17-105489-Critical Area Response to Comments-12-21-2023
Wet.land, LLC
Jennifer Marriott, PWS
8201 164th Ave NE, Suite 200, PMB 141
Redmond, WA 98052
1 December 2023
City of Federal Way
Department of Community Development
PROJECT: Woodbridge Business Park, Federal Way, Washington
SUBJECT: Response to City Comments (2 August 2023)
Dear City,
The City provided comments on this Project in a letter dated 2 August 2023 that also included a comment letter
from ESA dated 9 June 2023. The following is provided in response to those comments. The original comments are
in normal font with responses following in bold font.
The below responses and attached documents supersede the previous Critical Areas Addendum as the Site Plan
has been adjusted to reflect City comments.
1. As stated in our July 20, 2022 review memo, the City continues to recommend that the standard buffer be
used to calculate the indirect impacts for Wetlands DE, GB-North, and any other wetland where a portion of
the wetland is being used as buffer, therefore resulting in indirect impacts. Using a reduced or averaged buffer
to calculate these impacts is not allowed under the FWRC. ESA recommends that indirect impacts be
recalculated using the standard buffer widths.
Impact calculations have been revised to the approach above with buffer averaging for indirect buffer
impacts removed. The In Lieu Fee (ILF) Plan has been adjusted accordingly. See CAR addendum, revised
Mitigation Plan, and revised ILF Plan for an updated assessment of critical area impacts.
2. According to the Revised Addendum, the buffers for Wetlands AG, AV, DE, and GB(N) exceed the 25% reduction
allowed per FWRC 19.145.440(6). Because this does not meet code requirements, this should not be part of
the proposal.
Buffer impacts have been modified. See CAR addendum, revised Mitigation Plan, and revised ILF Plan
for an updated assessment of critical area impacts.
PAGE 2
3. According to the Response to City Comments (16 August 2022), the applicant is not proposing pure buffer
reduction with enhancement; and therefore, the proposed reduced buffers do not need to meet the criteria
in FWRC 19.145.440(6) as suggested in ESA’s July 20, 2022 memo. However, due to the large amount of buffer
reduction being proposed, ESA continues to recommend that the critical areas report be revised to include a
discussion on how the proposed buffer reductions meet these requirements, to ensure a no net loss of
ecological function.
See the CAR addendum for a revised discussion on buffer impacts and mitigation.
4. The proposed construction of a new access road to the stormwater ponds is not an approved development
within a buffer per FWRC 19.145.440. Because the existing road to the south is a permanent alternation to the
buffer, as defined in FWRC 19.145.440(4), this area should be used to access the proposed stormwater pond,
as it will result in less impacts to the existing buffer. Because this does not meet code requirements, ESA
recommends this not be part of the proposal.
Noted. A utility corridor must still cross through the buffer at the location of the previous access road.
The stormwater access road was shifted to collocate with the existing trail. However, note that the trail
width and substrate does not meet the requirements for a maintenance access road and thus will be
modified accordingly to meet the necessary standards. See the CAR addendum for a revised discussion
of the utility corridor and access road.
5. The proposal for Wetland DE, shown on Sheet W1.8 does not match the buffer averaging requirements under
FWRC 19.145.440(5)(b), which states “the buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat
or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive
portion.” Most of the area of buffer “give-back” is not specific to Wetland DE. In particular, the southern
portion of the “give-back” area is adding buffer to Wetlands DF, DG, and DI, which would not provide
additional buffer function to Wetland DE. The buffer impacts are concentrated to the northern extent of
Wetland DE and increased buffer to the south and west would not compensate for the decreased buffer, or
buffer impacts, to the north. Additionally, the buffer along the east side of Wetland DE, merges with other
critical areas (i.e., other wetlands and their buffers) for an estimated buffer (protected area) of approximately
150 feet or greater. The existing buffer is already greater than that required by FWRC and therefore, more than
sufficient to protect the functions of the Category III wetland. Additional buffer in this area would provide
little to no additional buffer function. ESA recommends the critical areas report and associated figures be
revised to ensure that the buffer averaging requirements under FWRC 19.145.440(5)(b) are met.
See the CAR addendum for a revised discussion on buffer impacts and mitigation.
PAGE 3
6. It is unclear where the buffer replacement areas are located for Wetland BR and AG. Sheet W1.9 states that
the buffer of Wetland BR will be reduced by 284 SF and replaced with 704 SF of new buffer. However, in
Viewport 6 of this plan sheet, the buffer replacement area appears to be much larger than 704 SF.
Additionally, Viewport 7 states that 3,432 SF of the buffer of Wetland AG will be reduced and replaced by
20,427 SF of new buffer. Buffer replacement is proposed in three separate areas including the buff er
replacement area shown for Wetland BR in Viewport 6. ESA recommends the critical areas report and
associated figures be revised to ensure that the buffer averaging requirements under FWRC 19.145.440(5)(b)
are met.
Graphics were revised to more clearly reflect the critical area impacts, including buffer modifications.
See the CAR addendum for a revised discussion on buffer impacts and mitigation.
7. According to the Revised Addendum, temporary buffer impacts to several wetland buffers will occur through
the restoration of an existing trail to functioning buffer. As recommended in our July 20, 2022 review memo,
ESA continues to recommend that a description of the proposed restoration be included in the critical areas
report. Similar to grading, this work may be considered to be development by the City and would meet the
criteria under FWRC 19.145.440. The same is recommended for the restoration of the unpaved access road to
functioning buffer proposed in the buffer of Wetland AV.
More details of the trail restoration were previously provided in Chapter 4.1.3 of the CAR Addendum.
The intent is to remove the compacted gravel base and restore these areas with soil and plantings
consistent with other restoration actions proposed onsite. Note that the existing trail to be restored is
the same trail, simply at multiple locations. FWRC 19.145.440 does not clearly describe this
circumstance where an existing trail would be removed from within a buffer without an associated
buffer modification. This action is part of the onsite mitigation.
8. ESA recommends that the critical areas report be revised to show how the proposed buffer averaging for
Wetlands BR and FB meet the criteria in FWRC 19.145.440.5.
Noted. See the CAR addendum for a revised discussion on buffer impacts and mitigation.
9. Based on the Shoreline Jurisdiction Detail submitted with the application documents, ESA agrees that all
proposed developments are outside of the SMZ; and therefore, the project no longer requires a Shoreline
Permit.
Noted.
PAGE 4
10. ESA agrees that the proposed stormwater reconfiguration and outfall structure proposed in the buffer of
Stream AC meet the requirements of FWRC 19.145.330. ESA also agrees that the proposed mitigation
involving removal of a culvert and habitat improvements will result in an overall lift of ecological function.
ESA recommends that any required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife be obtained before any in-water work commences.
Noted. Required permits will be acquired prior to any in-water work.
11. According to the projects King County In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Plan (Attachment 4 to the Revised Addendum), a total
of 20.96 credits will be purchased to mitigate for all direct and indirect wetland impacts. However, all debits
were calculated as if they were direct wetland impacts. According to Washington State Department of
Ecology guidance, an adjusted ratio (starting at 0.5:1) should be applied when calculating debits for indirect
impacts. ESA recommends the debits for direct and indirect wetland impacts be ca lculated separately and
the ILF Plan be revised to reflect the correct number of debits. If the total area of direct and/or indirect
impacts changes due to any of the recommended revisions above, the revised ILF Plan should reflect those
changes.
The In Lieu Fee (ILF) Plan has been revised to reflect the new site plan and critical area impacts.
Should you have any questions or require additional information regarding this Project, please contact me at
jen@wet.land (cell: 813-846-1684).
Jennifer Marriott, PWS
Owner, Wet.land, LLC
Attachments:
1. Addendum to the Critical Areas Report, Wet.land, LLC, revised 1 December 2023
2. Revised Mitigation Plan, Wet.land, LLC, 1 December 2023
3. In Lieu Fee Plan, Wet.land, LLC, revised 1 December 2023