in the design of the drainage or stormwater retention regional stormwater detention facility system. This system has been in place capabilities." (Criterion #3, and is designed to accommodate the drainage requirements for the proposed FWCC 22-1358[d]) development of the subject site. "It will not lead to unstable earth The project will not Iead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards conditions nor create erosion as construction of the proposed facility in accordance with final storm drainage, hazards." (Criterion #4, FWCC grading, and erosion control plans, subject to City review and approval, will 22-1358[d]) ensure no adverse impact to earth conditions. "It will not be materially The wetlands proposed to be eliminated are located entirely within the subject detrimental to any other property site. The wetland areas proposed to be eliminated have been mitigated with in the area nor to the City as a replacement wetland area within the same wetland system contiguous to whole, including loss of open Wetland 2, located at the south end of the subject site. space." (Criterion #5, FWCC 22- 1358[d]) "It will result in no net loss of Mitigation of these two wetlands was accomplished as part of the South 336t' wetland area, function, or value." detention facility construction on a 3:1 basis. Specifically, 0.90 acres (of a total (Criterion #6, FWCC 22-1358[d]) 1.23 acres) of forested wetland was created south of the earthen dam at the south end of Wetland 2 to compensate for 0.30 acres of wetland impacts resulting from the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4. "The project is in the best interest The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety, or welfare because of the public health, safety. or the eliminated wetlands have been replaced with three times the amount of welfare." (Criterion #7, FWCC wetland area at the south end of Wetland 2. This replacement wetland area is 22-1358[d]) part of a wetland system that is a higher classification and provides better retention, water quality, and habitat functions than the eliminated wetland areas. "The applicant has demonstrated Not applicable. The mitigation has already been completed. sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project." (Criterion #8, FWCC 22-1358[d "The applicant is committed to The mitigation site has been established and monitored by the City of Federal monitoring the project and to Way as part of ongoing maintenance of the regional stormwater facility, making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals." (Criterion #9, FWCC 22- 1358 d 2) Request to allow buffer averaging for Wetlands 1 and 2 Table II below analyzes the request to allow buffer averaging for the required 100-foot buffer area associated with Wetlands 1 and 2. Federal Way Village Master Plan File #07-102851-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 6 In addition to the decisional criteria analyzed in the following table, FWCC Section 22-1359(b) specifies that any modification shall not reduce the standard buffer by more than 50 percent and the total area contained within the buffer after averaging shall be equal to the area required for standard buffer dimensions. The proposed buffer averaging results in a minimum buffer width of 50 feet in the portion of the Wetland 2 buffer where right -of way extension is proposed. The proposed buffer averaging for Wetland 1 is a minimum width of 76' throughout the remainder of the buffer area. Therefore, minimum buffer width for both buffer areas is equal to or greater than the minimum required 50 feet. In addition, the total amount of buffer area is slightly larger than the area required for standard buffer dimensions. Table H ANALYSIS OF REQUEST AND "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS" DECISIONAL CRITERIA (FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIV) Request: Allow buffer averaging within 100-foot buffer area associated with two Category II Wetlands: "Wetland 1" and "Wetland 2." Decisional Criteria Staff Analysis "Reduced buffers will not affect The applicant's "Functional Assessment of the Federal Way Village Wetland the water quality entering a Buffer Averaging Plan" (Exhibit F) states that the proposed wetland buffer wetland or stream." (Criterion #1, reduction would not adversely affect water quality because the minimum FWCC 22-1359[b]) proposed buffer width is 76 feet.' The wetland buffers are densely vegetated with mature, native plant communities and will remain that way. Thus, the proposed reduction still leaves enough buffer width to effectively filter sediments and pollutants out of water before they reach the wetlands. "Reduced buffers will not The proposed averaged buffers will not adversely affect the existing quality of adversely affect the existing wildlife habitat within the wetlands any more than the standard buffer width quality of wildlife habitat within would. Mature forested areas will be minimally impacted. The mitigation plan the wetland or buffer." (Criterion proposes to offset the loss of wetland buffer area associated with Wetlands 1 #2, FWCC 22-1359[b]) and 2 through the addition of wetland buffer areas contiguous with a portion of the remaining 100-foot buffer areas. Total buffer area will be increased by 39 square feet. "Reduced buffers will not result in The project will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion unstable earth conditions nor hazards as the existing wetland buffers are densely vegetated, not steeply create erosion hazards." (Criterion sloped, and not narrow enough to create erosion from surface flow into the #3, FWCC 22-1359[b]) wetland. "Reduced buffers will not be The proposed buffer averaging will result in less lost open space than the detrimental to any other public or standard 100-foot buffers, since 39 square feet of area will be added to the private properties, including the total buffer area. The buffer averaging will not be detrimental to other loss of open space" (Criterion #4, properties because the wetlands and buffers in question are contained on site. FWCC 22-1359[b]) IN. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST AND HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONAL CRITERIA In addition to the above decisional criteria, pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1358(d)(1)-(9),and Section 22-1359(b)(1)-(4), the Hearing Examiner may approve the requested intrusions only if the following Process IV decisional criteria are met. Decisional criteria and staff comments are provided below. 1 The report states the minimum buffer width is 76 feet. However, in the location of the proposed right-of-way extension the minimum buffer width is 50 feet, which meets the minimum width allowed under buffer averaging criteria of the FWCC. Federal Way Village Master Plan File #07-10285 1 -00-UP / Doe. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 7 1) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff Comment: The comprehensive plan is used, among other documents, as a basis for implementing regulations such as zoning and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The larger proposal, of which these intrusions are a component, has undergone SEPA review. The proposed zero -lot line townhouse subdivision must be found to be in compliance with pertinent subdivision and zoning regulations in order to be approved by the City Council. The overall master plan has undergone design review and a Director's Design Decision has been issued. Development of the commercial eastern half of the site will be subject to subsequent site plan review for each proposed building. The western half of the 44 acre site is designated multifamily under the comprehensive plan. This designation is intended to provide areas for a variety of residential uses, including the proposed zero -lot line townhouse development. The eastern half of the 44 acre site is designed Community Business. This designation is intended to provide areas to be used for a broad range of commercial uses, along with residential uses in mixed use structures. The requested buffer averaging will enable development of the subject site consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Process IV requests were reviewed and determined to be consistent with the following key goals and policies contained in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), Chapter 9, "Natural Environment," Wetlands: "Protect and enhance the functions and values of the City's wetlands." (Goal NEG7) "The City will protect its wetlands with an objective of no overall net -loss of functions or values." (Policy NEP43) "Mitigation sites should replace or augment the wetland values to be lost as a result of a development proposal. Sites should be chosen that would contribute to an existing wetland system, or, if feasible, restore an area that was historically a wetland." (Policy NEP49) "The City will protect wetlands by maximizing infiltration opportunities and promoting the conservation of forest cover and native vegetation." (Policy NEP51) 2) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this chapter and all other applicable laws. Staff Comment: The development of the overall Federal Way Village Master Plan and preliminary plat for the proposed zero -lot line subdivision will be consistent with all applicable provisions of FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," and Chapter 22, "Zoning"; RCW 58.17.030; and all other applicable codes and development standards through implementation of SEPA and conditions of the Process III Director's Decision and preliminary plat approval; if the Process IV wetland elimination and wetland buffer averaging requests are conditionally approved by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIV, Division 7, "Regulated Wetlands." The Process IV requests meet all the decisional criteria of FWCC Section 22-445(c)(1)-(5). 3) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff Comment: Proposed buffer averaging is the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. The wetland buffer averaging will accommodate alignment of the extension of 13'b Federal Way Village Master Plan File #07-102851-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 8 Avenue South with the existing intersection at South 336`h Street to allow for safe intersection design and efficient traffic movement. Wetland buffer averaging results in no net loss of the required buffer area. The pedestrian trail provides an opportunity for public health, while promoting unique conservation and scenic resources. 4) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. Staff Comment: The streets and utilities in the area have been evaluated in accordance with all applicable codes, policies, and regulations, and determined to be adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal, provided all recommended conditions of preliminary plat and master plan approval are met. The utility extension is a component of the overall infrastructure as required for the plat and Federal Way Village Master Plan. 5) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access. Staff Comment: The access to the subject property is provided at optimal locations and configurations as determined through the City's SEPA, Process III Director's Design Review, and preliminary plat review of the proposed overall master plan and zero -lot line subdivision. The proposed pedestrian trail is at the optimal location, connecting both ends of the plat within a network of connected common space areas. V. FINDINGS FOR PROCESS IV APPROVAL Based on an analysis of the Process IV application, the environmental record, and applicable decisional criteria, the Department of Community Development Services finds that: 1. There are two regulated Category III wetlands (Wetlands 3 and 4) and two regulated Category II wetlands (Wetlands 1 and 2) at the subject site. 2. The applicant is requesting the filling of two Category III wetlands (Wetlands 3 and 4), which represent approximately 0.30 acres of wetland area. Approximately 0.90 acres of new wetland was established along the southern edge of Wetland 2 as part of the construction of the South 3361h Street Regional Stormwater Detention Facility. This replacement meets the required ratio amount of wetland replacement and there is no net loss of wetland. 3. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging within an environmentally sensitive area (Category II wetland buffer area) associated with Wetlands 1 and 2, in order to: facilitate development of zero -lot line townhouse buildings; construct a public right-of-way; and construct a pedestrian trail connecting a series of common open space areas. Proposed buffer averaging results in a total additional buffer area for the two wetlands of 39 square feet of buffer area. 4. Reports, plans, and letters submitted by the applicant for the Process IV request and reviewed by the City include: Functional Assessment of the Federal Way Village Wetland Buffer Averaging Plan, prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates, October 17, 2007; Buffer Averaging Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates, and revised December 5, 2007; Wetland Delineation Report, prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc, September 5, 2006; Wetland Assessment, prepared Federal Way Village Master Plan File #07-10285 1 -00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 9 by Raedeke Associates, Inc, September 7, 2004; and Settlement Agreement and Covenant, King County recording number 9704211043. The aforementioned reports, plans, and letters are incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 5. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on February 16, 2008. Five comment letters were received and responded to during the comment period. There were no appeals received on the City's determination and the Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, Federal Way Application No. 07-100346-00-SE, is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 6. The application was reviewed and found to meet all applicable FWCC decisional criteria, including Sections 22-1358(d) and 22-1359(b), and Process IV decisional criteria of FWCC § 22-445(c), provided all recommended conditions of Process IV approval are met. The analysis contained in Table I and Table II of this report is incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 7. The City's review and approval of final construction drawings pursuant to all applicable codes and development regulations will ensure that the project results in no adverse affect on: water quality; quality of wildlife habitat; drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; earth stability and erosion; and other property in the area or the City as a whole. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, the Department of Community Development Services recommends approval of the Process fV requests subject to the conditions listed below: As required by the Director of Community Development Services, prior to recording of the final plat for the zero -lot line townhouse portion of the site or occupancy of any buildings on the site, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall permanently set aside the area associated with Wetlands 1 and 2 and their associated buffer areas as Native Growth Protection Tracts. The boundaries of the tract areas shall be surveyed and shall reflect the averaged buffer areas shown in the Buffer Averaging Plan, prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates, revised December 5, 2007 (Exhibit G). The documents shall be recorded as directed by the City. 2. Buffer boundaries established by the Buffer Averaging Plan, prepared in accordance with Condition #1 above, shall be reflected on all applicable construction drawings and permits. 3. As required by the Director of Community Development Services, prior to recording of the final plat documents or issuance of a construction permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit for the City's review and approval a plan to limit access to the wetland buffer areas and associated wetlands that utilizes methods such as fencing, landscaping/plantings, and informational signage in accordance with Condition #4 below. 4. As required by the Director of Community Development Services, prior to issuance of a construction permit, the applicant shall submit for the City's review and approval a plan to provide signage on the site identifying environmentally sensitive areas and limiting human and pet access into such areas. The plan shall include the number, location, and design details, including text, for the proposed signs. Federal Way Village Master Plan File #07-102851-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 10 LIST OF EXHIBITS A. Site Plan B. Vicinity Map C. ESA Adolfson Letter, December 14, 2007 D. ESA Adolfson Letter, November 9, 2007 E. ESA Adolfson Letter, December 4, 2006 F. Functional Assessment of the Federal Way Village Wetland Buffer Averaging Plan, prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates, October 17, 2007 G. Buffer Averaging Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates, revised December 5, 2007 H. Wetland Delineation Report, prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc, September 5, 2006 I. Wetland Assessment, prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc, September 7, 2004 J. Settlement Agreement and Covenant, King County Recording Number 9704211043 K. Construction Drawing Sheets L-1 through L-4 for the Kitts Corner and South 336`' Street Regional Stormwater Detention and Wetland/Stream Restoration Project, prepared by CH2MHill, May, 1996 TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES LISTED HEREAFTER Federal Way Hearing Examiner Applicant — Federal Way Village LLC Project Engineer — Eric La Brie, ESM Engineers Federal Way Staff — Janet Shull, Ann Dower City's Critical Areas Consultant — Lizzie Zemke, Adolfson Associates Federal Way Village Master Plan File 407-102851-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 43413 Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Page 11 CITY OF Federal Way State Environmental Policy Act Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance FEDERAL WAY VILLAGE Federal Way File: 07-100346-00-SE Related Files: 07-100345-00-UP, 06-106382-00-SV, and 07-102851-00-UP Description: Proposed action includes construction of 300,890 square feet of mixed -use commercial, office, and retail space (156,290 square feet retail, 60,000 square feet office, 70,500 square feet multifamily, and 14,100 square feet restaurant) on the western half of the site. A 94 95 -unit zero lot line townhouse subdivision development is proposed for the eastern half of the site. The total site size is approximately 44 acres. The proposal also includes developing an internal road system, street frontage improvements, pedestrian paths and open space areas, landscaping, parking lots, utilities, storm drainage control improvements, and other related infrastructure improvements. Proponent: Federal Way Village LLC Mr. Kurt Wilson PO Box 7390 Puyallup, WA 98373. Phone: (253) 848-0820 Location: 33701 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way City Contact: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, (253) 835-2644 The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following Findings of Fact based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist; the Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist; Federal Way File 07-100346-SE; Conclusions of Law based upon the 2003 Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP); and other policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.060. Doc. I.D. FINDINGS OF FACT The proposed action includes construction of a 94 95-unit zero -lot line townhouse subdivision and 300,890 square feet of mixed -use commercial, multifamily, office, and restaurant space. The project site is generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 336`' Street. The proposal also includes utility extension, storm drainage improvements, on - site parking, recreational open space areas, and landscaping. 2. The subject property is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM 2400) and Community Business (BC). The comprehensive plan designation for the site is Multifamily and Community Business. 3. The proposed Federal Way Village Master Plan development is subject to the conditions contained in City of Federal Way Ordinance 05-490 (comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment), as amended by Ordinance 07-556. 4. Two small wetlands (Wetlands 3 and 4) are located on the site. These two wetlands are to be filled as specified in the June 17, 1996, Kitts Corner Settlement Agreement and are subject to Use Process IV, Hearing Examiner Approval. 5. Two additional wetlands (Wetlands 1 and 2) are located on the site. Wetland 1 is a Category 2 wetland with an associated 100-foot buffer area. Wetland 2 is a Category 1 wetland with an associated 100-foot buffer area as established via the Kitts Corner Settlement Agreement (June 17, 1996). The proposed action would result in some small areas of encroachment into buffer areas associated with Wetlands 1 and 2. The proposed encroachments are subject to the requirements of Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1359 and will be evaluated as part of the land use and construction permit approval processes. 6. In accordance with code requirements, traffic impacts associated with the proposed action were analyzed and mitigation proposed in the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (prepared by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC, received May 9, 2007, with revisions dated May 31, 2007, and July 16, 2007, and addendum dated August 17 and 21, 2007, and Memorandum dated February 11, 2008 and reviewed by the City's Public Works Traffic Division). Traffic impacts identified in the analysis will be appropriately mitigated by implementation of required mitigation measures. 7. According to the TIA, new trips generated by the proposed development would impact 19 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects in which the proposed development exceeds the net 10 PM peak hour threshold for requiring mitigation. In lieu of construction of these improvements, prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant may pay a pro-rata share contribution of $1,048,700 toward the impacted TIP projects. 8. The Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, File No. 07-100346-SE, is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The goals and policies of the 2003 Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) serve as a basis for requiring SEPA conditions. Doc. I.D. TGI (Transportation Goal 1) Maintain mobility for residents and businesses through a balanced, integrated system of transportation alternatives that: a. Meet local and regional needs though inter jurisdictionally coordinated and integrated systems. b. Reduces auto dependency, especially SO v use. c• Supports the land use vision and plan. d. Protects and enhances the environment and quality of life. e. Provides acceptable levels of servic,,for each transportation mode that is also commensurate with the planned levels of funding. TG2 Provide a safe, efficient, convenient, and f nancially sustainable transportation system with sufficient capacity to movepeople, goods and services at an acceptable level of service. The City shall develop and adopt policies for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and Preservation of new and existing facilities. TP9 (Transportation Policy 9) Identify and implement changes to the transportation system that reduces reliance on the single occupant vehicle. Support state, regional, and local visions and policies. TP14 Provide access between major development areas identified in the recommended alternative, while improving business access and protecting City neighborhoods. TP16 The City's LOS standard shall be E. This is defined herein as a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.00 in accordance with Highway Capacity Manual (2000) operational analysis procedures At signalized intersections, the analysis shall be conducted using a 120-second cycle length and level of service E is defined as less than 80 seconds of delay per vehicle. Where transit or HOV facilities are provided, the LOS shall be measured by average delay and volume%apacity ratio per person rather than per vehicle. This standard shall be used to identify concurrency needs and mitigation of development impacts. For long-range transportation planning, a volume/capacity ratio of 0.90 or greater will be used to identify locations for the more detailed operational analysis. TP 17 Expand arterial capacity by constructing channelization improvements at intersections when they are an alternative to creating new lanes along a roadway corridor. TP19 Limit single -occupant vehicle capacity increases to those required to maintain the existing LOS, either by providing new streets or by widening existing streets. Maintain existing and preServe future street connections vital to system integrity. improve pedestrian and vehicle safety. TP22 Develop access management standards to minimize the number of curb cuts on arterials to TP24 Consider safety first in the design of intersection improvements. TP29 Reduce reliance on the single occupant auto by prioritizing and implementing, supportive local - level transit, HOV, and non -motorized improvements. TP42 Arterial HOV improvements will be constructed along key corridors to improve flow encourage use of these more efficient modes. and Doc. I.D. TP43 Minor capital projects, placing spot (localized) traffic improvements, will be carried out to extend the capacity of system components. TP47 Access Management, placing restrictions on left turns across major arterial street, will be used to reduce crash rates and extend capacity of major strategies to provide priority to HOVs. TP62 Modify the development review process by: • Incorporating revised impact analysis procedures that comply with GMA coneutrency and • other requirements. The revisions need to include revised Level of Service standards. Streamlining it to the extent possible to minimize private development costs. Where developments are consistent with this plan, they should be allowed to proceed by mitigating site impacts; developing appropriate components of the HOV, transit, non -motorized and motorized chapters; and participating in an equitable citywide improvement funding or mitigation payment program. • Incorporating requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. • Requiring explicit consideratiori of pedestrian and bicycle circulation, as well as parking and general circulation needs. TP71 The City will continue to cooperate with regional and local transit providers to develop facilities that make transit a more attractive option (e.g., bus shelters, rapid intermodal connections, frequent all day service, safe and attractive facilities). The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposed action does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.032(2)(c), only if the following conditions are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. CONDITIONS OF APPROvALfMITIGATION MEASURE Based on the above policies, the following mitigation measures are required to minimize identified Potential significant adverse impacts. L Prior to the issuance of the final plat approval or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, for the residential phase for the zero lot line townhouse portion of the site, or prior the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any commercial buildings on site the applicant shall: construct impacted TIP projects at the following locations. a. City Center Access Phase 2: Design study, environmental analysis to improve access to City Center b. City Center Access Phase 3: Add second southbound left -turn lane and third southbound right - turn lane c. City Center Access Phase 4: Widen South 320th Street bridge over I-5 and realign loop ramp and northbound off -ramp d. SR 99 Phase 3 / South 284`h Street --- SR 509: Add High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, second southbound left -turn Iane at Smith 288t', install raised median, and signal. at SR 509 @ Redondo Way South with interconnect to 11 `h Place South e. South 348`h Street from 9`h Avenue South to SR 99: Add HOV lanes, install raised median, underground utilities, and add northbound left -turn at SR 99 Doc. I.D. f. South 320th Street @ ls` Avenue South: Add second northbound lane, westbound left -turn lanes, westbound right -turn lanes, and widen I" Avenue South to five lanes to 316'h Street g. SR 99 @ South 356th Street: Add westbound thru lane, eastbound, and northbound left -turn lanes h. South 348th Street at 1" Avenue South: Add second left -turn lanes eastbound, westbound, southbound, and westbound and southbound right -turn lanes i. 1' Avenue South @ South 32801 Street: Install raised median, and improve access at South 328th Street j. 10"' Avenue SW/SW 344th Street / SW Campus Drive to 2151 Avenue SW: Extend three -lane collector street, sidewalks, and street lights k. South 3200' Street @ 20th Avenue South: Add second left -turn lanes, eastbound and westbound 1. 21` Avenue SW / SW 356`h Street -- 22"d Avenue SW: Extend two-lane collector and signal modifications in. SR 99 Phase 4 / SR 509 to South 312th Street: Add HOV lanes and install raised median n. SR 18 @ SR 161: Add third westbound left -turn lane, eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes, and add third southbound lane on SR 161 to South 352°d Street o. South 356th Street / SR 99 to SR 161: Widen to five lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, illumination p. South 352d Street / SR 99 - SR 161: Extend three lane principal collector and signal at SR-99 q. SW 320'h Street @ 21s` Avenue SW: Interconnect to 2e Avenue SW with the addition of a second westbound left -turn lane r. South 320th Street from ls` Avenue South to 8d' Avenue South: Add HOV lanes, and install raised median s. SW 336th Way / SW 340th Street from 26th Place SW to Hoyt Road: Widen to five lanes In lieu of constructing the above TIP improvements projects (a — s), the applicant may voluntarily offer to pay the project's pro-rata share contribution as identified in Table 1 below. The total pro-rata share contribution of $1,048,700 is further broken down for each proposed residential and commercial phase. The pro-rata share contribution for each project is calculated based on the formula below: Fair share contribution = Project generated PM peak trips Projected Total PM peak traffic X (TIP project cost — value of right-of-way and frontage improvement) These are calculated per the table below: Table I — FW Villa e TIP Pro-Rata Share Contribution TIP Est. TIP 7ProjeBackground Fair -Share % of Map Project Name Project Contribution Total Fees Volume istributed#ID Cost ($$) (Distributed) la City Center Access Phase 2 $3,500,000 25 4730 $18,499 1.76% lb City Center Access Phase 3 $2,850,000 37 5364 $19,659 1.87% lc City Center Access Phase 4 $11,800,000 25 3755 $78,562 7.49% 2** SR 99 Phase 3 $21,400,000 $146,514 13.97% S 284 St — SR 509 3** rh 9`h Ave 8 — SR 99 $4, 300, 000 $25, 617 2. 44% 4** rS326h`St. @ 1 sr Ave S $6, 374, 000 $82, 522 7.87% Doc. I.D. TIP Est. TIP Project Background Fair -Share % of Map Project Name Project PM Peak Volume Contribution Total Fees #ID Cost Trips ($$) (Distributed) —57 SR 99 @ S 356' St $7,518,000 55 3,588--] $115,242 10.99% 7 S 348 h St @ I" Ave S $2,430,000 55 4546 $29,399 I 2.80% 8 * * 10'h Ave SW/SW 344r�' St: $8, 632, 000 $64, 535 6.15% SW Campus Dr - 21" Ave SW 9 151Ave S @ S 328' St I $459,000 67 2474 $12,430 1.19% 10 S 320'' St @ 20`b Ave S $1,482,000 49 3,719 $19,526 1.86% 11 * * sr Ave SW: SW 356" St_ 22 Ave SW $1,155, 000 $4, 695 0.45% 12** SR 99Phase r4 $19,400,000 $220,536 21.03% SR 509 to S 312 St. 13** SR 18 @ SR 161 $1,737,000 $28,871 2.75% 15 * * rh $5, 979, 000 $52, 790 5. 03 % SR 99 to SR 161 17 S352nSRSt: $5,200,000 $12,324 1.18% SR 99 18 SW 320`h St. @ 21s` Ave SW $1,748,000 18 3,957 $7,951 0.76% 19 * * ]"AveS — 8 S 320'h rn Ave S t $6, 763, 000 $28,199 2.69% 23** SW 336' Way /SW 340`h St from 26,hPl SW to Hoyt Rd $7 777 000 $80,806 7.71 Total Pro-Rata Contribution $1,048,700 100% Cost per PM Trip — (Based on 611 Total Trips) $1,717 ** TIP pro-rata contribution calculated based on segment - (All contributions are rounded to the nearest 100 dollars figure.) - As required by state law, the City shall refund collected fees if not used for the identified TIP projects within five (5) years. TIP Calculation — Phase I - Residential Prior to recordin-2 of the final plat mil~ r- building it issuanee, "hieh .r.eu n the applicant may offer to pay the project's pro-rata share contribution for the Phase I residential portion in the amount of $50,911 (30 residential PM trips X $1,717/ per PM trip). Fees collected will be allocated to each impacted TIP project as identified in Table 1. Doc. I.D. TIP Calculation - Phase II - Commercial and Residential Prior to the issuance any building permits on site, the applicant may offer to pay the project's pro-rata share contribution of $3,768 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor space proposed for any commercial building, and $541.60 per proposed residential unit up to a maximum of 55 units. The total pro-rata share contribution for all commercial buildings shall not exceed $964,600 (256,000 square feet of gross floor area). Fees collected will be allocated to each impacted TIP project as identified in Table 1. Any remaining building(s) without a building permit application after six years from the issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) decision may be subjected to concurrency and traffic mitigation fees as adopted by the City and applicable at that time, with such fee calculated and levied as set forth within the ordinance. 2. Prior to , of the site (Phase 1) issuance of a building ermit for development on any of lots 35 through 95 the applicant shall construct/modify the exis-tAng-traffic signal at SR 99/10 Avenue South to accommodate the new west leg of South 340`h Street for safe access into the site. The signal shall be constructed to all applicable standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the City and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). This ean4ition is deemed eempk4e-i-f 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any commercial development within the southerlv portion of the site the applicant shall construct/modifV the traffic signal at SR 99/16"' Avenue South to accommodate the new west leg of South 3401" Street for safe access into the site. The signal shall be constructed to all a iicable standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the City and Washington State De artment of Transportation SDO]:). 4. 3r. Prior to recording of the final plat , for the residential portion of the site, the applicant shall construct a westbound left -turn lane on South 336`h Street at the west site access point. The left -turn lane shall be designed and approved by the City. Please note, per FWCC Section 22-1473, the project is required to construct improvements along South 336t' Street to meet a Type E street (five -lanes). Channelization and street improvement plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Washington and submitted to the City of Federal Way and "`-- ' OT for review and approval in concurrence with plat infrastructure construction, and constructed prior to final plat approval. ■ - - - n. i Doc. I.D. 5. 6-Prior to the issuance of GO a Certificate of Occupancy -for the Est an commercial building on site within the central portion of the site, the applicant shall construct a southbound right -turn lane at the north driveway on SR 99 to meet all applicable City and WSDOT standards. As identified in the TIA, the right -turn lane should be 435 feet in length, plus appropriate tapers to meet safety and shall be constructed to all applicable City and WSDOT standards. 6. Channelization and street improvement plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Washington and submitted for City of Feder -a! ` ay's review and approval by the City and Washingon State De artment of Trans ortation SDD in concurrence with building permit application and constructed prior to the issuance of a GO Certificate of Occupancy for the first commercial building within the central portion of the site This MDNS is issued under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 3, 2008. Unless modified by the City; this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Responsible Official: Position/Title: Address: Signature: Greg Fewins Director, Community Development Services 33325 8th Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063 Date Issued: February 16, 2008 Doc. I.D. J. S. cones aimcl Associat oo, lnc. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT of the Federal Way Village Wetland Buffer Averaging Plan City of Federal Way File Numbers: 07-102851-UP, 07-100345-UP, 07-100346-SE, & 06-106382-00-SU Prepared for: Federal Way Village, LLC P. O. Box 73790 Puyallup, WA 98373 Contact: Dan Biles, P. E. SBI Developing P.O. Box 73790 Puyallup, Washington 98373 (253) 848-0820 Dated: October 17, 2007 Prepared by: Jeffery S. Jones, Certified Professional Wetland Sciefit -y 105489 Lance Erickson, Environmental Designer Suzannah White, Ecologist RESUBMITTED 402 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 110 OCT 1 9 2007 AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 WAY 253-804-2645 / FAX 253-333-8584 �� Y FEDERAL BUILDING DEPT.. I. Proposal The applicant proposes wetland buffer averaging (see Buffer Averaging Plan, J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc, October 17, 2007). The total area of buffer with averaging is slightly greater than the area of the standard buffer. At no point will the buffer be reduced to less than 50% of the required standard buffer. This report assesses the affect of proposed buffer averaging on the functions of Wetlands #1 and #2. Both wetlands were delineated by another consultant and assigned 100-foot buffers. Section 22-1359(b) of the City of Federal Way Municipal Code allows buffer averaging; "only when the wetland or the buffer which is proposed to be reduced contains habitat types which have been so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions. Through process III, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director of community development that the proposed buffer averaging will meet all the following criteria: (1) Reduced buffers will not affect the water quality entering a wetland or stream; (2) Reduced buffers will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the wetland or the buffer; (3) Reduced buffers will not result in unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (4) Reduced buffers will not be detrimental to any other public or private properties, including the loss of open space. At no point shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50 percent of the required standard buffer width, unless the buffer, in existing conditions, has already been permanently eliminated by previous legally permitted actions. The total area contained with the buffer after averaging shall be equal to the area required for standard buffer dimensions." Isolated Wetlands #3 and #4 will be filled. Mitigation for filling Wetlands #3 and #4 was completed as part of the regional detention facility, documented in the Kitts Corner Stormwater Detention Settlement Agreement. II. Functional Assessment Methodology Wetland functions were assessed using the Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions — Volume 1: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington (Hruby, et. al., 1999). The method rates the wetland's ability to perform specific functions compared to standard wetlands in the western Washington lowlands area. The rating is presented on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the highest score. Each rating is produced by a mathematical model, which calculates the wetland's ability to function based on its physical characteristics. Data on physical characteristics of the wetland was collected using aerial photos, topographic maps from King County GIS information, and on -site investigation (see attached data sheets, watershed maps, and aerial photo with land uses mapped). Additionally, the DOE method provides guidance in assessing the wetland's opportunity to perform each function (see attached summary). For example, a wetland may contain excellent habitat for fish (ability to perform the function), but no connection to fish -bearing streams (opportunity to perform the function). October 2007 1 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. III. Results Wetland #1 has a score of 7 out of 10 for its ability to remove sediment from water. It has a moderate opportunity to perform this function because its watershed is likely to have sources of loose sediments from urban development, but the wetland gets most of its water from sheet flow and has a good vegetated buffer to filter out sediments before they reach the wetland. Wetland #2 has a score of 6 out of 10, and it has a high level of opportunity to perform this function because it receives water from a stream, which drains an urban watershed. Wetland #1 has a higher score because it retains more standing water, which allows more sediment to settle out of the water. Wetland #1 has a score of 7 out of 10 for its ability to remove nutrients from water. Wetland #2 has a score of 6 out of 10. Wetland #1 has a higher score because it has more emergent vegetation to take up nutrients. Both have a moderate opportunity to perform this function because their watersheds are not agricultural, so they do not have extremely high levels of nutrients, but they have higher levels than undeveloped forest land. Wetland #1 has a score of 6 out of 10 for its ability to remove metals and toxic organics from water. Wetland #2 has a score of 5 out of 10. Wetland #1 has a higher score because it has more emergent vegetation and more ponding. Both wetlands have a high level of opportunity to perform this function because the watersheds drain urban areas that are commercially developed. These areas contribute metals and toxic organics to runoff. Wetland #1 has a score of 8 out of 10 for its ability to reduce peak flows. Wetland #2 has a score of 6 out of 10. Wetland #1 has a higher score because it lies in a deeper depression than the east wetland, so it retains more water during flood events. Both have a high opportunity to perform this function because the wetlands are mostly surrounded by urban development with a high percentage of impervious surfaces. Excess runoff from these areas enters the wetlands during floods. Wetland #1 has a score of 7 out of 10 for its ability to decrease downstream erosion. Wetland #2 has a score of 5 out of 10. Both have a high level of opportunity to perform this function because their watersheds drain urban development, where water flow is highly disturbed. Wetland #1 has a score of 4 out of 10 for its ability to recharge groundwater. Wetland #2 has a score of 5 out of 10. Wetland #2 has a higher score because it has more permeable soil, so more water filters down to the groundwater and less water ponds on the surface. The DOE group that developed the assessment method determined that all wetlands of the "depressional outflow" classification in the western Washington lowlands have a high opportunity to perform this function. Both wetlands have a score of 5 out of 10 for their ability to provide general habitat. They have excellent habitat structure, but the urban setting detracts from the safety and foraging range available in the habitat. They have a moderate opportunity to perform habitat functions because the wetlands are connected by a riparian corridor, and they area connected to several acres of upland habitat in undeveloped forest land. However, the whole undeveloped area is surrounded by roads and commercial development, which makes it difficult for animals to access this habitat to use it. It can still serve as a valuable urban stopover point for many species, especially winged species. October 2007 2 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Wetland # 1 has a score of 6 out of 10 for its ability to provide habitat for invertebrates, 4 out of 10 for amphibians, 5 out of 10 for resident fish, 6 out of 10 for wetland -associated birds, and 4 out of 10 for wetland -associated mammals. Wetland #2 has a score of 5 out of 10 for its ability to provide habitat for invertebrates, 3 out of 10 for amphibians, 4 out of 10 for resident fish, 3 out of 10 for wetland -associated birds, and 3 out of 10 for wetland -associated mammals. Wetland #1 has higher scores because it has more ponded water, which provides better habitat for amphibians and invertebrates. The amphibians and invertebrates then provide better food sources for birds, fish, and mammals. No opportunity rating was required for these functions. The wetland's opportunity to perform these functions is similar to its opportunity to provide general habitat. Wetland #1 has a score of 6 out of 10 for its ability to provide habitat for anadromous fish. Wetland #2 has a score of 2 out of 10. Wetland 41 has a higher score because surface water is present for a much longer period of the year. The opportunity to provide this function is moderate because the wetlands flow out into intermittent surface streams that are tributary to a salmonid- bearing stream (Hylebos Creek). The outflows have some piped sections of varying sizes and they run through a water detention facility with trash grates on the inlets and outlets, which can be detrimental to fish passage. However, there are no specific, known barriers to prevent fish from accessing the on -site wetlands. Wetland #1 has a score of 2 out of 10 for its native plant richness and the east wetland has a score of 6 out of 10. Wetland #2 has a higher score because it has more diversity among its plant species. Both wetlands have a score of 6 out of 10 for primary production and organic export. There is no opportunity rating for these functions because they are simply based on existing conditions. October 2007 3 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. IV. Conclusion Both on -site wetlands currently have the ability and opportunity to provide moderate to high levels of water quality, water quantity, and habitat functions. Wetland #1 provides somewhat higher levels of many of these functions because it has ponded water and a large emergent vegetation class. The main limitation on habitat functions for both wetlands is the surrounding urban environment. This makes retention of existing corridors between the wetlands especially important for retaining the habitat functions that the wetlands currently perform. The proposed reduced buffers will not affect water quality entering the wetlands or streams because the minimum proposed buffer width is 76 feet. According to the Best Available Science document, "Effective buffer widths for protecting water quality ranged from 25 to 50 feet for 60% removal of pollutants, to 150 to 200 feet for 80% removal of pollutants (Granger, et. al., 2005)." A vegetated buffer width of only 5 meters can trap up to 50% of sediments in water flowing toward a wetland (Hruby, et. al., 1999). The wetland buffers are densely vegetated with mature, native plant communities and will remain that way. Thus, the proposed reduction still leaves enough buffer width to effectively filter sediments and pollutants out of water before they reach the wetlands. The proposed reduced buffers will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the wetlands any more than the standard buffer width would. Any loss of vegetated corridors between the wetlands and connections to upland habitat will be somewhat detrimental to habitat on -site, since that is the major limiting factor. However, connectivity would be reduced by the standard 100-foot buffers, and the proposed buffer reduction does not cause any additional impact to connectivity. Mature forested areas will be minimally impacted. The replacement buffer area is adjacent to Wetland #1, which has higher quality habitat for more species than Wetland #2. The buffer averaging helps wildlife species by providing more upland habitat where it matters most, adjacent to Wetland #1. Thus, buffer averaging is actually more beneficial to wildlife habitat than the standard 100-foot buffers. Reduced buffers will not result in unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. Proposed buffers are densely vegetated, not steeply sloped, and not narrow enough to create erosion from surface flow into the wetland. Reduced buffers will not be detrimental to any other public or private properties, including loss of open space. The proposed buffer averaging will cause less of a loss of open space than the standard 100-foot buffers, since 4,930 square feet of area will be added on to the total buffer area. The buffer averaging will not be detrimental to other properties because the wetlands and buffers in question are contained on -site. October 2007 4 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. V. References Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. Hruby, T, T. Granger, K. Brunner, S. Cooke, K. Dublanica, R. Gersib, L. Reinelt, K. Richter, D. Sheldon, E. Teachout, A. Wald, and F. Weinmann. 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. WA State Department Ecology Publication #99-115. October 2007 S J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Prdeml.1 fm Pon otlal far Pntenlial for PorCnnAl far Pw,miel r r paicti Dal for /,alert) 111bl tat Habitat 50Ab11Ely I lulii ran Su i t. hd In Dcl,f x'ionol oarRrm Rc-,lag St4lmcn to R,n-ine tiWHen 1. Rcoanin=Ttnn+ RcdVcing Peak k- f Dee""ing Erurkm Rec buo,g Cruodr arc, Suitabili4 for Invertebrate' Ou Aniphihiant ]. 51-1-8 'Al;_ 1 lodes - 6 Ind,.- 6 tndex- 5 indn.. 6 lades- it Index- S Sndn- 5 1adex- S Indci- Date 7/6t2007 NOTE: If the scorefora function is used as a variable in another function model it is normalized to 1 not 10) 'eM Variable Vari n I[� tinge V:vimmahtc Score Variable Score LANDSCAPE DATA 1'nna V kV V h DO AU surrounded by dikes with control structure +I Dl Am of AU t Ssed 0.6 Ssed 0.6 Vlivestomge Vlivestorsge:OS Vperm Vbutfcond Vpermllow VbuRcon D2 Area ofwmmbunag basin fupfda'be-1 H="hcdl 225 Vsinn•nl=r 1.0 MO 0.5 1.0 d 1 W Land me I;i" ling of AU 1 Vsorp D10 1 D10 1.0 D48.1 0 D42 5 D41 0 D42 5 D31 Undeveloped Forest D31 , D10 1 I Dll,l 0 Dll.l 0.0 D48.2 1 D32 Agriculture (field and pasture) DILI 0 Vsorp D11.2 0 D11.2 0.0 D48.3 0 V%closure Vsubstrsfe D3.3 Clear cm logging (<Svrs since clearing) u D11.2 0 1 D47.3 I D11.3 I D11.3 1.0 OS Vsubstrate 075 D3.4 Urban/commemial 70 Dll.3 I D473 I Vph talcs 1 talcs 1.0 Veffm1mva2 D17 90 08 D46.1 I D3.5 High density residential(> lresideacelame) 7 D83 0 0.25 D46.1 I D46 2 I D3.6 Low density residential (F I residenee/arue) +1 liveslor L 00 ve fectarea2 0 Vout D8.1 25 Vstrata D46.2 I D46.3 0 D3,7 Undnrlopod", t dead,/, 0.00 0.25 D26.1 7 Vout 0.5 D8.3 0 04 D463 0 D46.4 I WATER.RECIME D&I 25 0.5 D13.1 0.0 D13.1 0.0 D14.6 0 D21 3 D46.4 I D46.5 41 D4 Channels or stream, in AU with identifiable banks I D8.3 0 D13.2 1.0 D46.5 n D46.6 0 D41 Clunncls have Pmmcndy flame'_ g x aft It D14.6 0 Vlotemurgeot D13.2 1.0 D13.3 0.0 D13.3 0.0 Index for 5 Vsnags D466 0 D46.7 1 D42 Voul Vout 0.29 04.3 Only surface oudlom. A iluwgh a col,zrt 1 0.5 D14.1 0 Recharging Groundwater 0.2 D46.7 I D46.8 0 DI D6 0.5 D13.1 0 D13.1 0 D14.2 90 V)aund/shed Vwoodyveg D31 1 D46.8 0 Vwintersp D7 D13.2 I D13.2 1 D14.3 0 0.3 1.0 D14.1 0.0 D31.1 0.0 Vvegimtenp Vwintersp 000 D8 lmtwAbw _ D13.3 0 D13.3 0 D14.4 5 D1 l D2 225 D 14.2 90.0 I.00 0.00 D38 0 D& 1 Percent goaded or inundated for>1 month 25 D14.5 5 D14.3 0.0 D39 3 D38 0 D8 2 Percent of AU with permanent standing water 0 D16 25 D8.1 25 ratio 0 D14.4 5.0 Vlwd D8.3 Percent of AU with permanent open water 0 VefTWI.Mal Vlwd Vlwd Ol D8.4 Percent of AU with -vegetated bars or mudf.m 5 025 Index Vinund/shed :2 0.1 0.1 D44 I D:151.`•mvyuted ban or mad floss 0 D8.1 25 for Removing Veffectareal 0.7 D44 i D44 l D45 p Nutrients 1. 025 D8.1 25 Index for 6.1 DI 1 D45 0 D45 0 D9.1 Permanently Flooded f1 Reducing Peak Flows D2 225 Vwater D9.2 Seasonally Flooded I D8.1 25 Vhydmp Vstram 0 D9.3 Occasionally Flooded (<-1month) I Vundersfory 0 0.67 0 4 D8 3 0 WA $abimtnd hot seldom iamtdawd I 024 Index for 5 ratio D9.1 0 D21 3 D14.6 0 D9 5 Peroanently Bowing stream 0 D14.1 0 Removing Toxics Index for 52 D9.2 t D9.1 0 D9.6 Intermittently Bowing stream I D14.2 90 Decreasing Erosion D9.3 I Vvegiotersp D l0 Atcmge aheight of flooding rutual I D14 3 0 D9.4 t [ Vsubsfruc DII .CroxsocliokdAw _ D14.4 5 D39 3 [ DIL1 Cross section a D16 25 Vwaterdeplh D35 4 D112 Cross section2 +I 1.0 Vassoe D11 3 Cmsr uct ion 3 ! V.r;,e]acc D121 1.0 0 DIY Y:= dcpft pttaent in, 036 D122 1.0 D20 I D12.1 0-20cm('<gin) i D14.1 0 D123 1.0 D12220-I00mn(8-40in) I D14.2 90 Vhydrop sum positive variables D123>100-(p400 1 D14.3 0 Vwintersp 0.667 285 D13, _Camhicilw nfirhllct D14.4 5 0.0 D9.1 0 D13.1 Unconstrieed or only slightly constricted 0 D14.5 5 D38 0 D9.2 1 D 13.2 Moderately constricted I D93 1 reducers D13.) Senmt)' cnm ricicd n Index Vprichmess D9.4 1 Vphow ;Viil .. . for Removing 0.5 1 VMETATION Sediments 6 D19.1 17.0 Vaquatsfruc D262 7 11,14 Cnwmdln Cl7mp trs%mar dfAU) D192 3.0 1 D 14.1 Forest -evergreen 0 D25 3 Vupcwer D 14.2 Forest decddumns 90 Vmaturc 05 D14.3 Smub-shrub- evergreen 0 1.0 sum positive variables D32 0 D144 Scrub Shrub - deciduous 5 D22 1.0 3.967 D14.5 Emergent 5 D3.4 70 D14.6 Aquatic Bed 41 Vedgestruc reducers D35 D15 Does D8.3 +D8.4+sum (D141 to D14.6)=100? 1 0.0 Vtaonins D3.6 0 D16 % area ofherbaceous undwtoty 25 D4l 0.0 l 017 �a nr a of AU wit, Y75'!e clmwc 0.`wnopv 90 D36 0 score for reducers DIS 05 Dt9 Farm Rxhnat reducer D 19.1 number of native plant species 17 Vupcover Index for Invertebrate Index for Amphibian D192 number of me'- native Plant species 3 0.9 Habitat5 Habitat 3 as D20 The number ofpl-t semblages E D3.3 0,0 D21 The maximum number ofstrum 3 . D3.4 700 D21.1 "vine' strarmn dominated by non-mtive Blackberries 0 D3.5 0 p D22 \iatum trees rcrrut in AV I 0 D3.6 00 023 Sphagnum bop D23.1 Sphagnum bog component is> 75% of area in AU 0 D232 Sphagnum bog component is 50%-75% of- in All 0 D23,3 Sphagnum bog component is 25%495/6ofarea in AU It Index for General D23.4 Sphagnum bog component is 1- 25 % of area in AU 0 Habitat 5 D23.5 NO Sphagman bog component in AV I Ilablut S.11.Nlity rra hi lae Suitebillly Fnr Aaad n.ma Fab 1P. R,ritleat FA Iadct- 3, Indes+. _. ; Variable Scor! - Variable Score Vwintersp Vwintersp 0100 0.00 D38 0 D38 0 Vwaterdepth Vwilerdepth I 1 D 12.1 I D121 S D 12.2 1 D12,2 I D123 I D123 1 Vcover Veovrr 1 03 D32 I D32 1 D34 0 D45 0 D45 0 max I Vpow VPow 0 0.0 D83 0 D8.3 0 V permllow 0 D4.1 0 Sioverts 0.5 Vsubstrate (normalized to 1) 08 D46.1 I D46.2 I sum positive variables D463 0 2.48 D46.4 D465 ❑ D46.6 0 reducers D46.7 I Vbogs D46.8 n I D23.1 ❑ Sinverts Index fc D23.2 0 05 D23 3 0 Index A Index for Resident Fish Vculvert 4 0.5 D4.3 1 Index for Anadromous Fish 2 II24 . Uasnlnrtcc Ly Aouylatitti p]mt apceiw D24.1 % area of non-native species >75 % D24.2 % area of non-native species 50-75% D243 ;t= ofnon-native species 25-49% D24.4 % arca of non-native species 1-24% D24.5 NO mscr ofp0 rALisn in Otc AU _ '_�W31ifAT LBAF!ILTERiSTISS: D25 rrnrcrmccalc ries is tic bed c icy, D26.1 pH of interstitial water D26.2 pH of open or standing water D27 AU is within 8 km (5mi) of estuary D28 AU is within 1.61an (I mi) of a lake D29 AU is within 5km C3 mi) of as open field D30 >I hecLanc (2,5 ac) of preferred w004vtctaticn D31 snags D31.1 At least one suag has a DBH greater Than 30cm D32 Overhanging wgcmtion D33 AU has upland islands D34 Undercut banks present D35 Key for rating egg -laying structures for amphibians D36 Tannins present in surface waters D37 Steep banks suitable 1br dcnning D38 Intcrspersvm brtwxen rernnlinn and ancntta7tt D37 1n[crspctsionL+n�Ctl+!ardin •serrailM+ clastcs jj40.' D41 EDGEofAU: D42 BUFFER of AU: D43 CORRIDORS of AU: D44 large woody debris in AU outside of perry water D45 LrFc nv x1v dcbrn la permaneal vme, ofAU �du,SA, dSQSSiftATY3:.;• . i146 Cei{i�ovira�4geiCar� D46.1 deciduous leaf litter D46.2 other plant fitter D46.3 decomposed organic D46.4 exposed cobbles D46 5 exposed gravel D46.6 exposed sand D46.7 exposed silt D46 4 csposcd clay _ ... -I241. :s4Tipq —. D47.1 Peat D47.2 Muck D47.3 Mineral with clay fiaction 40 % 047.4 Clay (clay fnnim>3L)%.) �D18:�Pc(»>�76gef1Gpik1-�eaaooillY':iaoadetedaieu D481 High D48.2 Moderate D48,3 Slow _ D49 D39.1 ' p49.2 ISi9S _ . Ilaldla[Snit,t Mliq• F{a Oibd Soiraailirl Nn8•x� ^.ti Qrr --�•�µ� For hlnmm.ls Rkh � Fnr Bitdr In[kc=- S Ind-- 5 In, ,- Variable Score Variable Score Variable Swre Variable Score VbuHcaod VbuHcond Vstrsta Vvegcover I 0.6 1 D1 I D42 5 D21 3 D14.1 0 D42 5 D21.1 0 D14.2 90 - D14.3 0 Vsnags Vwslerdepth Vassce D14.4 5 0.167 000 DI4.5 5 D31 1 D12.1 I D20 I D14.6 0 D122 I Vvegintersp D12.3 I Vmature Vnooevergreen 1 ! I D39 3 Vwrridor D22 t D14.2 90 t D144 5 Vedgestmc D43 3 VnplanLt D14.5 5 _ 0.00 0.567 D14.6 0 j D41 0 Vbrawse D19.1 17 t Vunderslory Vspecbab D30 1 Vbogs 0.238 0.5 0 D14.1 0 D8.5 0 Vennergent2 D23.4 0 D14.2 90 D27 I n D23.5 I D14.3 0 D28 0 DI I Score for variables D14.4 5 D29 0 D145 5 2.17 D16 25 D33 0 production variables Vp[w Vwintemp2 2.238 0.00 000 reducers D8.3 0 DI I Voonnat D38 u I Vorg Sloverls D24.1 0 1 0.5 Vaw D24.2 0 D47.1 0 0 D24,3 0 D47.2 0 Samphtb DI I 0.3 D83 0 Vetfectareal index for Native Plant Richness 0.25 SEsh Vbaak 4 D8.1 25 ar Anadromous 1 0.4 11 02 D37 0 export variables n Resident Fish 1.25 0.4 Vpermllow smn of variables 0 reducer 3.8 D4.1 0 Vbogs 1 rcda"rx Sfish D23.1 0 �V%clasom Index for Anadmmom l 0.4 D23.2 0 0.7 0-2 D23.3 0 D17 90 Ink% far Rmcicat Fish D23.4 0 0,4 D23.5 1 Index for Production and Export sum of variables 6 44 score for reducers reducers 0.7 Vupcover 07 D3.4 70 Index for Bird Habitat D3.5 7 3 D3.6 0 score for reducers 0.7 lhdex for Mammal Habitat 3 Depreattoaal Qatflow - SITF. _ WW" Date 7f6r'2007 15nra+srt fur liso-r lil lax few Pnrentlal far fisoad.4 F(V Grar..l lrehital M,'7at .[areti.rf Frahltat wimbiliry Nahlral Sa11a1Xltry 1f.'nal.3xu,hdil, d.l l'r mi.g.`idlaleals F.rmixi.iNs6Hrall IR.-•.ritt7•,m.Iti RrdarisgPrakFlow. P-"Aa47R xlus Ketlargisl:t3roo4x.rer tuitahtliry for Tamxrshrale. forAmphl(Aaas FvA...,NkmFIA }S.rRcyl.,lr.lr::b 7 ladca- 7 loan- 6 lndat : Indu- 7 fade,« a lades .3 lades« 6 3nda^ J lod.r- 4 luck•• S NOTE: ff the h /rc for ] f 1m'no14 is Used a5 a Variable in anatlrct rYf•R1a11 m ,141 -,is normalized to I not 10) V. V.ria 1r V - v S V I v 'i h -_.-Me Score Variable Score Variable Score Variable Score DO AU surrounded bydikes xith control suuemar 11 DI Area of AU D2 Arocfmmnhurin bssln u srm nattrsb.dl 0.89 9.7 Vstorage Sued 0.7 Ssed 07 VIhTalorage Vlivestorage x 0.5 Vperm Vbuffcond Vpermflow Vbuffcood Vwinte.p Vwiotersp D',.. ..7 i�.1 warm wilhin:llmiOFAlf l 1.0 0.50 0 1 1.0 0 1 5 0 33 D38 1 0 33 D38 1 D3.1 Undeveloped Forest 22 D10 1 Vsorp D10 1 D10 1.0 D481 n D42 5 D4.1 0 D42 D3.2 Agriculture (field and pasture) 0 1311.1 0 Vsorp 1 DILI Dil.2 0 0 DILI 0.0 D112 00 D482 11 D483 I V closure VsnbaLre Vwaterdeplh Vwaferdepth D3.3 Clcarcwtlogging (<5yrs since clearing) 0 D11.2 0 1 D47.3 1 1.0 Vanbaralc 098 I I D3.4 Urban/commercial 70 13I1.3 1 D47.3 1 1311.3 1 D11.3 1.0 D17 60 0,8 D46.1 I D12.1 1 D12.1 D3.5 High density residential(> lresidence/acm) 7 D8.3 3 Vph tales I tales 1.0 VeffecWrea2 D46.1 I D46.2 l D12.2 1 D122 1 D3.6 Low density residential(< I residence/acm) 0 fivestor 1.00 Veffrct...2 0 0.47 D8.1 60 W.I. D46.2 1 D46.3 l D12.3 1 D123 I D3.7 UndnW umc 1 &udsk 0.06 047 D26.1 7 Vent Vogt 0.4 D46.3 I D46.4 0 SVAM RE'a= D8.1 60 05 0.5 DBA 0.0 D8.3 3 D14.6 10 D21 3 D46.4 0 D46.5 6 Vcover Veover D4 Channels or streams in AU »itli idcmifoble banks I D8.3 3 D131 00 D46.5 0 D46.6 0 125 0.4 D3.1 Chxnneia here mancrnl •Bo»in m 1.f 0 D14.6 10 Vlalemergeat D132 10 D13.2 1.0 D46.6 0 D46.7 I D32 1 D32 I Dig Vout Vast 0.36 D13.3 0.0 D13.3 0.0 Index for 4 Vsnag. W.S Only surixc o___u_t0ou a Ih houg a cuisxn U 0.5 D14.1 0 Recharging Groundwater 0.0 D46.7 I D468 0 D34 0 D45 qd DIM OS n D13.1 0 D14.2 10 Youndlshed Vwmodyveg Dal 0 D468 0 D45 I • DI3.2 D13,2 1 D14.3 0 08 06 D31.1 0.0 Vwintersp mar I d ImPbdon D13.3 ti D13.3 0 D14.4 50 DI 0.9 D14I 0.0 Vveginte.p Vwi.te.p 0.33 Vpow Vpow D8.1 Percent ponded or inundated for>I month 6o 1)14.5 30 D2 9.7 D142 10.0 1.00 0.33 D38 I 0.1 D&3 3 O.l D8.3 3 D8.2 Percent of AU with permanent standing water 10 D16 10 D8.1 60 D14.3 0.0 D39 3 D38 I D8.3 Percent of AU with permanent open water 3 Veffrcr.rcul ratio 0.1 D14A 50.0 Vlwd Vlwd 0.3 Vpermllaw D8.4 Percent of AU with umry rand bars or mudflaa 2 06 Ind.Vlwd 0.3 0.3 D44 2 0 Umrr mafalWn or mudRims _ n D8.1 60 for Removing Velfe"""I Vinmad/shed:2 ' D45 I D4.1 0 =D-8.3 lay - jueMlljpn tcNnys Nutrients 7 0.6 1.6 D44 2 D44 _ D9.1 Pcrmancn:i% Reedcd _ t D&1 60 Index for 76 Dl 1 D45 1 D45 1 Vwamr Sloverts 0.6 Vsubstrate D92 Seasonally Flooded 1 Reducing Peak Flows D2 10 D81 60 Vhydmp Vstratu 0.8 (normalized to l) 08 D9.3 Occasionally Flooded(< I=nth) 1 Vam[enlnry I.00 0.4 D8.3 3 D46.1 I D94 Saturated but seldom inundated 1 006 Index for o ratio 0 D9.1 I D21 3 D14.6 10 D46.2 I D9.5 Permanently flowing stream n D14.1 0 Removing Toxics Index for 6.6 D9.2 I D9.1 1 sum positive variables D46.3 D9.6 Intermittently flowing stream t D14.2 IO Decreasing Erosion D9.3 I Vveglnte.p 3"30 D46.4 0 D10 Aver sad lies n ot0aodldr" I D14.3 0 D94 t 1 V.bst.c D46.5 0 Al] Ctes AU D14.4 50 D39 3 t D46.6 0 D11.1 Crosssecuon 1 n D11.2 Cross section ❑11.3 Co scekm3 I, D l2.l 0.20 m (,4m) D 12.2 20-100cm(8-40in) DIN >100cm 401a1 t pI, Cdetlifwlca'dfoicdM 013.1 Uncons0icied or only slightly constricted r, D13 2 Moderately constricted t D13.3 Smemly constricted 0 D)3.J VgCMAT10N t Camrdin.Classnlss S4 tires p[• 14.1 Parent -..town u U14.2 Forest deciduous to DI4"3 Scrulmlimb-evergreen n D144 Scrub Shrub .deciduous Sn D14.5 Emergent 3u D14.6 Aquatic lied lu D15 Does D8.3+D8.4+ sum(D14.1 to D 14.6)=1007 I D16 % area of herbaceous understory Iri Oil %arcs of AU»srh>75% tlosam ofoWl' 60 D19 I number of nalivc plant species 1 D19.2 number ofnan- native plant species D20 The number of plant assemblages D21 The maximum pmnhor oFvrmu D21.1 'wine" stratum dominated by non-native Backberrie 022 hlatum rives nt in AU pO, g6bq ivaos D23.1 Sphagnum bog component is> 17/ of-- in AU D232 Sphagnum bog component is 5091 75%of area in A D23.3 Sphagnum bog component is 25%19% ofarea in A D214 Sphagnum bog component is 1 - 25 % ofarea in AU D235 NO Sphagnum bog component in AU 6 10 Vwalerdeplh D35 4 reduce. D46.7 l IO Vassoc Vbogs D46.8 0 :ao 073 D12.1 1.0 0222 I D12.2 1.0 D20 3 D23.1 0 glover!, Index fr 1 0 D12.3 1.0 D232 0 0.6 2 10 Vhydrup sun positive variables D23.3 0 Index fr 3 0 Vwi.te.p 1 4.31 Index for Resident Fish 4 50 0.3 D9" 1 l Vculvert 5 5 30 D38 I D9.2 I 1 D9.3 1 reducers D4.3 0 Vprich.ess D9"4 1 Vphow :moving 0.3 1 Index for Anadromous Fish nuts 7 D19.1 11.0 Vaqu.tst.c D26.2 7 6 D19.2 2.0 l D25 3 Vapeover Vmature 05 00 sum positive variables D3.2 0 D22 0.0 5 056 D3.3 0 D3.4 70 Vedgeutroc reduce. D3.5 7 0.7 Viannins D3.6 0 D41 2.0 D36 u scare for redo"'. 05 ,.doter Vupcover Index for Invertebrate Index for Amphibian 0.9 Habitat 6 Habitat 4 D3.3 0.0 D3.4 70.0 D3.5 7.0 D3.6 00 Index for General Habitat 5 D24 Domir M.a y.lur:a=ht p)4M D24.1 %area ofnon-native species>75% D24 2 % area of non-native species 50-75 % D24 3 %vex of non -Dative species 25-49V. D244 %area ofnon-native species 1-24% D24.5 NO MCI of npn-nuhn in dw AU HA6rrAT CBARA&ER1ST!(S D25 alrrlerurc ealCROn�G iy ogoalls bcd .><�cution D26.1 PH of interstitial water D26.2 pH of open or standing water D27 AU is within 8 km (5mi) o£esaury D28 AU is within 1.61an (I mi) of a lake D29 AU is within 51an (3 mi) of an open field D30 >1 heclsre (2.5 ac) of preferred Woody-rl: uon Dal snags D31- I At least one snag has a DBH greater than 30cat D32 Overhanging vegetation D33 AU has upland islands D34 Undercut banks present D35 Key for rating egg -laying structures for amphibians D36 Tannins present in surface waters D37 Steep banlrs suitable for cleaning E38 Interspersion brnoxo recra[ion oM mhcnra[ci 39 Intasparriwh M1en+mn Coxardgh rrmta[lon das[cs_ AO .. .-. D41 EDGEofAU. D42 BUFFERofAU: D43 CORRIDORS of AU: D44 large woody debris in AU outside of perm water 035 Large uoMv dcbtil Ia permr9ca1"ter of AU 961isahrAStA3S7RATiS- . ,D46: �Cac�ocillaotadxAbcc,lr�sr{ytiov<SA D46.1 deciduous leaf filler D46.2 other plant fitter D46 3 decomposed organic D46.4 exposed hobbles D465 exposed gravel D46.6 exposed sand D46.7 exposed silt D16.B oxposcd clay Ds •7 ,Soil'fypci . •D47.1 Peat D47.2 Muck D47.3 Mineral with clay fraction 40% D47.4 Clay (e6n.frxtlon >HW.) D41L ;FtidrcaS ,,rsnih m tcnoru]ly iutmdwod.errm D481 High D48.2 Moderate D4$.+ Slow D49 1)39,1 D44.2 t9) Imbiut SrilaWlip Habi tat Suua bilit7 Satre Pl M.I Paleadal f-Pu 0-1Iaa For Blydr Y6r Ma M-1. Rkhur. rad Export lades- .6 iodcs- 4 lads• fade,- 6 Variable Scare Variable Score Variable Score Variable Scare VbuRcaud Vbuffcond Vstrata Vvegeover i , 1 0.6 1 DI 089 D42 5 D21 3 D14.1 0 D42 5 D21.1 0 D14.2 10 D14.3 0 Vsoags Vwaterdepth Vaasoc DIA4 50 C l 0.72 DI4.5 30 D31 0 D12.1 I D20 3 D14.6 10 D12,2 y Vveglotersp D12.3 l Vmature Voonevergreen 1 p ] D39 3 Vcareidor D22 0 D142 10 1 D144 50 Vedgeslruc D43 3 Voplauts D14.5 30 0.67 0.367 DI4.6 10 S1 2 Vbruwse D19.1 11 y Vunderstory Vspeehab D30 l Vbogs 006 05 0 D14.1 0 D8.5 0 Vemergeol2 D23.4 0 D142 10 D27 1 6 D23.5 I D14.3 0 D28 0 DI 0,89 Scomforvariables D14.4 50 D29 0 D1A5 30 1.19 D16 10 D33 0 production variables Vpow Vwiotersp2 2.06 0.10 0,33 reducers D8.3 3 DI 0.89 Vaoaaat D39 I 1 Vorg Siaverb D24.1 0 0.8 0.6 Vaw D24.2 6 D47I II p D24.3 0 D47 2 1 Samphib Dl 0.99 0.4 D8.3 3 Vdfectareal Index for Native Plant Richness 0.60 Sr.b Vhauk 2 D8.1 60 br Anadm-. 0.6 r1 06 D37 0 export variables br Resident Fish 1.4 0.5 Vperodlow sum ofvariables a redocer 4.9 D41 0 Vbop 1 reducer Sfish D23.1 0 V % closure Index for Anadmmous 0.6 D23.2 0 1 06 D23,3 0 60 Index for Resident Fish D23.4 0 05 D23 5 1 Index for Production and Export sum of variables 6 4.9 score for rednrers reducers I Vupcaver 0.7 D3.4 70 Index for Bird Habitat D3.5 7 6 D3.6 0 score for reducers 0.7 Index for Mammal Habitat 4 ETY OF ederal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8mAvenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Federal Way Village Master Plan RECEIVED JAN 2 3 2007 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. Prepared by: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC For City of Federal Way Owner(s): Applicant: Federal Way Village LLC Attn.:Dan Biles PO Box 7390 Puyallup, WA 98373 Phone: (253) 848-0820 Representative: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Attn.: Eric G. LaBrie, AICP Eric S. Pennala, AICP 33915 1� Way South, #200 Federal Way, WA 98003 Phone: (253) 838-6113 Date: 1 /22/07 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND ........... ........ ............. .............. ............. ............................................ ................... ............... ......... -.4 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS....................................................................................................................6 1. EARTH........................................................................................................................................................6 2. AIR....................................................a..........................................................................................................7 3. WATER.......................................................................................................................................................7 4. PLANTS......................................................................................................................................10 5. ANIMALS ........ o.........................................................................................................................................10 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................11 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH...........................................................................................................11 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE.......................................................................................................12 9. HOUSING.................................................................................................................................................14 10. AESTHETICS...............................................................................o......................................................14 11. LIGHT AND GLARE...................................o...................................................................................14 12. RECREATION ..o...............................................................................................................................15 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION.................................................................15 14. TRANSPORTATION........................................................................................................................16 15. PUBLIC SERVICES..........................................................................................................................17 16. UTILITIES...............................................................................................................................................17 C. SIGNATURE.............................................................................................................................................................18 Appendices Appendix A - Legal Description Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Federal Way Village Master Plan 2. Name of applicant: Federal Way Village, LLC. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Owner(s): Applicant Contact: Federal Way Village LLC Attn.: Kurt Wilson PO Box 7390 Puyallup, WA 98373 Phone: (253) 848-0820 Representative: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Attn.: Eric G. LaBrie, AICP Eric S. Pennala, AICP 33915 1 � Way South, #200 Federal Way, WA 98003 Phone: (253) 838-6113 4. Date checklist prepared: 1 /22/07 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Federal Way 6. Proposed timing or Schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction would start upon receipt of all necessary development permits and approvals. This is estimated to occur in late 2007 or early 2008. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no plans for future expansion of the Federal Way Village Master Plan. However, Future commercial pad development within the commercial portion of site will be subject to further land use and building review when proposed. Additionally, future town homes constructed in the residential portion of the site are subject to further building plan review. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or would be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Wetland Delineation Report (1995).................................................Sheldon & Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report (2004).........................................................Raedke Associates, Inc. Wetland Confirmation(2006).........................................................................Raedke Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Report (2006)................................................................................ Earth Consultants, Inc. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B Transportation Impact Study (2006)Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Noise Evaluation(2006)............................................................................Optimum Environment, Inc. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Approval of new Zero lot line townhouse and roadway development standards. 10. List any government approvals or permits that would be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPADetermination........................................................................................City of Federal Way Master Plan Approval.....................................................................................City of Federal Way PreliminaryPlat......................................................................................................City of Federal Way GradingPermit .............. ..................... ..................... ..... .... ........ __ of Federal Way Utility Permits...........................................................................................Lakehaven Utility District Binding Site Plan Approval......................................................................City of Federal Way Building Permits ............. ............. _....................__... ........................... _City of Federal Way 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The Federal Way Village Master Plan development would consist of up to 300,890 square feet of building area (156,290 square feet of commercial space, 60,000 square feet of general office space, 70,500 square feet of multi -family residential and 14,100 square feet of restaurant pads). The Federal Way Village Commercial Center is proposing to provide 1,086 parking stalls. The proposed residential portion of the site would consist of 87 townhouse units with public improvements, including water lines with a potential size greater than 8 inches, on the southwest comer of the SR 99 at S 33e Street intersection in Federal Way, WA 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist The Federal Way Village property is approximately 46 acres located within portions of Section 20, Township 21 North Range 4 East W.M. Specifically, the property is located in the City of Federal Way, in the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of South Pacific Highway South (SR 99) and 3W' Street corresponding to King County tax parcels #202104-9001, 202104-9004, 202104-9069, 202104-9070, 202104-9072, 2021049080, 202104-9086, and 202104-9090. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The property gently slopes to the southwest between 0-15% percent c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mucky? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapped the subject property as containing Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams 6-15% slopes and Norma sandy loam. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None have been observed. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading would occur for the construction of roads, utilities, and commercial building pads and parking lots. Cut and fill quantities would be (approx. 6,061 c.y. of cut and 18,357 c.y. of fill). 33,131 cy. of stripping would be removed from the site. Gravel would be imported from an approved off -site source as required for road base and trench backfill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Areas disturbed during construction would be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas and covering them with straw, in addition to using silt fences and straw bales. Disturbed areas would be vegetated at the end of construction. The vegetation would be maintained until established and, where existing vegetation is not disturbed, the erosion potential would not be affected. Erosion control would be in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater Management Manual. g. About what percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No maximum impervious surface coverage is established for either zero -lot line townhouse or commercial uses. The impervious surface area will be determined by other site development requirements such as sensitive area buffer and setbacks, as well as parking requirements. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion control BMP's would include leaving as much existing vegetation as practical around the site. Temporary cover and/or surface roughening to exposed areas (mulching, plastic, etc.) would be provided. Measures to limit the level of sediment leaving the site could include rock construction entrances, silt fences and temporary interceptor swales. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short-term emissions to air from construction could occur. Suspended particles would be generated by dust emissions from construction activities and vehicle emissions from automobiles and construction equipment Dust could occur during grading/construction operations. These impacts should be minimal. Long-term emissions to air would be typical of current conditions and are not anticipated to have an impact to the area. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are no off -site emissions or odors that affect the site. The vicinity is primarily vacant and agricultural in nature. As a result pollutants are mainly particulates (from wood stoves, fire places, outdoor burning, roads) and ozone and carbon monoxide from vehicle traffic. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Air quality within and around the City of Federal Way is in compliance with State and federal particulate air quality standards. Construction related impacts would be reduced by compliance with the Washington Clean Air Act, which requires the use of all known, available and reasonable means of controlling air pollution, including dust Construction impacts would not be significant and could be controlled by measures such as washing truck wheels before exiting the site and maintaining gravel construction entrances. In addition, dirt driving surfaces would be watered during extended dry periods to control dust There are no long-term impacts to air anticipated. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The site has two primary wetlands and a stream which flows one of the wetlands. Wetland 1 is a Class 2 wetland located along the western boundary which outlets to Tributary 0014A of West Hylebos Creek and is approximately 2 acres in size. Wetland No. 2 is a Class I wetland running north/south through the property which incorporates West Hylebos Tributary 0014A Wetland No. 2 is approximately 2.5 acres in size. Each of these wetlands have a 100' buffer. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B The buffer for Wetland No. 2 was defined by a settlement agreement during the development of the regional storm detention facility. Just to the south is a regional storm detention facility to which Wetland 2 and stream tributary 0014A drain. Also, two small isolated wetlands, Wetlands 3 and 4 exist approximately 200-300 feet east of Wetland No. 2. These wetlands were planned to be filled during construction in accordance with the Settlement Agreement between the property owners and the City of Federal Way. Wetland mitigation has already been created as described in the agreement 2) Would the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Elements of the site plan are proposed within 200 feet including road, water quality facilities, parking, and housing improvements. Buffer intrusions will result from the outfall and conveyance pipes for water quality facilities discharging within the Wetland No. 2 buffer. (See Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report prepared by JS Jones and Associates, Inc. for more detail). 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Development of the Federal Way Village property would result in direct impacts from the permanent filling of Wetlands 3 and 4. By filling these small, lower -value wetlands, direct impacts to other wetlands with higher habitat values on the site are avoided. A total of 0.30 acres of wetlands would be filled, all of which would occur to isolated closed -depression wetlands. The filling of these wetlands is allowed under provisions of the Settlement Agreement; and the approved mitigation for construction of the S. 33e regional stormwater facility. This included the construction of 0.90 acres of palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetland within the mitigation area located south of the on -site earthen dam located at the south end of Wetland 2 to compensate for the future filling of Wetlands 3 and 4. 4) Would the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None proposed at this time. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, the proposal does no lie within a 100-year floodplain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. None proposed at this time. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B b. Ground: 1) Would ground water be withdrawn, or would water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No ground water would be withdrawn as a result of this project 2) Describe waste material that would be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste materials would be discharged into the ground as a result of this project c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where would this water flow? Would this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. All basins within the project area eventually drain to Hylebos Creek and are required to provide water quality treatment in accordance with the Resource Stream Protection menu of the KDSWDM. Roof drains from Townhomes are considered to be non -pollution generating surfaces. Townhomes located immediately adjacent to Wetland 2 are proposed to discharge directly to the edge of the buffer utilizing an approved dispersion system. Storm drainage from roads and commercial rooftops would be directed to catch basins and underground pipes, to underground water quality facilities, and then conveyed to the off -site Regional storm water facility. Water release rates from the regional facility would be at pre -development rates. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. All development introduces a potential increase in pollutants from storm water runoff due to building sites, roads, fertilization and other development oriented activities. Oils, grease and other pollutants from the additional paved areas could potentially enter the ground or downstream surface waters through surface water runoff. The proposed plans for storm water and runoff control are expected to minimize or eliminate entry of waste materials or pollutants to ground water and surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. All new development would satisfy the requirements of City of Federal Way and Washington State Department of Ecology. Temporary and permanent drainage facilities would provide protection of water quality of surface runoff during construction and after development Storm water would be detained, and then released at pre -development rates, maintaining the natural hydrology of the site. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple • aspen, other: X evergreen tree: fir,cedar, pine, other: X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other. Western crabJople trees and saplings, hardhack s irea and Pacific willow water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: __________ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation would be removed or altered? Most vegetation on the developed portions of the site would be removed. The site is currently dominated by Douglas -fir trees with a subdominant component of red alder trees and a dense understory of salal growing on well -drained very gravelly sandy loam. c. List threatened or endangered species (mown to be on or near the site, if any: No threatened or endangered plant species is known to be on or near the site at this time. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The project will provide required landscaping associated with all of the development areas which will improve the aesthetics of the development and provide shade in parking, plaza and streetscape areas for patrons and an overall reduction in a potential heat island effect In addition, buffer intrusions to the wetland areas will be mitigated with buffer enhancement plantings using native plant materials appropriate to a wetland ecosystem. (See Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by JS Jones and Associates, Inc. for more detail). 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk rc� eery_hero, eagle, sangirds, other: mallard ducks mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small rodents fish: bass, salmon, trout herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species (mown to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered animal species are known to be on or near the site. Although, the green heron has been observed on the site and is listed as a State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife monitor species. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. City of Federal Way, as well as the rest of western Washington, is in the migration path of a wide variety of neo-tropical songbirds, waterfowl and other species of birds. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The preservation of wetland areas and buffers along with the enhancement of wetland buffers as a result of wetland averaging, with the planting of native plant materials will preserve and improve sensitive area habitat on -site for wildlife. In addition, the wetland corridor that bisects the site allows wildlife to move from north to south through the site. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) would be used to meet the completed projects energy needs? Describe whether it would be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas would be the primary energy source for commercial and residential heating and cooking. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The project would not affect the use of solar energy. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List of other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The requirements of the Washington State Energy Code and the Uniform Building Code would be satisfied in the construction of buildings. Energy conserving materials are encouraged in all new construction. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. The project does not include nor is it expected to generate any environmental health hazards. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services would be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: There are no known health hazards that would be associated with development of this site, therefore, no measures for the reduction or control of environmental health hazards are proposed. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other'? The primary source of noise is generated external to the site and is created by vehicle traffic (exempt) - primarily on Pacific Hwy S and S. 33e Street Other sources of external noise include jet, helicopter and plane flyovers (exempt). The site is located under the flight pattern for Seattle. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term impacts would result from the use of construction equipment during site development Construction would occur primarily during the daylight hours, and in compliance with all applicable codes. Heavy equipment hand tools, and the transporting of construction equipment generate construction noise. At 200 feet from the construction, Leq would be approximately the following: Activi Le in decibels Clearing 71-72 Excavation 59-77 Foundations 65 Building Erection 60-72 Finishing 62-77 Long-term impacts would be those associated with the increase in site users. Additional traffic would be generated by future uses. The increase in noise would be typical of a commercial development of this size and would be considered minimal. Sound levels for various noise sources include: Sound Level at Noise Sources 100 feet (dBA) Automobile Starting 50-55 Closing Car Door 50-55 Loud Voices 50 Automobile/Truck Traffic 50 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activities would be performed during normal daytime working hours, and would comply with noise regulations contained in City of Federal Way Code. The proposed use is expected to generate typical commercial noise levels. (For a more detailed discussion of Noise impacts please see Noise Evaluation prepared by Optimum Environment). 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of the land is undeveloped forest land. Some improvements at the south end of the site relate to the regional storm water facility developed south of the property by the City of Federal Way approximately ten years ago. To the west and north are light Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B industrial, retail, and senior residential housing uses. To the east is a proposed church project small scale commercial and Pacific Highway South. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. A portion of the site was used as a poultry farm in the past c. Describe any structures on the site. No structures exist on the project site, but some rural building foundations of the old poultry farm can be found on the northern end of the site. d. Would any structures be demolished? If so, what? No structures exist on the project site. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is zoned split zoned RM 2400 and Community Business (BC). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The site has a split Comprehensive Plan designation of Multi -family and Community Business (BC). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The site does not currently have a shoreline master program designation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, see response to 3 - WATER above. 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 87 housing units are proposed in the "zero -lot line" Townhouse portion of the site, and up to 55 multi -family units are proposed for the commercial portion of the Federal Way Village project Assuming three (3) people per unit, the number of people residing at the site will be 426. The commercial area is proposed to include 230,390 square feet of nonresidential building area. Assuming there will an employee for every 250 square feet of space, the number of employees working at the site will be approximately 922 people. Approximately 1087 people may reside or work in the commercial portion of the Federal Way Village project j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None IL Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The Federal Way Village Master Plan proposal will comply with the screening, landscaping, parking, and design goals and requirements of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? There will be 87 new "zero -lot line" Townhouse units proposed on the site, and up to approximately 55 new multi -family units proposed in the commercial portion of the site. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The maximum height permitted within RM-2400 and Community Business (BC) zones is 35 feet Building exteriors within the Master Plan site would be principally of wood and masonry. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No view would be altered or obstructed as a result of this proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Commercial specific Architectural Design Guidelines are proposed to control aesthetic impacts (See A Development Plan prepared by Donahou Design Group for more detail). 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare would the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Exterior and interior commercial lighting during evening hours, as well as vehicle headlights, would produce light and glare. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light from the finished project would not cause hazards. Exterior lighting would be typical of a commercial development Environmental Checklist — Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The primary off -site source of light would be from vehicles traveling along roads in the vicinity. Some nighttime glare form area lighting may be generated from cars traveling on SR 99 from vehicle head lights. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Planting of landscaping in the parking lot areas and along the street frontages to buffer the parking areas. Also, installation of fencing and landscaping along the west property line adjacent to the Frito Lay distribution facility will be provided to minimize nighttime glare from the area lighting. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Several large public parks are also located in the vicinity and include Klahanee Lake Community Center, Celebration Park, BPA Trail, Panther Lake Open Space, and West Hylebos Park b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The proposal would not displace any existing recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No adverse impacts on recreation will be caused by this project As mitigation, the development will include the installation of some passive trails in the wetland buffers. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers (mown to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None are known to exist at this time. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site? None in the vicinity. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: It is unlikely that significant archaeological or historic evidence or artifacts remain on the site. However, in the event that such evidence is found during site development', construction would cease in that area and the items would be inventoried by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with State regulations. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B �1 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Vehicular site access will be provided via the construction of new internal roadways, including extension of 13�' Place S, with additional access onto S 336 ' Street and a restricted access driveway (i.e., right -in -right -out) onto Pacific Highway South (SR 99). The south site driveway onto SR 99 would connect as the west leg of the existing SR 99 1 e Avenue/SR 161 intersection, which is controlled by a traffic signal, providing full access into and out of the project site at this location. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Pierce Transit and King County -Metro provide public transportation services in the vicinity of the project site. A transit stop is provided on the south side of SR 99 at its intersection with S 336 Street Pierce Transit Routes 402 and 500 and King County -Metro Routes 174 and 197 stop at this location. A King County -Metro stop is located on S 3361h Street, west of its intersection with 13"' Place S for Route 194. Both transit stops are located on the proposed property frontage and/or across the street from the proposed development c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The zero -lot line portion of the site will provide 2 parking spaces per unit; and the commercial portion will provide 1,086 new parking stalls. A Total of 1,260 parking stalls will be provided on the Federal Way Village Master Plan site. d. Would the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). As conditioned by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendment (Ord. 05-490), development of the site will include design, construction, and dedication of the following public roadways in accordance with appropriate street sections: a. Thirteenth (1 e) Place South from South 336 ' Street to the site's south Property line; b. South 340t' Street from Pacific Highway South to the intersection of 131h Place South extended; c. A roadway connecting from South 336"' Street through the residential area, connecting to 13"' Place South extended" e. Would the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No, this site is not within the immediate vicinity of water, rail, or air transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. On weekdays, a total of 5,700 daily, 250 a.m. peak hour (151 entering and 99 existing), and 522 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (237 entering and 285 exiting), would be generated at full build -out of the Federal Way Village site. A total of 6,780 daily and 669 (344 entering and 325 exiting) peak hour vehicular trips would occur on Saturdays. (See Transportation Impact Study prepared by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC for additional information). Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Site Access Sgt@b& and Circulation Issues Vehicular site access will be provided via the construction of new internal roadways, including extension of 13"' Place S, with additional access onto S 336t' Street and a restricted access driveway (i.e., right -in -right -out) onto Pacific Highway South (SR 99). The south site driveway onto SR 99 would connect as the west leg of the existing SR 99 10h Avenue/SR 161 intersection, which is controlled by a traffic signal, providing full access into and out of the project site at this location. The applicant would construct and fully fund all half -street improvements on the north side of the street connecting to this approach. The applicant would construct and fully fund all half street improvements on the north side of the street connecting to this approach. The internal roadways within the project site would provide adequate one-way and two-way fire and emergency vehicle access via driveways onto S 33EP Street and SR 99. Additionally, the applicant would be required to fully fund and construct the necessary site driveways and associated frontage improvements onto SR 99 and S 336"' Street (For a more detailed analysis of traffic related issues and mitigation measures to control transportation related impacts from the proposal refer to the Transportation Impact Study prepared by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC). 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: The project would result in an increased need for public services (fire, police, schools, etc.) typical of residential and commercial developments of this nature. Federal Way School District serves the area. Federal Way Fire District provides fire services. The property lies within the jurisdiction of the City of Federal Way Police Department, and King County Fire District 39. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. In addition to payment of yearly property and B&O taxes by each business and property owner in the development, direct impacts from the proposal would be mitigated in accordance with all adopted City regulations. Development Impact fees would be paid to the City of Federal Way in accordance with City requirements. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricnatural gas, water, refuse service. telephone sanitary sewer, septic system, other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity......................................................................................................................................................... PSE Gas....................................................................................................................................................................... PSE Water...........................................................................................................Lakehaven Utility District Telephone......... .................. ..._.._............. -..................... ............ ................ ........................... _Qwest Sewer.........................................................................................................Lakehaven Utility District RefuseRemoval.......................................................................................Waste Management Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B Utility extensions would be the responsibility of the developer. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agencynrelingn them to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B Appendix A Legal Description Parcel # 202104-9001 N % OF S 1/2 NE '/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS STATE RD LESS S 108.68 FT OF E 263 FT. Parcel # 202104-9004 N1/,OFN1/2OFN%zOFNE'/4LYWOFSTATE HWAY. Parcel # 202104-9069 N 265.6 FT OF E 262.4 FT OF NE '/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS CO RD LESS ST HWY-PER KCLLA #8810007 REC #8812200807 - LESS POR FOR RD AS PER REC #19990819001819. Parcel # 202104-9070 LOT 2 LESS POR FOR ST AS PER REC#20020926001701 OF FEDERAL WAY LLA #00-105818-000-00-SU REC #2001082900007 SD LLA BEING LOCATED IN POR OF N 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SEC 20-21- 4. Parcel # 202104-9072 S 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS BEG ON WLY MGN OF SEATTLE- TACOMA HWAY AT A PT 30 FT NELY OF S LN OF SD 1/4 TH W 200FT TH N 00-10-12 E TO N LN OF SD S1 /4 TH E TO HWAY TH SWLY ALG SD HWAY TO BEG ALSO LESS POR TAKEN FOR HWAY. Parcel # 2021049080 BEG ON WLY MGN OF SEATTLE-TACOMA HWAY AT A PT 30 FT NELY OF S LN OF S 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 TH W 200 FT TH N 00- 1 E-12 E TO N LN OF SD S 1/4 TH E TO HWAY TH SWLY ALG SD HWAY TO BEG LESS E 100 FT OF N 25 FT LESS POR FOR HIWAY. Parcel # 202104-9086 PCL A OF FEDERAL WAY LLA #BLA 99-0007 REC #20000126900005 SD LLA BEING LOCATED IN E %2 OF S '/2 OF NE 1/4 IF BE 1/4 OF SEC 20-21-4. Parcel # 202104-9090 PCL B OF FEDERAL WAY LIA #BLA 99-0007 REC #20000126900005 SD LLA BEING LOCATED IN E % OF NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SEC 20-21-4. Environmental Checklist - Federal Way Village Master Plan ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Appendix B BILE Report To: Leonard Schaadt Campus Gateway Associates 1026 Bellevue Way S.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Title: Wetland Assessment of the Kitts Comer Property, Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 2003-020-003 Prepared By: R.AEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Seattle, Washington 98115 (206) 525-8122 Date: 5711 Northeost 63rd St. September 7, 2004 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC Seattle, WA 98115 RECEIVED OCT 2 6 ?.006 CITY of: Fell �RAf� svAI.n N �E'TWAY (206) 525-8122 Principals: Project Manager: Project Personnel: 5711 Nc, theast 63rd St. Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA Emmett Pritchard, B.S. Wetland Ecologist Dawn Garcia, B.S. Wildlife Biologist Lisa Danielsld, B.A. Wetland Biologist/Botanist Claude McKenzie, B.S.L.A Landscape Architect Gail W. Livingstone, B.S.L.A. Natural Resource Planner RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 525-8122 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LISTOF FIGURES.............................................................................................................v LISTOF TABLES......................................................... ............................................. ....... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 1.1 Statement of Purpose................................................................ .........................1 1.2 Project Site Information Sources.......................................................................:...1 1.3 Project Area............................................................................................................1 1.4 Project Description....................................................................... _........................2 1.5 Settlement Agreement.........:.................................................................................2 2.0 METHODS...................................................................................................................4 2.1 Definitions and Methodologies...............................................................................4 2.2 Background Research......................................................................... . ...........5 2.3 Field Sampling Procedures....................................................................................6 2.4 Hydrologic Analysis.............................................................................---.--...........7 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................8 3.1 Results of Background Investigation.....................................................................8 3.2 General Property Description..............................................................................10 3.3 Wetland Descriptions...................................................................10 3.4 Wildlife Inventory and Assessment.........-----------------.-----•....................................15 3.5 Wetland Functional Assessment..........................................................................18 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................21 4.1 Federal Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)................................21 4.2 City of Federal Way .............................• ............... ......---.....................................21 5.0 IMPACTS..........................................•---....--•---.......----.......------ .............................24 -5.1 Project Description..............................................................................................24 5.2 Direct Impacts.....................................................................................................24 5.3 Indirect Impacts...................................................................................................25 6.0 MITIGATION..............................................................................................................31 6.1 Summary of Required and Proposed Mitigation.................................................31 6.2 Compensatory Mitigation...................................................................................32 6.3 Mitigation for Proposed Wetland Buffer Impacts...............................................34 7.0 LIMITATIONS...................................................................--.----.................................38 TABLE OF CONTENT'S (continued) Page 8.0 LITER.ATUR.E CITED...............................................................................................39 FIGURESAND TABLES.................................................................................................46 APPENDIXA: Methodology........................................................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B: FIELD SURVEY DATA ...... ................................................................. B-1 APPENDIX C: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE ......... .......... .................................... C-1 lv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional map of the project area..........................................................................47 2. Vicinity map of the project area............................................................................48 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory map.........................49 4. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey map..........................................50 5. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices - BaseMap...............................................................................................................51 6. City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory................................................................52 7. City of Federal Way Stream Inventory ..................................................................53 8. Existing Conditions...- ...........................................................................................54 9. Site Development Plan Impacts.............................................................................55 10. Conceptual Mitigation Plan....................................................................:..............56 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. List of aerial photographs used in the study.........................................................57 Key to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory map ......58 3. Key to Washington State Department of Natural Resources water types ............59 4 Functional Assessment Results ............ :................................................................. 61 5. Peak flow analysis for Wetland 1..........................................................................62 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE This report documents the results of our analysis of probable impacts to wetland communities of the Kitts Comer properties, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts identified for the project. This report also documents our verification of information regarding the existing conditions of the on -site wetlands and streams as described by Sheldon & Associates (1092, 1995, 1998, 2001). 1.2 PROJECT SITE INFORMATION SOURCES This report draws from information gathered and analyzed during previous studies of the site, as contained in the following inventory and technical assessment documents: • Wetland Delineation Schaadt Property (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1992); • Kitts Corner Area Wetlands Assessment (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1995); • Schaadt Wetland Delineation Report (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1998); • Fax re: Regulated water Features — NE Quarter of Section 20-21-04 (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 2001); • Technical Memorandum 3-1: Regional Drainage Analysis T asks 3.1 and 3.2 Technical Memorandum — Wetland/Stream Impact Analysis and Mitigation Concepts (CH2M Hill 1994); • Easement for Wetlands Streams and Buffers for 336`h Street/Kitts Corner Project (City of Federal Way 1996); • Settlement Agreement and Covenant between Campus Gateway Associates, Merlinos, Chase/Mcleod; and the City of Federal Way (City of Federal Way 1996); • Kitts Corner Site Plan (Otak, Inc. 2004a); ■ Kitts Corner Development Agreement Preliminary Technical Information Report (Otak, Inc. 2004b); Additional• project information not included in these reports is based on verbal discussionswith Mr. Jamie Schroeder and Mr. Bob Schottman of Otak, Inc. 1.3 PROJECT AREA The project site, approximately 46 acres in size, is located in the City of Federal Way, Washington (Figure 1). Specifically, the site is located southwest of the intersection of Pacific Highway S. (SR 99) and S. 336`h Street (Figure 2), within the northwest quarter of Section 20, Township 21, Range 4 East W.M. Property boundaries, topography, wetland Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 1004 2 and stream boundaries for the project area were determined from maps received by our office from Otak, Inc. on August 13, 18, and 26, 2004. 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Kitts Corner project plan proposes to develop a mixture of commercial and multi- family residential uses on the approximately 46-acre undeveloped site. The eastern portion of the site would be developed as a commercial town center with up to 179,000 square feet of retail, commercial or office uses. The western portion of the site would include 160 owner -occupied townhomes. Access to the development would be provided at two locations from South 336th Street and at two other locations from Pacific Highway South. The development would include public street improvements on the interior of the project to provide access to the development parcels. 1.5 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT A Settlement Agreement (SA), effective May 1996, between the City of Federal Way and Campus Gateway Associates and other landowners allowed the City to construct of a regional storage facility and conveyance improvements within a portion of the Kitts Comer project site (Otak, Inc. 2004b). In order to construct the regional storage facility, extensive analysis of wetlands and streams within the Kitts Comer project site was conducted by the City's consultants (CH2M Hill and Sheldon & Associates, Inc.). Four wetlands (Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 4) and a tributary stream (0014A) for West Hylebos Creek had been originally identified in 1992 within the Kitts Comer project site during previous studies of the property using the now outdated 1989 Interagency Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1992, Figure 8). The boundaries of these wetlands and streams were later verified using the current 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) for purposes of determining the extent of wetland impacts that would occur as a result of developing the S. 336`h Regional Storage Facility (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1995, CH2M Hill 1994). At the time of the 1995 wetland boundary verification, the boundaries of Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 4 were considered accurate as delineated in 1992 (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1995). Permanent direct impacts to these wetlands were not anticipated because of the construction of the regional storage facility. However, indirect hydrologic impacts to Wetland 2 were anticipated because of the construction of an earthen dam at the south end of Wetland 2 for detention of high flows within the wetland and to provide an access road for maintenance of flood control structures (CH2M Hill 1994). Changes to the hydroperiod within Wetland 2 were to be minimized through the use of outlet structures designed to allow greater stormwater discharges from the wetland during high flow Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 3 events, thereby reducing or minimizing increases in duration of inundation resulting from such events. Because of these design features, anticipated changes to the hydroperiod within Wetland 2 were determined to not likely have an effect on existing forested and emergent vegetation communities within the wetland (CH2M Hill 1994). As part of the SA, the City of Federal Way (1996a, 1996b) agreed to regulate Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 according to wetland regulations in effect at the time of the 1996 SA approval. In addition, the City established the boundaries and buffers of these wetlands for purposes of site planning. The SA did not include the western portion of the project site, and thus did not provide regulatory assurances for Wetland 1 located in that area. The SA also allowed for the future filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 by Kitts Comer property owners, independent from the construction of the regional storage facility. The SA stipulated that the City of Federal Way would provide mitigation for the future filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 at the time that mitigation for impacts from construction of the regional storage facility was implemented by the City (City of Federal Way 1996a, 1996b). Mitigation for direct and indirect impacts resulting from the construction of the regional storage facilities as well as for the future filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 was implemented through the creation of 1.23 acres of forested wetland south of the earthen dam at the south end of Wetland 2. Of this total, 0.90 acres was constructed to compensate for 0.30 acres of wetland impacts resulting from the future filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 (CH2M Hill 1994). Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 El 2.0 METHODS 2.1 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGIES As described above, the SA established the boundaries for Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 for regulatory purposes by the City of Federal Way. However, Wetland 1 was not included in the SA. Thus, the City of Federal Way (2004) has requested that the accuracy of the boundaries of Wetland 1 be re-examined for purposes of the current development application. Wetlands and streams are protected by federal law as well as by state and local regulations. Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) generally prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States", including certain wetlands, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE 2002). The COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of a wetland, and whether the wetland is under their jurisdiction. The COE wetland definition was used to determine if any portions of the boundary for Wetland 1 as previously delineated and described by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992, 1995, 1998) should be adjusted based on current site conditions. A wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986:41251). For purposes of determining the current extent of Wetland 1 • that would be regulated by the City of Federal Way, we based our investigation upon the guidelines of the COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as revised in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual published by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 1997). The WDOE wetlands manual is required by state law for all local jurisdictions (including the City of Federal Way), is consistent with the 1987 COE wetland delineation manual with respect to wetland identification and delineation, and incorporates subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1994). Generally, as outlined in the 1987 and 1997 wetland delineation manuals, wetlands are distinguished by three diagnostic characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation (wetland plants), hydric soil (wetland soil), and wetland hydrology. Definitions for these terms are provided below. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as "macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) ratings were used to make this determination Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 5 (Reed 1988, 1993). The WIS ratings "reflect the range of estimated probabilities (expressed as a frequency of occurrence) of a species occurring in wetland versus non - wetland across the entire distribution of the species" (Reed 1988:8). Plants are rated, from highest to lowest probability of occurrence in wetlands, as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), and upland (UPL), respectively. In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when the majority of the dominant species are rated OBL, FACW, and FAC. Further discussion of the analysis is in Appendix A. A hydric soil is defined as "a soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part" (Federal Register 1994: 35681). The morphological characteristics of the soils in the study area were examined to determine whether any could be classified as hydric. A discussion of the morphological characteristics used to identify hydric soil is presented in Appendix A. In general, according to the 1987 methodology, wetland hydrology could be present if the soils were saturated (sufficient to produce anaerobic conditions) within the majority of the rooting zone (usually the upper 12 inches) for at least five percent of the growing season, which in this area is usually at least two weeks (COE 1992a). It should be noted, however, that areas having saturation to the surface between five and 12 percent of the growing season may or may not be wetland (COE 1992b; see also Table A.4, Appendix A). Depending on soil type and drainage characteristics, saturation to the surface would occur if water tables were shallower than about 12 inches below the soil surface during this time period. Positive indicators of wetland hydrology include direct observation of inundation or soil saturation, as well as indirect evidence such as driftlines, watermarks, surface encrustations, and drainage patterns (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Hydrology was further investigated by noting drainage patterns and surface water connections between wetlands and streams within and adjacent to the project area. The hydrologic characteristics that constitute wetland hydrology are discussed in Appendix A. 2.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH We collected and analyzed background information available for the site before the on - site investigation. We collected maps and information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1987) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey (Snyder et al. 1973), and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR 2004) Forest Practice Base Map, and local wetland and stream inventories. We also reviewed aerial photographs (Table 1) to assist in the definition of existing plant communities, drainage patterns, and land use. Kilts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 n In addition, we requested that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) conduct a search of their Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database to determine if federal and state listed Priority Species occurred within the vicinity of the project area. We also requested the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to conduct a search of its Natural Heritage Information System for documented occurrence of priority plant species and high quality ecosystems in the project area and vicinity (See Agency Correspondence). 2.3 FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff investigated the Kitts Corner site on August 20, 2003 and August 5, 2004. During the field investigations, we used information from the previously conducted Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992, 1995, 1998, 2001) wetland investigations of the project area to assist us in our investigation. Information regarding current vegetation communities was collected for Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 in order to document existing vegetative conditions within these wetlands. The accuracy of the boundaries of these wetlands was not verified because they had been established by the City of Federal Way under the SA. Memorialization of the boundary of Wetland 1 was not part of the SA. Because the most recently documented delineation of Wetland 1 was greater than 5 years old (Sheldon & Associates delineated the wetland in 1992 and verified the delineation in 1995 and 1998), we examined the boundary of Wetland 1 in order to determine whether the previously delineated boundary accurately reflected current site conditions. Where appropriate, we adjusted the wetland boundary based on site conditions observed during our August 5, 2004 site visit. For Wetland 1, we inventoried, classified, and described representative areas of plant communities, soil profiles, and hydrologic conditions in both uplands and wetlands. We searched specifically for areas with positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. For each of the on -site wetlands, we used the Braun- Blanquet cover -abundance scale and a plotless sampling methodology to describe homogenous plant "cover types" in both wetlands and uplands (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). A detailed description of vegetation sampling and analysis is found in Appendix A. Vegetation nomenclature follows Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976; Appendix B, Table B.1), as updated by Cooke (1997), Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), and Hickman (1993). Within Wetland 1 and the adjacent uplands, we excavated soil pits to at least 18 inches below the soil surface where possible in order to describe the soil profile and hydrologic conditions in both wetland and upland areas. We sampled soil at locations that corresponded with vegetation sampling areas. During the course of investigating the on - site wetlands, we frequently used soil probes to sample soil and note hydrologic conditions to a depth of 20 inches or more at points chosen to help define the wetland Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 boundaries. Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell Color 2000). Boundaries for Wetland 1 as delineated by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992) were re- established by Otak, Inc. in July 2004. We examined the wetland boundary and adjusted it based on the presence of hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, and indicators of wetland hydrology at the time of our August 5, 2004 site visit. Topographic changes within the context of the landscape were used to aid in the placement of the wetland boundaries. We placed pink and black diagonally -striped plastic flagging to represent the extent of any adjustments to the Wetland 1 boundary. The adjusted boundary of Wetland 1 was then surveyed by Otak, Inc. and depicted on maps received in our office on August 18, 2004. At the time of our 2003 and 2004 site visits, we also collected information regarding wildlife usage of the project area with particular emphasis on the wetland and. wetland buffer areas. During our field reconnaissance, animal sign was noted while describing plant communities and habitats. Information regarding reproduction, habitat use, and activities of wildlife species observed was also recorded. We looked for nests, although these may have been obscured at the time of our summer site visits due to the fully leafed -out condition of deciduous trees and shrubs. We also gathered information regarding concentrations of animals and special habitat features such as stands of large trees, snags (standing dead or partially dead trees), or large downed logs within the wetlands or wetland buffers. 2.4 HYDROLOGIc ANALYsis In an effort to determine if the proposed development would have a negative impact on existing hydrologic regimes within Wetlands 1 and 2, we reviewed the results of downstream and hydrologic analysis conducted by Otak, Inc. (2004b) to evaluate wetland and stream hydrology under existing and post -development conditions. In addition, we reviewed a wetland/stream impact analysis also prepared by CH2M Hill (1994). Detailed descriptions of the evaluation methods used are contained in Kitts Corner Preliminary Technical Information Report (Otak, Inc. 2004b), and in Technical Memorandum 3-1: Regional Drainage Analysis Tasks 3.1 and 3.2 Technical Memorandum — WetlandlStream Impact Analysis and Mitigation Concepts (CH2M Hill 1994). Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 RESULTS OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 3.1.1 National Wetland Inventory We examined the USFWS (1987) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, Poverty Bay quadrangle, to identify previously inventoried wetlands within or near the project area. Wetlands shown on the NWI are general in terms of location and extent, as they are determined primarily from aerial photographs. Thus, the number and areal extent of existing wetlands located within the project area may differ from those marked on an NWI map. Figure 3 depicts the NWI inventoried wetlands within the project area. See Table 2 for a key to the classification symbols of NWI wetlands identified within the project area. The USFWS (1987) NWI depicts several wetlands located in or within the vicinity of the project site. A palustrine, emergent, semipermanently flooded (PENIF) wetland is depicted in the north -central portion of the site. A multiple vegetation -class wetland that includes a palustrine, aquatic bed, permanently flooded (PABH) wetland subclass surrounded by a palustrine, scrub -shrub, and seasonally flooded wetland (PSSC) subclass is depicted in the northwest portion of the project site. Two additional PABH wetlands are shown in the central portion of the site. 3.1.2 Soil Survey Maps The soils of the project area were mapped, at a scale of 1:24,000, by the SCS (Snyder et al. 1973; Figure 4). Soil series boundaries or mapping units are mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 from aerial photographs with limited field verification. Thus, the location and extent of the boundaries between mapping units may be approximate for a given parcel of land within the survey area. In addition, mapping units described by the SCS may encompass smaller inclusions that were not shown as separate units on the survey maps. For example, non-hydric soil units may contain areas of poorly drained to very poorly drained hydric soil, which could be classified as wetland. Conversely, there may be- areas of well -drained or moderately well -drained soils within mapping units designated as hydric. According to the soil survey, two soil mapping units are present within or near the project site. A majority of the site is comprised of Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams, 6 to 15 percent slopes (Map Symbol EwC). Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams are moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained soils that may have hydric soil inclusions (Snyder et al. 1979). A narrow band of poorly -drained Norma sandy loam (Map Symbol No) is depicted running north to south through the central portion of the site. Norma sandy loam is listed as a hydric soil by the SCS (1991, Federal Register 1994). Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 0 3.1.3 WDNR Forest Practice Base Maps The Forest Practice Base Map for the study area provided by the WDNR (2004a) depicts a Type 9 stream, "stream type unknown," originating from a wetland feature in the northwest portion of the site (Figure 5, see Table 3 for water type definitions). The Type 9 stream is shown flowing to the south, and terminating off -site to the south. 3.1.4 City of Federal Way Wetland and Stream Inventories The City of Federal Way (2003a) Wetland Inventory identifies three wetlands within the Kitts Corner project site (Figure 6). Wetland 20-21-4-59 is depicted in the northwest portion of the site: The City of Federal Way (1998) Wetland Inventory Sheet describes Wetland 20-21-4-59 as an approximately 2.3-acre, Category H wetland comprised of palustrine, scrub -shrub, palustrine emergent, and palustrine aquatic bed wetland classes. Wetland 20-21-4-82 runs from north to'south through the center of the Kitts Comer property. The City of Federal Way (1998) Wetland Inventory Sheet describes this wetland as an approximately 3.8-acre, Category II wetland comprised of a palustrine, forested vegetation. Wetland 20-21-04-84 is south of Wetland 20-21-4-82, and continues off -site to the south. It is characterized by the City of Federal Way (1998) as a Category II created wetland that is approximately 1.8 acres in size, and is primarily comprised of palustrine, scrub -shrub vegetation. The City of Federal Way (1998) Wetland Inventory Field Sheets describe Wetland 20-21-4-82 as encompassing a portion of "West Hylebos Creek." The City of Federal Way (2002) Stream Inventory (Figure 7) depicts tributary 0014A-1 flowing from north to south through the central portion of the project site in the vicinity of Wetland 20-21-4-82 and Wetland 20-21-4-84, as depicted on the City of Federal Way (2003) inventory. The City of Federal Way (2002) Stream Inventory also shows a short, un-named stream segment that flows into tributary 0014A-1 from the east -central portion of the project site. The Stream Inventory Map has listed tributary 0014A-1 as a "major stream" as regulated under the City of Federal Way (2003b) code. 3.1.5 WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Database The WDFW (2004a) Priority Habitats and Species map and datasheets for the project area depicts wetlands on the Kitts Corner property in similar locations to those shown in other resource inventories discussed above. These wetlands are described as consisting of mostly forested and scrub -shrub communities in the Hylebos Creek drainage, which has been heavily impacted by filling. Numerous smaller wetlands are depicted off -site to the northeast, north, west and southwest of the project site. Hylebos Creek and the large, associated wetland system are shown to be located off -site to the southwest of the Kitts Corner project site. The WDFW (2004a) PHS map for the Kitts Corner property does not depict any Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive or Candidate wildlife species within the project area. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 10 The nearest wildlife heritage points are located greater than one mile east of the site. These include an individual observation of an adult common loon, a State Sensitive species, resting and feeding in Lake Geneva and the presence of a bald eagle nest located northwest of Lake Geneva. Bald eagles are State and federally listed threatened species (1999, 2004b) and are discussed in Section 3.4. 3.1.6 WDNR Natural Heritage Information System The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR 2004b) Washington Natural Heritage program documents a low -elevation freshwater wetland with forested, emergent and scrub -shrub communities and a low -elevation sphagnum bog in the south one-half of Section 20, south of the project area (see Appendix D for agency correspondence). The location and description correspond to the Hylebos Creek and associated wetland system, south of the project area, as depicted on the PHS map noted above (WDFW 2004a). Canadian St. -John's Wort, a State sensitive species, is documented more than one mile east of the site. A footnote explains that this species is native to eastern Washington and may have been introduced to western Washington; therefore, conservation of the species within western Washington is not considered as high a priority as it would be in eastern Washington (see Appendix D). This plant was not observed on the Kitts Corner site during our field investigations. 3.2 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Kitts Comer project site is located within the Hylebos Creek watershed. The site is flat to gently sloping to the south. Elevations of the overall site range from approximately 340 feet above sea level at the northeastern comer of the site to slightly less than 300 feet above sea level in the southern portion of the site. At the time of our. 2003 and 2004 site investigations, the site was undeveloped with the majority of the area dominated by coniferous forests. In addition to these areas, the northern portion of the site consisted of old fields, large portions of which were dominated by early successional shrubs. A gravel road, apparently constructed at the time of the construction of the S.336'h Regional Storage Facility, extends through the middle of the property from Pacific Highway S. to regional storage facilities located just south of the southeast comer of the project site. No buildings currently exist within the project site; however, several - - old building foundations were observed in the northeastern portion of the site at the time of our field investigations. An old road extends from Pacific Highway S. to the building foundations. Transient encampments were observed throughout the site and trails linking many of the encampments extended through the property. 3.3 WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS Four wetlands, Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 4, are situated within the project site (Figure 9). Wetland 1 is located in the northwestern portion of the project site. Wetland 2 is located in the central portion of the site, and includes a portion of tributary 0014A, which is a Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 11 tributary to Hylebos Creek. Wetland 3 is located in the eastern portion of the project site on the south side of the gavel road that provides access to the 5.336`h Regional Storage Facility. Wetland 4 is also located in the eastern portion of the site on the north side of the gravel access road. On -site wetland area, including the area encompassed by the adjusted wetland boundary for Wetland 1, totals approximately 4.7 acres. Tables B.2 through B.17 in this report provide specific vegetation, soil, and hydrology information for each of the on -site wetlands that was gathered during Raedeke Associates, Inc.'s 2003 and 2004 site visits. 3.3.1 Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is approximately 1.92 acres in size. The wetland consists of a central area approximately 0.25 acres in size dominated by yellow pond lily. The central area was ringed by a 25 to 40-foot wide zone of emergent vegetation dominated by reed canarygrass at the north end and by inflated sedge, cattail; and burreed at the south end. The outer edges of the wetland consist of scrub -shrub vegetation dominated by hardback spirea. See tables B.2 through B.10 for additional information regarding plant species observed growing within Wetland 1. The observed plant species and percent of areal coverage of each species within Wetland 1 is consistent with those described by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992, 1995, 1998) with the exception that the unidentified sedge species has been keyed out as inflated sedge, and the reed canarygrass appears to have increased in dominance at the north end of the wetland since their studies. Soils along the edges of the wetland consist of mostly black (IOYR 2/1) loam and organic loam to a depth of ranging from 11 inches to greater than 15 inches (Tables B.2 through BA). Soils within the majority of the wetland consist of mucky peat to a depth of greater than 30 inches (Tables B.5 through B.10). Primary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed in the central portion of the wetland at the time of our August 5, 2004 site investigation. These included areas of inundation to a depth of 8 to 12 inches as well as other areas of saturation to the surface. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology were absent along the perimeter of the wetland; however, secondary indicators observed included sediment stains on vegetation and flooding debris that was suspended in vegetation up to 6 inches above the ground surface. In areas that did not have hydric soils or dominance by hydrophytic vegetation, at least two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology had to be present in order to consider that criteria of the wetland hydrology parameter were met. Uplands adjacent to Wetland 1 were differentiated from the wetland based on an absence of indicators for one or more of the three wetland parameters, as described in the COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (WDOE 1997). Adjustments to the wetland boundary as previously delineated by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992, 1995, 1998) were based primarily on the presence of bright (1 OYR 3/4), well -drained soils in areas that had been previously delineated as wetland. Because of the absence of hydric Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 12 soils, we determined that these areas did not meet criteria to be considered wetland. See Tables B.11, B.12 and B.13 for specific vegetation, soil, and hydrology information for the adjacent uplands that was gathered during Raedeke Associates, Inc.'s 2003 and 2004 site visits. An inlet to Wetland 1 was not observed, thus it is likely that the primary source of wetland hydrology is overland flow from surrounding uplands. The wetland may also receive some water from groundwater discharge; however, significant seepage into the wetland was not observed at the time of our August 5, 2004 site visit. Wetland 1 outlets to the south into an excavated drainage ditch that conveys water for approximately 300 feet before entering a 24-inch steel pipe at the south property boundary. A downstream analysis conducted by Otak, .Inc: (2004b) indicates that the pipe extends south for approximately 300 feet before discharging to an open ditch that carries water approximately 80 further to the south before entering a second 24-inch steel pipe. This pipe conveys flow south another approximately 750 feet and discharges near the convergence of an open channel flowing from the S. 336`h Street Regional Storage Facility. The channel ultimately flows to West Hylebos Tributary 0014A, located several hundred feet downstream. The City of Federal Way (2003a) Wetland Inventory indicates that a drainage feature extends from 5.3361h to Wetland 1. Sheldon & Associates (2001) investigated this area at the request of the property owners and determined that regulatory wetlands or streams were not present as mapped by the City of Federal Way (2003a). Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff also investigated this area on August 5, 2004 in order to determine whether a drainage feature conveyed surface water to the wetland from the north. At that time, we found a culvert at the north property boundary located in the vicinity of the mapped feature. A scoured channel approximately 3 feet wide and several inches deep extended southward from the culvert for approximately 40 feet to a point where it terminated in a small alluvial fan. We did not observe a scoured channel or other wetland or stream features that extended from the culvert to Wetland 1. Therefore, we concur with the Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (2001) findings that the channel is not a regulatory stream under City of Federal Way (2003b) code because it is an artificial conveyance that was constructed where no natural stream existed previously. Wetland 1 would be classified as a palustrine, aquatic bed, rooted vascular (PAB3), palustrine, emergent, persistent (PEM1), and palustrine, scrub -shrub, broad-leaved deciduous (PSS1) wetland according to the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1992) wetland classification system. The wetland is similar in characteristics and located in the same area as Wetland 20-21-4-59 of the City of Federal Way (2003a) Wetland Inventory. Federal Way (2003a) has designated Wetland 20-21-4-59 as a Category H wetland. The outlet channel that extends from south end Wetland 1 to the metal pipe at the south parcel boundary does not appear to meet criteria to be regulated as a stream under City of Federal Way (2003b) code because it is an artificial conveyance that was constructed. where no natural stream existed previously. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 13 3.3.2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is approximately 2.46 acres in size. The wetland extends north to south through the center of the property from S. 3 36`h Street to the earthen flood control dam that was constructed as part of the S.3366' Regional Storage Facility (Figure 8). The wetland consists of a forested vegetation class dominated by an overstory of black cottonwood, Oregon ash, red alder Pacific willow trees with a shrub layer that is dominated by Scouler's willow, clustered wild rose, snowberry, Pacific ninebark, Himalayan blackberry, western crabapple and salrnonberry (Tables B.14 through B.17). The south end of the wetland has a canopy of Pacific willow, red alder and black cottonwood trees, and a well developed understory dominated by slough sedge, northern mannagrass, creeping buttercup, Robert's geranium, Watson's willow -herb, and stinging nettle (Table B.17). The observed plant species present within Wetland 2 at the time of our 2003 and 2004 investigations are consistent with those described by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992, 1994, 1995). However, we found that the saplings within the south portion of the wetland had grown to sufficient size and height to provide enough canopy coverage of the wetland so that the entirety of the wetland would be classified was palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01) according to the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1992) criteria. Water was not present within the wetland at the time of our site visit; however, drift lines and scour marks indicate that water may pond seasonally to depths greater than 30 inches within the southern portion of the wetland. West Hylebos Tributary 0014A flows southward through the wetland from a 36-inch diameter culvert at S. 336th Street to an 18-inch culvert at the earthen dam. The stream channel ranges from 3 to 6 feet in width and 6 to 18 inches in depth. Water was not present within the stream at the time of our. 2003 and 2004 site visits. Wetland 2 also receives water from the Kitts Regional Storage Facility located east of Pacific Highway South via a pipe that conveys run-off to a discharge point on the east side of the wetland within the 100-foot wetland buffer. Historically, Wetland 2 also received water from an east/west-oriented ditch that conveyed water from several off -site wetlands located to the east of Pacific Highway South (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1995). Wetlands 3 and 4 were also reported to provide water to Wetland 2 via this ditch (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1992). The surface connection of these wetlands via the ditch no loner exists as a result of the filling of the ditch at the time of the construction of the S. 336` Regional Storage Facility access road from Pacific Highway South (CH2M Hill 1994). Under normal flow conditions, water from Wetland 2 flows through the 18-inch culvert at the earthen dam to the wetland mitigation area located just to the south of the dam (Otak, Inc. 2004b). Water then flows off -site and follows an existing channel through Wetland 2A (Otak, Inc. 2004b). Water eventually exits wetland 2A through two 12-inch low flow outlet culverts to West Hylebos Tributary 0014A (Otak, Inc. 2004b). High flows from Wetland 2 are routed to a Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 14 60-inch high flow bypass storm drain to the S. 336 h Regional Storage Facility (Otak, Inc. 2004b). The S. 336' Regional Storage Facility eventually discharges to West Hylebos Tributary 0014A (Otak, Inc. 2004b). Wetland 2 would be classified as a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01) according to the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1992) wetland classification system. The City of Federal (2003a) Way Wetland Inventory identifies Wetland 2 as Wetland 20-21-4-82. The Federal Way (2003a) inventory has given Wetland 20-21-4-82 a Category H rating. West Hylebos Tributary has been rated as a "major" stream by the City of Federal Way (2002) Stream Inventory. 3.3.3 Wetland 3 Wetland 3 is 0.22 acres in size and located in the eastern portion of the site, approximately 25 feet south of the gravel road from Pacific Highway South that serves the S.336`h Regional Storage Facility. Sheldon & Associates (1992) described Wetland 3 as consisting of forested and scrub -shrub wetland vegetation classes dominated by Oregon Ash, black cottonwood and Scouler's willow trees, as well as hardhack spires and salmonberry in the scrub -shrub layer. At the time of our 2003 and 2004 investigations, we found that the wetland was dominated by a similar association of species as that observed by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. in 1992. However, we found that the saplings within the south portion of the wetland had grown to sufficient size and height to provide enough canopy coverage of the wetland so that the entirety of the wetland would be classified was palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01) according to the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1992) criteria. An inlet to the wetland was not observed at the time our 2003 and 2004 investigations. Before construction of the gravel road to the north of the wetland, the wetland discharged to a ditch that conveyed flow to Wetland 2 (Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1992). Because of construction of the access road, the ditch was filled and a surface water connection between Wetland 3 and Wetland 2 ceased to exist. Thus, under current conditions, the wetland would be considered hydrologically isolated. Wetland 3 would be classified as a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO1) according to the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1992) wetland classification system. The City of Federal Way (2003b) would likely regulate Wetland 3 as Category III because it is between 2,500 square feet and one acre in size and consists of a single wetland vegetation class. 3.3.4 Wetland 4- Wetland 4 is 0.08 acres in size and located on the north side of the access road, approximately 75 feet northwest of Wetland 3. As described in Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992), Wetland 4 consisted -of a forested vegetation class dominated by Scouler's willow trees. At the time of our 2003 and 2004 investigations,. we found that the wetland Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 15 was dominated by a similar association of species as that observed by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. in 1992. An inlet to the wetland was not observed at the time our 2003 and 2004 investigations. Before the construction of the access road, Wetland 4 discharged to the ditch that flowed to Wetland 2. With the filling of the ditch, a surface water connection no longer exists between Wetland 4 and Wetland 2. Under current conditions, Wetland 4 would be considered hydrologically isolated. Wetland 4 would be classified as a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01) according to the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1992) wetland classification system. The City of Federal Way (2003b) would likely regulate Wetland 4 as Category III because it is between 2,500 square feet and one acre in size and consists of a single wetland vegetation class. 3.3.5 Upland Buffers for Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 Upland buffers for the majority of Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 consist of coniferous forest dominated by an over story of Douglas fir and red alder and a densely vegetated shrub layer of salal, snowberry, ocean spray, cascara and hazelnut (Tables B.18 and B.19). Notable exceptions to the densely vegetated forested buffers for Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 occur in three areas. The first area is located at the north end of Wetland 1, where forested vegetation extends only 30 to 50 feet from the wetland edge before becoming un-mowed, disturbed grassland dominated by western St. John's Wort, fireweed, bull thistle and various non-native grasses (Figure 8, Table B.20). The second area is located along the western edge of the northern portion of Wetland 2. This area consists of a highly disturbed shrub -land that is dominated by Scots broom and various non-native herb and grass species. The third area is located along the eastern edge of the northern portion of Wetland 2. Here the buffer is dominated by evergreen blackberry, Scots broom, snowberry, trailing blackberry, Canada thistle, bull thistle, and reed canarygr ass among others. 14' WILDLIFE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT 3.4.1 Wildlife Species Observed On -site Twenty-seven species or their sign (burrows, scat, and nests) were observed on -site, and we would expect several other common species to use the property that were not detected during the two days of summer field investigations. For example, although only mallard ducks were observed during our site visits, a variety of other waterfowl and shorebirds may use the open water component in Wetland 1 for refuge and forage during the winter and early spring. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wettand Assessment September 7, 2004 16 A variety of songbirds were observed on the property, including sixteen species of common year-round, winter and spring residents, and neotropical migrant birds. Songbirds observed at the time of our 2003 and 2004 site visits included winter wren, Bewick's wren, song sparrow, fox sparrow, American goldfinch, American robin, American crow and black -capped chickadee. We observed crow nests and a small songbird nest (likely a vireo species) within Wetland 2. Red -winged blackbirds were numerous in Wetland 1 during our August 2003 and 2004 site visits. Summer resident birds including white -crowned sparrows, barn swallows, and Swainson's thrush, were observed during our August 2003 visit. A northern flicker and downy woodpecker were observed within the wetlands on -site. Woodpeckers such as these excavate cavities for nesting and roosting in snags or defective trees, and forage on insects in decaying wood. Old cavities create nest sites for other cavity nesting wildlife species, including birds such as black -capped chickadees -and - mammals such as squirrels and other rodents. During our August 2003 visit, one raptor, a red-tailed hawk, was heard over Wetland 2 and observed off -site flying over the detention pond. In August 2004, two red-tailed hawks, a juvenile and adult were observed soaring low over Wetland 1. Red-tailed hawks nest in large trees proximate to open areas where they hunt for small mammals. Some of the cottonwood and Douglas fir trees in the buffers of Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 may be large enough to support a hawk nest; however, no hawk nests were observed on the property during our site visits. Red-tailed hawks may use large trees situated adjacent to the Wetlands 1 and 2 as perch or roost sites. The open emergent vegetation community near the center of Wetland 1 may also provide hunting areas for red-tailed hawks. We observed sign of four species of mammals on the property. A cotton -tailed rabbit was observed using shrub -land areas adjacent to the northeast portion of Wetland 2. Squirrel nests, likely constructed by eastern gray squirrels, were seen in two trees within Wetland 2. Eastern gray squirrels are a non-native species introduced from the eastern United States, and are common in residential areas in the Puget Sound region. Mountain beaver burrows were found in areas throughout the buffers in Wetland 1 and 2. Mountain beavers are medium-sized burrowing rodents that create large tunnel systems in a variety of habitats, preferring moist soils. Raccoon tracks were observed in Wetland 1. Raccoons, which are omnivorous and well -adapted to urban environments, likely use both wetlands and their buffers for foraging and nesting habitat. Matted vegetation and deer scat observed within Wetland 1 suggests potential bedding by black -tailed deer, which are common in the Puget Sound region. Black -tail deer have large home ranges and may use the property as part of their range for resting and feeding. Several other species of mammal likely use the site, particularly small rodents. Other wildlife species well adapted to urban environments, such as rabbits and opossums, could also be present on -site. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Weiland Assessment September 7, 2004 17 We observed numerous Pacific tree frogs within Wetland 1 during both site visits. Pacific tree frogs require at least seasonal open water habitats for egg -laying, as found on -site in Wetland 1 during our August 5, 2004 visit. Other pond -breeding amphibians including the red -legged frogs may breed in the open water habitat. Amphibians, particularly those that lay eggs in the forest duff under decaying wood, including salamanders such as ensatina, may be present on -site in the wetland buffer areas. Reptiles, such as the common garter snake, likely use the property as well. 3.4.2 Priority Wildlife Species Observed On -site No State or federally listed Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive or Candidate species were observed on the property during our winter and spring site visits. However, a bald eagle, a federally and statewide Threatened species, was observed flying westward at an elevation estimated to be greater than 500 feet and a distance estimated to be'1,000 feet north of the project site during our August 5, 2004 site visit. The WDFW (2004a) PHS map for the project area documents a bald eagle nest located approximately 1.25 miles east of the site. Occasional observations of eagles over or near the site are to be expected, because eagles can range several miles from a nest to forage. Bald eagles, particularly dispersing juveniles, might use the larger trees on the project site as perch trees and may forage on -site for rabbits or other small mammals. We did not observe bald eagle nest sites within trees on the Kitts Corner site, and the majority of the on -site trees do not have the proper structure and are not large enough to support the establishment *of a bald eagle nest. Two green herons, State Monitor species, were observed using habitats within Wetland 1 at the time of our August 5, 2004 site visit. Green herons nest in trees, usually near water (Smith 1997) and could nest in 'the deciduous trees located at the edge of Wetland 1. No heron nests were found on -site to date, however. 3.4.3 Special Habitat Features Special habitat features include biologic elements, such as edges between plant communities or successional stages, snags, and coarse woody debris that are often important to wildlife (Brown 1985, Thomas and Verner 1986). The most distinct edges on the Kitts comer site are those between the canopied upland forests and low -stature areas such as the shrubland and un-mowed grassland located in the northeastern portion of the site, and the edges between the vegetation communities in Wetland 1 and the surrounding upland, as well as the edges between vegetation communities within the wetland itself. These edges are probably used by.wetland- associated species, as well as species that are more adapted to forested communities and early successional areas. For example, in Wetland 1, green herons may hunt frogs in the emergent areas, perch in the shrub communities, and nest in the forested buffer. The diversity in vegetative structure occurring in the wetlands and buffers creates nesting, roosting, and foraging niches for a variety of wildlife species. The vegetation within Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 18 these habitats also provides a wide diversity of fruit, nectar, and seeds for foraging animals. Snags (dead or partly dead trees at least 4 inches diameter at breast height [dbh] and 6 feet tall) are important to many wildlife species (Cross 1986, Neitro et al. 1985, Scott et al. 1977 in Ohmart and Anderson 1986), for nesting, feeding, and roosting. Moderate numbers of snags were widely scattered in the forested wetland and buffers of Wetlands and 2. Most of the snags are small -to medium-sized red alder and Oregon ash. We observed a cluster of small red alder snags within the central portion of Wetland 2. Foraging sign of small woodpeckers and several small cavities were observed in this cluster. Coarse woody debris includes downed logs and major limbs of trees lying on the ground. Downed logs provide many habitat features, including perch sites, food, nest cavities, and cover for many species, such as some amphibians (Jones 1986). Most woody elements were observed within Wetland 2, including several downed trees with exposed root -wads, decaying downed logs, and smaller debris in the form of brush piles. Each of these features could be used by a variety of wildlife. 3.5 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT Wetlands have many inherent functions and values. These pertain to physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and social values. The determination of wetland functions. and values, however, is an inexact science, and scientific knowledge of wetland functions is limited. The evaluation of characteristics for individual wetlands combines both qualitative and quantitative analysis. It is therefore typically based on best professional judgment. Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992) performed a wetland functions analysis for Wetlands 1, 2, 3 and 4 using best professional judgment. Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1998) later performed a second functions analysis for Wetland 2 using the Wetland and Buffer Based Functions Semi -Quantitative Performance Assessment Methodology (Cooke 1996). The Cooke (1996) methodology'is based on a system developed by Reppert (1979) and modified to be applicable to wetlands of the Pacific Northwest. Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff also analyzed wetland functions provided by Wetland 1 y u using the Cooke (1996) methodology because results of our analysis could be compared to the results of Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1998) analysis. We also used the Cooke (1996) methodology to analyze functions provided by Wetlands 2, 3 and 4. See Appendix C for functions and values field rating forms for each wetland. Eight categories of functions were evaluated -using this method: floodwater control, base flow/groundwater support, erosion/shoreline protection, water quality improvement, natural biological support, overall habitat functions, specific habitat functions, and cultural/socioeconomic values. Point scores for each of the eight categories for each wetland are shown in Table 5. The numbered rating for each category has been Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 19 converted to a high, moderate, or low rating for discussion purposes of this report. The scoring breakdown for each category follows Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1998) and is shown below: High = 75 to 100 percent of maximum score Moderate = 50 to 74 percent of maximum score Low = Less than 50 percent of maximum score Wetland 1 was rated high for water quality improvement and natural biological support. The wetland was rated moderate for flood/storm water control, baseflow/groundwater support, overall habitat functions, and specific habitat functions. Wetland 1 does not provide erosion/shoreline protection because it is not associated with a stream or lake and thus was given a rating of not applicable (NA). The wetland was rated low for cultural/socioeconomic values. These ratings are comparable to the Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1998) ratings with the exception that Sheldon and Associates, Inc. (1998) gave the wetland a score of 12 for specific habitat functions and rated the wetland high whereas Raedeke Associates, Inc. gave the wetland a score of 11 and rated the wetland as moderate for that function. The difference between the two scores resulted because the Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1998) gave the wetland points for moderate fish habitat. Raedeke Associates, Inc. scored the wetland with fewer points for fish habitat. We based our low score for fish habitat on the presence of a barrier to anadromous fish passage created by nearly 1,000 lineal feet of pipe that conveys water from the outlet of the wetland to West Hylebos Tributary 0014A. In addition, it is highly unlikely that the wetland provides habitat for resident fish because it appears that the wetland is not inundated throughout the year during normal years. At the time of our 2003 site visit, we observed that the wetland was inundated to a depth of only 2 inches in scattered, small depressions. It is likely that during normal summers, the wetland would continue to become progressively drier until the commencement of fall rains sometime in late September or early October. Wetland 2 was rated high for flood/stormwater control, water quality improvement, and erosion/shoreline protection. The wetland was rated moderate for baseflow/groundwater support, natural biological support, overall habitat functions, and specific habitat _ functions. The wetland was rated low for cultural/socioeconomic values. These ratings are generally comparable to the Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992) analysis of wetland functions and values based on best professional judgment, with the exception that Raedeke Associates, Inc. rated the wetland higher for flood/stormwater control and water quality improvement. Our higher ratings resulted from the construction of the earthen berm in 1996/1997 at the south end of the wetland after it was rated by Sheldon & Associates, Inc. in 1992. The berm detains flows through the south end of the wetland, resulting in increased levels of these functions than had been possible at the time of the Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1992) analysis. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 Wetlands 3 and 4 were rated high for flood/stormwater control and water quality improvement. The wetlands were rated moderate for baseflow/groundwater support, natural biological support, and specific habitat functions. The wetlands were rated low for overall habitat functions and for cultural/socioeconomic values. These wetlands do not provide erosion/shoreline protection because they are not associated with a stream or lake, and thus were given a rating of not applicable (NA). These ratings are comparable to the Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (1998) ratings. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7. 2004 21 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT (U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) generally discourages the discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands and streams, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). We note that certain wetlands, including many that are hydrologically isolated from "Waters of the US," may not be regulated by the COE. The COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of "Waters of the U.S." as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251), and thus, if it is under their jurisdiction. We should caution that the placement of fill within wetlands or other "Waters of the U.S." without authorization from the COE is not advised, as the COE makes the final determination regarding whether any permits would be required for any proposed alteration (COE 2002). As the COE makes the final determination regarding permitting under their jurisdiction, we recommend requesting a jurisdictional determination from the COE prior to any construction activities, if any modification of wetlands is proposed. A jurisdictional determination would also provide evaluation and confirmation of our wetland delineation by the COE. 4.2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 4.2.1 Wetland Regulatory Ratings and Buffers The City of Federal Way (2003b) regulates activities within and adjacent to wetlands and streams under FWCC Chapter 22 Article XIV, "Environmentally Sensitive Areas." Alterations of wetlands or streams and their buffers are generally prohibited, except as allowed under certain conditions specified in the ordinance. Wetlands are rated as Category I, H, or III, based on characteristics such as size, number and type of vegetative cover types (i.e., habitat complexity), and presence (or absence) of endangered or threatened species. The City of Federal Way (2003b) code typically requires provision of undisturbed buffers of 200, 100, and 50 feet around the perimeter of all Category I, II and III wetlands, respectively. 4.2.2 Allowable Alterations within Regulated Wetlands In special circumstances, as determined by the City of Federal Way, wetlands may be altered to accommodate development proposals. The City of Federal Way (2003b) allows these direct wetland impacts (including the filling of wetlands) through Process IV, which requires approval by the Hearing Examiner. In order to be approved, the specific location and extent of the alteration must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the wetland alteration will meet certain criteria including, among others, that it will not adversely affect water quality, drainage, or stormwater capabilities and that it will not result in the net loss of Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 22 wetland area, function, or value. All direct wetland impacts must be mitigated through wetland creation and restoration or through wetland enhancement. 4.2.3 Wetland Buffer Modifications Wetland buffer widths may be reduced to accommodate development proposals. Reductions of the wetland buffers may be accomplished through one of several different means under the City of Federal Way (2003b) code. The applicant may request a reduction of standard wetland buffers from the Director of Community Development through Process III, as defined by the City of Federal Way (2003b) code. Wetland buffers may be reduced through either buffer averaging or buffer reduction. Through buffer averaging, a buffer width may be reduced by up to 50 percent as long as the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging must be the same or greater than the area required for the standard buffer dimensions (Federal Way 2003b). Through buffer reduction, the wetland buffer may also be reduced by up to 50 percent as long as the project includes a wetland buffer enhancement plan that utilizes appropriate native vegetation and the project applicant clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values. Wetland buffers may not be reduced to less than 25 feet through buffer reduction. Both buffer averaging and buffer reductions may be allowed only when the wetland or the buffer which is proposed to be reduced contains habitat types which have been so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions. In order to qualify for buffer averaging or buffer reduction, the applicant must demonstrate to the Director of Community Development that the proposed buffer reduction meets certain criteria, including, among others, that the reduction will not result in a loss of wetland functions and values, will not result in unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards and will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area. In addition to allowing wetland buffers to be reduced through buffer averaging and buffer reduction, the City of Federal Way (2003b) code allows the Director of Community Development to reduce wetland buffers for essential public facilities, public utilities, and other public improvements if he determines that no feasible alternative location for the facility exists. The City of Federal Way (2003b) code does not stipulate a minimum required buffer for essential public facilities. 4.2.4 Regulation of On -site Wetlands and Streams As described in previous sections of this report, the boundary and buffer width of Wetland 2 was established under provisions of the Settlement Agreement (SA; see Section 1.5), which was adopted before the adoption of the current City of Federal Way (2003b) code. A 100-foot buffer was provided for Wetland 2 under the SA. The SA also provided for the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4. Mitigation for the filling of Wetlands 3 and: Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 23 4 was to be provided by the City of Federal Way at the time that mitigation for the construction of the S. 336`h Regional Storage Facility was implemented. Wetland 1 was not included in the SA. Under the current Federal Way (2003b) code, Wetland 1 meets criteria to be regulated as Category II and, as such would be given a 100-foot buffer. The City of Federal Way (2003b) also regulates West Hylebos Tributary 0014A, which flows through Wetland 2 as a "Major Stream" according to criteria, contained in FWCC Section 22-1. The City of Federal Way (2003b) defines a "Major Stream" as any stream, and its tributaries, which contains or supports resident or migratory fish. "Major" streams typically are provided a 100-foot buffer measured outward from the OHWM. The .City of Federal Way (2003b) may allow stream buffers to be reduced through Process N. Allowed stream buffer reductions would be based on certain criteria, including among others that water quality or existing wildlife habitat within the stream and stream buffer would not be adversely affected and the buffer reduction is necessary for the reasonable development of the property. If allowed, the City of Federal Way (2003b) would require that a stream relocation plan be prepared by a qualified professional biologist. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 24 5.0 IMPACTS This discussion of probable wetland impacts is based on Raedeke Associates, Inc. field surveys, review of available literature, as well as information provided by the applicant and project consultants. 5.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Implementation of the approximately 46-acre Kitts Corner development would create a mix of housing and commercial/retail uses designed in a Village Center concept. The western portion of the site will include 160 owner -occupied town -homes and the eastern portion of the site will be developed as a commercial town center with up to 179,000 square feet of retail, commercial or office uses. The development will include public street improvements on the interior of the project to provide access to the development parcels. - Water Service crossings of Wetland 2 will be accomplished within the existing earthen dam at the south end of the wetland. The site will be served by an existing sanitary sewer located partly within Wetland 2 and its buffer. A section of new sewer line will also be constructed within the southeastern portion of the project site to connect to an existing sanitary sewer line located adjacent to the mitigation wetland. On -site stormwater detention for approximately 41 acres of the project site, encompassing all but the westernmost portion of the site, would not be required because this area is located within the drainage basin of the recently constructed S. 336`h Regional Storage Facility located immediately to the south. However, prior to discharge, on -site water quality treatment for this area would occur within several constructed stormwater wetlands and/or water quality wetvaults in combination with a leaf compost filter or other paired facility options before discharge to environmentally sensitive areas. These facilities would meet the resource stream protection menu of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for water quality treatment (Otak, Inc. 2004b). Storm water from the western portion of the site would receive Level 1 flow control and water quality treatment that meets KCSWDM requirements for resource streams protection. 5.2 DIRECT IMPACTS Development of the Kitts Corner property would result in direct impacts from the permanent filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 (Figure 9). The filling of these wetlands is proposed in order to construct an area large enough to accommodate commercial/retail buildings necessary to make the "Village Center" concept viable. By filling these small, lower -value wetlands, direct impacts to other wetlands with higher habitat values on the site are avoided. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 25 A total of 0.30 acres of wetlands would be filled, all of which would occur to isolated closed -depression wetlands. The filling of these wetlands is allowed under provisions of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, mitigation for impacts that will result from the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 was provided by the City of Federal Way at the time that mitigation for construction of the S. 336`h Regional Storage Facility was implemented. This included the construction of 0.90 acres of palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetland within the mitigation area located south of the on -site earthen dam located at the south end of Wetland 2 (CH2M Hill 1994) to compensate for the future filling of Wetlands 3 and 4. 5.3 INDIRECT IMPACTS Proposed development of Kitts Comer also could result in indirect impacts to wetland habitats on the site. Removal of remaining forest vegetation and conversion to urban uses would result in changes in hydrologic patterns that might affect the volume or timing of water reaching the wetlands, thereby affecting wetland plant communities and wildlife habitat. Reduced wetland buffers could result in changes in wildlife usage of the wetland and buffer habitats. Increased clearing and pollution sources could result in degradation of water quality within the wetlands. Potential indirect impacts to wetlands on the site are discussed below. 5.3.1 Hydrologic Impacts Development of Kitts Corner would result in an increase in impervious surfaces as well as alterations in existing surface and sub -surface flows on -site. Increased runoff from impervious surfaces has the potential to increase water level fluctuations within wetlands, as well as reduce infiltration and groundwater recharge (Azous and Homer 2000). Changes to existing surface and subsurface flows also could result in changes to the timing and volume of stormwater runoff flowing to wetlands on -site. Water levels within wetlands could fluctuate more rapidly than current conditions as a result of stormwater runoff reaching the wetlands more quickly or a greater volume of water reaching the wetlands. Increased water level fluctuations have been correlated with lower plant species diversity and decreased amphibian breeding use of wetlands (Azous and Homer 2000). Installation and maintenance of stormwater control features would help minimize the potential for water level fluctuations to affect the wetlands. To determine the potential for indirect hydrologic effects to Wetland 1, peak flow rates and volumes for different storm intervals were calculated for Wetland 1 using the King County Run-off Time Series (KCRTS) computer model (Otak, Inc. 2004b). For Wetland 2, existing data and analysis of potential hydrologic impacts using the Hydrologic Simulation Program -Fortran (HSPF) model was gathered from a previous report entitled Technical Memorandum 3-1: Regional Drainage Analysis Tasks 3.1 and 3.2 Technical Memorandum — Wetland/Stream Impact Analysis and Mitigation Concepts prepared by CH2M Hill (1994) for the S. 3361h Street Regional Storage Facility. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 26 The Preliminary Technical Information Report (PTIR) prepared for the project by Otak, Inc. (2004b) indicates that development of the site would result in changes to the volume of water flowing to Wetland 1 from pre -development to post -development conditions (Table 5). Peak flows rates were modeled for the 1.1-year, 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 25-year storms. Analysis of the modeled storms indicates that flow to the wetland would increase an average of 2 to 3 percent under developed conditions during the five-day period encompassing the largest storms (10-year and 25-year). Peak flow rates for the more frequent storms would increase significantly more on the average on a percentage basis. However, the actual increases in discharge rates to the wetland would be very small, less than 0.01 cubic feet per second (cfs) on average for the five-day period encompassing the average 5-year storm, for instance. It is unlikely that the small increases in flow rates to the wetland would result in significantly higher water levels or longer duration of inundation because the wetland is relatively large (1.92 acres) and has an un-constricted outlet. Existing aquatic bed, emergent, and scrub -shrub vegetation communities within the wetland are typically well adapted to variations in inundation. levels and durations. Therefore, it is not likely that existing vegetation communities within the wetland would be adversely affected because of construction of the Kitts Comer project. Previous modeling conducted by CH2M Hill (1994) assumed full build out of the portion of the Kitts Corner site that would be served by the S. 336th Regional Storage Facility including all of the on -site area, draining to Wetland 2. C112M Hill's (1994) analysis of the post -construction hydrologic regimes predicted that an approximately 0.07-acre area located in the southern portion of the wetland could experience greater depths of inundation, which could result in a vegetation community shift within the mapped PFO vegetation class. CH2M Hill (1994) also noted, however, that the area expected to experience increased inundation was actually dominated by a patch of emergent vegetation within the PFO vegetation class. C112M Hill (1994) concluded that increased depths of inundation in the area dominated by emergent vegetation would experience a vegetation shift because emergent species are typically adapted to variations in inundation levels. During our 2003 site visit, we found that vegetation community in the southern portion of the wetland was dominated by mature Pacific willow and patches of slough sedge. Based on our site observations, it appeared that changes had not occurred within this portion of the wetland as a result of hydrologic impacts from the construction of the S. 336th Regional Storage Facility. 5.3.2 Erosion/Sedimentation and Water Quality Impacts Erosion/Sedimentation Impacts Clearing and grading activities associated with the proposed development would expose erodible soils on the site and increase surface run-off rates from storms when soils are saturated. The potential_ for erosion delivery of sediments is greatest during the construction period and depends on the construction season, soil types, the amount of Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 27 exposed soils, slopes, surface drainage patterns, and mitigation measures employed. Sediment transport and deposition, particularly during construction, can adversely affect plant and animal communities of the wetlands by affecting water quality (increased turbidity, suspended and settleable solids, temperature, pollutants), which could adversely affect the suitability for various forms of vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife. Following construction, as the site is landscaped and less soil is exposed, much less sediment is typically generated. Proper implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures during and after construction would greatly limit the potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts to on -site wetlands. Moreover, stonmwater facilities would be designed to capture and remove sediments from stormwater runoff. In addition, wetland buffers (with minimum buffers ranging from 50 to 100 feet in width) can be effective in providing additional sediment and pollutant removal and erosion control (Castelle et al..1992, McMillan 2000). In general, wetland buffers that have well -established vegetation cover, soil duff cover, and favorable micro -topography and slope, would aid in preventing introduction of substantial sediments from adjacent construction to wetlands. By providing adequate buffers and using standard erosion and sediment control measures, most sediment generated is likely to be trapped locally within proposed detention and water quality ponds or settling basins (where appropriate) and at the outer edges of the buffers before reaching the wetlands. Proposed buffers for Wetland 1 range from 50 to 150 feet in width (Figure 9). The narrowest buffers would be present along the northern portion of the wetland and at the southernmost portion of the wetland. Buffer widths of 100 feet or greater would be present around approximately 75 percent of the on -site wetland perimeter. The majority of the proposed buffers consist of well -established mixed and coniferous forest vegetation and favorable micro -topography and slope, which would likely provide adequate protection from erosion/sediment and water quality impacts. Therefore, in general, no substantial adverse sediment -delivered impacts to water quality of Wetland 1 are expected because of construction of the Kitts Comer project. Proposed buffers for Wetland 2 range from 36 to 100 feet in width (Figure 9). The narrowest buffers would occur along the northeast corner of the wetland. Buffers widths of 100 feet would be present around more than 90 percent of the wetland perimeter. As with Wetland 1, the majority of the proposed buffers consist of well -established mixed and coniferous forest vegetation and favorable micro -topography and slope, which would likely provide adequate protection from erosion/sediment impacts. It is unlikely that substantial adverse sediment -delivered impacts to water quality would occur to Wetland 2 in these areas. However, sediment/erosion impacts could occur, if un-mitigated, at the north end of the wetland where wetland buffers are less than 50 feet in width and are not vegetated with well -established forest vegetation. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 Water Quality Impacts Pollutants and nutrients generated from developed portions of the site could be discharged from the water quality facilities. If unmitigated, pollutants have the potential to accumulate in downstream wetlands and streams located off -site to the south. Inputs of runoff from urban development could cause changes in other water quality parameters, such as pH, conductivity, suspended solids, and concentration of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen. The magnitude of such changes on a particular wetland is not precisely understood. However, potential hydroperiod changes (related to quantity of runoff, particularly if unmitigated) appear to be a more important factor in potential adverse effects on wetland vegetation and wildlife (e.g., Azous and Horner 2000 and references therein). Most runoff from developed portions of the site would be routed through stormwater detention and/or water quality facilities, which would improve quality of stormwater prior to discharge to wetland buffers. However, direct runoff from maintained landscapes that are adjacent to wetland buffers may carry fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, which may be a source of pollutants and excess nutrients to these areas. Introduction of these chemicals to on -site wetlands could potentially adversely affect plants and animals within the wetlands' native vegetation communities. Herbicide and pesticide drift during application can be an additional source of these chemicals to wetlands and their buffers, and can have similar impacts. Runoff from roof drains would flow through existing soils of the wetland buffers. Although the roof runoff would not undergo prior treatment as through detention facilities, runoff collected from this type of surface is generally considered clean. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to water quality of the receiving waters from rooftop runoff are not expected. 5.3.3 Wetland Buffer and Wildlife Habitat Impacts Approximately 14.2 acres of wetland habitat and buffers encompassing approximately 30 percent of the project site would be retained. Retained areas include 4.4 acres or 93 percent of on -site wetland habitats. Wetlands 1 and 2, which are the largest and most diverse wetlands within the project site, would be retained. Never the less, the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 would remove 0.30 acres of forested wetland habitat from the site. Although evidence of wildlife usage of these areas was not observed during our 2003 and 2004 site visits, it is assumed that the filling of these wetlands would result in the direct loss of wildlife habitat that provides foraging, nesting, or shelter for some wildlife species, including a variety of birds, some mammals, and amphibians. This loss, along with the loss of surrounding upland forest would likely result in reduced populations of most native wildlife on -site. As noted above, however, compensatory mitigation for filling wetlands 3 and 4 has already been implemented. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 all Buffer impacts would occur to Wetlands 1 and 2 as a result of the construction and development of the Kitts Corner site. The proposed site development plan would require that the buffers for Wetland 1 be reduced to approximately 50 percent of the standard required 100-foot buffer at the north end and southeast comer of the wetland (Figure 9). In addition, buffers at the northeast comer of Wetland 2 would be reduced to less than 50 percent of the 100-foot buffer established under the Settlement Agreement (Figure 9). Buffer impacts could also occur at stormwater detention/water quality facility outfalls, which would be situated within the buffers for Wetlands 1 and 2. In addition, sanitary sewer line installation at the south property boundary could result in temporary impacts to the mitigation wetland. Impacts to buffers would be compensated through buffer width averaging, buffer enhancement, and buffer restoration for the affected wetlands. See Section 6.3 for a detailed discussion of buffer impact mitigation. As noted above in Section 5.3.1, changes to the hydrologic regimes within Wetlands 1 and 2 as a result of the proposed development are not expected result in significant adverse impacts to vegetation communities. Consequently, no significant adverse impacts to wetland -associated wildlife are expected. to result from changes to wetland hydrologic regimes. In general, the loss of upland habitat that would result from site development may cause a decrease in the overall number of species and individuals of wildlife on -site, particularly those that require both wetland and upland habitats on site. Other potential impacts to wildlife usage of Wetlands 1 and 2 that may result from development of the Kitts Comer site include habitat fragmentation through the creation of barriers to wildlife movement between the wetlands. Existing avenues of movement for wildlife between Wetlands 1 and 2 would be lost for some species, such as small mammals and some amphibians, because, of construction of a road and residential areas between Wetlands 1 and 2. In addition, increased fragmentation and loss of native habitat adjacent to the wetlands would increase their vulnerability to invasion by non-native plant species, such as Himalayan blackberry or reed canarygrass. This could lead to a reduced habitat value of the wetlands for wildlife. Construction activities and implementation of the proposed development would result in both short-term disturbances to wildlife inhabiting the wetlands, and long-term disturbance from increased human activity may hinder more secretive animals from using the wetlands and buffers. In addition, development of portions of the site for residential use may result in increased predation on wildlife by domestic pets such as cats and dogs. Endangered, threatened, sensitive or candidate species were not observed at the time of our 2003 and 2004 site visits nor have any been documented on the Kitts Corner project site. Therefore, none of these species are expected to be directly impacted by the proposed project. Two adult green herons, a State Monitor species, were observed using habitats within Wetland 1 at the time of our August 5, 2004 site visit. It is likely the green herons were feeding on the abundant Pacific tree frogs observed within the wetland Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Weiland Assessment September 7, 2004 WO at the time of our 2004 site visit. Green herons nest in trees, usually near water (Smith et al. 1997), and could nest in the deciduous trees located at the edge of Wetland 1; however, no nesting green herons have been observed on -site to date. If unmitigated, green heron usage of the wetland could be reduced in areas where buffers are less than 100 feet and do not consist of forest vegetation. In areas where the proposed wetland buffer is between 50 and 100 feet wide and the wetland buffer consists of forest vegetation, green heron usage of Wetland 1 is not likely to be impacted. In areas where the proposed wetland buffer is between 50 and 100 feet wide and the buffer consists of shrub or grassland vegetation, buffer enhancement would likely be necessary in order to provide adequate visual screening from developed portions of the site. Small portions of the wetland where buffers are proposed to be less than 100 feet occur along the northern edge at the southernmost tip of the wetland (Figure 9). The majority of buffer vegetation in these areas consists of mixed forest. There are currently no WDFW (2004) management guidelines for the green heron. Kitts Corner Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 31 6.0 MITIGATION Mitigation has been defined by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197- 11-768; cf. Cooper 1987), and more recently in a Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Memorandum 1989). In order of desirability, mitigation may include: Avoidance - avoiding impacts by not taking action or parts of an action; 2. Minimization - minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; Compensatory Mitigation - which may involve: a) repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; b) replacing or creating substitute resources or environments; c) mitigation banking. The development alternatives incorporate one or more mitigating measures that would avoid or reduce impacts to wetlands on site. 6.1 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED AND PROPOSED MITIGATION The City of Federal Way (2003b) code requires that development of the site avoid or minimize impacts to most of the regulated sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands and streams) and attempt to limit impacts to these native habitats by retaining them within open space tracts that include buffers of native vegetation. 6.1.1 Avoidance of Impacts As noted previously, 93 percent of the on -site wetland and buffer area would be retained. In addition, direct impacts to the two largest and most functionally important on -site _ . wetlands (Wetlands 1 and 2) would be avoided. Buffers that meet or exceed the current recommended requirements for the remaining on - site wetlands would be established within designated open space tracts. Retained wetlands and their buffers encompass approximately 14.2 acres (30 percent) of the project site. 6.1.2 Minimization of Impacts The proposed development plan incorporates a number of design features that would minimize or limit impacts to the wetlands and their buffers, including: Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 32 • retaining a substantial portion (greater than 93 percent) of the existing wetland habitat; • buffer averaging for Wetland 1 to provide an area at least equivalent to the required minimum buffer area; with averaging, effective buffers provided would exceed the standard minimum width for a majority of Wetland 1 (see Section 6.3 for a detailed discussion of Wetland 1 buffer averaging); • clearly marking the limits of wetland buffers or setbacks prior to construction activities to prevent inadvertent or unnecessary encroachment; • installing and maintaining temporary and permanent soil erosion control measures during and after construction, consistent with Best Management Practices, as required by the City of Federal Way to limit the potential for sediment deposition or erosion in the retained wetlands and their buffer; ■ routing stormwater runoff from the proposed development through water quality and/or stormwater detention/water quality facilities prior to discharge to on -site wetlands in order to limit potential for sediment deposition and provide the required water quality treatment; where appropriate, discharge facilities would include energy dissipaters or flow dispersion facilities to prevent substantial erosion impacts. to the wetlands; and • limiting hydrologic impacts to major on -site wetlands by routing roof runoff from adjacent residential areas to the wetlands, 6.2 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION The City of Federal Way requires compensatory mitigation for proposed wetland loss or alteration. The development plan for Kitts Comer includes filling and eliminating Wetland 3 and Wetland 4, both Category 3 wetlands, for a total of 0.30 acres of wetland fill. - W As part of the Settlement Agreement, the City of Federal Way (1996a, 1996b) provided compensatory mitigation for the proposed filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 in order to construct the Kitts Comer project (CH2M Hill). Compensatory mitigation for impacts to i11 Wetlands 3 and 4 was provided by the City at a replacement ratio of 3:1 at the time of the U construction of the S. 3361h Street Regional Storage Facility (CH2M Hill 1994): lnd y to compensate for the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4, 0.90 acres of palustrine, forested wet�cas�ons�_ a 3n t e area DcaIed-7erWeert Ch en am a e sau end ❑ Wetland 2 and Wetland 2A located off -site just sou of the Kitts Corner property (CH2M Hill 1994). Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004- 33 The filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 is allowed under Section 22-1358 of the City of Federal Way (2003b) code and would require approval by the Hearing Examiner under Process IV. Following is a discussion of how the proposed filling of these wetlands meets each of the nine Process IV decision criteria described in the City of Federal Way (2003b) code. 1) Water Quality: the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 would not adversely affect water quality. Water quality functions currently provided by the wetlands will be provided within on -site water quality treatment facilities to be constructed under the proposed development plan and within the mitigation wetland that has already been constructed by the City of Federal Way. Water quality treatment will meet the current resource stream protection menu of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (Otak, Inc. 2004b). 2) Wildlife Habitat: the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 in itself would not adversely affect wildlife habitat within the Kitts Comer site. Wetland and or wetland buffer functions currently provided by 0.30 acres of palustrine, forested wetland vegetation communities wetland have been replaced through the construction of 0.90 acres of palustrine forested wetland within the mitigation wetland (CH2M Hill 1994). 3) Stormwater Detention: the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 would not adversely affect drainage and Stormwater retention capabilities. These are being provided by the S. 336th Street Regional Storage Facilities. The filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 would not alter hydrologic regimes within downstream wetlands or streams because the wetlands are hydrologically isolated. 4) Eartb Conditions: the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 would not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards because the wetlands are closed depressions located in relatively flat portions of the Kitts Corner site. 5) Adjacent Property Owners: the filling of the wetlands would not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area nor the City of Federal Way as a whole, including the loss of open space because 0.30 acres of lost wetland area has be replaced with 0.90 acres of wetland area within the mitigation site for the S. 336th Street Regional Storage Facilities. 6). Wetland Area or Function: the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 would not cause a net loss of wetland area or wetland function and value. Lost function and values currently provided by the 0.30 acres of wetlands that will be filled have been. provided in advance through the creation of 0.90 acres of wetlands within the mitigation site for the S. 336`h Street Regional Storage Facility. Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 34 7) Public Health, Safety or Welfare: the Kitts Comer project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare. Development of the project will convert an area of the City of Federal Way that is currently used as a transient encampment site to an area providing additional retail, commercial, and residential housing. Removal of the encampments may reduce crime rates in the area and would reduce water quality impacts to on -site wetlands and streams from untreated sewage. 8) Scientific Expertise to Carry Out Project: the mitigation for the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 was designed by CH2M Hill, a professional engineering and environmental consulting firm with experience designing wetland mitigation in the Puget Sound region. The mitigation for was implemented by the City of Federal Way. 9) Wetland Monitoring: a monitoring and contingency plan was designed by CH2M Hill (1994). The City of Federal Way is responsible for the monitoring of the mitigation site and implementation of contingency plans to make corrections if the project fails. 6.3 MITIGATION FOR PROPOSED WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS 6.3.1 Buffer Averaging for Wetland 1 Wetland 1 meets criteria to be regulated as Category H and normally would be provided with a required standard 100-foot buffer under City of Federal Way (2003b) code. Buffer averaging is proposed in order to allow the construction of residential areas within the western portion of the project site. At no point would the buffer be reduced to less than 50 percent of the required standard buffer. Under the development proposal, wetland buffers would be narrowest at the southernmost tip (50 feet) and along the northern edge (55 feet) of the wetland (Figure 9). Each of these areas consists of wetland or buffer habitat that has been permanently impacted by human activities. These include the historic construction of a ditch at the south end of the wetland in order to drain that area and the historic clearing of the outer half of the buffer at the north end of the wetland for agricultural purposes. Wetland habitat functions in these portions of Wetland 1 have been negatively impacted because of these historic disturbances. Approximately 14,150 square feet of a combined total of wetland buffer in these two areas would be lost. Lost wetland buffer would be replaced with approximately 24,600 square feet of wetland buffer along in the northeast and southwest comers of the wetland (Figure 10). In addition, approximately 2,900 square feet of area within the additional wetland buffer that is currently dominated by grass and shrub species would be enhanced through the planting of trees and shrubs in order to establish higher value, forested buffer (Figure 10). Tree and shrub species to be planted within the buffer would include Douglas -fir, hazelnut, ocean -spray, salal, vine Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 35 maple, Oregongrape, Indian plum, and sword fem, or other native species found in the retained buffers of Wetland 1. Buffer averaging for Wetland 1 appears to be allowed under Section 22-1359(b) of the City of Federal Way (2003b) code. Buffer width averaging requires approval by the Director of Community Development under Process III. Following is a discussion of how the proposed buffer averaging meets each of the four Process III decision criteria described in the City of Federal Way (2003b) code. 1) Water Quality: reduced wetland buffers will not adversely affect the quality of water entering the wetland. Water quality functions currently provided by the wetland buffer will be provided within on -site water quality treatment facilities to be constructed under the proposed development plan. Water quality treatment will meet the current resource stream protection menu of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (Otak, Inc. 2004b). In addition, additional wetland buffer areas provided on the east side and southwest corner of the wetland will provide additional filtration of sediments and pollutants for water entering the wetland. 2) Wildlife Habitat: buffer width averaging would not adversely affect existing wildlife habitat within the wetland. Areas where buffer reduction is proposed have lower wildlife habitat value due to historic, man -caused disturbance to the wetland or its buffer. Additional buffer areas to be provided on the east side of the wetland will provide greater habitat protection and likely promote greater wildlife usage of the wetland than the standard required 100-foot buffer. 3) Earth Conditions: buffer width averaging would not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards because retained buffers are well vegetated and located on low gradient slopes. Additional buffer areas to be provided on the east side of the wetland will provide greater erosion and earth stability protection than the standard required 100-foot buffer. 4) Adjacent Property Owners: Buffer width averaging will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area nor the City of Federal Way as a whole, including the loss of open space because 0.30 acres of wetland area has been replaced with 0.90 acres of wetland area within the mitigation site for the S. 336`h Street Regional Storage Facilities. 6.3.2 Buffer Reduction for Wetland 2 A reduced buffer is proposed for the northeastern comer of Wetland 2 (Figure 9). Buffers for Wetland 2 were established at 100 feet by the Settlement Agreement. Buffer reduction is proposed in order to construct an access road into the property to serve areas located on the east side of Wetland 1. The City of Federal Way Department of Public Works has indicated that it would require the access road to be situated opposite the Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 36 existing location of 13'' Place South, which intersects with S. 336 h Street from the north. The required location of the access road would cause a reduction of the wetland buffer from the 100-foot established width to a minimum of 36 feet at S. 336th Street. In order to minimize the area of buffer impact, the road would curve away from the wetland and out of the established 100-foot buffer immediately after entering the property. The area that is proposed for buffer width reduction consists of habitat that has been impacted by previous land clearing activities in the northern portion of the property. This has resulted in low quality vegetation cover that is dominated by non-native invasive shrub species including Scots broom, evergreen blackberry, and Himalayan blackberry. Approximately 7,500 square feet of wetland buffer would be lost due to the buffer reduction. In order to mitigate impacts from the lost wetland buffer, a total of 18,350 square feet of the remaining wetland buffer along the northeast portion of the wetland would be enhanced (Figure 10). Buffer enhancement would be accomplished through the planting of trees and shrubs in order to establish higher value forested buffer. Tree and shrub species to be planted within the buffer would include Douglas -fir, hazelnut, ocean - spray, salal, vine maple, Oregongrape, Indian plum, and sword fern, or other native species found in the retained buffers of Wetland 2. Construction of the access road is allowed under Section 22-1359(e) of the City of Federal Way (2003b) code because it constitutes an essential public improvement or facility. Reduction of Wetland 2 buffer would require the approval of the Director of Community Development under Process III. 6.3.3 Buffer Intrusions for Detention/Water Quality Facilities Outfalls Existing grades in the areas where water quality and detention facilities are proposed to be situated would require that their outfalls be situated within the buffers of Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 (Figure 9). However, the actual location of the outfalls will not be established until final site engineering and design, where appropriate. Areas within the wetland buffers where vegetation and grades are disturbed for installation of water quality/detention facilities outfalls will be restored to pre -disturbance conditions. Energy dissipation/flow dispersion devices will be installed at the outfalls to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to the wetlands and their buffers. Construction of the water quality/detention facilities outfalls within the buffers of Wetlands 1 and 2 is allowed under Section 22-1359(e) of the City of Federal Way (2003b) code because they constitute essential public improvements or facilities. Allowed buffer impacts under Section 22-1359(e) require the approval of the Director of Community Development under Process III. 6.3.4 Buffer Intrusion for Sanitary Sewer Installation A new sanitary sewer is proposed to be constructed at the south property boundary to connect to an existing sanitary sewer line located adjacent to east side of the mitigation Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 37 wetland (Figure 9). An existing segment of the sewer line located to the north of the proposed connection would be vacated; however, that portion of the line would not be removed. Impacts from installation of the sewer line would be minimized by situating the sewer within an existing gravel road that serves a sanitary sewer manhole located at the south property boundary. Appropriate best management practices would also be employed during construction activities to minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts in the vicinity of the mitigation wetland. If is not clear whether the mitigation wetland would be regulated under the City of Federal Way (2003b) code or whether the mitigation area was exempted from regulation by the City under the Settlement Agreement. In any case, construction of the sewer line within the buffer of the mitigation wetland is allowed under Section 22-1359(e) of the City of Federal Way (2003b) code because it constitutes an essential public improvement or facility. Allowed buffer impacts under Section 22-1359(e) require the approval of the Director of Community Development under Process III. Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates; Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 m 7.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Campus Gateway Associates and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Campus Gateway Associates. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then -current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 W 8.0 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, J., E. Hardy, J. Roach, and R. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. 28 pp. Azous, A. and R. Homer. 2000. Wetlands and urbanization: Implications for the future. CRC Press. 360 pp. Brown, R. (tech. ed.). 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. Publ. No. R6-F&WL--192-1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland. 332 pp. Buol, S., D. Hole, and R. McCracken. 1980. Soil genesis and classification. The Iowa State University Press, Ames. 406 pp. Castelle, A., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T. Erickson, S. S. Cooke. 1992. Buffers: Use and Effectiveness, Publ. #92-10, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia Washington. 171 pp. CH2M Hill. 1994. Technical Memorandum 3-1: Regional Drainage Analysis Tasks 3.1 and 3.2 Technical Memorandum — Wetland/Stream Impact Analysis and Mitigation Concepts. Report to Mr. Jeff Pratt, City of Federal Way, Washington. June 27, 1994. 18 pp. plus figures and appendices. Cooke, S. 1992. Appendix A. Wetland Buffers: A Field Evaluation of Buffer Effectiveness in Puget Sound. pp. 61-133 In Castelle, A. et al. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Pub. #92-10, Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 171 pp. Cooke, S. 1996. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology. Draft User's Manual. Cooke Environmental Services, Seattle, Washington. Cooke, S. 1997. A field guide to common wetland plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Cooper, J. 1987. An overview of estuarine habitat mitigation projects in Washington State. Northwest Environmental Journal3 (1):112-127. Cowardin, L., F. Golet, V. Carter, and E. LaRoe deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp. Kitts Corner - Wetland Assessment . 1992. Classification of wetlands and U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service Publ. Raedeke Associates, lnc. September 7, 2004 W Cross, S. 1986. Bats. Pages 497-517 in A. Cooperrider, R: Boyd, and H. Stuart, eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. Federal Way, City of. 1996a. Easement for Wetlands Streams and Buffers for 336`h Street/Kitts Corner Project. May 23, 1996. Federal Way, City of 1996b. Settlement Agreement and Covenant between Campus Gateway Associates, Merlinos, Chase/Mcleod; and the City of Federal Way. May 15, 1996. 16 pps. Federal Way, City of. 1998. Wetland Inventory Field Forms for Wetlands 20-21-04- 59, 20-21-04-82, and 20-21-04-84. Prepared by Sheldon And Associates, Inc. November 4 and 11, 1998 Federal Way, City of. 2002. Stream Inventory and Federal Way Classification of Major and Minor Streams. Prepared by URS, Inc. January 2002. Federal Way, City of. 2003a. Zoning and Wetland Atlas Map No. 81. Federal Way, City of. 2003b. Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Ordinance No. 99- 353. Adopted November 16, 1999; amendments adopted through October 2003. Federal Way, City of. 2004. June 16, 2004 letter from Mr. Jim Harris, City of Federal Way Planning Department, to Mr. Leonard Schaadt regarding project history and next procedural steps for Campus Gateway/Kitts Corner Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1994. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Volume 59, No 133, July 13, 1994. Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 41 Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW- 8. 417 pp. Hickman, J. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Univ. of Cal. Press, 1400 pp. Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp. Jones, K. 1986. Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 267-290 in Cooperrider, A., R. Boyd, and H. Stuart. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado. Josselyn, M., M. Martindale, and J. Duffield. 1989. Public Access and Wetlands: Impacts of Recreational Use., California Coastal Conservancy. 56 pp. Milligan, D. 1985. The ecology of avian use of urban freshwater wetlands in King County, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle. Mitsch, W.J, and J. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. 539 pp. Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell soil color charts. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, NY. Neitro, W., V. Binkley, S. Cline, R. Mannan, B. Marcot, D.Taylor, and F. Wagner. Snags (wildlife trees). Pages 129469 In Brown, E. (ed.). 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forest of western Oregon and Washington. Pub. No. R6-F&WL--192-1985. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 332 pp. Ohmart, R., and B. Anderson. 1986. Riparian habitat. Pages 169-199 in A. Cooperrider, R. Boyd, and H. Stuart, editors. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado. Otak, Inc. 2004a. Kitts Comer Preliminary Site Plan. September 3, 2004. Otak, Inc. 2004b. Kitts Corner Development Agreement Preliminary Technical Information Report. September 3, 2004. Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 42 Penland, S.T. 1984. Avian responses to a gradient of urbanization in Seattle, Washington. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 407 pp. Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. B.C. Ministry of Forests; B.C. Forest Service; Research Program. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9). 89 pp. Reed, P., Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9) May 1988. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Beyers. 1979. Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA. Richter, K.O. 1997. Criteria for the restoration and creation of wetland habitats of lentic-breeding amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Pages 72-92 In MacDonald, K.B., and F. Weinman (eds.). Wetland and riparian restoration: taking a broader view. Contributed papers and selected abstracts. Society of Ecological Restoration International Conference, September 14-16, 1995, University of Washington, Seattle. Published by US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. Scott, V., K. Evans, D. Patton, and C. Stone. 1977. Cavity -nesting birds of North American forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 511, Washington, DC. Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1992. Wetland Delineation Schaadt Property. Prepared for Smith; Smart, Hancock, Tabler & Schwenson. September 10, 1992. 13 pps plus data sheets. Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1995. Kitts Corner Area Wetlands Assessment. Prepared for the City of Federal Way Surface Water Management. February 8, 1995. Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 1998. Schaadt Wetland Delineation Report. Prepared for Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Department, City of Federal Way. 9 pps plus data sheets and appendices. May 18, 1998. Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 43 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 2001. Fax from Ms. Dyanne Sheldon to Mr. Len Schaadt re: regulated water features — NE Quarter of Section 20-21-04: Federal Way. April 11, 2001. 1 pp. Shisler, J., R. Jordan, and R. Wargo. 1987. Coastal Wetland Buffer Delineation. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Trenton, New Jersey. 102 pp. Smith, M.R., P.W. Mattocks Jr., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding birds of Washington State. Volume 4 in Washington State Gap Analysis - Final Report (K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith, and K.M. Dvornich, eds.). Seattle Audubon Society Publications in Zoology No. 1, Seattle, Washington. 538 pp. Snyder, D., P. Gale, and R. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County area, Washington. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 100 pp. Thomas, J.W., and J. Verner. 1986. Forests. Pages 73-91 in A. Cooperrider, R. Boyd, and H. Stuart, eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of Me 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Stud, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. - J U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Special Public Notice. Final Regional Conditions, 401 Water Quality Conditions, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Responses, for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. July 23, 2002. 138 pp. Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 44 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory. 1987. Poverty Bay, 7.5 minute quadrangle. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States: In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington state wetlands identification and delineation manual. March 1997. Publication No. 96-94. 88 pp. plus appendices. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. Priority habitats and species list. Habitat Program. July 1999, Olympia, Washington. 32 pp. http:www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/hslist.htm. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004a. Habitats and Species Map in the vicinity of T21R04E Section 20 and accompanying data. August 24, 2004. Habitat Program, Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004b. Priority habitats and species lists. Management Recommendations. Inquiry made to the WDFW website regarding management guidelines for the green heron. 4�qp:www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/Phs/vol4/birdsrecs.htrrL Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004c. Email communication- from Ms. N ichelle Tirhi, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the regulatory status of the green heron in Washington State. August 26, 2004. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Aerial photos for the project area. NW-C-2001 flight lines 7-44-203. Flown on July 2, 2001. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2004a. Forest Practices Base Map for Section 20, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M. August 3, 2004. Jy Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2004b. Letter from WDNR in response to a request for search of the Washington Natural Heritage Program database for priority plant species for the Kitts Comer site. August 17, 2004. Washington State Forest Practices Board. 2000. Washington forest practices. Title 222 WAC, Forest Practices Board Manual; Chapter 76.09 RCW, Forest Practices. Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Division. Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wedand Assessment September 7, 2004 45 Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1981. An illustrated guide to the endangered, threatened and sensitive vascular plants of Washington. Olympia, Washington. 334 pp. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1994. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plants of Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plants of Washington — with worldng lists of rare non -vascular plants. Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 62 pp. Washington State Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Field Guide to Selected Rare Vascular Plants of Washington. h ://www,wa. ov/dnr/htdocs/fr/nh /refdeskff de/htmlfsf cn .htm. Last updated March 2002. Wentworth, T. and G. Johnson. 1986. Use of vegetation in the designation of wetlands. Final report to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina Agricultural Service and N.C. State University, Raleigh. 107 pp. Kitts Corner - Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Assessment September 7, 2004 FIGURE 8 uv 0 0 N I m 0 ID 0 -U N Y 0 0 n 0 0 N i U, r u �o IL in c ! 0 E U O T i rr U / � E 0 - Z CAMPUS GATEWAY ASSOC. KITTS CORNE - FED ERAL WAY, WASH INGTON EXISTING CONDITIONS KEY ■ _ •••• PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING WETLANDS WETLAND BUFFER ■ ,SP1-2 SAMPLE PLOT (Approx. location) SURVEYED EXTENT OF FOREST EDGE �— APPROX. EXTENT OF COVER TYPE EDGE GU GRASS and UNM OWED -STABLE S SHRUBLAND FC CONIFEROUS FOREST, MATURE Fd DECIDUOUS FOREST Fm MIXED FOREST, CONIFEROUS and DECIDUOUS PAB3 PALUSTRINE, AQUATIC BED PSS'f PALUSTRINE, SCRUB -SHRUB, BROAD LEAVED DECIDUOUS P F01 PALUSTRINE, FORESTED, BROAD LEAVED DECIDUOUS FE�� PALUSTRINE, EMERGENT PERSISTENT north ma RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 NORTHEAST 63RD ST. SEATTLE, WA 98115 (206) 525-8122 FAX: (21)5) 526-2850 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, "PROJECT: 2003-020-003 DATE: 9-02-04 DRAWN BY: CJM Base information provided by OTAK. Inc. files rec. 8/13/04 C37113230.dW9, 0371B230.dW9. 53718190-dWg: files rec. 8/18/04 bufferovg.dWg. siteplon-4.tif 0 �+ 1,913 S.F. II 0.04 Acres d . . '�.. \.. .. 3 It i _ _ .. . . FFM � 11 -.VYEfLJ+ND N0. 1e'� c1? K • - .1.92 acres a prOX- - �.t�on—sife�- o _ 0 1,3606 F. °' 0.03 Acres • - aEr- O rn i 0 3,804 S.F. k 0.01 Acres N ao O H 4 i 0 N r i° 0 � � N I v� J 7.506 S.F• — +�^'D{TAcres — — — aaa►■a �. i••aaa. LTV -•-•a��••••• 1 � � T tilt„ f\ uumm �, iI I-- o aci �_-Y a i � 1'; ' � tj�{ypt�y��1L5f3C7RA[1E, t �� , t F�►asrr . CJ iu E z 2 h 'O BE FILLED, 112 FIGURE 10 CAMPUS GATEWAY ASSOC. KITTS CORNER FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN KEY �a7 EXISTING WETLANDS :>�4 WETLANDS TO BE FILLED %(Approx. 0.30 Acre) WETLAND BUFFER BUFFER GIVE - UNENHANCED BUFFER GIVE - ENHANCED ® BUFFER IMPACTS ENHANCED REQUIRED BUFFER LIMIT OF FORESTED BUFFER north 50 a00 0 I00 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 NORTHEAST 63RD ST. SEATTLE, WA 98115 (205) 525-8122 FAX: (205) 525-2880 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES PROJECT: 2003-020-003 DATE: 9-02-04 DRAWN BY: CJM Base information provided by OTAK, Inc. files rec. 8/13/04 C371B230.dWg, 03718230.dWg. S371B190.dWg; files rec. 5/13/04 bufferovg.dWg, siteplan-4.0f �r WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources r` August 17, 2004 Dawn Garcia Raedeke Associates Inc 5711 Northeast 63rd St Seattle WA 98115 DOUG SUTHERLAND Commissioner of Public Lands SUBJECT: Kitt's Corner, Federal Way — Plant & Wildlife Assessment, #2004-020-001 (T21N R04E S20) We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on raze plants and high quality native wetland and terrestrial ecosystems in the vicinity of your project. A summary of this information is enclosed. In your planning, please consider protection of these significant natural features. Please contact us for consultation on projects that may have an effect on these rare species or high quality ecosystems. The information provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on existing information in the database. There may be significant natural features in your study area of which we are not aware. These data are being provided to you for informational and planning purposes only - the Natural Heritage Program has no regulatory authority. This information is for your use only for environmental assessment and is not to be redistributed. Others interested in this'information should be directed to contact the Natural Heritage Program. The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for information on the state's rare plants as well as high quality ecosystems. For information on animal species of concern, please contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol WayN, Olympia WA 98501-1091, or by phone (360) 902-2543. Please visit our intemet website at http://www.dnr.wa.goy/nhy for more information. Lists of rare plants and their status, as well as rare plant fact sheets, are available for download from the site. Please feel..free to call me at (360) 902-1667 if you have any questions, or by e-mail at sandia:moody@wadnr.gov. Sincerely, E Sandy Swope Moody, Environmental Review Coordinator Washington Natural Heritage Program Enclosures Asset Management & Protection Division, PO Box 47014, Olympia WA 98504-7014 FAX 360-902-1789 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE I PO BOX 47000 1 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7000 TEL: (360) 902-7000 1 FAX (360) 902-1775 1 77Y.' (360) 902-1125 _ Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER ri WASHINGTON NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR HIGH -QUALITY WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS The WNHP does not maintain a comprehensive inventory of all wetlands in the state. The database includes information only on those areas that have been surveyed by the program scientists and found to be relatively undisturbed high -quality wetlands. For wetlands included in the database, the physical characteristics, biota, ecosystem functions, processes and settings are essentially natural. For example, to be included in the WNHP database, a freshwater wetland site must meet these six criteria: 1. A native wetland ecosystem type (element) considered important for preservation within the state. 2. Little or no human -caused changes to wetland topography or soils. 3. No human caused changes to hydrology of the wetland, or the wetland appears to have recovered from any changes. 4. Few or no exotic plant species. 5. Little human -caused disturbance of native vegetation, or vegetation has recovered from past disturbance. 6. No major water quality problems. Criteria 2-6 are weighted based on the amount of disturbance present in all known examples of a given wetland type. Thus a disturbed wetland may be included in the WNHP Information System if it has one of the highest quality examples remaining of a particular wetland type. On the other hand, an equally disturbed site may not be included in the WNHP Information System if it contains a wetland type which has many other undisturbed examples. A severe degree of disturbance would exclude a site from being entered into the WNHP Information System, even if no better examples of that wetland type exist. CRITERIA FOR HIGH -QUALITY TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS Occurrences of terrestrial ecosystem types are determined by the characteristics of each individual ecosystem type. Ecological quality refers to both the ecological condition and the ecological viability of a particular community. Condition is determined by relative importance of native versus non-native species, extent and nature of human -caused disturbance, and how well the occurrence represents the ecosystem type definition. Viability is determined by size of the area and landscape setting. Minimum criteria for an occurrence of a terrestrial ecosystem: 1.. Native plants dominate the site: tree layers -composed of only native species, at least 80 percent of the shrub and herbaceous layers are composed of native plants. Non-native plants are generally insignificant. 2. Little or insignificant disturbance to vegetation by logging, conversion to agriculture, heavy grazing, residential development, or other recent human extractive activities that alter the ecosystem processes. 3. Large enough for minimal viability and ecological function: at least 100 acres for forests in the montane provinces and at least four average tree heights wide at its narrowest width, at least 20 acres for forest in the -Puget Lowlands, and at least 10 acres for native grasslands. The degree to which these criteria are applied to a site depends on characteristics of the particular ecosystem types present. Some ecosystem types are found almost exclusively as small patches, perhaps in areas smaller than in criterion 3. In this case, meeting criteria 1 and 2 would be sufficient. Large but moderately disturbed ecosystems representative of types that have been altered throughout their range because of various land uses may need only meet criteria 1 and 3. APPENDIX C AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Table B. 21 Continued. SOIL � Soil pit number ........... Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? ❑ Yes ❑ No Map Symbol ,, Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture Soil Profile Notes:........................................................................................................... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions =; Histic Epipedon - Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? 7 Yes ❑ No Rationale HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/22/03 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit .......................................... ....... ....................................................................................... Depthto saturation........................................................................................................................ Depth to free water/water table Inundation depth lOther indicators: Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale: CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Classification........................ _......... ..... ........................... _................... ......... ..................... ................... ...... .......... .............. Field Date: 8/22/03 RAI Observers: RAI Project #: 2003-020-001 Table B. 21 Kitts Corner Wetlands: Sample Plot 2-6, upland plot located approximately 30 feet east of north portion of Wetland 2. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees PODulus balsamifera 2 15.0 3.0 45.0 Shrubs Symphodcarpos albus 3 37.5 4.0 150.0 Rubus laciniatus 2 15.0 3.7 55.1 Prunus ema inafa s 2 15.0 4.0 60.0 Rubus ursinus 2 15.0 4.0 60.0 � C Isus sco arius 2 15.0 5.0 75.0 i S iraea dou lasii 1 2.5 2.0 5.0 Rhamnus purshiana s 1 2.5 3.3 8.3 Rubus discolor 1 2.5 4.0 10.0 Herbs Holcus /anatus 3 37.5 3.0 112.5 Pha/aris arundinacea 2 15.0 2.0 30.0 l r A cirsium arvense ! Cirsium migare 2 15.0 4.0 60.0 Senecio facobaea 1 2.5 4.0 10.0 i Gramineae 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 i SUMS 205.0 735.9 Weighted Mean Index: 15.9........................... ytic % of dominant species with a WIS H vegetation: No index of 3.0 or less: 30.00 ....... �-- Veg Notes P1At.1.1.Rttrdl+Il..&R[TII[1!,lli1#�t;? s�13:il;lt�t799f.k11I?.[]1.9%�l;ilpS]d,.�f7!�l�tllA�S. Habitat Features ' (snags, logs, etc.) ................ _......._....................._.... ................ ............. ............................. _...................................... Field Date: 8/22/03 RAI Observers: RAI Project #: 2003-020-001 Table B. 20 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number Map Unit (Series/Phase) Map Symbol ... .................. Profile: Matrix Color Depth Horizon (moist) Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No .................................................. On hydric list? ❑ Yes ❑ No ............ ••••-......... ........... - Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Size, Contrast (moist) Texture SoilProfile No soils sampled................................................................................................................................................... .. Notes: .... ............... ................................................. _........................................... .......... _....._..._ ........................ Hydric Soil Indicators (check): E! Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/5/04 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit No,sample.P..lt.............. ................................................................................._._._. Depthto saturation....».»................................................................................................................ Depth to free water/water table .................. Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): =�-inundath n depth ................... . .................................................._....................---.............................. Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale: CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ® No Classification Upland disturbed meadow ........ ............ ..........._................................................................. Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project* 2003-020-003 Table B. 20 Kitts Corner Wetland Impacts Assessment: Sample Plot 1-14, upland approximately 70 feet north of Wetland 1 in un-mowed field. Vegetation community data. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees i I - Shrubs - Cytfts 5Ca arias 1 2.5 5.0 12.5 i S Herbs Epilobium ciliatum 2 15.0 2.3 Hypericum formosum 2 15.0 3.3 Cirsium vulgare 2 15.0 4.0 Pteddium aquilinum + 2.5 4.0 35.0 50.0 60.0 10.0 Gramineae 3 0.0 U.0 U.0 SUMS 50.0 167.4 Weighted Mean Index: 3.15........................... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: No index of 3.0 or less: 33 ;33 , _„_................................ VegNotes - ........... -.............. -.............. ........................................ ....... -........ ...._.-................................................................ ........ Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc).............. ................................... ................... ............... _.....-...._... -.......................................... ... ... Field Date: 815iO4 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B. 19 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No Map Unit (Series/Phase) .............. -...................................... On hydric list? ❑ Yes ❑ No Map Symbol _.�._ - ......_... ._ .. »»....�.� _ ................... _.......... Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture SoilProfile No,soils samEled:.................................... ..... ........................... ................... ........................................ Notes: ........ .......... _... ... .... ......... .............................................................. ................................... ............................................... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions _,' Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Ej Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/20/03 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit ..................................... ................................. .................... ...... __............................ .................................... ........................ Depthto saturation .................................. -.... ................................................... .............................. Depth to free water/water table Inundation depth ......... Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale: ... ............ CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Classification Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Field Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG, EP RAI Project-#: 2003-020-001 Table B. 19 Kitts Comer Wetlands: Sample Plot 2-5, upland plot located approximately 50 feet east of SE portion of Wetland 2. Vegetation community data. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees --- - - Fseudotsu a menziesli 4 62.5 4.0 250.0 Alnus rubra 2 15.0 3.0 45.0 Shrubs -- Gaultheria shallOn 5 87.5 4.0 350.0 i 5 m horica as aibus 3 37.5 4.0 150.0 Noladlscus discolor 3 37.5 5.0 187.5 i Rhamnus urshiana s 2 15.0 3.3 50.0 .I i Co lus comufa 5 2 15.0 4.0 _ _1 Acer macro h llum s 1 2.5 4.0 10.0 _ ^r 0.0 Herbs Palystichum munitum 2 15.0 4.0 60.0 f. SUMS 287.5 1162.5 Weighted Mean Index:4. 0.4..... ................ ...... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: No index of 3.0 or less: 12.50 VegNotes....................................................................................................._.........................................................................._ .... Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.)............................................................ ....................................... _............................ .......... ............ ..................._. Field Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG. EP RAI Project #: 2003-020-001 Table B. 18 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? ❑ Yes ❑ No .................................................................. Map Symbol ............. ........... Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture Soil Profile No soils sampled -- _.................................................................................................................................... Notes: Hydric Soil Indicators (check): El Histosol Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? :❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/20/03 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit ................._..._..._.............. �............................................................................................................................... Depthto saturation ....................... a.............................................................................................................................. Depth to free water/water table .................... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): _-lriundation depth ......... ................. _.............. .............. .... 11�.._...............-.................................................................... .......... Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale: CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Classification ...:,.. Field Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG, EP RAI Project # 2003-020-001 Table B. 18 Kitts Comer Vv..iands: Sample Plot 1-13, upland plot ,ated southeast of Wetland 1 VEGETATION Scientific name Trees Cover Index Value Cover Class Midpoint WIS Index Value Product of Midpoint and WIS Value Pseudotsu a menziesii 5 87.5 4.0 350.0 . - .. Alnus rubra 2 15.0 3.0 45.0 ti i Prunus emerainate 1 2.5 4.0 10.0 Shrubs Gaultheria shallon 3 37.5 4.0 150.0 Rubus ursinus 2 15.0 4.0 60.0_ - S m horica n albus 2 15.0 4.0 60.0 _ Rhamnus purshiana s 1 2.5 3.3 8.3 i Sambucus racemosa i 1 2.5 4.0 10.0 Herbs ' Polystichum munitum 3 37.5 4.0 150.0 f s 1 SUMS 215.0 843.3 Weighted Mean Index: 192............................ Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: No index of 3.0 or less: 16.67 �- VegNotes................. :_............................................................................................................................................................... Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.).......................................................................................................................................................................... =ield Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG, EP RAI Project #: 2003-020-001 Table B. 17 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number ................................2-4 .... Field observations confirm mapped type? El Yes ❑ No .. Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? ❑ Yes ❑ No Map Symbol Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast 0-14" very dark gray (10YR 3/1) Mottle Color (moist) Tovft i rn gravelly sandy loam Soil Profile _ Notes: .... . Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions L= Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) El Sulfidic Odor ® Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ®Yes ❑ No Rationale Soils below 10 inche' have a matrix chroma of HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/20/03 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit 14...................................__.......................... ...._............................... ......... ............................................................ Depth to saturation NA .. Depth to free water/water table N, ,........... _. ................................................................................ ............ .... ....... . Anundation depth NA....... ............. ................................................... ................................................. .. Other indicators: Area has scouring- and, sediment stained leaves throughout, no,ob-v„ious stream.....iiii........................ .._......._-............ channel ................ ................... Wetland Hydrology? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale: Secondary indicators of wetland. hY.drola....................................................................................... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ® Yes ❑ No Classification PFO1 Palustrinr: forested broad-leaved deciduous wetland .__._................................................_.......... ......................................... _..................... .................... Field Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG, EP RAI Project* 2003-020-001 Table B. 17 Kitts Comer Wetlands: Sample plot 2-4, wetland plot located at the south end of Wetland 2 VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Salix lucida 3 37.5 1.7 62.6 balsarnifera 3 37.5 3.0 _ 112.5 _Populus Alnus rubra 2 15.0 3.0 45.0 _ � I Shrubs Salk lucida s 3 37.5 1.7 62.6 3 Po ulus balsamifera s 1 2.5 3.0 7.5 l Herbs Geranium robertianum 3 37.5 5.0 187.5 Carex obnupta Glyceria elata Ranunculus repens 2 2 2 15.0 15.0 15.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 15.0 25.1 30.0 Epilobium ciliatum 2 15.0 2.3 35.0 Urtica dioica 1 Juncus effusus 2 1 15.0 2.5 2.7 2.0 40.1 5.0 SUMS 245.0 627.8 Weighted Mean Index: ?J§........................... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 90.00 VegNotes ............. ................. _..... Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) ................._ ._.._.__..._.........._._._..._.............. ........................................................ .................. Field Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG, EP RAI Project #: 2003-020-001 Table B. 16 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number S.P ...................2-3 ..... Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No ............. Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? ❑ Yes ❑ No Map Symbol ---------- H d ' ' 13 Profile: Depth Horizon .......................................................................... .............. y nc inclusion . ❑Yes ❑ No Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture Soil Profile Notes: ....... ....W.......................... »....»....».................. ................................................................... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol u Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ] High Organic Surface (sandy soils) ] Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ] Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale no soils sampled _ HYDROLOGY Fieid Observations: Depth of pit ............ .. . Depth to saturation Depth to free watertwater table ==--#wndation depth Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale: CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? Yes ❑ No Classification Field Date: 8/20/03 Recorded Data (gauge or well): Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Field Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG, EP RAI Project#: 2003-020-001 Table B. 16 Kitts Corner Wetlands: Sample Plot 2-3, wetland plot located in central portion of Wetland 2 VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees --- Fraxinus lat►folia Alnus rubra 3 37.5 2.0 3 37.5 3.0 i5_u 112.5 Shrubs 5 m horica cs albus 4 62.5 4.0 250.0 Ph coca us ca ifafus s 3 37.5 2.3 87_4 { Rasa isoca a 3 37.5 3.0 112.5 Malus fusca s 2 15.0 2.0 ^30.0 Alnus rubra s 2 15.0 3.0 45.0 Rubus laciniafus 1 2.5 3.7 9.2 i i Herbs t -- 245.0 721.6 SUMS - Weighted Mean Index: Z.9.5„.........:................ Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 85.71 Veg Notes Habitat Features Snag cluster.of 6-12" dbh alders. Small woodpecker foraging holes. Stream (snags, logs, etc.) �L�anxr�i[zcis x�kiQt.let de1��rit t�r�9 tre and.Z.argt<......_..... ninehark provides,gapd_,perphing habitat and,struc#urn:.................. _ ...... .......... ............... Field Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG, EP RAI Project M 2003-020-001 Table B. 15 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number SP 2-2 Map Unit (Series/Phase) Map Symbol .............. Profile: Matrix Color Depth Horizon (moist) 0-12" very dark gray (10YR Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No .................................................... On hydric list? ❑ Yes ❑ No ............. ................. •. -•-•• .. Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Size, Contrast (moist) Texture gravelly sandy loam Soil Profile Notes: ................. .................... ............................................... ..............................._............................................................ Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑High Organic Surface (sandy soils) = Sulfidic Odor ® Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? iZ Yes ❑ No Rationale Soils below 10 inches have a matrix chroma of 1 HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/20/03 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit 12"........................ .......................................................................................................... Depth to saturation ............................. >12" ..--.--........................................................................................................... ....................... " Depth to free water/water table �! 2............... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): _ -4nundation depth ...... .............. .................. ......_.......... ............................................................. Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale: Hygrgp_oyt .:gnd.hydric sail indicate the likeiihoad of wetland hydraloSy„during the Winler.and,apbng............. ........ .......................................................................................... ...................... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria. Met? ®Yes No Classification f F01-palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous wetland Field Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG, EP RAI Project #: 2003-020-001 Table B. 15 Kitts Comer Wetlands: Sample Plot 2-2, wetland plot lc,..ated in north portion of Wetland 2 VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees _- Pa ulus balsamifera 4 62.5 3.0 187.5 Salix scouleriana 2 15.0 3.0 45.0 Fraxinus latifolia 1 2.5 2.0 5.0 ' Shrubs Pqpulus balsamifera s 3 37.5 3.0 112.5 Rosa pisocarpa 3 37.5 3.0 112.5 . s iraea dau lash 2 15.0 2.0 - 30.0 _ i salix scouleriana L) 2 -- ---_ _15.0 - -3.0--- 45.0 i Rubus discelor 2 15.0 _ 4:0 60.0 Fraxinus latifolia s 1 2.5 2.0 5.0 Lonicera involucrata 1 2.5 2.7 6.7 -; Herbs Phalaris arundinacea 3 37.5 2.0 75.0 j SUMS 242.5 684.2- Weighted Mean Index: Z O.Z........................... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 87.50 Vag Notes tlisb..;ihl �.. a �i. .dix r.;3jtxf...Nsn�atix .h4n.�x >aslsle.�in 9�Qu►!i�g_ia.phi;:.:�r.�;�................... Cottonwoodsfrom 2 to 4 feet dbh........,_...................................................... ....................... _.-....................... Habitat Features Stream channel east of plot (snags, logs, etc.) ...... _......... _...... ......................... Field Date: 8/20/03 RAI Observers: DG, EP RAI Project #: 2003-020-001 Table B.14 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number Field observations confirm mapped type? El Yes ❑ No ................................................... Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? ❑ Yes ❑ No ....... Map Symbol Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture I I 3 Soil Profile No soils sampled _ __ ............................. ....... .............................................. ..................................................................- Notes: ...................... _..._............................................................................,........._......,.._...................................................... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): j] Histosol ] Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions El Histic Epipedon .7 Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) 7 Sulfidic Odor Gley/Low Chroma Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/5/04 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit........................................................................................................................ Depthto saturation .............. ................................... . ................................,....................................................................................... . Depth to free water/water table ....................... Notes (inlettoutlet, etc.): =_- IRundatlon depth..........................................._........................-...�...................- ................................................................... Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes ❑ No Rationale: ---------------- - CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Classification Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LD RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.14 Kitts Comer Wetland Impacts Assessment: Sample Plot -i, wetland plot in north portion of Wetland 2, on east side of stream. Vegetation community data. VEGETATION Scientific name Trees balsamifera Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Value Midpoint Value WIS Value 3 37.5 112.5. 3.0 — Shrubs Rubes s ectabilis 3 37.5 2.7 100.1 S m horica os albus 2 15.0 4.0 60.0 S iraea dau lash 1 2.5 2.0 _ 5.0 Pop us $alsarnifera s 1 2.5 3.0 7.54 Ri�hr►� dlsCalOr 1 2.5 0 10.0 corylus camuta s 1 2.5 4.0 1 u.0 Rebus ursinus 1 2.5 .4.0 10.0 , _J Herbs Phalaris arundinacea + 2.5 2.0 5.0 SUMS 105.0 320.1 Weighted Mean Index: 19.5........................... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 66.67 Veg Notes .-�5°�n.Qf t17.i�Lg�f.�1.�K.QtS2AY1!S?9d.tf..h�.Y.lr..dkh>2.ft........................................................ Habitat Features. (snags, logs, etc.) ............................. -............. .w...... ............... .......................................................... ..........._........ .......... ----------------- Field: Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LD RAI Project P. 2003-020=003 Table B.13 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 4-I2..... Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No tt-Alder Map Unit (Series/Phase) Everewood__grayelly.sandY........ On hydric list? ❑ Yes ❑ No ............................... Map Symbol EwC ...... Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture 0-91. A black (10YR 2/1) gravelly loam I i 9-16+" dark yellowish brown v gravelly sandy loam (10YR 3/4) Soil Profile Notes: m� . ..-.......-........................................................................................................ .. Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime J Concretions ] Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) ] Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ;] Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale Soils below A horizon have a matrix chroma greater (han 2 HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/5/04 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 16+......................................................... ....................................... ...........*............... ...... Depthto saturation >1.6...................................................................................... . ..................... „ Depth to free water/water table >16,.,,,,.„.„. Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): 4.�`Idundation depth.............................................................................................................................................� ._.._.................. Other indicators: . ..................................I......................... .......................... 9........................................................................... Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale: No primary Vindicators of wetland hydralo9y; secondary indicators of inundation present,, ............_ ....................... bux.:�rea JiltlK I u..nat.I�vn�e�.f.Qr,.;�.1.Qn s�. � nvug Ix.tJ.crz�..t>�. �r.��ila sKrK..a�r;�rwra� ilK. sail..r�l latiiti�r��.... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ❑ Yes Z No Classification gpland-deciduous forest transitional zone .......................................I............. ., _; _. ...... ..._ .... .. ............. Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 -) Table B.13 Kitts Comer Wetland Impacts Assessment: Sample Plot _42, upland adjacent to north portion of Wetland 1 near OTAK flag 5008. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Salix scouleriana 3 37.5 3.0 112.5 Shrubs Rosa prsoca a Lonicera involucrata PQ ulus tremuleides i i Herbs 3 37.5 1 2.5 1 2.5 3.0 112.5 2.7 2.7 6.7 . 6.7 SUMS 80.0 238.4 Weighted Mean Index: U.0.......................... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 ............................................................... VegNotes NQ.hsr10.a;.1R41d§.r-9XQr. ................. ..--............ ................ ............. ...................... .................. ............... ............. ........ Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) .............. ..... ................................ ............................. ....... ... _... ................ ............................ .............. .............. Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.12 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1-9 Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Ever.tt-Aiderwood„araveliv.sandv.......... On hydric list? ❑ Yes ® No Map Symbol EwC ............_,— ................. ..... _....... ...... ........ Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ® No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast 0-9" A black (10YR 2/1) 9-16+" dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) Mottle Color (moist) Texture gravelly loam gravelly sandy loam Soil Profile Notes:......................................................................................................................................................... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): i❑ Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions El Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chrome ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale Soils below A horizon have a matrix chroma greater than 2 HYDROLOGY . Field Date: 8/5/04 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit 16+"........................._............�...................................................................................................................................... Depth to saturation >16".................................... .................. .................................... I ........ I ................ . Depth to free water/water table >.16" ............._ Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): -- -inundation depth N/A ............................................ ... .......................... _............................................ ................._..... .............. Other indicators: None Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale: No.primary or senondary indicators.of wetland hydrology CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ❑ Yes IZ No ClassificationUpland-shre.bland......................... ..._............................... ............................. -........... ........... .. Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LCD; GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.12 Kitts Corner Wetiands: Sample Plot 1-9, upland adjacer� SE portion of Wetland 1 near OTAK flag 5015. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Malus fusca 1 2.5 2.0 5.0 Salix scouleriana 1 2.5 _ _ 3.0 — 7.5 _ - . S iraea dou lash 3 37.5 2.0 75.0 Rosa nutkana 2 15.0 3.0 45.0. n .I G A A n an n urau►rnerra snanurr Po ulus tremuloides s 1 2.5 2.7 6.7 I I k I i Herbs Polystichum munitum + 2.5 SUMS 77.5 YY- 209.2 Weighted Mean Index: 2.JQ........................... % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: H gn:c etatin: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 66.67 Veg Notes .GFQt?R GPY ! ?.i;.Rflfrl�f!lX. jp.�f..l!.......................... --....................... ............................................................... ~ Habitat Features , (snags, logs, etc.) ... ...................... _................................ I .......................... ....................... ..................... ....... _._........... ................. Field Date: '8/5/04 - RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.11 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1-2 „.. Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ❑ No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Everett-Alderwoor gravelly sandy On hydric list? El Yes ❑ No Map Symbol E.wC Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast 0-9" A black (10YR 2/1) 9-16+" dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) Mottle Color (moist) Texture gravelly loam gravelly sandy loam Soil Profile Notes: ......... .................................... I .......... .................. ...- �.�... _... ... _ ..... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): =1 Histosol = Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions Histic Epipedon Li Reducing Conditions -El High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma El Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ❑ Yes Z No Rationale Soils below depth. of 10 inches have a matrix chroma greater than 2. No redoxirnorphic ......................................................................................... ............ .............................. ...................... HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/5/04 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 16+��....................................................... .......... ............. ...................... .......................................................... ...... Depth to saturation >16"......................................... ...............».... ...................................... ....... ........ .............. . .......... >16" Depth to free water/water table ..................... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): -Inundation-Inundation .. ation depth N/A............................................................................................................................................ ...... ....� Other indicators: None ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale: No.primary„ or,secondary indicators, of wetland ,hydrology „_„� �_ _ _ µ CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? L7Yes Z No Classification Upland forested buffer ....._.... ........._.. ... ............ __....... ...... Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LCO, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.11 Kitts Corner Wetlands: Sample Plot 1-2, upland adjace.---� NE portion of Wetland 1, near delineation flag 1-13. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Malus fusca 3 37.5 2.0 75.0 Populus tremuloides 1 2.5 2.7 - 6.7 E Shrubs S iraea dou lasii 2 15.0 2.0 30.0 Lonicera involucrata 2 15.0 2.7 40.1 Rosa isoca a 2 15.0 3.0 45.0 Ruhus s ectabilis 1 2.5 2.7 6.7 Herbs Maianthemum dilatatum + 2.5 3.0 7.5 _ Musci 1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 i SUMS 90.0 210.9 J Weighted Mean Index: 2.,34........................... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 Veg Notes ............ ................ ........ ....... .................. .... -.............. ....... ........................... ..................................................... ....._..... . Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) ...... ....».»....... ................................................... ................................................................-......................� ... Field Date: 815104 RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.10 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1-$........ Map Unit (Series/Phase) Map Symbol EwC . Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No Everett-Alderwood Gravelly ...._Sandy...... On hydric list? ❑ Yes ® No ....... ................................ -•.................................. Hydric inclusion? ® Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Depth Horizon (moist) 0-36+" V very dark brown (7.5YR i 2/2) i i I Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Size, Contrast (moist) Texture mucky peat Soil Profile Notes:.........._........................................................................................................ Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale Organic.soils (histosols) indicate hydric sails. .............................................. _................................................... ....... HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of pit 36+0 ........... Depth to saturation surface Depth to free water/water table surface, _-Anundation depth 8" Other indicators: Field Date: 8/5/04 Recorded Data (gauge or well): Notes (inlet/oubet, etc.): Wetland Hydrology? IN Yes ❑ No Rationale: Inundation in mid/late growing,season..................... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ® Yes ❑ No Classification PEM1..- Palustrine emergent,..persistent wetland Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.10 Kitts Corner Wetland Impacts Assessment: Sample Plot ^� wetland plot in northwest central portion of Wetland 1 dominated by emergent vegetation. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Shrubs - - Herbs Sparganium spp. Alopecurus aequalis Carex vesicaria 3 2 2 37.5 15.0 15.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 37.5 15.0 15.0 Phalaris arundinacea Scirpus atrocinctus 2 1 15.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 30.0 2.5 SUMS 85.0 100.0 Weighted Mean Index: 1..1.6........................... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 ........................ ......................................... Veg Notes .fed.q�C!.LY9z;#`?.�S.Ll4t.9L4W111g.1L1.�f��JS.�LhF_W.�ltlrC..'..1.".. .............................................. labitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) ....................................� .. ... ......... .� .. ............................. _........._..---............. Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LID RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.9 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1.-7_ __ Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No Map Unit (Series/Phase) E.verett-Alde.rwaa.......d..G.ravell..y Sandy„_.... On hydric list? ❑ Yes ® No ............................................. Map Symbol EwC Hydric inclusion? ® Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon _(moist) _ Size_ , Contrast (moist) Texture 0-36+^ very dark brown (10YR mucky peat 2/2) Soil Profile _ Notes:........................................................... -............. -................................... »................».....»..........................�........ Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) _! Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale Orsanic.soils (histosols�_ indicate hydric soils; _„w... HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of pit 36+ Depth to saturation surface .......................... _........ Depth to free water/water table surface Int�ndatlon depth N/A Other indicators: Field Date: 8/5/04 Recorded Data (gauge or well): Notes (inletioutlet, etc.): Wetland Hydrology? Z Yes ❑ No Rationale: Saturation, and free water at surface during mid/late stowing season CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? iZ Yes ❑ No Classification PEM1Palustrine emergent, Persistentwetland -- ...... _....... _.. ,.. _.... Field Date: 8/5104 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project#: 2003-020-003 Table B.9 Kitts Comer Wetland Impacts Assessment: Sample Plo, 17, wetland plot in northeast - central portion of Wetland 1 dominated by reed canarygrass. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Shrubs Herbs j Phalads arundinacea Weighted Mean Index: 2,,QQ........................... % of dominant species with a WIS index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 VegNotes .......- . ......................................................... 5 87.5 2.0 175.0 87.5 Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes 175.0 Habitat Features (snags, logs, -etc.) . ...... ............ ........ .........._.......... ........................... ..... ........ ........................................... ... .......... _... ............... Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 i Table B.8 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1-6 ........................... .... Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No ..... Map Unit (Series/Phase) E.verett-Aiderwood......Gravelly.....San....dy...... On hydric list? El Yes ® No .................................................... Map Symbol EwC...- ....................................... ........... Hydric inclusion? ® Yes ❑ No .............. ............. ............. Profile: Depth Horizon 0-36+" Matrix Color (moist) very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) Mottle Quantity, Size, Contrast Mottle Color (moist) Texture mucky peat Soil Profile Notes: .............. » »»... - ._. .... ........ ................ ...... __»..... ...... .....».». m_................................ Hydric Soil Indicators (check): N Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions El Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions !] High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Z Yes ❑ No Rationale Organic soils (Histosols), ind j @a hydric soils, HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/5/04 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit 36+"........................................................................................................................ Depth to saturation surface ...... ................................................................................................................. .......................................... Depth to free water/water table surface Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): -_ Ahundation depth N/A ........ ........... _........................... ..... _......... ........... ................................................. ....... I.—......................... Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? Z Yes ❑ No Rationale: Surface saturation/free water during mid/late,growing..season.... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? Z Yes ❑ No Classification PEM1 - Palustrine emergentj,persistent wetland ............................-...._� ..................................................M...-....... _......................... Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.8 Kitts Corner Wetlands: Sample Plot 1-6, wetland plot in _ . athern portion of Wetland 1 dominated by emergent vegetation. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees - - L- Shrubs Herbs Ca -ex vesicaria 5 87.5 1.0 Sparjam um emersum 2 15.0 1.0 SUMS 102.5 Weighted Mean Index: ............................ Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 ....................... ............... - .... . VegNotes.-.........................-....-....................................................................._................ ................... 87.5 15.0 102.5 Habitat Features- Some small downed trees on perimeter of PEM wetland area (snags, logs, etc.)..................................................... ................ -....... ........... ................. ................. Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.7 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1-5 ........................ Field observations confirm mapped type? [I Yes ® No ... Map Unit (Series/Phase) Evereft-Aiderwood Gravelly Sandy On hydric list? ❑ Yes ® No .............. ..................... Map Symbol EwC Hydric inclusion? ® Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture 0-36+" very dark brown (10YR mucky peat 2/2) Soil Profile Notes: ....................................-........................................................ Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Z'Histosol E] Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale Organic sails (histosols,) indicate hydric soils, HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of pit 36+"....... Depth to saturation surface Depth to free water/water table surface -:--Ihundation depth 8" Other indicators: Field Date: 8/5/04 Recorded Data (gauge or well): Notes (inlet/oudet, etc.): Wetland Hydrology? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale: Inundation in mid/late.growing,season................ ---------------- CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria. Met? Z Yes ❑ No Classification Palustrin-e _aqu...a.tic bed .roote..vascuiar�wetl....... ....................... Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 i Table B.7 Kitts Corner Wetlands: Sample Plot 1-5, wetland plot, c, er of Wetland 1 dominated by aquatic bed vegetation. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Shrubs I ' Herbs Nuphar polysepalum 4 62.5 1.0 62.5 Typha ladfolia 2 15.0 1.0 15.0 Sparganium spp. 1 2.5 1.0 2.5 polygonum amphibium 1 2.5 1.0 2.5 SUMS 82.5 82.5 -- Weighted Mean Index: 1.,!?Q,........ .................. Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 VegNotes .............. --- ......................... ................... ..................................................................................... Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) - .. ...................................... _............................................. ........................................... ......... .»...».......,,,----------.... Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.6 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1-4 Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Everett-Alderwood Gravelly Sandy On hydric list? El Yes ®No Map Symbol EWC Hydric inclusion? ® Yes ❑ No Profile: - Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast 0-36+" very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) Mottle Color -(moist) Texture mucky peat Soil Profile Notes:.................................-............'............................................................................................... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Z Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions �i Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) El Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Z Yes ❑ No Rationale Organic soils„(histosolsJ, indicate hydric soils HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of pit 36+",..._ Depth to saturation surface Depth to free water/water table surface Inundation depth I"In pockets Other indicators: Field Date: 8/5/04 Recorded Data (gauge or well): Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Wetland Hydrology? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale: Surface saturation/f e.e water inundation jn midllate growing season.. ......................................................-........:.................................................. CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met4 Z Yes ❑ No Classification FEN! ! - Palustrine emergent; persistent wetland x.-....................................... .............. -................................... Field Date: 8/5/04- RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project#: 2003-020-003 Table B.6 Kitts Comer Wetlands: Sample Plot 1-4, wetland plot, u-Juth-central portion of Wetland 1 dominated by emergent vegetation. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Shrubs i f Herbs " Carex vesicaria 2 15.0 1.0 15.0 Phalaris arundinacea 2 15.0 2.0 30.0 _ Sparganium emersum 1 2.5 1.0 _ 2.5 Bare ground + 0.0 0.0 0.0 SUMS 32.5 47.5 Weighted Mean Index: 1..4.0............................ Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes . index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 ................................................................. VegNotes ......................... ............. ................ ......... ............. ..................................................... _.......... ..-................. ... ....- .....-...._.... Habitat Features- (snags, logs, etc.) ..-........._».--- ..------ ---------- --------- ........ ..... ....................................................... _............. ......... ....... Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project#: 2003-020-003 Table B.5 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number -.3 ... Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No Map Unit (Series/Phase) E.verett-Aiderwood......Gravell..y Sandy_.__. On hydric list? ❑ Yes ® No ................................................. Map Symbol EwC ...... Hydric inclusion? ® Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast 0-30+" very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2) I Mottle Color (moist) Texture mucky peat Soil Profile Soils sampled with.auyler..................................................... ............. ............ ....... — -..... _ Notes: I .......... I ...... ... _..... _....._........__._._......»........................_......__...».»».._ ... »... . . Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Z Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Gley/Low Chroma ] Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? (E Yes ❑ No Rationale Prganic soils (histosol) indicate hydric soils; HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/5/04 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depthof pit 30±"...»............. .. .................... ............ _..........» ......._............ I ........... ........... ..... ....................... Depth to saturation surface ................. »»..».....-.................. „..................................................... Depth to free water/water table surface Notes (inletJoutlet, etc.): _.. Inundation depth none..._ ...................................... ....._ ... ».».» ».......... .......... ..... ...... —"* ....... ... .„.......... Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? Z Yes ❑ No Rationale: Soil saturation and free water at surface during mid/late growing seasar!„_„_ ; CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? IIZ Yes ❑ No Classification PSS1 - Palustrine� scrub-shrub,,broad-leaved deciduous wetland Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.5 Kitts Corner Wetlands: Sample Plot 1-3. Eastern porti, of Wetland 1 dominated by scrub -shrub vegetation. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Shrubs S iraea dou lasii 5 87.5 2.0 175.0 -F Herbs Oenanthe sarmentosa + 2.5 1.0 2.5 _ Carex spp. + 2.5 2.0 5.0 i r SUMS 92.5 182.5 Weighted Mean Index:.1,,97............................. Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 VagNotes ._..........--_- __ ................................. Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) ........ ....... .... .................... ................................................................... _................................................................. Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table BA Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1.-13 Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Everett-Alderwood gravelly On hydric list? ❑Yes ®No .................... Map Symbol EwC Hydric inclusion? ® Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast 0-14" black (7.5YR 2.511) 14-16+" dark brown (10YR 3/3) Mottle Color (moist) Texture loam fine sandy loam Soil Profile Some organic inclusions in A and B,horizons.... ..... - __ __ _ ___„_„........... Notes: ............ ....... .......•......................................... --................. ................ » . _.............. _......_ ... .»»». »..». ». Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol ] Aquic Moisture Regime ] Concretions Histic Epipedon ] Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils) Sulfidic Odor Gley/Low Chroma ] Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ;H Yes ❑ No Rationale HYDROLOGY Field Date: 8/5104 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 16+"........ .................. _........................ I....... ......... ..................................................... ....................................... ............. ».. Depthto saturation>16"................................... ........ ....... _........ -...._........... ......... ............. ....... .... ................ ... -............ ........... Depth to free water/water table >16 _. Inundation depth NA .............-.................................. ........ ........ ........ ....... ............. ...................�........................ -.... ...................... Other indicators: Driftlines and matted leaves;, soils, moist throughout.soii,profle and very»moist, at .............................................................. .... ...... Wetland Hydrology? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale: Secondary,.indicators of wetland hydrology - CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? Z Yes ] No Classification PSS1 ,palustrine, scrub -shrub,. broad-leaved deciduous wetland Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project#: 2003-020-003 Table BA Kitts Comer Wetlands: Sample Plot 1-13, wetland plot forth portion of Wetland 1 near Otak flag 5008. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Shrubs 4qi:raeq douglas# 5 87.5 2.0 175.0 Safix scouledana (s) 2 15.0 3.0 45.0 Saft lucida 0 1 2.5 1.7 4.2 + �Rosq pisqgq�2q 2.5 3.0 7.5 Herbs SUMS 107.5 231.7 Weighted Mean Index: Z,.J.§ ........................... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes, index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 ............................ - ......... ................. VegNotes .................................................... ........ . ..................... ........ - .... .................... . .. ........................... .................. I .. . ............ . .. ................... . ............................. . .. 7 .................. ............................... . . . . ............. . ................................. .... . ........... ........... .............................. ................. ..... . ..... I ... ............. Habitat Features: (snags, logo, etc.) ..................... ........ ... . .................................. .... ........ ........................ .... ...................... .. .. . ................. . . - .- ...... ... .. . ............................. ...... ......... ......... ......... ............... ..... . ........................... ............... Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LO RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.3 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1,-10....„ Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Everett-Alderwood grayeliy„sandv ., On hydric list? ❑Yes ®No Map Symbol EwC.................................................I............................. Hydric inclusion? ® Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture 0-15+" black (7.5YR 2.5/1) loam Soil Profile some organic_ material in loam Notes:................................................................................................................................................................... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) 7 Sulfidic Odor ® Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Z Yes ❑ No Rationale Soils below 10" have a matrix chroma of 1 HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of pit 15" Depth to saturation >15" Field Date: 8/5/04 Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth to free water/water table >! 5" ............. Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): ==Inundation depth NJA........_.................................................................. .......,..... .............................. ....» ......................... Other indicators: ,pirea too dense to observe secondary indicatv„rs;.soils, moist throughout soil ........... ........... profile. Wetland Hydrology? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale: 855umed due ,tO hydrophyies and )?ydric soils. ,Areas with similar elevation in other p�rsians.pf xu�#I�..la,ay.�.�i�.mats.and..cii�t.l�as�.............._.............�.,..�.......-.-_. �_...... _...... � ..... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met?' Yes ❑ No Classification PSS1 - palustrine, scrub -shrub broad-leaved deciduous wetland ...... ...... ...... .....__............ ....._ __ . Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.3 Kitts Corner Wetlands: Sample Plot 1-10, wetland plot i„southeast portion of Wetland 1, west of OTAK flag 5015 VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees Shrubs - -- - 5airaea douclasd 5 87.5 2.0 175.0 Herbs ' 87.5 175.0 SUMS Weighted Mean Index: Z,00........ _................. Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 +~ ...........-................................................ i VegNotes .,.,.............................. ..............---......................................................-...................................... Habitat Features i- (snags, logs, etc.) ............................... ............. ................................... ...... ........ »......»......_.....».».._ »...»_.» ........ Field Date: 8/5/04 RAI Observers: EP, LD RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.2 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number 1-1 Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Everett Aiderwood gravelly sandy,__„_... On hydric list? ❑ Yes ® No Map Symbol EwC ..........................................................,. Hydric inclusion? ® Yes ❑ No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture 0-11" black (10YR 2/1) organic loam 11-16" dark yellowish brown common, medium, dark brown (7.5YR compact gravelly (10YR 4/4) distinct 3/4) sandy loam Soil Profile Notes:..................................................................................._...-................. ....................... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): ❑ Histosol ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Concretions Histic Epipedon ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) ❑ Sulfidic Odor Z Gley/Low Chroma ❑ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Z Yes ❑ No Rationale Soils belowaz10 inches have a matrix chroma of 1. Redoximorphic,features present kilovit P►.hii�,.........................................�.............................................................................................................. HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of pit 16".„_, Depth to saturation >16" Depth to free watertwater table ? 16" inundation depth Field Date: 8/5104 Recorded Data (gauge or well): Notes (inletioutlet, etc.): Other indicators: Sediment, stained leaves. distinct dri;ftlines of twigs and, sticks;_soils,moist ................. .................. ....................... throuohout profile. Wetland Hydrology? ®Yes ❑ No Rationale: Secandary indicators of wetland hydrolog)r _ ............ w CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ® Yes ❑ No Classification PSS1. ;. Palustdr!q scrub -shrub. broad-leaved deciduous wetland ...................................................-..................._....... - ............. Field Date: 8/5/04, RAI Observers: LCD, GEP RAI Project #: 2003-020-003 Table B.2 Kitts Corner V, ..lands: Sample Plot 1-1, NE portion of :;tland 1 at delineation flag 1-13. VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of Index Class Index Midpoint and Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value Trees -- — - 1 Populus tremuln+des 1 2.5 2.7 6.7 Shrubs- — 5a1ix lucida s 3 37.5 1.7 62.6- 5 iraea dou lasii 3 37.5 2.0 75.0- i i Herbs SUMS 77.5 144.3 Weighted Mean Index: 1AB..... - .................... Hydrophytic % of dominant species with a WIS vegetation: Yes index of 3.0 or less: 100.00---_--_- Veg Notes NQ.hlr�k Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.)..............................................._......� ......---.................................-......... -.. »»..,.w_.... .................... Field Date: 8/5104 RAI Observers: LCO, GEP I RAI Project#: 2003-020-003 i- . Table B.1. Continued. Scientific Name Common Name WIS1, 2 Nuphar polysepalum Yellow pond -lily OBL Oenanthe sarmentosa Water -parsley OBL Phalaris arundinacea* Reed canarygrass FACW Polygonum amphibium Water smartweed OBL Polystichum munitum Sword -fern FACU Pteridium aquilinum Bracken -fern FACU Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW Senecio jacobaea* Tansy ragwort FACU Scirpus atrocinctus Wooly sedge OBL Sparganium spp. # Burreed ---- Sparganium emersum Simplestem burreed OBL Typha latifolia Common cattail OBL Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC+ 1 = The following codes are used: (s) = Sapling ® = Genera with species having a narrow range of WIS ratings that were averaged and were then included in our vegetation plot calculations. # = Genera with species having a wide range of WIS ratings, not included in our vegetation plot calculations. = Those species not listed by Reed (1988, 1993) are rated UPO by default (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989). These species were included in our vegetation plot calculations. NI = No indicator. Species not reviewed by Reed (1988, 1993) due to lack of Wormation on which to base an indicator status. These species were not included in our vegetation plot calculations. * = Invasive, exotic species § = Federally or state listed as endangered, threatened, or sensitive 2 = WIS ratings with aminus symbol are considered "drier", while the plus symbol indicates "wetter" species. Plants not identified to species are shown with the WIS range for the species common to this region. Table B.1. Continued. Scientific Name' Common Name WISP z Rosa nutkana Nootka rose FAC Rosa pisocarpa Clustered rose FAC Rubus discolor* Himalayan blackberry FACU Rubus laciniatus* Evergreen blackberry FACU+ Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+ Rubus ursinus Pacific blackberry FACU Salix lucida (s) Pacific willow FACW+ Salix scouleriana (s) Scouler's willow FAC Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU Spiraea douglasii Hardhack spirea FACW Symphoricarpos albus Common snowberry FACU HERBS Alopecurus aequalis Short -awn foxtail OBL Carex spp. ® Sedge FACW Carex obnupta Slough sedge OBL Carex vesicaria Inflated sedge OBL Cirsium arvense* Canadian thistle FACU+ Cirsium vulgare* Bull thistle FACU Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed FACU+ Epilobium ciliatum Watson's willow -herb FACW- Geranium robertianum* Herb Robert UP © Glyceria elata Tall mannagrass FACW+ Gramineae# Undifferentiated grasses -- Holcus lanatus Common velvet -grass FAC Hypericum jormosum Western St. John's -Wort FAC- Hypericum majus § Canadian St. John's -Wort FAC Juncus effuses Soft rush FACW Maianthemum dilatatum False lily-of-t e-valley FAC Musci# Undifferentiated mosses -- Table B.1. Scientific and common names of plants with assigned Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) (Reed 1988, 1993). Scientific names from Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), Hickman (1993), and Cooke (1997). Scientific Namel Common Name WISP 2 TREES Alnus rubra Red alder FAC Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW Malus fusca Western crabapple FACW Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood FAC Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen FAC+ Prunus emarginata Bittercherry FACU Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas -fir FACU Rhamnus purshiana Cascara FAC- Salix lucida Pacific willow FACW+ Salix scouleriana Scouler's willow FAC SHRUBS Acer macrophyllum (s) Big -leaf maple FACU Alnus rubra (s) Red alder FAC Corylus cornuta (s) Hazelnut FACU Cytisus scoparius * Scot's broom UPL® Fraxinus latifolia (s) Oregon ash FACW Gaultheria shallop Salal FACU Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray UPL@ Lonicera involucrata -Black twinberry FAC+ Malus fusca (s) Western crabapple FACW Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum FACU Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark FACW- Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood FAC Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen FAC+ Prunus emarginata Bittercherry FACU Rhamnus purshiana (s) Cascara FAC- FIGURES AND TABLES —' -- — GRNAI]i4 UNITED STATES �an Juan Co.,Bellingham Port Angeles Port ry T l � I 1 � 1 Ef6ii .�� � • 111111III77, 777 � a ff SGn~ Y � r Q o _ Jeff�rsan. Ca. Mason Ca.� N :I Co.. Bremerton, Ynl e a 0 � •�oa e, z rc� C\1 I l O 7 V LCvO -T- Figure 1. Regional map showing general location of the project. NORTH -- .K;,7g I Figure 2. Vicinity map for the study area. "Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps, and it is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission." "H AV A SE 336' JOY 14C: W. ve en, P3,k SITE 7 7- k� �64 OH Ik 4n 0FDA 77� ?P55C.-I PFOh k LA FFC)t4 ;16 IP M 20. NORTH "A. Figure 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory (1987) map for the project area. See Table 2 for a key to the mapping symbols. .F' �_:F•r•••!f?,. ply ;e u ,..`: - ___:,.,•' 4 � : • AI s rrr • } Age. r a Y• :..s �� r -ileaAmB y "fir .� _ :�.._ °.. '•; ��. a �- t_ ' i . Y�; f-m6- Awl �.� - .: - _ ''.r �• ` .. �, $gs� �; '� �• fir; -r •�: Vi • � =.:" [.J• r erg;•.: '. �� � � • ;;� Amy Y� - > :{?,- -� =` �Oy- r.�� w SITE Mmi -�v_'. •:s"• ,rr •-r` •p:.. •r •.xr. .aa _ .i�-„stir �-.;•: �•.: •. ' r -..i aic :�_ a Fill tl f ••v"�yF' Y r� -I• . 1: +., ] -rt� �� � � � '"f`''.�, VxB�y •'+�y• ill f,.• �J.. a ...•Ew^U°.�i. ; i'r ,i n�Y _ •4 -.w:�.. 1:.'�';F .e • � J;.•. .. � � t1 R- �, .,9y�- • �^ fir''. it ;+ F ► ewc .�. • _ �J r �j '`��"ram: Ur 10 Ur eP7710 a ;yr..,.• �. R Al q "�V •,•f '�� � -�'_ •. •,r ii�• ,' . i � ii � F f' $ . i3•T` p -®' '� _ . m it -•: •- NORTH EwC Pe Figure 4. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey map for the project area (D.E. Snyder et ai. 1973). FOREST PRACTICE ACTIVITY MAP TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH HALF 0, RANGE 4 EAST (W.M.) HALF 0, SECTION 20 -g, 1& 1 'AlfBOUNDARIES ,` 17 I SITE�rMAP END .: County Coun +74 + _ . 177 =Township:, A � Section 1 r j WATER BODIES i open Water }r j ®Hats/Gravel Bars Ice j ® Man Made Feature & Wet Area I � f , � r� ~ � ? ? ? ? Unknown/Undassified ELEVATION ,se Contours, 40' Interval +?72806 � 1 •Z� + 4-- �~ ` _ ` r + !, snREAtns r t Stream Water Type 1-5 O0 r r y t Stream Type Unknown — * Water Type Change q — TRANSPORTATION Paved Road $ r useoe Unpaved Road Road (Surface Unknown) m Trall 3 r .011*0 Railroad, a ci t I t 7178t38 771 SITE CLASS Site Class 1 Site Class 2 Site Class 3 N F 29 28 i JIROGXIX Please use"199mcl from the FPO Ins1ruc0an or provide a W of symbols used. Tuesday, AuUW 03, 200412:09-37 PM MAD 83 C w our kmmval: 40 Feet Figure 5. .- Washington DepartnWnt of Naturai Resources (2004) Forest Practice Map for the project area. See Table 3 for a key to water -types. In AL WTO; 43N Federal Way 2 TWA Zoning Map 81 NE 2D-21.04 - NE quarter of MH 736 BP FOR ap Mir BP OP Z& /44W & I P P appar QP=QJW Pak PUNW Pak. Pftvho Trawl Swaubm CAWNWAMS 11ft � is amommamdoW bw no wannhft " k drok a �,v mm.1 am SITE RAY 1 qp 1. Scow 0 2W 5W FOK Figure 6. City of Federal Way (2003) Zoning and Wetland Atlas map for the project area A Fie 7. City of Federal way (URS 2002) stream Invenkny map for the proiect ar. Vol 6 rl c�! C c c-� TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 3-1 PREPARED FOR: Jeff Pratt/City of Federal Way PREPARED BY: Tim White/CH2M HILL Jerry Bibee/CH2M HILL COPIES: Cary Roe/City of Federal Way Greg Fewins/City of Federal Way DATE: June 27, 1994 CfW HILL SUBJECT: Contract 93-284-WH08. WH10, and WH11 Regional Drainage Analysis Task 3.1 and 3.2 Technical Memorandum PROJECT: NPW37403. CO Wetland/Stream Impact Analysis and Mitigation Concepts Introduction This memorandum describes the existing habitat conditions in the Federal Way Kitts Corner and South 336th Regional Stormwater Detention Project area. It also summarizes the impacts of the project on existing wetland and stream environments, the approaches used to avoid and minimize those impacts, the existing conditions present on potential mitigation sites, and the proposed future setting after implementation of the proposed wetland and stream mitigation. For a complete description of the project, readers are referred to Section 4 of this report. Existing Conditions Wetlands Six discrete wetlands exist within the immediate project 2Lrea. In addition to those isolated from the West Hylebos tributary streams (Basin Plan Nos. 0014, 0014A, and 0014C), three wetland areas are located along the main channel of those tributary streams. These wetlands are described below. Much of this information has been drawn from prior work by Sheldon and Associates (1994). 1 Weiland 9A This habitat lies south and east of the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 336th Street. It is a scrub -shrub (PSS)/forested (PFO) wetland and it stands on a long- term seasonal or permanently inundated site (Sheldon and Associates, 1994). It is 4.56 acres in size with 2.56 acres in PSS and 2.00 acres in PFO habitats. The original hydrology of the site has been altered in the past through filling along the west and northern borders to create a construction pad and a roadbed for S. 336th St. Species that dominate the Tukwila muck soils of the wetland include Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), red alder (Alnus rubra), willow (Salix sp.) and salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis). Functionally, this wetland already serves to moderate flood flows through the tributary 0014C stream channel and provides a moderate amount of habitat support and water quality treatment. The potential for groundwater recharge from this wetland is currently unknown (Sheldon and Associates, 1994). Species diversity is limited by fluctuating Lwater levels and degraded water quality although it is excellent habitat for songbirds. C W-4 Wetland 9B r1 This 0.36-acre area is located immediately north of Wetland 9A and S. 336th St. and contains a combination of PSS (0.20 acre) and PFO (0.16 acre) wetland. Hydrologic changes have apparently occurred to this wetland resulting in wetter soils and unstable woody vegetation. Decreased shear strength in topsoils from additional wetting is apparently causing large cottonwoods to topple into the wetland (Sheldon and Associates, 1994). PEM vegetation is reoccupying these openings, although young Oregon ash and cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) saplings are present. Additionally, deep sediment has been deposited on the site. In addition to cottonwood and ash, the site supports Douglas' spiraea (Spiraea .douglash), indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformus), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), Himalayan blackberry (Rubes discolor), and salmonberry. The area appears to be undergoing significant structural change as a result of hydrologic modifications mentioned above. Plant community composition is changing from a mature PFO wetland to an immature emergent (PEM) community. Along with this change will be a change in function as well. It currently supports some songbird and small mammal habitat. The area could also provide habitat for coyote, raccoon, and opossums (Sheldon and Associates, 1994). Wetland 2 This 2.46-acre wetland is found approximately 800 feet west of Pacific Highway South. It is composed of PSS (0.22 acre), PFO (approximately 1.86 acre), and PEM (approximately 0.38 acre) communities. The area of the latter two communities is 2.24 acres and the acreages of each community type was estimated following personal communication with Dyanne Sheldon (Sheldon and Associates, 1994). This habitat has also had its hydrologic regime modified in the past through channel downcutting or excavation at the south end. Prior to alteration of this drainage, the area likely ponded r 2 for periods that extended well into the growing season. Field surveyed topography (November, 1982) confirms prior dormant season impoundment of drainage in Wetland 2 to approximately elevation 286 feet. Vegetation currently occupying the site includes Oregon ash, red alder, willow, salmonberry, Nootka rose (Rosa nootkana),' stinging nettle (Miica dioica), reed canarygrass (Phlaris arundinacea) and sedges (Carex sp). In spite of the altered hydrology, this wetland still provides some stormwater detention function. Water quality treatment is likely limited, particularly because of a lack of discharge of nutrients and sediments from upstream sources. It offers moderate to high quality wildlife habitat because of its size, maturity, and intact, good quality setback. The area would provide good habitat for larger terrestrial species such as coyote, mink, and raccoon as well as passerine birds and raptors (Sheldon and Associates, 1992). Wetland 2A (Wright) Wetland This wetland (0.44 acres in size) lies west of SR 99 and south of South 340th Street. It is currently not classified as a jurisdictional wetland by the Corps of Engineers (Gail .•Terzi, personal communication). A PEM surrounded by a fringe of PSS, this wetland O has been disturbed through filling from the east and construction of a permeable berm rl •� along the western border. The berm separates the wetland from the tributary 0014 C1 stream channel. Seasonally inundated, reed canarygrass is the overwhelming dominant plant species occupying this site. Cattail (7ypha latifolia) and willow are also present. Soils are highly disturbed and appear to be impermeable at depth. The Wright wetland reduces flows and catches sediment discharged from the adjacent fill area into the stream channel (Sheldon and Associates, 1994). Some waterfowl and other wetland bird habitat may also be provided from this site. Wetland 3 Oregon ash, black cottonwood, and willow dominate this 0.22-acre wetland including 0.19 acre of PFO and 0.03 acre of PSS wetland. The area may be a closed depression as no clear outlet was observed. Small amounts of stormwater storage and water quality enhancement is provided to the landscape by this wetland (Sheldon and Associates, 1992). Wetland 4 This 0.08-acre disturbed PFO wetland is dominated by mature willows. Pacific blackberry and creeping buttercup are also present. Deep inundation and ponding apparently occur on the Norma soils present in this habitat (Sheldon and Associates, 1992). This wetland functions similarly to Wetland 3. Stream Channels In addition to the wetlands described above, of course, minor stream channels occupy much of the entire reach of the project. In places, the channel integrity is lost (e.g., I Kitt's Corner) while elsewhere the main channel broadens into a wide, pond -like body of open water (e.g., west of Wetland 2A). The channel ranges from almost no downcutting ! with relatively little grade to one composed of significant grade and incision (e.g., `( immediately west of SR 99 and south of Wetland 2). Average annual discharge of the main channel is less than 5 cfs. No significant fishery habitat is known to occur in this reach of the Hylebos system. Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts Five of the wetlands found in the project area could experience minimal direct and/or indirect impacts from the project (Table 1). The hydrologic regime of Wetlands 9A, 9B and 2 would be modified from this project. The planned modifications would also result in several minor direct impacts to Wetlands 9A and 9B. Wetland 3 could receive some construction related impacts from pipeline installation while Wetland 2A could experience some indirect effects from modifications to its hydroperiod. Wetland fills and indirect effects have been avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable within the existing right-of-way for the project while still meeting O impoundment embankment design standards and the overall goals of the project. Minor .1 fills would occur along the western edges of Wetlands 9A and 9B to create an N embankment for detention of high flows in the wetland. The embankment will serve the dual purpose of an access road for maintenance of flood control structures. Changes to existing hydroperiods of these wetlands has been minimized through use of outlet �J structures designed to allow greater stormwater discharges during high flow events, thereby reducing or minimizing increases in duration of inundation resulting from such events. These impacts are discussed in more detail below and have been divided into direct and indirect effects. Wetland Impact Analysis Direct Impacts Direct wetland impacts from this project would arise through filling or excavating of portions of delineated wetland areas. These activities result in either a permanent conversion of wetland environments to upland conditions or changes from one wetland type to another. Wetlands 9A and 9B. An estimated total of 0.05 acre of wetlands will be permanently filled in this portion of the project. These areas currently support PFO wetlands. As mentioned above, filling along the western edge of Wetlands 9A (0.04 acre) and 9B (0.01 acre) is needed to increase the capacity for storage of floodwaters in these areas, to reduce -flooding potential for adjacent properties, and to provide an access road for maintenance of the facility. An estimated additional 0.03 acre of wetland will be temporarily impacted and restored during construction (0.02 acre in Wetland 9A and 0.01 acre in Wetland 913). 4 a .1 yn 0 • O y ■ (pp� i1 �t•! W E3 Q. VJ ^� :3 m ry pG� ° ov a y r+ or a a•a' �caW 13 a• O ace oa 0 2 0 C, O a- O ti v - CD � � d woo o S :3 L wc {V I CL w o o c o 0 as .- `C c� =+ 2� .ocr 'O ry0 > > N 0 fA a. DQ O • N 0 0 Nx�j�.xx • • • ■ L: • • • L: n n R n a ao a. a.a.o co) \,O \O 0 N W W CD E3 rn i3 a R W Cr W p o p. .Oy a ^O+ O N p y OpOpOpO o00 �,o ,�• w 0 0 0 O CD p7 n a 000 00 �„a Q; aSS� ASS w O O O O 0 0 0 O O O 'fl 7�n w R N ry ^ O p O O O 0 CD O O p o v � �p S A o o O " a. 7 (D S0 0 0 0 O p O O ry w W S OW w0 a a �- =3 r.� Wetlands 3 and 4. No permanent impacts for Wetland 3 are anticipated for this project. An estimated 0.01 acre of temporary impact will result from the Kitts Corner to Wetland 2 stormdrain installation. No impacts to Wetland 4 will result from the project. The adjacent property owners have proposed fill of Wetlands 3 and 4 independently for site development purposes. Total wetland direct impact area would be 0.30 acres (not included in Table 1). Mitigation for this impact area is proposed with project improvements as noted in the mitigation plan section of this memorandum. This is subject to city review, approvals, and legal agreements execution. Wetland 2. No filling of wetlands are anticipated to occur from this project within Wetland 2. The northern toe -of -slope of the impoundment embankment and site access road will lie south of the southern wetland border for this area. An estimated 0.01 acre of wetland is likely to be temporarily impacted during construction of stream channel p restoration improvements near the storm drain outfall. Wetland 2A. No permanent project improvements impacts are expected within Wetland 2A. An estimated temporary construction impact of 0.02 acre will result from containment embankment and spillway construction. Indirect Impacts (Changes to Hydrologic Regime) Indirect effects to wetland environments can occur when hydrologic regimes shift to a degree that a wetland community type change occurs (e.g., PEM to open water or PFO to PEM; personal communication with Gail Terzi, Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District). To determine the potential for indirect effects to wetlands as a result of this project, the frequency and duration of storm events were simulated using the HSPF continuous simulation hydrologic model for Wetlands 9A, 913, and 2. This analysis compared existing hydrologic and drainage system conditions with model simulations following construction of the project and full development of the watershed. Hydrologic parameters evaluated included the frequency of inundation at specific elevations within each wetland and the duration of these inundations. Greatdr or lesser degrees of inundation affect the composition of plant communities by favoring species more adapted for the new site conditions. Flooding reduces the supply of oxygen to inundated areas. Importantly, experience has shown that, in general, dormant plants, as a result of reduced biological oxygen demand, are significantly more tolerant to flooding and changes to flooding than actively growing plants that have a correspondingly higher biological oxygen demand. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that changes to the hydrologic regime would affect the existing community most dramatically when these changes occur during the time when plants are physiologically active, Le:-, during the growing season. Accordingly, analysis of hydrologic changes were limited to those occurring during the growing season. The "growing season" for this project area was considered to be the March 1 through October 31 timeframe. Wetland 9A. This wetland contains long-term or permanent standing water at elevations of 328 feet and below (referred to here as the "normal pool"). As a result, evaluation of T indirect effects to wetlands resulting from changes in hydrologic conditions on this site is based on changes in inundation depth occurring above the normal pool elevation of this wetland. Following full development of the watershed and construction of the project, more events at the lowest elevations above normal pool would occur during the growing season than currently occur. Duration of these flood events is very short (6 hours or less). The short duration of these events is coupled with a decrease in frequency of inundation at all other elevations and duration periods compared to that which currently exists (Appendix A, Tables A-5 and A-6). The regulatory definition of wetland environments (Federal Interagency Committee, 1989) suggests that inundation must exceed 1 week during the growing season to produce wetland conditions. Based on a 42-year record, all inundation events that exceed 2 days in duration above normal pool level would be eliminated from Wetland 9A through modified outlet controls. Consequently, since the duration of these events is short, and r- since normal pool levels will be maintained on the site, it is unlikely that the O physiological effect of these changes will cause significant changes to the vegetation present in the area. In fact, the modifications will result in hydroperiod conditions that may be more similar to conditions prior to impoundment from existing outlet controls. Thus, no indirect effects to either structure or function to Wetland 9A are expected from this project on Wetland 9A. Wetland 9B. Similar to Wetland 9A, this wetland is not expected to experience any significant changes to its hydrologic regime during the growing season. During the dormant season, high flows are expected to be retained onsite for longer periods than currently occur. However, this would occur only at the lowest elevations and only for short periods of time (9 hours or less). Wetland 2. HSPF simulated modeling results indicate that elevations 283 feet and below will be inundated continuously for periods exceeding 7.5 days. Elevation 283.5 feet will be inundated once annually for no more than 4 days. If one assumes that a 12-inch capillary rise would occur above this standing water in the sandy loam soils present on this site, increased inundation could affect wetland characteristics of communities growing at 284 feet in elevation and below. The total area affected by this increase in inundation is approximately 0.20 acre. However, a vegetation community shift is only expected below elevation 283 where a permanent pool will be reestablished. Therefore, the indirect impact area is limited to only 0.07 acre. Vegetation has been mapped on this site as PFO (Sheldon and Associates, 1992, "Campus Gateway Wetland"). However, as part of a larger PFO, the lowest elevations of this wetland are actually a PEM type. This PEM was -not shown on wetland maps because, as part of a larger PFO system, the area encompassed by this PEM was not sufficiently large to include it as a separate wetland type (Dyanne Sheldon, personal communication; Cowardin et al., 1979). Nevertheless, the existing vegetation in the area to experience increased inundation is representative of PEM ecosystems. 7 Stream Impact Analysis Tributary stream channels will be affected by this project in two areas: S 336th Regional Detention Area (Tributary 0014), and the conveyance area from Kitts Corner to Wetland 2 (Tributary 0014C). Additional information specific to the impacts of these areas can be found under "Mitigation for Impacts to the Stream". Wetland and Stream Setback Impact Analysis Upland setbacks surrounding the wetlands along the project corridor will be affected through excavation of a new channel and construction of an embankment adjacent to Wetland 2, construction of embankments and access o roads for the Wetland 9 (A and B) complex, as well as development of the regional stormwater detention facilities and associated wetland compensatory mitigation. A total of 5.0 acres of setback will be affected by this project (Table 1). Proposed Mitigation for Project Impacts Mitigation for indirect and direct project impacts to wetlands, streams, and upland setback areas will vary depending on the kind and location of the impact. In all cases, project design impacts to sensitive areas were avoided where possible with predesign layout of project improvements. Where impacts were unavoidable, designs minimized impacts within the limitations of the project and the available project right-of-way. These efforts resulted in only 0.12 acre of wetland and stream directly (permanently) impacted and 0.07 acre (estimated) temporarily impacted through excavation or filling operations of the project. In addition, an estimated 0.51 acres of indirect impact areas will result from inundation effects. However, since the primary goal of this project is to better control stormwater flows, construction of project facilities will produce unavoidable indirect impacts to portions of the tributary streams and wetland and stream setback areas. Detention of stormwater discharges will modify the hydroperiod of the existing instream wetlands and, as such, indirect effects will be not only inevitable, but desirable if the project is to be successful. These impacts and proposed mitigation are summarized in Table 1. The following is a discussion of the rationale behind proposed mitigation measures to compensate for them. Mitigation for Direct Impacts to Wetlands Direct impacts to wetlands will be compensated by construction of new wetland environments at ratios consistent with the community type affected and as described in the Federal Way City Code. This will result in the construction of 0.33 acre of wetland to compensate for the estimated 0.19 acre total of permanent and temporary direct wetland impacts. In addition, proposed mitigation will include additional area for proposed filling of Wetlands 3 and 4 as part of adjacent site development activities by others. For this, an additional 0.90 acres of PFO wetland will be created at the required 3:1 replacement ratio for the 0.30 acre wetland fill impact area. Mitigation for Indirect Impacts to Wetlands The hydrologic regime of all wetlands that are in the project area and adjacent to the stream channels will change as a result of this project. However, of the 8.12 acres of adjacent wetlands along this reach, only 0.51 acre of wetlands (Wetlands 2 and 2A) will undergo hydrologic changes during the growing season potentially significant enough to affect existing plant communities. Nevertheless, all wetlands adjacent to the stream are proposed to be monitored for a period of 5 years following construction to determine ;M whether hydrologic regime changes have undesirably affected them. Additional (future) Q compensatory mitigation may be required to offset these potential impacts. It is recommended that a nearby undisturbed reference wetland be similarly monitored to help c determine that any wetland changes that might occur are, in fact, related to changes in wetland hydrology resulting from the project and not to other factors independent of �- project effects. w/ I Mitigation for Impacts to the Stream Two portions of the tributary stream channels will be affected by the project: ■ South 336th Regional Detention Area (Tributary 0014): This portion of the stream will be converted into a combination of wetland, open water, and upland habitat. Since this stream channel does not support an active fishery, the primary habitat support is provided to wetland dependent species. Additional habitat support is provided to downstream portions of the watershed through organic export. Construction of the detention pond and associated wetland complex is expected to more than offset the detrimental effects of loss of this portion of the stream channel and, as such, no additional mitigation for this action is proposed. • Kitts Corner to Wetland 2 Conveyance (Tributary 0014C): Placement -of this portion of the stream segment into a storm drain will result in loss of the stream channel segment. This portion of the stream channel also does not support an active fishery. In addition, this reach is unstable and deeply incised on a steep gradient (approximately.5 percent). As such, channel erosion currently contributes excessive sediment to the drainage and downstream wetlands and, if unchecked, could pose problems in the future to surrounding roadways, sewer lines, and other potential development. For these reasons and since the area does not provide significant habitat support, placing this segment of the stream into a pipeline is considered appropriate and appears to meet the conditions of Section 22-1309 of the Federal Way City Code. Mitigation for this action would consist of W construction of an approximate 100-foot section of restored stream channel within the Wetland 2 setback at the pipeline outfall. Mitigation for Impacts to Upland (Wetland and Stream) Setbacks Upland setbacks are affected by the project in four separate areas: • South 336th Regional Detention (Wetland 2A and stream) setback area: Impacts to upland setbacks consist of converting upland habitat to upland, wetland and open water habitat. Although some of the area will be used for access roads and the detention pond, the area will provide greater habitat value than the existing upland habitat that is composed primarily of Scot's broom (gtisus scoparius) and various grass species. Since the net effect of these conversions is a gain in potential habitat value, no mitigation is proposed to offset these conversions. In addition, open water Qand upland habitat enhancement will occur beyond the wetland stream .i buffer. Wetlands 2, 3, and 4, and stream setback: Impacts to this area will consist of storm drain, culvert, and stream channel construction and construction p} of the detention embankment along the south portion of the site. Approximately 0.73 acre of setback will be affected. Mitigation proposed for this impact is revegetation of the restored stream channel combined with similar enhancements to the upland setback of the wetland/stream mitigation site. • Kitts Corner (Wetland 9A and 9B) setback area: Approximately 0.5 acre of upland setback will be needed for the project to construct flood protection embankments and for maintenance access roads along the western portions of these wetlands. Mitigation for these impacts will consist of enhancements to existing upland vegetation of the area. These enhancements will include control of exotic vegetation and planting of native species where feasible. Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan The following conceptual wetland mitigation plan discusses the project goals and objectives, the mitigation project site, installation considerations, targets and potential for mitigation success, monitoring of the development of the mitigation project, provisions for mid -course corrections, and the need for reporting of mitigation project development to regulatory agencies. 10 Project Goals and Objectives The overall project objective is more effective control of stormwater quantity and quality leading to habitat protection and enhancement downstream in the regionally significant West Hylebos wetland. The goals of this mitigation are, at a minimum, to replace wetland structure and function lost as a result of this project. While in -kind mitigation is a goal, some species substitutions (e.g., planting sedges and rushes to replace reed canarygrass) will be used where appropriate to enhance the species assemblage of compensatory ecosystems. Based on the predesign layout of improvements, a total of 0.12 acres of wetlands and stream will be directly affected by the project. Of this area, replacement wetland communities will be established onsite to the maximum extent practicable (i.e., within the West Hylebos basin). ;.; Location and General Considerations Several areas have been selected as potential wetland mitigation sites. The largest wetland creation area lies between Wetland 2 and 2A. A combined PFO/PEM community matrix will have several PSS wetlands embedded within it and uplands established from native species. The setback area adjacent to the created wetland will be upland forested communities. Along the west and north sides of the S 336th primary detention cell, upland shrub community will be planted. These communities will be planted with a mixture of native upland species and monitored similarly to the created wetland. Based upon a 3:1 and 1:5 replacement ratios for PFO and PEM wetlands, respectively (Federal Way City Code, Division 7, Regulated Wetlands), a total of 0.33 acres of wetlands will be needed to compensate for permanent and temporary wetland losses associated with the project. Setback areas within existing wetland and stream buffer areas will be maintained around all new wetlands. Mitigation Installation and Management Approaches Clearing and Grubbing Prior to excavation work, removal of exotic vegetation, notably himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom should occur. These bushes should be extracted with as much of the root system intact as possible and disposed of offsite. Additional exotic weed control should be implemented on upland setbacks adjacent to other wetlands in the project area to enhance their overall habitat diversity. Earthmoving Considerations Establishment of an appropriate hydrologic regime is critical to the successful installation of replacement wetlands. In this regard, the need for accurate site grading cannot be overemphasized. Small deviations can spell the difference between a successfully 11 established community and a failed planting. Compliance with design tolerances will need to be maintained during the construction period. Steep side -slopes result in proportionately greater fluctuation in frequency and duration of flooding within a created ecosystem than when slopes are gradual. Consequently, wetland designs should incorporate very shallow grades. As water inundates a site, this slope requirement provides the largest "wetted edge" possible per increment of water rise. As a general rule, grades used in wetland creations should not exceed 5:1 and these grades are best used in the wetland -upland transition zone or along berms separating the project from adjacent land. Shallower slopes (less than 8:1) are preferred within mitigation area boundaries. This project will use these maximum slope criteria within the mitigation site area to meet siting constraints. The landscape of the proposed mitigation site will be contoured to ensure adequate connection with ground and surface waters while minimizing earth -moving requirements. Soils on the site are mapped as Everett and Alderwood gravelly sandy loams (USDA- SCS, 1973). Mitigation site elevations will range between 280 and 283 feet. This elevation assumes that the permeability of the underlying profile is low enough to retain ,i water for sufficient periods to create wetland environments. Additional design considerations may be needed should mitigation site soil conditions show otherwise. For example, use of soil bentonite amendments can reduce percolation and assist in wetland creation where excessive internal drainage of the soil limit wetness. Contours of the mitigation site to be realized following final grading are shown on Sheet 6 of the predesign drawings. An additional foot of material below final grade will be r excavated during initial site grading that will be filled to final grade with topsoil mulch and/or supplemental organic materials. Figure 1 the Ecological Cross -Section of Proposed Wetland Mitigation Project, shows a typical ecological cross-section along the finish grade and a plan view of the proposed area. Wetland community persistence is greatly enhanced by shallow slopes. Within the mitigation area, slopes do not exceed 8:1. Grades along the longitudinal axis of the inverts of the site are 100:1 or shallower. These low profiles provide opportunities for the new wetland communities to shift their distribution in response to changing hydrologic conditions and ensure sustainability. Within the setback area, facultative upland and upland species will be established on slopes that do not exceed 4:1. Site preparation Following earth -moving, site preparation should provide a good seedbed for transplanting. Timing of mechanical site preparation should follow good agricultural practices with particular attention to soil moisture status of the site to minimize clodding and other soil filth problems. When possible, soil sampling and nutrient analysis should occur well in advance of site preparation to determine fertilizer requirements so that amendments can be incorporated as part of site preparation. 12 Soil Stockpiling and Amendments The potential for high functional performance by the replacement wetland can be greatly improved by conserving wetland topsoil from activities related to the detention project and transferring it to the mitigation site. Many of the important functions served by wetlands are ultimately based in the quality and quantity of net primary productivity within an ecosystem. Soil nutrient and moisture supplying capacity is critical to ecosystem productivity. Much of this faculty is found in the top 6 to 12 inches of soil. Topsoils also contain seedbanks for subsequent revegetation of the mitigation site. Where wetland soils are not available or where transfer is not practical, upland topsoils can be used and topdressed with wetland topsoil spread across as wide an area as possible while maintaining a depth of at least 2 to 3 inches. Alternatively, clean, well - decomposed organic materials from offsite sources can be incorporated to improve soil organic matter content and increase the topsoil thickness. �1 Stockpiled topsoil should be transferred as soon as possible to minimize organic matter mineralization, heat buildup, and seedbank mortality. Stockpiling should be confined to upland areas. In addition, other sources of well -decomposed organic matter can supplement topsoil available onsite. Soils should be sampled as soon after stockpiling as possible and submitted for laboratory chemical analysis. At a minimum, soil analysis should include total N, available P, K, CEC, base saturation, and pH. Prior to planting, 20 to 40 pounds per acre of N should be incorporated into the soil. If needed, seedbed preparation should be extensive and can combine disking, harrowing, and/or rototilling. Only a few small clods should be left. Following soil tillage, the seedbed should be rolled with a corrugated roller to compact the soil firmly prior to sowing grass seed. Planting Plan The recommended conceptual planting plan for the wetland mitigation site and upland setback area is shown on Figure 1. Species substitutions are suggested for this creation project to enhance the biological diversity and the percentage of native species in the project area. Vegetation establishment techniques could combine transfer of some existing trees and shrubs from nearby impacted wetlands, providing a seedbank from soils transferred from other portions of the project, and planting woody and herbaceous vegetation. Some of the vegetation will naturally regenerate from seedbanks. Species planted will form the foundation for the subsequent wetland community and will include at least the following plant species: -• Forested: Oregon ash, black cottonwood, red alder, western red cedar (Thuja plicata) • Scrub -shrub: Willows. red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), and Indian plum 13 Emergent: Meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), small -fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), and skunk cabbage (Lystichum americanum). Native species derived from local seed sources should be used whenever possible. Black cottonwood and willow can be planted as cuttings and Oregon ash as seedlings. Woody seedlings should be planted at approximately 10- by 8-foot spacings (10 feet between rows and 8 feet between trees in the row). Cuttings should be 18-24" in length and soaked in water overnight prior to planting. They must remain hydrated for as long as possible after planting to ensure rooting success. Ideally, planting should be done in late fall or late winter to minimize dehydration and enhance rooting. If the mitigation site is subject to frost heaving, late spring planting of rooted cuttings should be substituted. Cuttings and seedlings can be planted either with a spade or dibble bar leaving about 2 inches of the cutting exposed above the soil. They should be firmly tamped in place ("heeled in") to ensure good soil - root contact and eliminate air spaces around the roots. Most of the species suggested for the PEM communities can be drilled and/or hydroseeded. The former is preferred where good access to the site is available as this approach allows better spacing control. Slough sedge should be transplanted using whole plants and planting should be done in late winter or early spring to ensure good survival and growth. Careful records should be kept during the planting operation to document the species and date of planting, site locations, techniques used, approximate number of seedlings or \ amounts of seed planted, and the environmental conditions at the time of establishment. Specimens of planted stock should be acquired from the contractor to verify species planted on the site. Competition Control Control of competing vegetation will facilitate installation of the desired communities. Reed'canarygrass will likely compete vigorously for site resources particularly in more mesic areas where woody vegetation is desired. After planting, vegetation should be visually monitored monthly during the first growing season and control measures applied as soon as possible should weed control appear necessary. Techniques for controlling reed canarygrass and other undesirable competing vegetation will include mechanical cultivation and herbicides where necessary. It is recommended (and certain state regulations may require) that use of any pesticides be done only under the supervision of qualified personnel. In situations where upland topsoil is used rather than wetland soils, additional -effort should be expended in weed control over time, since, without an existing seed bank, these soils will take Ionger for the site to be captured by native species. Control of competing vegetation on adjoining uplands can be effective in enhancing the biodiversity of wetland setbacks as well. This can be particularly effective where removal and control of aggressive exotic species occurs. 14 Mitigation Performance Potential Determining the risk involved in replacement of wetland structure and functions lost as a result of this project relies upon comparing the current environmental setting of the mitigation site with the targeted environmental setting of the completed project. Site hydrology, soils, and vegetation are evaluated for this purpose. Large differences between the current site and the desired future environmental setting reflect greater risks that the replacement ecosystem will not function at the expected level. Monitoring should be coupled to mid -course corrections and occur at an intensity that reflects project risks. Hydrology .�.� The mitigation site is located on an upland terrace adjacent to the West Hylebos tributary vi 0014 stream channel. Water comes to this site from overland flows off of adjacent, higher elevation uplands. Following construction of the mitigation project, site wetness is expected to be dominated by overland flows discharged from the northern level spreader emanating from the low -flow culvert. HSPF modelling of adjacent areas to the north suggests that much of the wetland will be inundated or saturated throughout the growing season at elevations of 283 feet and below. Hydrology of the upstream wetlands at this elevation range suggests a groundwater contribution as well. Soils The onsite mitigation area contains Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loams. This soil type is slightly acid (5.1 to 6.5) to a depth of 60 inches. Because the new wetland will be created in surficial soils with somewhat different properties than those present in Wetland 2 to the north, topsoil amendment will be needed. Vegetation The plant community currently present on the mitigation site is dominated by scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry, snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Reed canarygrass is also present adjacent to the existing wetland. In comparison, the wetlands proposed for impact are dominated by PFO wetland and PSS vegetation including species such as willow and red alder. The PFO/PEM community targeted for creation will be dominated by forested wetland species and trend toward a facultative wet to obligate wetland -dominated assemblage. This shift in composition will depend upon creating a wetter environment than is currently present. In addition, control of reed canarygrass will be crucial to the success of the project. 15 Project Targets and Monitoring Because of the aforementioned mitigation site characteristics, the risk of successful mitigation establishment is considered to be fairly high without special design considerations and a monitoring program designed to rapidly identify the need for mid- course corrections. Consequently, a fairly rigorous monitoring program is proposed to accomplish this and ensure adequate performance of the replacement wetland. The proposed project targets and monitoring program for this mitigation project are outlined in Table 2. Ecosystem development will be tracked through measurement of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Criteria for revegetation performance and data for identifying when vegetation targets have been reached are found in Table 2. The target of these projects is a mixture of wetland communities approximating the proportions present on the impacted wetlands as shown in Table 1. Modifications may be needed if the performance criterion is not met during any given M year to facilitate establishment of the desired communities during the initial stages of .« development. These activities may include (but are not limited to) the following: replanting of vegetation; removal or control of competing vegetation; temporary removal, control, or exclusion of insect pests and/or browsing animals; and minor regrading. Any such activity will be undertaken only after notification and approval from the appropriate agencies and monitored by qualified wetland professionals, Project Reporting Following installation of the mitigation project, a site survey should be done and as -built plans prepared. Monitoring results will be reported regularly. Project reports should include information about the growth and composition of the developing ecosystems and contain suggestions about any necessary midcourse modifications, as well as photographs of the site to document vegetation cover and plant counts for planted stock. 16 l Table 2 Project Targets, Monitored Parameters, and Schedule for Wetland Mitigation Site Targets 1) Establish an average cover across the site of at least 80 percent at the end of 5 years. 2) Percentages of the desired community types (PEM, PSS, or PFO) will be similar to that currently present on affected sites. Desired plant species that should be present within the communities are listed in the text. Parameters to be Monitored: Vegetation: Species composition', percent cover' Soils: Texture', % base saturation', pI2, TKN2, avail. P', K', Ca', Mg', organic C' Hydrology: Staff gauge or continuous recorder measurements for 2 years INonitoring frequency: 'At time of establishment ' Prior to establishment and during years 3 and 5 following establishment Perfarmance'Ta ets and Schedule Year Percent Cover 1 50 2 65 3 70 4 75 5 80 17 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 47 pp. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC Cooperative Technical Publication. 76 pp. plus appendices. Sheldon and Associates. 1992. Wetland Delineation, Schaadt Property, Federal Way, 70 Washington. Prepared for Smith, Smart, and Hancock, Seattle, Washington, by Sheldon p and Associates, Seattle, Washington. September 10, 1992. 13 pp. plus appendices. 7-1 Pq c� Sheldon and Associates. 1994. Kitts Corner Area: Wetlands Assessment. Prepared for the City of Federal Way, Washington by Sheldon and Associates, Seattle, Washington. March 25, 1994. 18 -pp. plus appendices. USDA-SCS. 1973. Soil Survey: King County Area Washington. USDA-SCS in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. November 1973. 100 pages plus maps. sea10029036.wp5 .wry n.r .ewr a rsru r.i ,e.ixx o- .w*ur r.e w-r a wane rrrs Ir.n�o+ ; t �S WIMM R _ .. .z - 1 6 c 8 O Lf 6 r." �^•`.r _ ..............................,-__. •mi�0 �•8 .y._,.-._ -_ -� .;t .... - s. 1 1 g° m � f m 00 0 T O -U0 G)On �o> OmD �n - i � z O x a .1 I I I, 1 t. 11 _ 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 < l � `l 1 1 y 1 1 1 , 1 1 i i 1-__-________ 3 �m 1 1 . Ir i01 r s • f r z.r z O 1 o C D m _ i 1 a 1 1 1 • / 1 1 � . oom I o �bS N r $�z m DS_0 �y y Z= � n r m O 1 �ti r ry r � � 1 I F 1 ------------ ➢ N 1 -!. >{ K 1p A PORTION OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 04 EAST, W.M. on moo 1 06 I -: ------------------------------- - --'-�--------------------- 4 s 12 �r 13 a I 9 C3 a 11 14 1. 1 V'AO 77�TfGT Fxu 1 + y TRa} ? .. WETLAND NO. 1� iC TEIGORV'll w 1y r � � y + a• W r { � fMGTU y w y w I w I s! ! 1 I I l J I I I I I I r `-J I ' I I v I a rf TRAL H \ >� \ riWTP -` �lySP[ eCYl�r �- --- �.--I— ------ ----- - i ! I Go-' 52' 1 Ih I 5PROPOSED 1 In w ❑ IiLSpiEN1 I .rwywtfwl If� I 9�c.� h n \S� TRACTH� �'•�- g•� � 5p6RNE IAF - y� IM(E"_L 2 — �" - N / / P ae RnuRE pflEleRaFNf u u 4s As w�+• \� C r i 6 49 4g 47 1 w w 1w 0) Ir^ I NoI I ! �gdl —j C C - 1 / (TYPE UNE I ! f r C� � 6l ss � e to�r_)' P7. o- e r I e1 m s3 eo TRACTPREa �� � ,� 1 I .•.� I I I ,I !I S. 340TH STFEET CONNECTION TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUM TO BE COMPLETED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT t #06-100722-00-10 (PROGRESSIVE). 4J i+ I I I I @y;��r l ^r `N G i i i_I I I I I I I ! I f (p 1 I I I I t -- 1 o �1 11 SCALE: 1" = 100' Ice so 0 SCO' 200' SITE DATA SITE ADDRESS: 33701 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WA PARCEL NUMBERS: 202104-9070, 202104-9001. 202104-9072, 202104-9004, 202104-9069. 202104-90B6, 202104-9090 & 202104-9080 SITE AREA: 46.15 AC. WETLANDS AND BUFFERS: 13.70 AC. REGIONAL STORAGE FACILITY = 2.86 AC. DEVELOPMENT AREA: 29.59 AC. ZONING: RM2400 AND BC (CITY OF FEDERAL WAY) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS USE: ZERO LOTLINE TOWNHOUSE DWELLING UNITS MINIMUM LOT AREA: 1500 SF PER DWELLING UNIT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 35 FEEF ABOW AVERAGE BUILDING' ELEVATION BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT: 10' & 20' SIDE: 5' & 10' REAR: 5' & 20' REQUIRED PARKING SPACES: 2 PER UNIT N USE: OFFICE/RETAIL MINIMUM LOT AREA: NONE MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE: NONE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 35 FEET ABOVE AVERAGE BUILDING ELEVATION BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT: 0' SIDE: 0' REAR: 0' REQUIRED PARKING SPACES: 1 PER 300 S.F. OF GROSS FLOOR AREA UTILITY PROVIDERS SEWER: LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT WATER: LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT POWER: PUGET SOUND ENERGY GAS: PUGET SOUND ENERGY TELEPHONE: QWEST CABLE: COMCAST FIRE: FEDERAL WAY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 39 SCHOOL: FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 OWNER KITTS CORNER DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1026 BELLEVUE WAY, S.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98004 425-455-4772 DEVELOPER FEDERAL WAY VILLAGE. LL.C. P.O. BOX 73790 PUYALLUP, WA 98272 253-848-0820 PLAN N ERIEN Ca I N EERISU R V EYOR ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, L.L.C. 33915 - 1ST WAY SOUTH #200 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 (253) 836-6113 RSUBMITTLD CONTACT: ERIC LABRIE/FRED BROWN/MIKE BOWEN JAN 15 2008 A �F�p }��}�}";++ •NN! i i' -�Y,-- •, :� n:-----------------r g•4_ .. - f_ � D� ---------- AD Yam;" ._.. �....- � r