17-10207141k
CITY OF
Federal Way
Date: June 4, 2018
To: Erik Earle, IT GIS Analyst
From: Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
Subject: Critical Area Update — Wetlands & Stream
The purpose of this memo is to request an update to the GIS wetland base maps (atlas pages #25
and 26). According to the Critical Area Report prepared by Soundview Consultants (existing
conditions map enclosed), there are wetlands and a stream located on parcels #112103-9078 and
#112103-9131.
The city's wetland consultant, Landau, reviewed the report and they concur. The Department of
Community Development concurs with the report's ratings and delineations. If you have any
questions, please contact Senior Planner Stacey Welsh.
APPROVED
n
Robert "Doc" Mansen, Planning Manager
enclosure
Doc ID 77822
File 17-102071-00-AD
C
P4
1 N
( � v
A
cn -0 b
oQ Q
(--G)n3
zmin
b -i cn
° CLEARY PROPERTY su1111•-t;•
4301 SR•308r-I Sr N SOLUldviM (;0MLllWllh;l' �+ O TEe .e
FEERAL WAY. R•ASHNGTON 98023 PRe[ZUry,,oRrVSF
YORS
��a' n
D THE NNy TT OP9ECDN ILTOWNSHM 21N, 007 Q
11II'" 1•I4••'� 10mAlC09 AVC M. RATT.C, VA ML1]
RANGE 03F-W.Ii li��l iil-:.li i��l i (306}21 7
CITY OF
r Federal Way
June 1, 2018
Mr. Stephen J. Cleary
3016 SW 300th Place
Federal Way, WA 98023
Re: File #17-102071-AD; 3PJ3 PARTY WETLAND REVIEW
Cleary, 4301 SW 308th Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Cleary:
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FILE
On July 18, 2017, the City of Federal Way received your revised request for third party review of the Wetland
& Stream Delineation Report for parcel numbers 112103-9078 and 112103-9131, prepared by Soundview
Consultants Quly 2017). The city forwarded your request to our wetland consultant, Landau, for their review.
Landau completed a site visit, reviewed relevant documents, and prepared a memorandum Qanuary 31, 2018)
in which they did not concur with some components of the Soundview report. Subsequent document
revisions, review, meetings, site visits, and correspondence were completed. Due to the complex nature of the
regulations associated with the critical areas and shoreline regulations, technical assistance was obtained from
the Washington State Department of Ecology.
The final package of documents that addresses the critical areas features on your site includes the following:
• Wletland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, prepared by Soundview
Consultants, revised March 2018.
• Technical Memorandum (Report Addendum) from Soundview Consultants to City of
Federal Way, May 10, 2018.
• Technical Memorandum from Landau to City of Federal Way, May 24, 2018 (copy enclosed).
• Letter from the City of Federal Way to Steve Cleary, June 1, 2018 (this letter).
The site contains wetlands and a stream, some of which are within the shoreline jurisdiction. These features
and their buffers are depicted in the revised Existing Conditions figure (copy enclosed for reference), attached
to the May 10, 2018, Technical Memorandum from Soundview Consultants to City of Federal Way. When
planning future development on the parcels, note Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.160: "Unless
otherwise provided, structures shall be set back a distance of five feet from the edges of a critical area buffer.
The following may be allowed in the building setback area: (1) Landscaping; (2) Building overhangs; and (3)
Fences and railings six feet and less in height."
The northern parcel (112103-9078) contains a home and accessory structure. Per FWRC 19.145.440.4 and
19,145,270.4, the director may provide written approval for a wetland and stream buffer reduction when
existing conditions are such that portions of the required buffer exist in a permanently altered state (e.g.,
roadways, paved parking lots, and permanent structures) and do not provide any buffer function. The buffer
17-102071-00-AD Doc LD-
may be reduced up to the area where the altered conditions exist. The existing home, accessory structure, and
associated infrastructure qualifies for reduced wetland and stream buffers up to the area where the altered
conditions exist.
As detailed in the May 24, 2018,Technical Memorandum from Landau to City of Federal Way, the following
condition is placed on the parcels: "Any project activities within 103 ft of Stream Z flag Z19 will require
confirmation of OHWM width at flag Z19 and extending downstream."
The city's critical areas review has concluded. When you apply for future permits, include a copy of this letter
with your submittal. The critical areas, associated buffers, and building setbacks must be delineated on the site
plan of any developr#nent application in conformance with FWRC 19.145.150.4 and 19.145.260.
Should you have ariy questions about this letter, please contact Senior Planner Stacey Welsh at 253-835-2634,
or stacey.welshocitvoffederalway.eom.
Sincerely,
Brian Davis
Community Development Director
enc: May 24, 2018.Memorandum from Landau
May 10, 2018, Revised Existing Conditions Figure
c: Matt DeCaro, Soundview Consultants, s undvicxv ons 1 to s.co
Steve Quarterman, Landau, ssquartcrwri l m&.dne.com
17-102071-00-AD Doc LD.
Stacey Welsh
From: Steve Quarterman <suarterman@landauinc.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:06 PM
To: Stacey Welsh
Subject: RE: forward letter (Cleary)
Attachments: Cleary Critical Areas Peer Review TM - Resubmit 2 052418.pdf
Final version of the memo is attached.
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Stacey Welsh [mailto:Stacey.Welsh@cityoffederalway.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 2:15 PM
To: Steve Quarterman <suarterman@landauinc.com>
Subject: RE: forward letter (Cleary)
Steve,
Appreciate the clarifications. Would you send me a "final" version of the document that I can send to the applicant? I'll
be putting together a final memothat summarizes what has occurred and references the key documents along with the
condition regarding the stream. I may have a question or two for you while I'm composing the letter, will let you know if
I do.
Thanks,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2634
www.citVoffederalway.com
From: Steve Quarterman[mailtosquarterman@landauinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 9:46 AM
To: Stacey Welsh
Subject: RE: forward letter (Cleary)
Stacey,
Draft of our review comments on the Cleary resubmittal is attached. Please let me know if you have any
questions/comments.
1
Technical Memorandum
TO: Stacey Welsh, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way
FROM: Steven Quarterman
DATE: May 24, 2018
RE: Peer Review, Resubmittal No. 2
4301 SW 308th Street
Cleary Property — Wetland and Stream Delineation
Parcels 1121039078 and 1121039131
Federal Way, Washington
0238080.010.011
Introduction
This technical memorandum provides Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) peer review comments on the
May 10, 2018 technical memorandum prepared by Soundview Consultants (SVC 2018)la in response
to comments provided by LAI in our technical memorandum addressed to you dated May 7, 2018 (LAI
2018) related to LAI peer review comments on the SVC March 2018 Critical Areas Delineation Report.'
The purpose of this peer review is to provide a professional opinion regarding applicable regulatory
requirements in the City of Federal Way (City) Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19.145 (Environmentally
Critical Areas), specifically under Article IV Wetlands and Article III Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas; and FWRC Title 15.10 (Shoreline Management — Critical Areas), specifically under
Article V Streams and Article VI Regulated Wetlands.
Peer review comments regarding the May 10 SVC technical memorandum include:
1) LAI concurs with the shoreline jurisdiction extent shown on the revised Existing Conditions figure
provided with the May 10 SVC technical memorandum. Our response to statements made by SVC
in regard to references from previous review comments are provided below:
A. In response to Comment 1 in the May 10 SVC technical memorandum, LAI acknowledges
that SVC's July 10, 2017 report' identified the extent of Wetland B/D as occurring within
shoreline jurisdiction. In accordance with the Shoreline Master Program, shoreline
jurisdiction extends 200 feet (ft) from the ordinary highway water mark (OHWM) of
Wetland B/D and also includes the entirety of associated wetland (including areas that
may extend beyond the 200-ft offset from the OHWM). At the time of our review of the
2017 report, as documented in LAI's January 31 technical memorandum', it was not clear
if the 200-ft offset from the OHWM would extend beyond the wetland limits or vice versa.
As a result, reference to associated wetlands and measurements from OHWM were
provided assuming that SVC would apply criteria accordingly.
1 SVC. 2018. Technical Memorandum re: Addendum to Revised Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report:
4301 SW 308th Street — Federal Way dated 3/20/2018 (City File H17-102071-AD). May 10.
z LAI. 2018. Technical Memorandum re: Peer Review, Resubmittal No. 1, 4301 SW 3081h Street Cleary Property— Wetland and
Stream Delineation Parcels 1121039078 and 1121039131. May 7.
3 Soundview Consultants. 2017. Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report-4301 SW 3081h Street— Federal
Way. April 20, Revised July 10.
4 LAI. 2018. Technical Memorandum re: Peer Review 4301 SW 30811 Street Cleary Property — Wetland and
Stream Delineation Parcels 1121039078 and 1121039131. January 31.
14 LANDAU
ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South •Edmonds, Washington 98020 (425) 778-0907
Landau Associates
The following statement provided in LAI's January 31 technical memorandum as
referenced by SVC is accurate: "The 200 ft shoreland boundary extends from the OHWM
of Wetland 8, which will require delineation of the extent of salt -tolerant vegetation in the
wetland unit", which is exclusive of the boundaries of "associated wetland" that may
extend beyond the 200-ft offset.
We acknowledge that interpretation of shoreline extent may have been complicated by
the following statement provided in LAI's January 31 technical memorandum:
"However, the extent of shorelands in this wetland unit is limited to the area
influenced by tidal waters, in which the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in
low energy environments is coincident with the landward limit of salt -tolerant
vegetation (refer to Washington Administrative Code (WAC] 173-22-030).
Where the first reference to "shorelands" should be replaced with "ordinary
high water mark".
In response to Comment 2, the January 31 LAI technical memorandum is clear that FWRC
Title 15 is applicable to areas within shoreline jurisdiction. We assume SVC's reference to
contradictory comment is in regard to buffer widths for areas of associated wetlands.
Relevant definitions from FWRC 15.05.030 are provided below for reference:
"Shoreline jurisdiction" means all "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands" as
defined in the Federal Way shoreline master program and RCW 90.58.030.
"shorelands"; also referred to as "shoreland area'; means those lands extending
landward for 200 ft in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the
OHWM; floodways, and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 ft from such
floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes,
and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to
be designated as to location by the Department of Ecology.
While the January 31 LAI technical memorandum does not explicitly address instances of
associated wetland areas that occur within shoreline jurisdiction with buffers extending
beyond shoreline jurisdiction, the definition of shorelands omits reference to buffers,
which implies buffers extending beyond shoreland limits are not under shoreline
jurisdiction.
2) In regard to Comment 6 of the May 10 SVC technical memorandum, the City recognizes that SVC is
treating Stream Z as a Type F/Major stream, but that SVC "maintains that Stream Z is a Type Ns
water outside of shoreline jurisdiction." The intent of the City's comment is to clarify that
consideration of Stream Z as a Type F/Major stream is based on current best available science,
and that this determination may be changed based on any additional information that may
become available. To date, the City has not received data that supports stream Type Ns
classification consistent with WAC 222-16-030 and the Forest Practices Board Manual (refer to
January 31 LAI technical memorandum), and will proceed with consideration as a Type F/Major
stream.
3) In regard to Comment 7 of the May 10 SVC technical memorandum, LAI concurs that many species
listed in Appendix B - Salt -Tolerant Plants of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington 2014 Update (Appendix B of the Rating System) also thrive in freshwater
conditions. However, due to connection to Dumas Bay and documented saline conditions in a
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review Resubmittal 2 2 May 24, 2018
Landau Associates
portion of Wetland B/D by Ecology', these species were considered for identifying the extent of
salt -tolerant vegetation in Wetland B/D. Furthermore, SVC has highlighted that Rubus spp. and
Maianthemum dilatum are considered "sensitive" as opposed to "tolerant", and LAI is clarifying
that these are classified as salt -tolerant plants. Appendix B of the Rating System includes species
with identified or estimated salinity tolerances of 0.5 parts per trillion (ppt) and above (i.e. "salt -
tolerant plants"), which are grouped into categories that include, but are not limited to, very
sensitive, sensitive, and moderately sensitive (as referenced in Appendix B of the Rating System;
refer to Hutchinson, I. 1991.6.
4) LAI recommends the City accept the revised Existing Conditions figure, conditioning that any
project activities within 103 ft of Stream Z flag Z19 will require confirmation of OHWM width at
flag Z19 and extending downstream.
In regard to Comment 8 of the May 10 SVC technical memorandum, the application of the average
width of the OHWM of Stream Z underestimates the buffer extent for those areas of the stream
above the average width. However, based on LAI field notes from the January 9, 2018 field review
completed in support of the January 31 LAI technical memorandum, the approximate OHWM
widths upstream of Wetland A are within the 6 ft width specified, which presumably extend to
Wetland B/D based on site topography. Based on site observations, the OHWM width at the
culvert at the trail in Dumas Bay Park is likely greater than 6 ft, and it is not apparent that 6 ft
OHWM width of Stream Z within, at least part of, Wetland B/D is applicable. Due to topography of
the site, the 6-ft OHWM width is assumed applicable for Stream Z from flag Z1 to about flag Z19
(the approximate point at which grades begin to flatten in Wetland B/D). We understand the
applicant is not anticipating any project activities in the vicinity of Wetland B/D; however, any
project activities within 103 ft of flag Z19 will require confirmation of OHWM width at flag Z19 and
extending downstream.
This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Federal Way in evaluating the
adequacy of the May 10, 2018 technical memorandum for King County Parcels 1121039078 and
1121039131. The focus of this review was the shoreline, wetland, and stream delineations. The
purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the submitted documents for compliance with
City requirements as promulgated in FWRC Title 15.10 and Title 19, and conformance with
conventionally accepted wetland/waterway delineation practices. No other party is entitled to rely on
the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express
written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and
recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without
review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. Landau Associates
warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been provided
in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the
profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. We make
no other warranty, either express or implied.
Paul Anderson, Ecology NWRO Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor. 2017. Review of Wetland Rating For Cleary Property.
Memorandum. May 30.
Hutchinson, I. 1991. Salinity Tolerance of Plants and Estuarine Wetlands and Associated Uplands. Washington State Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program: Wetlands Section. Dr. Ian Hutchinson, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
B.C., Canada V5A 1S6. Ecology Publication No. 07-06-018.
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review Resubmittal 2
May 24, 2018
Landau Associates
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any
questions or if we may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven J. Quarterman
Senior Associate Ecologist
SJQ/tam
\\edmdata0l\projects\238\O80\R\Peer Review TM Resubmit No 2\ClearyCdtical Areas Peer Review TM - ResubmR 2 05241&doa
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review Resubmittal 2 4 May 24, 2018
From: Stacey Welsh Stacey.Welsh@cityoffederalway.com OF
Subject: supplemental budget
Date: May 18, 2018 at 11:56 AM
To: Stephen Cleary corvettecleary@gmail.com
Mr. Cleary,
As indicated in the December 11, 2017, letter sent to you from the City regarding the wetland consultant review
estimate, additional reviews or meetings beyond that detailed in the letter would require a supplemental cost and
authorization. I am requesting supplemental funds in order to finish the peer review work. In developing the
initial budget, the meeting with the consultants at City Hall, the consultant's second site review associated with
the shoreline ordinary high water delineation, and second round of review comments were not anticipated. The
attached invoice is for $1200. Following receipt of the funds and your signature on the line below, I will
authorize Landau to finish their review. If you have any questions let me know.
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2634
vww f
WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM
5-18-18, supplemental funds of $1,200 to complete the peer review.
Acceptance:
Requested via email 5-17-18
Consultant Date
J - 2 2- -/1
City of Fed nil Way Staff , Date
nnlinnnf Date
INVOICE
Ciiv of Fe&rat Way
33325 Silt Avtinu: S.
INVOWE TO: STEPHLKJCLEARY
301 Ci S W 3WTl-I P L
FEDERAL WAY WA dM 23
BILL ISO: 22_5412
BILL DATE: Mjy Ili, 2018
PERMIT NO: 17 1021071 Ck AD
t+-- • 1n ._—)
PROJECT LOCATION: 4301 S%V 308THST
FOLDERNAME: CLEARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request torpeer re iem, of a hvl6nd &1inmtion =d strum feport
FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
CD - DEP ENV PASS-THR(; 4,MA5) S1,2W.00
TOTAL: 51,201LOU
PAYMENT RECEIVED.- $0.00
BALANCE: SL m.00
RESUBMITTED
41 �-
Soundview Consultants LLC
Environmental Assessment - Planning • Land Use Solutions
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
MAY 11 2018
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Technical Memorandum
To: Stacey Welsh, City of Federal Way File Number: 1279.0002
From: Matt DeCaro, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: May 10, 2018
Re: Addendum to Revised Wetland Delineation and Fish and wildlife Habitat
Assessment Report: 4301 SW" Street —Federal Wapdated 3/20/2018
(City File #17-102071-AD))
Dear Ms. Welsh,
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Stephen Cleary (Applicant) with critical areas
compliance efforts on an approximately 5.8-acre property located at 4301 SW 308th Street in the
City of Federal Way (City), Washington (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1121039078 and
1121039131). This Technical Memorandum is intended to serve as an addendum to SVC's Wetland
Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report dated March 20, 2018, and to provide
responses to comments provided by your wetland consultant in a review memorandum dated May 7,
2018. The City documented its concurrence with the third -party review in a letter dated May 9, 2018.
The specific third -party review comments are provided in italics below.
9. The identification of the Shoreline Management Zone, as shown in the Executive Summary Site Map and
Sheet 9 of 2 (4301 SW 308th Street - Existing Conditions figure), in the Critical Areas Delineation
Report, should include the entirety of Wetland B/D on the subjectproperzy, and the label for the "Standard
200' Buffer (WL BlD) (FWRC 95.90)" applies to the buffer extending from the limits of ordinary high
water/limit of salt -tolerant vegetation identified on the subject propery. The shoreline buffer of the freshwater
wetland area within shoreline jurisdiction only extends to the limit of shoreline jurisdiction, at which point
buffer requirements of FWKC 19.145 apply outride of the shoreline jurisdiction (i.e. the farthest buffer
extent outride of shoreline jurisdiction is 165 feet measured from WL B/D; refer to the attached).
The Existing Conditions figure has been revised accordingly and in provided as Attachment A of
this addendum. For documentation sake, SVC notes that our 7/10/2017 assessment report depicted
the Shoreline Management Zone (SMZ) as following the boundary of Wetland B/D. SVC revised
the SMZ in the 3/20/2018 assessment report based on the following comment that your consultant
provided in their 1/31/2018 review letter: "The 200 ft shoreland boundary extends from the OHWM of
Wetland B, which will require delineation of the extent of salt -tolerant vegetation in the wetland unit." We trust that
we agree on the SMZ now and that no further mapping revisions are warranted.
Soundview Consultants LLC March 20, 2018
1279.0002 Cleary Property — Addendum to Assessment Report Page 1 of 4
2. The reference to FVRC I S.I0.270 in regard to the Permanently Altered Buffer as shown in the Executive
Stam>hrary Site Map and Sheet I of 2 (4301 SV 308th Street - Existing Conditions figure) of the Critical
Areas Delineation Report does not apply. This area of proposed permanently altered buffer is outside of
sh oreline jurisdiction.
The Existing Conditions figure has been revised accordingly (Attachment A). Again, we point out
that this comment contrasts with your third -party consultant's 1/31/2018 review letter which stated:
"As FVRC Title 15 is applicable to areas within shorelinejurisdiedon, buffer wiAbsprescribed in FVRC 19.145
apply to any freshwater portion of the wetland that may occur outside of the 200- t shoreland offset (i.e. part of
shoreline ju1'isdictton) from the limit of salt -tolerant vegetation (i.e. ordinary high water)."
3. The last paragraph of section 5.1.3 of the Critical Areas Delineation Report should be updated to omit
reference to FVRC I5.I0.270(5), as the area in question is outside of shoreline jutirdiction.
We recognize that the permanently altered buffer applies to FWRC 19.145. See response above to
comment #2.
4. The last pamgtxtphs of sections 5.1.3 and 5.2.2 of the Critical Areas Delineation Report reference the
eadsting residence and associated kfnuhwaure as meeting the definition of permanently altered wetland and
stream buffers in accordance with FVRC I9.I45.440(4) and FVRC I9.I45.270(4), respectively.
FVRC 19.145.440(4) and FVRC I9.I45.270(4) identify that the director may provide written approval
for a buffer reduction related to permanent alterations provided that the alterations do not provide any buffer
functions. LAI understands the City willlikelyprovide written approval in this case.
Noted. We recognize that the permanently altered buffer applies to FWRC 19.145. See response
above to comment #2.
5. The third parrag oh of Chapter 6 in the CriticalAreas Delineation Report and March 20 SVC technical
memorandum references that the City and/or their consultant agreed dewing the February 2018 meetng that
the freshwaterpordon of Vetland B/D is subject to a I65 foot buffer based on habitat score. This discussion
should be clarified to identify that staff from LAI concurred with the habitat score provided for Vetland
B/D at the February 20I8 meeting.
Agreed, though we point out that the City does concur with this conclusion.
6. As referenced in the Critical Areas Delineation Report and March 20 SVC technical memorandum, the
City considers Stream Z to be a fish habitat stream, which it based on best available science (refer to
comments odgimalyprovided by LAI in the January 31 technical memorandum). The City may reconsider
stream type upon review of any additional data to be provided by the applicant consistent with stream type
determinations in VAC 222-I6-030 and guidance from DNR.
We do not understand the purpose of this comment, as our 3/20/2018 assessment report accepted
the Type F/Major stream classification for Stream Z and provided a 100-foot buffer.
LAI reviewed the flagged boundary of the ordinary high water markllimit of salt tolerant vegetation of
Vetland BID and observed predominance of salt -tolerant vegetation along the approximate wetland
boundary extending between flagY7 and YI (refer to the attached). In the absence of salinity data measured
in Vetland BID, it appears these areas should be included within the limits of the ordinary high water/limit
of salt -tolerant vegetation of Vetland B/D. Species of salt -tolerant plants observed in this area include
blackbery species (Rubus pp.), false filly of the valley (Maianthemum dilatum), and water parsley
(Oenanthe sarmentosa).
Soundview Consultants LLC March 20, 2018
1279.0002 Cleary Property — Addendum to Assessment Report Page 2 of 4
Those species thrive in freshwater conditions and their presence does not necessarily indicate
saltwater influence. In fact, Rubus spp. and Maianthemum dilatum are considered "sensitive" to
saltwater and not "tolerant". Regardless, we accept your deterniination as it has no effect on any
future development on Mr. Cleary's property. The Existing Conditions figure has been revised
accordingly (Attachment A).
8. Based on comments originally provided by LA in the January 31 technical memorandum, the application of
measured buffer widths from Stream Z, which was de&neated based on the stream centerline, needs to be
clarified.
The Stream Z channel is less 6 feet wide on average. The 100-foot buffer depicted on the site plan
(Attachment A) is measured from the OHW mark of Stream Z, which is conservatively assumed to
be 3 feet from the delineated and surveyed centerline of Stream Z. In other words, the illustrated
100-foot buffer is actually 103 feet from Stream Z's centerline. A note has been added to the site
plan for clarity.
9. The March 20 SVC technical memorandum indicates `Although groundwater exchange functions have no
effect on wetland categories or required buffer widths, the wetland report has been revised to include a brief
summary ofgroundwater exchangefor Wetland B/D. " The evaluation ofground water exchange functions is
a requirement of FVRC 15.10.240(2)(g), which is independent of wetland categori,-ation or buffer width
determination.
No response warranted. During a phone call with your consultant on April 25, 2018, Mr.
Quarterman stated that the groundwater exchange function summary provided in our 3/20/2018
assessment report is sufficient.
10. LAI concurs with the assessment that the former blue heron colony that has been abandoned on the subject
property should not be regulated as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area under FWAC
19.145.260. Our concurrence is based on correspondence provided by stafffrom the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), as referenced in the Critical Areas Delineation Report, which we
understand supplement WDFW's Management Recommendations for Priority Habitats and Species,
pecifically Management Recommendationsfor Washington's Priority Species — Volume IV Birds3.
Noted.
We trust this addendum is sufficient for your third -party consultant to complete their review.
Sincerely,
Matt DeCaro, Environmental Planner/Project Manager
Soundview Consultants LLC
Matt@soundviewconsultants.com
Soundview Consultants LLC March 20, 2018
1279.0002 Cleary Property — Addendum to Assessment Report Page 3 of 4
N
Attachment A - Site Plan (updated 5/10/2018)
Soundview Consultants LLC March 20, 2018
1279.0002 Cleary Property — Addendum to Assessment Report Page 4 of 4
till
\III'),III.vu......n.....0
o-,ll NO LIDS5 I
'NIZ ffi-ISNAIOS.[l NOLL73S dO �NN'.�LL
o
p
r1
9tUfi VA '3LL1V3S Yl 3AV CIO LOWI
rf,i llFlti''I SIINA
+tls'f�i .I II'II I IY' I .IIIII \\ II \Ill )Illl\'IILIY•i
SZIIWA9nS (INin 7TNOIss3 021d
as
.,,,,,,,,....I,rv�,.,.I,��,,,IM1,.I,��•,,,•: �.••:.v n'LI �I,.W>. •„'I ..
CZ096 NOd,`.)MESVA&`dFIA TPN3Q39
ISFlL90£ 115Io£4
°
r,
S'ior�a14�r�s l
S]UUJ SUO fl\�fA�7UIlOS
s�xnos
L)IgdO' cl �2I�'3I�
o
o
m
} lid, '•�. ', •.•,', I'. ��
p H ! IL', • IO N
❑ -5 \n r ❑
z
00
m ❑ W
WMN
� i • 7-• • • H I U) 0=0
I" Lzu
• s• J W
r fA
f fV mV ;• •L .'� p Ili_
oc¢ �m � mi. �r •� U) aoo
ULL • 7�•i�•�f ❑W y�o
�� 1 �15)
I •I ' W m�W
MOE
j`I` NC7 LL' j�c
a
rt❑� � � - HW W
a W
I m.•-ALL
Z,—
�WWO
(rLWLv Z W I hil. U) 11 - y LLSg
WLL�
1 s
,..i nW. Q m °' x p i F' �_• .ns _n e H1>y " ~�^ rc w
W =
0 p ww
gwLL
U))�f,' '.' '. ❑3� rcf
, 1
-
101W.W
r_O
❑OW
/o
` / 4 ig
1 F�-o11;s
Q� wz
ZQ(D:3
ZiooZ30
Q a-C/)
n m }
of
N z (D 0
U) m
�U
CITY OF
-A�k Federal
May 9, 2018
Mr. Stephen J. Cleary
3016 SW 3001h Place
Federal Way, WA 98023
Way
Re: File #17-102071-AD; 3— PARTY WETLAND REVIEW
Cleary, 4301 SW 308th Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Cleary:
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FILE
On March 23, 2018, the City of Federal Way received a Technical Memorandum and revised Wetland &
Stream Delineation Report for parcel numbers 112103-9078 and 112103-9131, prepared by Soundview
Consultants (revised March 2018).
WETLAND REPORT
The city forwarded the report to our wedand consultant, Landau, for their review. Landau completed a site
visit, reviewed relevant documents, and prepared a memorandum (April 19, 2018) with technical comments.
Landau subsequently prepared a revised memorandum (May 7, 2018) with technical comments. The city
concurs with Landau's review.
NEXT STEPS
Please review the peer review comments in the enclosed revised memorandum prepared by Landau. A revised
wetland and stream delineation report must be submitted. It is encouraged that this occurs prior to submitting
applications for development. The revised report will be peer reviewed at the applicant's expense in accordance
with Federal Way Revised Cade (FWRC) 19.145.080(3).
Should you have any questions about this letter, I can be reached at stacey.wclsh citygffedera.lSUy.com, or
253-835-2634.
Sincerely,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
enc: May 7, 2018, Memorandum from Landau
Matt DeCaro, Soundview Consultants, matt?soundviewconsultants.crsm
17-102071-00-AD Doc. I.D. 77696
Technical Memorandum
TO: Stacey Welsh, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way
FROM: Steven Quarterman
DATE: May 7, 2018
RE: Peer Review, Resubmittal No. 1
4301 SW 308th Street
Cleary Property — Wetland and Stream Delineation
Parcels 1121039078 and 1121039131
Federal Way, Washington
0238080.010.011
Introduction
This technical memorandum provides Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) peer review comments on the
applicant resubmittal in response to comments provided by LAI in the technical memorandum
addressed to you dated January 31, 2018.1
The following provides review comments on the March 2018 Wetland Delineation and Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report-4301 SW 308th Street —Federal Way (Critical Areas Delineation
Report).2 A summary of the updates to the Critical Areas Delineation Report was also provided in the
March 20, 2018 technical memorandum prepared by Soundview Consultants (March 20 SVC technical
memorandum). The purpose of this peer review is to provide a professional opinion regarding
applicable regulatory requirements in the City of Federal Way (City) Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19.145
(Environmentally Critical Areas), specifically under Article IV Wetlands and Article III Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas; and FWRC Title 15.10 (Shoreline Management — Critical Areas),
specifically under Article V Streams and Article VI Regulated Wetlands.
LAI wetlands staff conducted a reconnaissance of the subject property on April 9, 2018, which
included review of delineation of the ordinary high water/limit of salt -tolerant vegetation of Wetland
B/D on the subject property.
Peer review comments regarding the Critical Areas Delineation Report and March 20 SVC technical
memorandum include:
1) The identification of the Shoreline Management Zone, as shown in the Executive Summary
Site Map and Sheet 1 of 2 (4301 SW 3081h Street - Existing Conditions figure), in the Critical
Areas Delineation Report, should include the entirety of Wetland B/D on the subject property,
and the label for the "Standard 200' Buffer (WL B/D) (FWRC 15.10)" applies to the buffer
extending from the limits of ordinary high water/limit of salt -tolerant vegetation identified on
the subject property. The shoreline buffer of the freshwater wetland area within shoreline
jurisdiction only extends to the limit of shoreline jurisdiction, at which point buffer
requirements of FWRC 19.145 apply outside of the shoreline jurisdiction (i.e. the farthest
buffer extent outside of shoreline jurisdiction is 165 feet measured from WL B/D; refer to the
attached).
LAI. 2018. Technical Memorandum re: Peer Review 4301 SW 308th Street Cleary Property — Wetland and
Stream Delineation Parcels 1121039078 and 1121039131. January 31.
a Soundview Consultants. 2018. Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report— 4301 SW 3081hStreet— Federal
Way. April 20, 2017, Revised March 20, 2018.
LALANDAU
ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South •Edmonds, Washington 98020 (425) 778-0907
Landau Associates
2) The reference to FWRC 15.10.270 in regard to the Permanently Altered Buffer as shown in the
Executive Summary Site Map and Sheet 1 of 2 (4301 SW 308th Street - Existing Conditions
figure) of the Critical Areas Delineation Report does not apply. This area of proposed
permanently altered buffer is outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
3) The last paragraph of section 5.1.3 of the Critical Areas Delineation Report should be updated
to omit reference to FWRC 15.10.270(5), as the area in question is outside of shoreline
jurisdiction.
4) The last paragraphs of sections 5.1.3 and 5.2.2 of the Critical Areas Delineation Report
reference the existing residence and associated infrastructure as meeting the definition of
permanently altered wetland and stream buffers in accordance with FWRC 19.145.440(4) and
FWRC 19.145.270(4), respectively. FWRC 19.145.440(4) and FWRC 19.145.270(4) identify that
the director may provide written approval for a buffer reduction related to permanent
alterations provided that the alterations do not provide any buffer functions. LAI understands
the City will likely provide written approval in this case.
5) The third paragraph of Chapter 6 in the Critical Areas Delineation Report and March 20 SVC
technical memorandum references that the City and/or their consultant agreed during the
February 2018 meeting that the freshwater portion of Wetland B/D is subject to a 165-foot
buffer based on habitat score.
This discussion should be clarified to identify that staff from LAI concurred with the habitat
score provided for Wetland B/D at the February 2018 meeting.
61 As referenced ii� the Criti%ai Are Delineation Report and March 20 CV.r technical
memorandum, the City considers Stream Z to be a fish habitat stream, which is based on best
available science (refer to comments originally provided by LAI in the January 31 technical
memorandum). The City may reconsider stream type upon review of any additional data to be
provided by the applicant consistent with stream type determinations in WAC 222-16-030 and
guidance from DNR.
7) LAI reviewed the flagged boundary of the ordinary high water mark/limit of salt -tolerant
vegetation of Wetland B/D and observed predominance of salt -tolerant vegetation along the
approximate wetland boundary extending between flag Y7 and Y1 (refer to the attached). In
the absence of salinity data measured in Wetland B/D, it appears these areas should be
included within the limits of the ordinary high water/limit of salt -tolerant vegetation of
Wetland B/D. Species of salt -tolerant plants observed in this area include blackberry species
(Rubus spp.), false lilly of the valley (Maianthemum dilatum), and water parsley (Oenanthe
sormentosa).
LAI observed salt -tolerant plants (as listed in Appendix B. Salt -Tolerant Plants of the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington 2014 Update) in the
wetland including, but not limited to, yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), red
osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), false lilly of the valley (Maianthemum dilatum), salmonberry
(Rubus specabilis), red alder (Alnus rubra), and water parsley (Oenthanthe sarmentoso).
Wetland/upland species observed in Wetland B/D that are not included on the list of salt -
tolerant plants include English ivy (Hedera helix), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), giant
horsetail (Equisetum telmatiea), and stinging nettle (Urtica diocia).
We observed predominance of English ivy (Hedera helix) southwest of flags Y3 and Y4, which
we assume represents a break between fresh and salt -water influence; and an area extending
northwest between flags Y5 and Y6 contained a number of salt -tolerant plants (namely yellow
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review Resubmittal 2 May 7, 2018
Landau Associates
skunk cabbage and water parsley) with giant horsetail (not included on the list of salt -tolerant
plants) interspersed. It is noted that salt -water tolerant species occur upslope of areas with a
predominance of species not included on the list of salt -tolerant plants; these are assumed to
be freshwater areas of the Wetland B/D (i.e. not all salt -tolerant plants listed in Appendix B
are require saline conditions, and can occur in both freshwater and estuarine environments).
8) Based on comments originally provided by LAI in the January 31 technical memorandum, the
application of measured buffer widths from Stream Z, which was delineated based on the
stream centerline, needs to be clarified. Original comment is provided below:
Project mapping shall be updated to show setbacks/buffers of Stream Z measured from the
OHWM.
Delineation of Stream Z was limited to flagging of the stream centerline as observed as part of
the site reconnaissance and as presented on the Executive Summary Site Map and Sheet 1 of 2
(4301 SW 308th Street - Existing Conditions figure). Buffer of Stream Z on Sheet 1 of 2 is based
on the stream centerline, whereas FWRC 15.10.170 indicates stream setbacks are measured
outward from the OHWM and FWRC 19.145.270 indicates stream buffer widths shall be
measured outward on a horizontal plane from the OHWM or top of bank if the OHWM cannot
be identified. Based on field observations by LAI staff, the OHWM of Stream Z is identifiable
within the project area.
9) The March 20 SVC technical memorandum indicates "Although groundwater exchange
functions have no effect on wetland categories or required buffer widths, the wetland
report has been revised to include a brief summary of groundwater exchange for Wetland
B/D." The evaluation of ground water exchange functions is a requirement of FWRC
15.10.240(2)(g), which is independent of wetland categorization or buffer width
determination.
10) LAI concurs with the assessment that the former blue heron colony that has been abandoned
on the subject property should not be regulated as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Area under FWRC 19.145.260.
Our concurrence is based on correspondence provided by staff from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), as referenced in the Critical Areas Delineation
Report, which we understand supplement WDFW's Management Recommendations for
Priority Habitats and Species, specifically Management Recommendations for Washington's
Priority Species — Volume IV: Birds3.
This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Federal Way in evaluating the
adequacy of the Critical Areas Delineation Report for King County Parcels 1121039078 and
1121039131. The focus of this review was the wetland and stream delineations. The purpose of the
review was to assess the adequacy of the submitted documents for compliance with City
requirements as promulgated in FWRC Title 15.10 and Title 19 and conformance with conventionally
accepted wetland/waterway delineation practices. No other party is entitled to rely on the
information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express
written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and
3 WDFW. 2004. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species —Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review Resubmittal
May 7, 2018
Landau Associates
recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without
review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. Landau Associates
warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been provided
in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the
profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. We make
no other warranty, either express or implied.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any
questions or if we may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven J. Quarterman
Senior Associate Ecologist
SJQ/BAS /tam
\\edmdata0l\projects\23B\OBO\R\Peer Review TM Resubmit\Cleary Critical Areas Peer Review TM - Resubmittal 050718 - Draft do«
Attachment: Existing Conditions Map
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review Resubmittal 4 May 7, 2018
1
U
0B9C-.ZG(900
WOO'S.CNNI:IfI5f:0].A\ltAOf�00S'A�fA.A\
-VAN'R£0'3ONVN
o
1
Co
vl
F
EE196 VA'3111tl3S "N 3AW M13AN33M9 L0007
t169.1SF5'A SEn36NO19Mt1SVA\'HO"H 019
•NL£dIHSNAOS•Il fYO1.LJHS 30 �/a\N 3H.L
1
(]
SdOA3 Nns QNVI -ItlNOISS3.JGNd
ZSLB tl5'EfZd O3L105'3.\RIO N3C1N09lltl1j 406Z
s-jo1(,gAar75
-jjnps-n,.,.6-.ea.
711SIUMPSAODW!ApUnOs
£Z086 NOI9NIHSVAI'AVMMIUHQH-q
isIi180£mslo£t
`�
IuIdHdoyd �iNVUID
c
o
4
n
Sanxnos
III-
_� . ,�
. ,� .
._) •�
�.
F w
❑m 1
o e•
d
:w
o
1
r Q
�
cc LU
LL
1 1
ESQ¢W
�U '.�. .�. �. �.
�. •�1
.
, �.
U ��
_ a
r
w
1
na
1
-•}
f6 N
U t N
a, I
y N Ca 3 N
'C
F
Z LL
•v , y. , �..�
J
-0 N
w
Z C>
J
7 ti
'm••,y
ra Ip co f0
O,••y
{
w C O
w
z 3 y
rw
�J[7
taw
O tq 7
m
m •7 •' !
In' ' S
•.�''
Jw 3 U m
w 'C .- N to
a' O
. m.' !.1
m J
F0.
P N .O O7 E
°�
m a
CL
y m
mm m m a
cr-
Q
❑w
m
0-
F
f7
❑
1.r�
}
¢Q
a
2
ry ❑
!a
m
�.
v
N O
Q
m F-
❑
.
o� LL
�ILLi
p2 z� '�
taw❑
o^ Il
1 ¢ tea: a '
`❑ J / I
N - N
-
Q
7�0
wC7�
Q Er 0 N Q LL
w l vlw w , OJV
zw
�N M mJL
U) ry fi
- F'� '
w 2
ZO
U LL N
QI° .. • E-... of
06
¢Wm
m N� , �•r Z rR4
^ con
Sz6F
Stacey Welsh
From: Steve Quarterman <suarterman@landauinc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 9:52 AM
To: Stacey Welsh
Subject: FW: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
Attachments: FW: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction Dumas Bay site
Stacey,
For your files is email below/attached regarding Ecology's clarification on the application of CAO vs. Shoreline buffer
widths and determination of shoreline extent based on limit of salt -tolerant vegetation.
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Pater, David (ECY) [mailto:DAPA461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 3:38 PM
To: Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com>
Cc: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
Hi Steve,
I just discussed the Dumas Bay project with Doug and we both concur with your assessment of the wetland and use of
the salt tolerate vegetation as defining the limit of the brackish part of the marsh. We also agree that the non -shoreline
CAO buffer should apply from the edge of the freshwater wetland adjacent to the lot in question. I've enclosed an
additional email that provides more details.
Let me know if you have additional questions.
Thanks
David Pater / Shoreline Planner
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance / Department of Ecology.
Bellingham Field Office
913 Squalicum Way Unit 101
Bellingham, WA 98225
360-255-4375 david.pater@ecy-wa.gav
From: Steve Quarterman mailto:s uarterman landauinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 2:15 PM
To: Pater, David (ECY) <DAPA461 ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
David,
I am following up on our discussion from last week regarding the wetland/shoreline associated with Dumas Bay in
Federal Way. Based on our discussion, it was my understanding that you were going to discuss with Doug Gresham. I
would like to determine if you have had an opportunity to coordinate with Doug.
Thank you,
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Steve Quarterman
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:16 PM
To: 'Pater, David (ECY)' <DAPA461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
David,
Thank you again for taking the time today to discuss the city of Federal Way Dumas Bay site. 1 understand you will be
discussing the site with Doug Gresham, please let me know if you would like me to be part of any conversation if it
would help to describe the site conditions.
Thank you,
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Pater, David (ECY) [.mailto:DAPA461@ECY.WA.G0V1
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 4:40 PM
To: Steve Quarterman <5quarterman@landauinc.com>
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
Steve,
Maybe easier to discuss the Dumas Bay site. Give me a call. Tomorrow is difficult for me, but I'm available anytime
on Friday.
David Pater / Shoreline Planner
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance / Department of Ecology,
Bellingham Field Office
913 Squalicum Way Unit 101
Bellingham, WA 98225
360.255-4375 david.pater[Becy.wa, ov
From: Steve Quarterman mailto:s uarterman landauinc.comj
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 2:08 PM
To: Pater, David (ECY) <DAPA461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
David,
I have a follow up question to our discussion from back in January regarding shoreline associated wetlands. I have
attached markup of a figure to help illustrate the issue. It's not clear to me if a buffer width specified in the SMP or CAO
for portion of a wetland within shoreline jurisdiction applies in cases where the buffer extends beyond shoreline
jurisdiction. As shown in the attached, the City of Federal Way specifies a 200 ft shoreline wetland buffer and 165 ft
CAO buffer. In one area, the 200 ft shoreline buffer extends beyond the shoreline jurisdiction, and I would like to
determine if the 165 ft CAO buffer width applies. I understand the CAO regulates outside of the shoreline jurisdiction,
but it is not clear to me if we apply the 200 ft SMP buffer or 165 ft CAO buffer to determine the furthest extent of
regulated buffer outside of shoreline jurisdiction for portion of the wetland within the shoreline buffer. Let me know if
you would like to discuss further.
Thank you,
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Pater, David (ECY) [mailto:DAPA461@ECY.WA.GOVj
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:23 PM
To: Steve Quarterman <spuarterman@landauinc_com>
Cc: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461 ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
H I Steve,
See my responses in green font below.
Give me call if this still isn't clear. Doug, if you have any additional insight please chime in.
David
From: Steve Quarterman mai€to:s uarterman landauinc.comj
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 1:41 PM
To: Pater, David (ECY)
Cc: Gresham, Doug (ECY)
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
Thanks David,
Upon review of the materials, I still have some question on the application of the CAO. It is my understanding that:
■ The extent of saltwater tolerant vegetation in the wetland is considered the ordinary high water line for
determining the 200 ft shoreland offset.
• The entire wetland unit (both estuarine and freshwater components) is an "associated wetland", and shoreline
jurisdiction includes the entire wetland unit.
• The City SMP code includes a section on critical areas, and provides buffer widths for wetlands. The purpose of
the code is (paraphrased) protection of the environment within the shoreline jurisdiction of the city.
• The city defines shoreline jurisdiction to include shorelines of the state and shorelands. This definition appear to
imply that buffers that extend beyond shoreland areas are not included in the shoreline jurisdiction. There are
two definitions in (RCW 90.58.030). The SMP should be consistent with both.
What I am having trouble understanding is the application of buffers between the SMP and CAO. Provided summary
above, it appears to me that the wetland buffer specified in the SMP applies to the extent of the associated wetland
within 200ft (i.e. shoreland) of the limit of salt water tolerant vegetation in the wetland (rather than establishing the
SMP wetland buffer from the extent of salt water tolerant vegetation). The CAO buffer would apply to any portion of the
wetland that may occur outside of the 200 ft shoreland offset from the limit of saltwater tolerant vegetation.
I've enclosed an image of the Edmonds Marsh to help explain this scenario. The extent of jurisdiction was determined by
three factors; salinity, salt tolerate vegetation and hydrology (tidal fluctuation) Sometimes tidal influence is hard to
determine within a large wetland complex though. The pink line outlines the brackish portion of the marsh. The slanted
purple areas indicates the 200 ft. shoreline uplands. The SE portion of the marsh is regulated under the City CAO and the
buffers are not defined on this map.
Where I think it gets confusing is that the OHWM along the wetland edge is a more traditional wetland OHWM
determination. Determining the limit of the brackish influence within the marsh itself is more difficult. In the case of
inner portion of the Edmonds Marsh, Paul Anderson relied more on salinity measurements and vegetation than
hydrology to determine the pink line. I think this is consistent with your highlighted sentence
Going back to your email to the City, I still am not quite following determination of CAO buffer applicable to the
freshwater portion of the wetland, as it appears to me that areas of the freshwater wetland within 200 ft of the
estuarine portion are provided the SMP wetland buffer.
That is correct, The diagrams in the handbook chapter 5 (pg. 24 ) helps explain this issue better. If an associated wetland
is located partially in shoreline jurisdiction part of the buffer is regulated under the SMP while the section of buffer
located outside shoreline jurisdiction would be regulated under the non SMP CAO.
Please let me know if you have any further insight and/or my interpretation is incorrect.
Thank you,
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Pater, David (ECY) (mailto:DAPA461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 8:49 AM
4
,, )
To: Steve Quarterman <5 uarterman landauinc.com>
Cc: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461 ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
Good Morning Steve,
As a follow-up to our Dumas Bay call, I recommend checking out the below link on shoreline jurisdiction. Associated
wetlands are discussed beginning
on page 24.
https://fortress.wa.gov/egdpublicationsiparts/1106010part5.Ldf
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Best Regards,
David Pater / Shoreline Planner
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance / Department of Ecology,
Bellingham Field Office
913 Squalicum Way Unit 101
Bellingham, WA 98225
360-255-4375 david.pater@eg.wa.gov
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Stacey Welsh
From: Pater, David (ECY) <DAPA461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 12:04 PM
To: Gresham, Doug (ECY)
Subject: FW: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction Dumas Bay site
Attachments: Att_Markup of Existing Conditions mapv2 - Copy.pdf
Doug,
I had a discussion this morning with Steve Quarterman about this Dumas Bay site . Steve is contracted with the City of
Federal Way to do a third party review for the development near the wetland. It's been awhile since we discussed this
project. Steve has inputted more site information into the enclosed diagram.
I discussed with Steve the application of either the shoreline buffer or CAO buffer to the adjacent property (see below
discussion). Steve has concluded (in consultation with City staff) that they would like to determinate the extent of the
estuarine wetland solely with the limit of saltwater vegetation. The additional site work focused on the vegetation, no
additional salinity measurements were conducted.
My question for you is are you ok with Federal Way allowing Federal Way to just use the limit of salt water vegetation
as the brackish/fresh wetland determination? The real issue is a 35 foot buffer width difference on this restricted site.
Give me a call to discuss.
Thanks
David Pater / Shoreline Planner
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance / Department of Ecology,
Bellingham Field Office
913 Squalicum Way Unit 101
Bellingham, WA 98225
360-255-4375 david.pater@ecy.wa.gov
From: Steve Quarterman [mailto:squarterman@landauinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 2:08 PM
To: Pater, David (ECY) <DAPA461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
David,
I have a follow up question to our discussion from back in January regarding shoreline associated wetlands. I have
attached markup of a figure to help illustrate the issue. It's not clear to me if a buffer width specified in the SMP or CAO
for portion of a wetland within shoreline jurisdiction applies in cases where the buffer extends beyond shoreline
jurisdiction. As shown in the attached, the City of Federal Way specifies a 200 ft shoreline wetland buffer and 165 ft
CAO buffer. In one area, the 200 ft shoreline buffer extends beyond the shoreline jurisdiction, and I would like to
determine if the 165 ft CAO buffer width applies. I understand the CAO regulates outside of the shoreline jurisdiction,
but it is not clear to me if we apply the 200 ft SMP buffer or 165 ft CAO buffer to determine the furthest extent of
regulated buffer outside of shoreline jurisdiction for portion of the wetland within the shoreline buffer. Let me know if
you would like to discuss further.
Thank you,
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Pater, David (ECY) [mailto:DAPA461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:23 PM
To: Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com>
Cc: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
H I Steve,
See my responses in green font below.
Give me call if this still isn't clear. Doug, if you have any additional insight please chime in.
David
From: Steve Quarterman[mailto:suarterman@landauinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 1:41 PM
To: Pater, David (ECY)
Cc: Gresham, Doug (ECY)
Subject: RE: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
Thanks David,
Upon review of the materials, I still have some question on the application of the CAO. It is my understanding that:
® The extent of saltwater tolerant vegetation in the wetland is considered the ordinary high water line for
determining the 200 ft shoreland offset.
* The entire wetland unit (both estuarine and freshwater components) is an "associated wetland", and shoreline
jurisdiction includes the entire wetland unit.
o The City SMP code includes a section on critical areas, and provides buffer widths for wetlands. The purpose of
the code is (paraphrased) protection of the environment within the shoreline jurisdiction of the city.
The city defines shoreline jurisdiction to include shorelines of the state and shorelands. This definition appear to
imply that buffers that extend beyond shoreland areas are not included in the shoreline jurisdiction. There are
two definitions in (RCW 90.58.030). The SMP should be consistent with both.
What I am having trouble understanding is the application of buffers between the SMP and CAO. Provided summary
above, it appears to me that the wetland buffer specified in the SMP applies to the extent of the associated wetland
within 200ft (i.e. shoreland) of the limit of salt water tolerant vegetation in the wetland (rather than establishing the
SMP wetland buffer from the extent of salt water tolerant vegetation). The CAO buffer would apply to any portion of the
wetland that may occur outside of the 200 ft shoreland offset from the limit of saltwater tolerant vegetation.
I've enclosed an image of the Edmonds Marsh to help explain this scenario. The extent of jurisdiction was determined by
three factors; salinity, salt tolerate vegetation and hydrology (tidal fluctuation) Sometimes tidal influence is hard to
determine within a large wetland complex though. The pink line outlines the brackish portion of the marsh. The slanted
purple areas indicates the 200 ft. shoreline uplands. The SE portion of the marsh is regulated under the City CAO and the
buffers are not defined on this map.
Where I think it gets confusing is that the OHWM along the wetland edge is a more traditional wetland OHWM
determination. Determining the limit of the brackish influence within the marsh itself is more difficult. In the case of
inner portion of the Edmonds Marsh, Paul Anderson relied more on salinity measurements and vegetation than
hydrology to determine the pink line. I think this is consistent with your highlighted sentence
Going back to your email to the City, I still am not quite following determination of CAO buffer applicable to the
freshwater portion of the wetland, as it appears to me that areas of the freshwater wetland within 200 ft of the
estuarine portion are provided the SMP wetland buffer.
That is correct, The diagrams in the handbook chapter 5 (pg. 24 ) helps explain this issue better. If an associated wetland
is located partially in shoreline jurisdiction part of the buffer is regulated under the SMP while the section of buffer
located outside shoreline jurisdiction would be regulated under the non SMP CAO.
Please let me know if you have any further insight and/or my interpretation is incorrect.
Thank you,
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Pater, David (ECY) [mailto:DAPA451@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 8:49 AM
To: Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com>
Cc: Gresham, Doug (ECY) <DGRE461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: Associated wetlands in Shoreline jurisdiction
Good Morning Steve,
As a follow-up to our Dumas Bay call, I recommend checking out the below link on shoreline jurisdiction. Associated
wetlands are discussed beginning
on page 24.
https-,ZLfortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1106010part5.pd
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Best Regards,
David Pater / Shoreline Planner
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance / Department of Ecology,
Bellingham Field Office
913 Squalicum Way Unit 101
Bellingham, WA 98225
360-255-4375 david .gater@ecy.wa.go�
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received It In error, please advise the sender by
reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
0
p
th-1
J
o88[-Szs(90i)
IV07S1N4J:I[S"Jf\31 AONnOS,Xm 4\
EEIB6 VA'3�LLV3S'N 3ntl ®0FlN33HO L0001
is6e tIS'ESt :i CUPG :QL9wF/SV.X\•I1OMIVlI 91�
hIE dIHSMA01•II NOI.L795 d0 �/I A\N 3Hl
€
iE6YtlFE`.'E'd U3JJn5'3.VN0 A\:�L1NONllVIi L06Z
`AN
Sb0A3ANnS QNV-1 3tlNOISS330bd
sao�fanans aa/(1
fl,sju>jinsuoDmatnpunos �+�
EZ086 NO.L`JN[HS\'A\ A\'I\'UE[CIEJ
LSILIsoEA\sloE>
�+
=
Q
V
ry
,U'dHdoxa AUVHID
�.
saDxnos
m—
NF Z(O'.)
�U �1��L11F
Sv
o F2
Q�WZ
m
0
L
r 2 \i
O In _ W
VI IL
LL
W U m
U-
N m
U_
LL
F LL
Z m
W ❑
Z W _
U
CL W Q CD
LL Z W
0
w= z
Q(.7LL
�FW-In
1��IJI 'o
5Uv
. . . .
. . . . . . .
.�. ..I
... I
�U.
•� •
'� • .� . r�
a •� • .
Q O
' +d
+ oice LL QQQ
s
.•�'. .��.'�'
.•,
� r'.'��.
.I� 1.I�I i
>.
.
O
!T
40 . •
•Y ��
� O m�
m —
m O O
U L
a� m m
o 3 n m
v) m
'
= o
zM
z
� w -
$ >
�'
y
L •�
N•� V1 7
ti
0:•n
m� m m
/
w
U m
3
.�
• I
a
co- In
�•
•
a j . .
Oa
2
O .� O�
m
In
. I
N L am—,L 0
a m IC
N ,Qni o
!m
I�
N
C
o�
' ¢ (L
H
I
N
Q LL ,
W W
�a
m
(p�
\Z LL
HLL
LL
�w
-
hz LL
LL \ •�r
❑
a
I U)
Q
❑ W
a.F-U
Q
CL
- m
o�
U
Q
❑ W
��O
D
Q
N
CITY OF
: Federal Allay
April 20, 2018
Mr. Stephen J. Cleary
3016 SW 3001" Place
Federal Way, WA 98023
Re: File #17-102071-00-AD; 3- PARTY WETLAND REVIEW
Cleary, 4301 SW 308th Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Cleary:
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FILE
On March 23, 2018, the City of Federal Way received a Technical Memorandum and revised Wetland &
Stream Delineation Report for parcel numbers 112103-9078 and 112103-9131, prepared by,Soundview
Consultants (revised March 2018).
WETLAND REPORT
The city forwarded the report to our wetland consultant, Landau, for their review. Landau completed a site
visit, reviewed relevant documents, and prepared a memorandum (April 19, 2018) with technical comments.
The city concurs with Landau's review.
NEXT STEPS
Please review the peer review comments in the enclosed memorandum prepared by Landau. A revised wetland
and stream delineation report must be submitted. It is encouraged that this occurs prior to submitting
applications for development. The revised report will be peer reviewed at the applicant's expense in
accordance with Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.080(3).
Should you have any questions about this letter, I can be reached at stacey.welsl-i @,,citvQfedexahvay.com, or
253-835-2634.
Sincerely,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
enc: April 19, 2018, Memorandum from Landau
17-102071-00-AD Doc. I.D. 77G20
CITY HALL
kCITY OF 33325 8th Avenue South
. Federal WayFederal Way, WA 3) 835-6325
:; (253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Mr. Steve Quarterman March 26, 2018
Landau
130 2nd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020 FILE
Re: File #17-102071-AD; REQUEST FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEW
Cleary Wetland & Stream Delineation, Parcels 112103-9078 & 112103-9131
4301 SW 308th Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Quarterman:
City staff is requesting review of the Cleary project resubmittal pursuant to the agreed terms of the on -call contract.
Documents Provided: **Revised project materials provided for review.**
• Technical memorandum, by Soundview Consultants, March 20, 2018
■ Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, by
Soundview Consultants, Revised March 2018
• Documents have been loaded to the city's ftp site:
fM://b.cityoffederal%vn%,.com/ utbox/--D/Clete
Task Scope:
• Review revised critical area report for conformance with applicable FWRC
regulations.
• Conduct a site visit as necessary.
• Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional
information from applicant if needed.
• Possible meeting with applicant's wetland biologist.
• Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed.
Remaining funds for this work are $2,882.87. If it is anticipated that the cost to complete the above tasks will
exceed the amount of remaining funds let me know so that another Task Authorization can be prepared to
obtain additional funds. Please contact me at 253-835-2634 if you have any questions regarding this task.
Sincerely,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
Doc. I-D. 77481
17-102071-00-AD
"W.
ai
Soundview Consultants
Environmentai Assessment• Pianning • Land Use solutions
2907 Harborview Drive, Suite D
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
RESUBMITTED
MAR 2 3 2018
CPTY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Technical Memorandum
To: Stacey Welsh, City of Federal Way File Number: 1279.0002
From: Matt DeCaro, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: March 20, 2018
Re: Response to 3rd Party Review Comments (City File #17-102071-AD))
Dear Ms. Welsh,
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Stephen Cleary (Applicant) with critical areas
compliance efforts on an approximately 5.8-acre property located at 4301 SW 308th Street in the
City of Federal Way (City), Washington (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1121039078 and
1121039131). This Technical Memorandum is intended to provide responses to comments provided
by your wetland consultant in a review memorandum dated January 31, 2018. The City documented
its concurrence with the third -party review in a letter dated February 5, 2018. The specific third -
party review comments are summarized in italics below.
I. The Executive Summary Site Map and Sheet I of 2 (430I SW 308th Street -Existing Conditions figure)
label all three data plots as `DPI': Sampling point labeling on figures should be corrected on subsequent
submittals to the City..
The report figures have been revised accordingly.
2. LAI concurs with boundary delineation and rating of Wetland A as a Category IV wetland. [Wetland
rating] maps and figures are required as referenced in the rating form for Wetland A... Provided any
updates to rating scores based on review of figures, we acknowledge that any change in the total score will
maintain the rating as a Category IV wetland, and concur with that rating.
Noted. The requested rating maps for Wetland A are included in the revised critical areas report.
3. Modication to the boundary of Wetland B was made in the vicinity of flags BBS and BB6... At the time of
the site reconnaissance, Soundview Consultants staff GPS-located and placed an additional wetland boundary
flag along Wetland B between flags BBS and BB6.
The site plan has been revised to depict wetland flag B6A.
4. LAI concurs with the rating of Wetland D as a Category I wetland. However, based on available data,
Wetland B should be rated as part of Wetland D (Category I).
Though SVC disagrees with the third -party consultant's determination, these wetland areas will be
treated as a single wetland unit (Wetland B/D) in order to expedite the wetland approval process.
Soundview Consultants LLC March 20, 2018
1279.0002 Cleary Property - Response to 3rd Party Review Page 1 of 4
Provided that Wetland B and Wetland D are a single unit based on available data, the entire wetland is an
"associated wtland" in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act. However, the extent of shorelands
in this wetland unit is limited to the area influenced by tidal waters, in which the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) in low energy environments is coincident with the landward limit of salt -tolerant vegetation (refer
to Washington Administratim Code [WAq 173-22-030). The 200 ft shoreland boundary extends from
the OHWM of Wetland B, which will requite delineation of the extent of salt -tolerant .vegetation in the
wetland unit. This portion of the wetland, rated as a Category I wetland, requires a buffer of 200 ft in
accordance with FWRC 15.10.250.
It is worth noting that the only "salt -tolerant" species observed within Wetland B are water parsley
(Oenanthe sarmentosa) and creeping bentgrass (Agmstu stolonifera), both of which thrive in freshwater
conditions and are not necessarily indicative of a saltwater environment. Regardless, the Applicant
has decided to accept the City's determination outlined above in order to expedite the approval
process. SVC visited the subject property in March 2018 to delineate the extent of "salt -tolerant"
vegetation within Wetland B (west of the access road/trail). The revised report figures depict the
200-foot shoreline management zone (SMZ) extending from the delineated salt -tolerant vegetation
boundary, and the 200-foot wetland buffer extending from that portion of Wetland B/D located
within the SMZ.
As FWBC Title 15 is applicable to areas within shoreline jurisdiction, buffer widths prescribed in FWAC
19.145 apply to any freshwater portion of the wetland that may occur outside of the 200 ft shoreland offset
(i. e. part of shoreline jurisdiction) from the limit of salt -tolerant t4getalion (i.e. ordinary high water).
According to the City's interpretation, the southwest portion of Wetland B/D is located outside of
the SMZ and is therefore subject to the buffer requirements specified under the critical areas
ordinance (FWRC 19.145). Because the City has stated their concurrence with this interpretation,
both in writing and verbally during a meeting on February 22, 2018, the wetland report has been
revised accordingly to accept this determination.
If applicable, a wetland rating form will be required for the Wetland B/Wetland D unit to determine a habitat
score for purposes of buffer width assignment for the freshwater portion of the wetland that occurs m4dde of
shoreline jurisdiction.
The applicable section of the rating form is provided for Wetland B/D, as necessary to determine
the habitat score. [Cowardin and hydroperiod rating maps are not provided as Wetland B/D has
been assigned a "high" habitat site potential rating, rendering such maps unnecessary.] It is noted
that, during the February 2018 meeting, SVC and the City's consultant agreed that the freshwater
portion of Wetland B/D is subject to a 165-foot buffer based on its habitat score.
5. Rating far offsite Wetland C is acknowledged as a preliminary rating and is subject to verification. A Rating
form is not provided and accurate rating likely cannot be completed as part of evaluation of the subject
proper y since the entirety of the wetland is located offsite. Prelirtsinary rating is appropriate in this case since
any buffer of this wetland that may occur on the subject properly is separated by existing impervious surfaces
(i.e. 44th Avenue SW). No further rating information for Wetland C is required as part of evaluadon of the
subject properly at this time.
Noted. It is acknowledged that the buffer associated with the offsite Wetland C (regardless of rating)
will not encumber the subject property.
6. Shoreline jurisdiction follows boundary of the offsite wetland in Dumas Bay Park and should be corrected on
report figure..
Soundview Consultants LLC March 20, 2018
1279.0002 Cleary Property - Response to 3�d Party Review Page 2 of 4
The report figures have been revised accordingly.
7. The Critical Areas Delineation Reportgenerally satisfies all of the applicaGle evaluation criteria provided in
FWRC 19.145.410(2). FWRC 19.145.410(2)(e)(vii) specifies that soil conditions based on site
assessment and/or soil survey information be identified for wetlands within 225 ft of a subject properly.
While not explicitly described in the report text for Wetland C and Wetland D, it is noted that Appendix
BS — NRCS Soils Survey Map identifies soils in the vicinity of Wetland C as "Water" and Wetland D as
"Coastal Beaches".
Noted. No further soil evaluation is warranted.
8. A summary of functions related to groundwater e,Ychange is required for Wetland D and Wetland B.
Furthermore, LAI understands that a data form is used as part of the WSDOT tool and requests a copy of
completed forms for Wetland B and Wetland D be provided, if available, which would provide additional
rationale for function/ value evaluation results
Although groundwater exchange functions have no effect on wetland categories or required buffer
widths, the wetland report has been revised to include a brief summary of groundwater exchange for
Wetland B/D. Wetlands were generally assessed using the Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for
LinearProjeets as documented in the wetland report; formal WSDOT data forms were not completed
nor are they required to meet the City's code requirements.
9. Based on available information, Stream Z satisfies the conditions of a Type F/Major stream, and that Type
Ns/Minor stream as identified in the Critical Areas Delineation Report is not an accurate classification.
Furthermore, the bufferprescribed to Stream Z is 100 ft in accordance with FWRC 15.10.170 (for stream
segment within Shoreline ManagementAd jutisdWan) and FWRC19.145.270.
Stream Z was previously classified by SVC as a Type Ns (seasonal, non -fish) stream onsite, due in
part to a LOAR analysis that depicts steep (> 16 percent) slopes that represent natural fish barriers
to downstream fish populations within Dumas Bay; identification by the Washington Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) as a non -fish water; and observed flow/habitat characteristics. Though
SVC maintains that Stream Z is a Type Ns water outside of shoreline jurisdiction, Stream Z will be
treated as a Type F/Major stream with a standard 100-foot buffer in order to proceed with the
approval process.
10. The mapped onsite blue heron colony should be regulated as a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area under
FWRC 19.145.260. Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) listed resources are identified as Fish and
Wildlife Conserrmtien Areas under FWRC 19.145.260(5). FWRC 19.145.260(1) references that Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Areas subject to the provisions of this chapter of the FWRC shall be rrearrrage(
consistent with best available science, such as the WDFW's Management Recommendations for Priority
Habitats and Species. As a result, it is recommended that the guidance provided in Management
Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species — Volume IV. Birds (WDFW Management
Recommendations) be applied to the occurrence of the blue heron colony documented on the subject proper y.
In regard to blue heron, the WDFW's Management Recommendations ine icata.• Because herons occasionally
move back to seemingly abandoned nesting sites, we recommend you protect these sites In Washington,
documented re -nesting has occurred in sites over 10 years after being "abandoned" (C. Anderson, personal
communication). Although entry for uses that will not alter the look of the habitat like hiking and dog
walking is okay when no nesting herons are present, all other recommendations applying to an active colony
should remain in effectfor at least 10 years after nesting has ceased at the site of any former colony. The
Critical Areas Delineation Report iriditates nesting activity has not been observed since at least 2013.
Soundview Consultants LLC March 20, 2018
1279.0002 Cleary Property - Response to 3�d Parry Review Page 3 of 4
Pmmded records/observations and WDFWI's Management Recommendations, continued monitoring for
nesting activity and application of WD.FW s Management Recommendations associated with any proposal
within applicable buffers is warranted until at least 2023.
According to the Applicant and WDFW records, no great blue heron nesting activity has been
observed onsite since 2010. In addition, the abandoned nests are no longer present as confirmed by
Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist. In an email to the City dated February 26, 2018, Mr.
Fisher stated the following: "I visited the property located at 4301 SW 308th St. in Federal Way with the
owner, Stephen Cleary, on February 22, 2018. Mr. Cleary showed me where there had been great blue herons nesting
in some of the trees on the property approximateyeight to 10 years ago. I did not see any evidence that herons have
been using this property for nesting since that time, so there it no need to require any timing restrictions related to the
heron breeding season on proposed development of the proper
0." SVC maintains that the former heron colony
that has abandoned the subject property should not be regulated as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area under FWRC 19.145.260.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
I Matt D�n eCaro, Environmental Planner/Project Manager
Soundview Consultants LLC
Matt@soundviewconsultants.com
Soundview Consultants LLC March 20, 2018
1279.0002 Cleary Property - Response to 3M Party Review Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
Federal
February 5, 2018
Mr. Stephen J. Cleary
3016 SW 300t1, Place
Federal Way, WA 98023
Way
Re: File #17-102071-AD; 3— PARTY WETLAND REVIEW
Cleary, 4301 SW 308th Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Cleary:
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FILE
On July 18, 2011, the City of Federal Way received your revised request for third party review of the Wedand
& Stream Delineation Report for parcel numbers 112103-9078 and 112103-9131, prepared by Soundview
Consultants Quly 2017).
WETLAND REPORT
The city forwarded your request to our wetland consultant, Landau, for their review. Landau completed a site
visit, reviewed relevant documents, and prepared a memorandum Qanuary 31, 2018) in which they do not
concur with some components of the Soundview report. The city concurs with Landau's review and requests
more information.
NEXT STEPS
Please review the peer review comments in the enclosed memorandum prepared by Landau. A revised wetland
and stream delineation report must be submitted. It is encouraged that this occurs prior to submitting an
application for development. The revised report will be peer reviewed at the applicant's expense in accordance
with Federal Way Revised Cade (FWRC) 19.145.080(3).
Should- you have any questions about this letter, I can be reached at stilcey elsh u citAoffe�y o or
253-835-2634.
Sincerely,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
enc: January 31, 2018, Memorandum from Landau
c: Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
17-102071-00-AD Doc. I.D. 77243
Stacey Welsh
From: Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 3:39 PM
To: Stacey Welsh
Subject: RE: Cleary Peer Review - Draft Comments
Attachments: Cleary Critical Areas Peer Review -TM 013118.pdf
Final version is attached.
Steven Quarterman
Landau Associates
Ext. 121
Direct: (425) 329-0321
From: Stacey Welsh [mailto:Stacey.Welsh@a cityoffederalway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:40 PM
To: Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com>
Subject: RE: Cleary Peer Review - Draft Comments
Steve,
Thank you for the extremely thorough and detailed review. I do not have any questions right now, but if I do I will send
them your way. Would you send me a "final' version of the document so that I can send on to the applicant?
Thank you,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cit offederalwa .corn
From: Steve Quarterman [ma iIto: s uarterman landauinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:24 AM
To: Stacey Welsh
Subject: Cleary Peer Review - Draft Comments
Stacey,
Please find attached draft technical memorandum providing peer review comments on the wetland/waterway
delineation associated with the Cleary property. Let me know if you have any questions/comments on the attached.
Thank you,
Steve Quarterman
Senior Associate Ecologist
Landau Associates
Direct: (425) 329-0321
130 2nd Avenue South, Edmonds, WA 98020
www.landauinc.com
Landau Associates is proudly CARBON NEUTRAL through our sustainable practices and financial support of US -based
carbon -reduction projects.
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error,
please advise the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or
disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Technical Memorandum
TO: Stacey Welsh, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way
FROM: Steven Quarterman
DATE: January 31, 2018
RE: Peer Review
4301 SW 308th Street
Cleary Property — Wetland and Stream Delineation
Parcels 1121039078 and 1121039131
Federal Way, Washington
0238080.010.011
Introduction
This technical memorandum provides Landau Associates' (LAI) peer review comments regarding the
July 2017 Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report-4301 SW 308th
Street— Federal Way (Critical Areas Delineation Report).' The purpose of this peer review is to provide
a professional opinion regarding applicable regulatory requirements in the City of Federal Way (City)
Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas), specifically under Article IV
Wetlands and Article III Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas; and FWRC Title 15.10 (Shoreline
Management — Critical Areas), specifically under Article V Streams and Article VI Regulated Wetlands.
LAI wetlands staff conducted a reconnaissance of the subject property on January 9, 2018, which
included discussion with the applicant prior to the site reconnaissance. Staff from Soundview
Consultants (Matt DeCaro and Richard Peel) accompanied LAI staff during the site review.
Peer review comments regarding the Critical Areas Delineation Report include:
1) The Executive Summary Site Map and Sheet 1 of 2 (4301 SW 308th Street - Existing Conditions
figure) label all three data plots as "DP1". Discussion with Soundview Consultants staff at the
time of the site reconnaissance clarified that the sampling point in Wetland A is DP-1, the
upland sampling point adjacent to Wetland B is DP-2, and the Wetland B sampling point is
DP-3, as labeled on data sheets provided in Appendix D. Sampling point labeling on figures
should be corrected on subsequent submittals to the City.
2) LAI concurs with boundary delineation and rating of Wetland A as a Category IV wetland. The
following maps and figures are required as referenced in the rating form for Wetland A:
i. Cowardin plant classes.
ii. Hydroperiods.
iii. Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants.
iv. Boundary of 150-foot (ft) buffer.
V. 1 kilometer (km) Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge —
including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat.
1 Soundview Consultants. 2017. Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report-4301 SW 308tn
Street — Federal Way. April 20, Revised July 10.
LALANDAU
ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South •Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907
Landau Associates
vi. Screen capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin.
vii. Screen capture of list of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) in which unit is found.
Provided any updates to rating scores based on review of figures, we acknowledge that any
change in the total score will maintain the rating as a Category IV wetland, and concur with
that rating.
3) Modification to the boundary of Wetland B was made in the vicinity of flags BB5 and BB6.
Saturation at the ground surface and sulfur odor in soils was observed in an area
approximated to be outside of the wetland boundary between flags BB5 and BB6 (flag 13136
was not found during the site reconnaissance, however, location could be approximated
based on project mapping and location of flags 13135 and 13137). Vegetation in the area was
dominated by English ivy; however, a few hydrophytes were observed, and the area likely
satisfies as a Difficult Wetland Situation (specifically in relation to "aggressive invasive plants")
as detailed in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region.2 At the time of the site reconnaissance,
Soundview Consultants staff GPS-located and placed an additional wetland boundary flag
along Wetland B between flags BB5 and 13136.
4) LAI concurs with the rating of Wetland D as a Category I wetland. However, based on available
data, Wetland B should be rated as part of Wetland D (Category 1).
Based on a summary of review by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)', a
rise in water levels of 1 inch approximately 60 ft upstream of the culvert has been observed
during high tide, as well as measured salinities greater than 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt)
upstream of the culvert. Salt -tolerant vegetation has also been observed upstream of the
culvert. Provided these observations, it appears that bi-directional tidal flow through the
culvert is constricted, but not prohibited, and level surface water connection may occur on
either end of the culvert at some time on an annual basis. In accordance with Ecology's rating
system "The key consideration is the direction of flow through the constriction. If the water
moves back and forth freely it is not a separate unit.", we acknowledge uni-directional flow at
the time of our site reconnaissance, but note that observations were following high tide (i.e.
tide was receding). While flow may at times be uni-directional during Stream Z high flows, the
frequency of these conditions do not allow for division of wetland units following the Ecology
rating system guidelines. It is our understanding that estuarine conditions of Wetland B/D is
the dominant characteristic of the wetland unit.
It is our understanding that elevations of the culvert and surveyed high water marks in
wetlands/streams on either end are not currently available. In accordance with Ecology's
rating guidance, wetland units are rated separately when "...the high water marks on either
side of the road or dike differ by more than 6 in of elevation." However, provided
observations described above, it is assumed that high water elevations on either end of the
culvert differ by 6 inches or less.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys,
and Coast Region. Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center
Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, Mississippi. May.
Paul Anderson, Ecology NWRO Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor. 2017. Review of Wetland Rating For Cleary Property.
Memorandum. May 30.
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review
January 31, 2018
Landau Associates
We welcome any additional elevation and/or water quality data the applicant may provide to
supplement the available information summarized above.
Provided that Wetland B and Wetland D are a single unit based on available data, the entire
wetland is an "associated wetland" in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act.
However, the extent of shorelands in this wetland unit is limited to the area influenced by
tidal waters, in which the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in low energy environments is
coincident with the landward limit of salt -tolerant vegetation (refer to Washington
Administrative Code [WAC] 173-22-030). The 200-ft shoreland boundary extends from the
OHWM of Wetland B, which will require delineation of the extent of salt -tolerant vegetation
in the wetland unit. This portion of the wetland, rated as a Category I wetland, requires a
buffer of 200 ft in accordance with FWRC 15.10.250.
As FWRC Title 15 is applicable to areas within shoreline jurisdiction, buffer widths prescribed
in FWRC 19.145 apply to any freshwater portion of the wetland that may occur outside of the
200-ft shoreland offset (i.e. part of shoreline jurisdiction) from the limit of salt -tolerant
vegetation (i.e. ordinary high water). If applicable, a wetland rating form will be required for
the Wetland B/Wetland D unit to determine a habitat score for purposes of buffer width
assignment for the freshwater portion of the wetland that occurs outside of shoreline
jurisdiction.
5) Rating for offsite Wetland C is acknowledged as a preliminary rating and is subject to
verification. A Rating form is not provided and accurate rating likely cannot be completed as
part of evaluation of the subject property since the entirety of the wetland is located offsite.
Preliminary rating is appropriate in this case since any buffer of this wetland that may occur
on the subject property is separated by existing impervious surfaces (i.e. 44th Avenue SW). No
further rating information for Wetland C is required as part of evaluation of the subject
property at this time.
6) Shoreline jurisdiction follows boundary of the offsite wetland in Dumas Bay Park and should
be corrected on report figures.
The Executive Summary Site Map and Sheet 1 of 2 (4301 SW 308th Street - Existing Conditions
figure) identifies the approximate limit of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) jurisdiction
intersecting the offsite wetland associated with Dumas Bay Park. The City of Federal Way
Shoreline Environment Designations map identifies the area that appears to correspond to the
wetland limits within Dumas Bay Park as being included in the "Natural' shoreline
environmental designation.
7) ,The Critical Areas Delineation Report generally satisfies all of the applicable evaluation criteria
provided in FWRC 19.145.410(2). FWRC 19.145.410(2)(e)(vii) specifies that soil conditions
based on site assessment and/or soil survey information be identified for wetlands within
225 ft of a subject property. While not explicitly described in the report text for Wetland C
and Wetland D, it is noted that Appendix B5 — NRCS Soils Survey Map identifies soils in the
vicinity of Wetland C as "Water" and Wetland D as "Coastal Beaches".
A subsequent report will be required to address impact analysis/mitigation sequencing for
proposed site improvements once proposed.
8) A summary of functions related to groundwater exchange is required for Wetland D and
Wetland B. The Critical Areas Delineation Report includes a summary of wetland functions
using the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Wetland Functions
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review 3 January 31, 2018
Landau Associates
Characterization Tool for Linear Projects4 (WSDOT Tool), whereas FWRC
15.10.240(2)(g) requires an evaluation and assessment of the existing or potential functions
and values of the wetland based on the following factors: surface water control; wildlife
habitat, pollution and erosion control, groundwater exchange; open space and recreation; and
educational and cultural opportunities. Table 5 in the Critical Areas Delineation Report
provides a summary of functions/values evaluated using the WSDOT Tool, and the table below
provides detail on how the WSDOT Tool corresponds with the functions listed in FWRC
15.10.240(2)(g):
WSDOT Tool Functions/Values
FWRC 15.10.240(2)(g) Functions/Values
Water Quality Functions
Pollution and Erosion Control
Hydrologic Functions
Surface Water Control; Pollution and Erosion Control
Habitat Functions
Wildlife Habitat
Special Characteristics
Open Space and Recreation; Educational and Cultural Opportunities
Not Provided
Groundwater Exchange
Furthermore, LAI understands that a data form is used as part of the WSDOT tool and requests
a copy of completed forms for Wetland B and Wetland D be provided, if available, which
would provide additional rationale for function/value evaluation results.
9) Based on available information, Stream Z satisfies the conditions of a Type F/Major stream,
and that Type Ns/Minor stream as identified in the Critical Areas Delineation Report is not an
accurate classification. Furthermore, the buffer prescribed to Stream Z is 100 ft in accordance
with FWRC 15.10.170 (for stream segment within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction) and
FWRC19.145.270.
Stream type is based on Section 19.145.260 of the FWRC, where streams are classified in
accordance with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water -typing
system (WAC 222-16-030). Stream classifications include:
• Type S: Streams inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 of the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter
90.58 RCW.
Type F: Streams that contain fish habitat.
• Type Np: Perennial non -fish habitat streams.
e Type Ns: Seasonal non -fish habitat streams.
WAC 222-16-030 identifies fish habitat as "...habitat which is used by any fish at any life stage
at any time of the year, including potential habitat likely to be used by fish which could be
recovered by restoration or management and includes off -channel habitat."
According to WAC 222-16-030, the Interim Water -Typing System established in WAC 222-16-
031 is to be used until the "fish habitat water -typing maps" are adopted by the state Forest
Practices Board. Water -type descriptions summarized from the Interim Water -Typing System
are as follows:
4 WSDOT. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. June. Washington State Department of
Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office. Olympia.
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review
January 31, 2018
Landau Associates
• "Type 1 Water" means all waters, within their OHWM, as inventoried as "shorelines of
the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter
90.58 RCW, but not including those waters' associated wetlands as defined in Chapter
90.58 RCW.
• "Type 2 Water" means segments of natural waters that are not classified as Type 1
Water and have a high fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments of natural
waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
• "Type 3 Water" means segments of natural waters that are not classified as Type 1 or
2 Waters and have a moderate to slight fish, wildlife, or human use. These are
segments of natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated
wetlands.
• "Type 4 Water" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of
defined channels that are perennial non -fish habitat streams. Perennial streams are
flowing waters that do not go dry during any time of a year of normal rainfall and
include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost
point of perennial flow.
• "Type 5 Waters" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of the
defined channels that are not Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 Waters. These are seasonal, non -fish
habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of the
year and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type 4 Water.
Type 5 Waters must be physically connected by an aboveground channel system to
Type 1, 2, 3, or 4 Waters.
Conversion of the interim water -typing system to the permanent water -typing system, as
provided in WAC 222-16-031, is as follows:
Water Type Conversion
Permanent Water
Type "S"
Type "F"
Type "Np"
Type "Ns"
Interim Water Typing
Type 1 Water
Types 2 and 3 Water
Type 4 Water
Type 5 Waters
In accordance with WAC 222-16-031, waters having any of the following physical stream
characteristics are presumed to have fish use:
a. Stream segments having a defined channel of 2 ft or greater within the bankfull width
in western Washington, and having a gradient of 16 percent or less.
b. Stream segments having a defined channel of 2 ft or greater within the bankfull width
in western Washington, and having a gradient greater than 16 percent and less than
or equal to 20 percent, and having greater than 50 acres in contributing basin size in
western Washington based on hydrographic boundaries.
Bankfull width is identified using the guidance provided in "Section 2: Standard Methods for
Identifying Bankfull Channel Features and Channel Migration Zones" of the Forest Practices
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review 5 January 31, 2018
Landau Associates
Board Manuals. Bankfull width for streams is the lateral extent of the water surface elevation
perpendicular to the channel at bankfull depth; where bankfull depth is the estimated water
surface elevation required to completely fill the channel to the point above which water
would enter the floodplain or intersect a terrace or hillslope.
The DNR guidance provides alternatives for making fish use determinations. The guidance
indicates: Where field surveys for determining fish use have not been done, water type is
determined by applying the physical characteristics contained in WAC222-16-031(3). The DNR,
in consultation with the WDFW, DOE, and affected Indian tribes, may waive or modify these
characteristics where evidence provides relative certainty that such waters do not support fish
life. While observed physical characteristics of the onsite segment of stream appear to satisfy
the criteria to support fish life as referenced in WAC 222.16-031(3), we are not aware of any
available information indicating water quality in the delineated stream cannot support fish
I ife.
Based on a topographic survey of the site provided by the applicant, we calculate the slope of
Stream Z on the site to be less than 16 percent, and estimated bankfull widths in excess of 2 ft.
Furthermore, Stream Z is connected to Dumas Bay and associated wetland (i.e. Wetland D) via
a culvert in Dumas Bay Park; and, while there is no currently documented fish presence in
Stream Z, a separate stream within Wetland D is mapped by the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape with documented presence of pink salmon. We
understand flow in Stream Z is seasonal, segments of the stream may be influenced by tidal
fluctuations, and that no natural blockages occur along the stream. The physical characteristics
and connection to Dumas Bay provides opportunity for fish use in Stream Z.
10) Project mapping shall be updated to show setbacks/buffers of Stream Z measured from the
OHWM.
Delineation of Stream Z was limited to flagging of the stream centerline as observed as part of
the site reconnaissance and as presented on the Executive Summary Site Map and Sheet 1 of
2 (4301 SW 308th Street - Existing Conditions figure). Buffer of Stream Z on Sheet 1 of 2 is
based on the stream centerline, whereas FWRC 15.10.170 indicates stream setbacks are
measured outward from the OHWM and FWRC 19.145.270 indicates stream buffer widths
shall be measured outward on a horizontal plane from the OHWM or top of bank if the
OHWM mark cannot be identified. Based on observations by LAI staff, the OHWM of Stream Z
is identifiable within the project area.
11) The mapped onsite blue heron colony should be regulated as a Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Area under FWRC 19.145.260. Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) listed resources are identified
as Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas under FWRC 19.145.260(5). FWRC 19.145.260(1)
references that Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas subject to the provisions of this chapter
of the FWRC shall be managed consistent with best available science, such as the WDFW's
Management Recommendations for Priority Habitats and Species. As a result, it is
recommended that the guidance provided in Management Recommendations for
5 Forest Practices Board. 2004. "Section 2. Standard Methods for Identifying Bankfull Channel Features and Channel
Migration Zones." Forest Practices Board Manual. jiff : www.dnr.wa. ov about boards -and -councils forest- ractices-
hoard ruE_es-and-Rudelineslfvrest-practices-board-manual
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review 6 January 31, 2018
Landau Associates
Washington's Priority Species —Volume IV: Birds (WDFW Management Recommendations)'
be applied to the occurrence of the blue heron colony documented on the subject property.
In regard to blue heron, the WDFW's Management Recommendations indicate: Because
herons occasionally move back to seemingly abandoned nesting sites, we recommend you
protect these sites. In Washington, documented re -nesting has occurred in sites over 10 years
after being "abandoned" (C. Anderson, personal communication). Although entry for uses that
will not alter the look of the habitat like hiking and dog walking is okay when no nesting
herons are present, all other recommendations applying to an active colony should remain in
effect for at least 10 years after nesting has ceased at the site of any former colony. The
Critical Areas Delineation Report indicates nesting activity has not been observed since at
least 2013. Provided records/observations and WDFW's Management Recommendations,
continued monitoring for nesting activity and application of WDFW's Management
Recommendations associated with any proposal within applicable buffers is warranted until at
least 2023.
This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Federal Way in evaluating the
adequacy of the Critical Areas Delineation Report for King County Parcels 1121039078 and
1121039131. The focus of this review was the wetland and stream delineations. The purpose of the
review was to assess the adequacy of the submitted documents for compliance with City
requirements as promulgated in FWRC Title 15.10 and Title 19 and conformance with conventionally
accepted wetland/waterway delineation practices. No other party is entitled to rely on the
information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express
written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and
recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without
review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. Landau Associates
warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been provided
in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the
profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. We make
no other warranty, either express or implied.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any
questions or if we may be of further service.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven J. Quarterman
Senior Associate Ecologist
SJ Q/BAS/ta m
\\edmdata0l\projects\238\080\R\Cleary Critical Areas Peer Review _Dmft TM.doa
' WDFW. 2004. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species —Volume IV: Birds. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Cleary Property Critical Areas Peer Review
January 31, 2018
Stacey Welsh
From: Stephen Cleary <corvettecleary@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:18 PM
To: Steve Quarterman
Subject: Culvert empty October 7th 6 feet deep .
Attachments: IMG_0061.JPG; ATT00001.txt
109
Stacey Welsh
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
Stephen Cleary <corvettecleary@gmail.com>
Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:30 PM
Steve Quarterman
Fwd: June 4th very dry first picture
From: Stephen Cleary <corvetteclear ail.com>
Date: January 11, 2018 at 8:27:01 PM PST
To: Stephen Cleary <corvetteclear ail.com>
Subject: June 4th
.—
F.dlune�rh+vydy fart y+iet�ue•Mcisage [I-ff1.11)
Xessage �/��{J
1
J y� OnNlplf
� �
1 �� h ReW'W
�j Junk • Delete � Reply Reel N Forward ^. I.spte •
alma
C.I.Q t >'�
�.
.•".
• • ••
� dNNr1 •
t'
q Seim
Delete Respond
Mope
Tags I
Editing Zoom
From: Smphn Cl—ytmr ftdeay®p.al.mm>
To: St—Qrarlenan
Cc
y1A4em Mot dune atn —dre 1-1 oMuse
M
x
Sad: Thu Lll/1 UI BSO PM
6 See more abort Stephen Cleary. ��
Stacey Welsh
From: Stephen Cleary <corvettecleary@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:23 PM
To: Steve Quarterman
Subject: No water in stream December 14th just Ivey and leaves.
Attachments: IMG_0076.JPG; ATTOOOOl.txt
w-
Stacey Welsh
From: Stephen Cleary <corvettecleary@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:22 PM
To: Steve Quarterman
Subject: No water in stream November 1st
Attachments: IMG_0068.JPG; ATT00001.txt
Stacey Welsh
From: Stephen Cleary <corvettecleary@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:19 PM
To: Steve Quarterman -
Subject: No water October 7th dry stream.
Attachments: IMG_0063.JPG; ATT00001.txt
M
Stacey Welsh
From: Stephen Cleary <corvettecleary@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:16 PM
To: Steve Quarterman
Subject: Pond low October 7th
Attachments: IMG_0055.JPG; ATTOOOOI.txt
lyj T �� \ 'r _�� � � �• of f�. r r
pry, '°�` •• ' - a - hUz90
. �• � d 1, •
�` R � `Sri •, 1.f . fii �
-1v
.�"':�• Sri' ,�' Y�• �� . .� � r �-
im
_ • � � � � _ � tip. �� i . ,� ,�, � � - � f
Scale 1" = 30'
pj
PAR L V
p
W
p
w
r P"
-A
GOV. LOT 3
GOV. LOT 2
ICE ir
S AOLS LEGEND. ue
GENEM NOTES
A
DOWOA wrI � E -'M'.
�
H-50 1 Mm" 3
—1.. 1. CE.—
-
M o
OF
9 m='u— *111 'Ell
=C2 c.—
c — MII—(I.WCD)
-E
TOPOGRMHIC SURVEY Surveyors.
PRLMO 20tyr"RS
S TEVE CLEARY RG 2-2—
S, 30— 17 IEDIII IAI TO
Stacey Welsh
From: Matt DeCaro <matt@soundviewconsultants.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 9:10 AM
To: squarterman@landauinc.com
Cc: Stacey Welsh; Stephen Cleary; Richard Peel
Subject: Cleary Property - Separate Wetlands (4301 SW 308th Street)
Hello Steve,
Thank you for the site visit yesterday at Steve Cleary's Federal Way property. It was good to meet you, and we
appreciated the opportunity to walk the site with you.
SVC's Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report that you are currently reviewing states the
following: "Wetland B is clearly a separate wetland unit from the estuarine Off -site Wetland D, which is separated from
Wetland B by an existing 24-foot wide, compacted gravel trail/access road to the east of the site. Review of historical
imagery indicates this 24-foot wide road was constructed as early as 1936." 1 am writing to provide further information
to support your review.
Chapter 4.1 of WSDOE's 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System For Western Washington states the following:
"The guiding principles for separating a wetland in a valley into different units are changes in the water regime or a
lack of wetland plants. Boundaries between different units should be set at the point where the volume, flow, or
velocity of the water changes abruptly. These changes in water regime can be either natural or human -caused
(anthropogenic)... Examples of changes in water regime [include] culverts... If the water moves back and forth freely
it is not a separate unit. If the flow between depressions is unidirectional, down -gradient, and has a change in
elevation from one part to the other, then a separate unit should be created. The justification for separating
wetlands increases as the flow between two areas becomes more unidirectional and has a higher velocity.
Constrictions can be natural or human -made (e.g., culverts) (Figure 3). Generally, if the high water mark in the lower
wetland is 6 in or more lower than the high water mark in the upper wetland, then the two should be considered as
separate units for rating."
Chapter 4.5 continues:
"Water should be able to flow equally well between the two areas. For example, if there is a wetland on either side
of a road with a culvert connecting the two, and both sides of the culvert are partially or completely underwater for
most of the year, the wetland should be treated as one unit. Make the down gradient wetland a separate unit,
however, if the bottom of the culvert is above the high water marks in the receiving wetland, or the high water
marks on either side of the road or dike differ by more than 6 in of elevation."
Based on WSDOE's above guidance, Wetlands B and D should be classified as separate units. Wetland B is a freshwater,
slope wetland that does not meet the definition of an estuary. The only salt -tolerant vegetation observed within
Wetland B near the culvert (i.e., creeping bentgrass and water parsley) are also present within areas of Wetland B that
are beyond tidal influence, and therefore are not indicative of an estuarine plant community within Wetland B. [Both
creeping bentgrass and water parsley are often found in freshwater environments.] The dominant source of hydrology
within Wetland B is freshwater (via hillside slopes and direct precipitation); only < 1 percent of the total area of Wetland
B appears to be tidally influenced, and only during occasional high tide events. On the contrary, wetland vegetation
within the estuarine Wetland D is dominated by a clear estuarine plant community including dunegrass, saltgrass, and
cattails. The dominant source of hydrology within the offsite Wetland D is saltwater.
I note that WSDOE and Landau have only visited the site during high tide. SVC has visited the site multiple times during
several seasons and during both low and high tide conditions, and unidirectional flow has always been observed.
[Unidirectional flow was also observed during our site visit yesterday, which was performed during high tide conditions.]
Therefore, tidal input into Wetland B is an infrequent occurrence, and unidirectional flow dominates. During the
occasional tidal input, the tidal waters do not flow freely into Wetland B. Instead, the tidal backflow is highly constricted
by the existing culvert. It is clear that water does not flow equally well between either side of the downward -sloping
culvert, and both sides of the culvert are not partially or completely underwater for most of the year. Clearly, the culvert
has caused a change in wetland regime and effectively separates Wetlands B and D.
I trust this is sufficient information for you to conclude that Wetlands B and D are separate units. Please let me know if
you have any questions, and thanks again for your assistance.
Matt DeCaro
Environmental Planner/Project Manager
Soundview Consultants LLC
Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting
Office: 253.514.8952 x 025
Fax: 253.514.8954
Email: Iylatt r3ur dF_ie��=[y['�:�sulttt �.er�m
Stacey Welsh
From: Stacey Welsh
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 9:00 AM
To: 'Steve Quarterman'
Subject: FW: wetland review
Attachments: 20171219085438.pdf
Steve,
You are authorized to commence the peer review of the Cleary wetland report. Please see the attached signed task
authorization and the property access permission provided in the email chain below. It is my understanding that Mr.
Cleary will be contacting you to facilitate a joint site visit with Soundview Consultants. Let me know if you need anything
else or have any questions.
Thank you,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone: 253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Stephen Cleary [mailto:corvetteclear mail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 8:12 AM
To: Stacey Welsh
Subject: Re: wetland review
Good morning Stacey,Anyone from the city of Federal way or Landau Associates can enter my property at 4301 SW
308th ST. Federal Way 98023 .
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Stacey Welsh <Stace .Welsh cit offederalwa .com> wrote:
> Mr. Cleary,
> Thank you for submitting the deposit for the wetland review. As requested in the December 11, 2017 letter, we still
need your signature on the task authorization form and also an email or letter authorizing Landau to access your
property. Upon receipt of both items, I can authorize Landau to begin their work.
> Thank you,
> Stacey Welsh, AICP
> Senior Planner
> 33325 8th Avenue South
> Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
> Phone: 253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609
> www.cityoffederalway.com
CITY OF
Federal Way
WETLAND CONSULTANT
AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date: July 20, 2017
City: City of Federal Way
Community Development Department
33325 8 h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Consultant: Steve Quarterman
Landau
130 2"d Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Nuarterman@landauine.com
Project: Cleary — Wetland & Stream Delineation
4301 SW 3086 Street, Federal Way
Parcels: 112103-9078 & 112103-9131
File No.: 17-102071-00-AD
Project Stephen Clear
Proponent: 3016 SW 300' PI
Federal Way, WA 98023
253-350-0035
fourflvers'a;. comcast.net
Project Planner: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh
stacey.welsh cityaffederalway.com, 253-835-2634
RECEIVED
DEC 18 2017
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Project The applicant is interested in development of the 5.8-acre site, which contains
Background: wetlands and stream. Prior to submitting permit applications, review of the critical
areas report is requested. Some initial staff comments were provided to the
applicant and the critical areas report was revised to address Chapter 15.10 "Critical
Areas" (within the Shoreline jurisdiction).
Documents s Wetland Delineation and Fish and M!ldlife Habitat Assessment Report, prepared
Provided: by Soundview Consultants (report date: Revised July 2017)
0 Email from David Pater, Department of Ecology, to Leila Willoughby -Oakes, City
of Federal Way, June 1, 2017
a Memorandum from Paul S. Anderson, Department of Ecology, to Leila
Willoughby -Oakes, City of Federal Way, May 30, 2017
File 17-102071.DO-AD Pap] of 3 Doc ID 76229
Task Scope: t. Review the critical areas report for consistency with the requirements of Federal
Bray Revised Code (FWRC) chapter 15.10, "Critical Areas," for areas within the
Shoreline jurisdiction, and Chapter 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas" for
areas outside of the Shoreline jurisdiction, especially,
a. Article V Chapter 15.10 "Streams"
b. Article VI Chapter 15.10 "Regulated Wetlands"
c. Article III Chapter 19.145 "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas"
d. Article IV Chapter 19.145 "Wetlands
2. Conduct site visit(s) as necessary.
3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional
information from applicant irneeded..
4. Possible meeting with applicant's wetland biologist.
5. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed.
6. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required.
Task Cost: Nat to exceed S 53b without a prior written amendment to this Task
Authorization.
Acceptance:
Consul t
City ofFede .way Staff
City Map: see next page
1�S/7
Date
r2 - J1-1
Date
Fik 17-10:071-MAn Pagc 2 oi3
Aoclp 76:24
CITY OF
. Federal
December 11, 2017
Mr. Stephen Cleary
3016 SW 300"h Place
Federal Way, WA 98023
am
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. atyoffederalway. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FILE
Re: File #17-102071-AD; WETLAND CONSULTANT REVIEW ESTIMATE
Cleary — Wetland & Stream Delineation Review, Parcel #112103-9078 & -9131
4301 SW 308th Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Cleary:
Enclosed please find the consultant task authorization with scope of work for review of the critical areas
report. The department's wetland consultant, Landau, was asked to provide an estimate for their review of
information prepared by Soundview Consultants.
The normal course of action is for the city to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn
down by the work performed by Landau. Please note that if any of the funds axe not used, they will be
returned to the applicant. A check in the amount of $8,530.00, payable to. the City of Federal Way, and
signature on the consultant authorization form, must be submitted before the review will begin.
Please review the enclosed December 4, 2017, letter from Landau. Additional reviews or meetings beyond
that detailed in the letter, will require a supplemental cost and authorization. As they requested, please provide
the city -with an email or letter authorizing Landau to access your property. You will be responsible for
obtaining and providing Landau with access permissions to offsite properties as necessary. Following receipt,
1 will authorize Landau to begin their formal review.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact me at 253-835-2634, or
stacc►.welsh �cit► ftedet,tluat.com.
Sincerely,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
cnc: ],otter from Landau, December 4, 2017
Wetland Consultant ;\uthorization Dorm
Cite of Federal Way Invoice
Pile 17-102071-00-\U
Doc. I.D. 7690
LANDAU
1A ASSOCIATES
December 4, 2017
City of Federal Way
Community Development Department
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Attn: Ms. Stacey Welsh, AICP, Senior Planner
RE: Proposed Scope of Services and Cost Estimate
Third -Party Review: Wetland and Stream Delineation Peer Review
4301 SW 308th Street — Federal Way, Washington
Parcels 112103-9078 and 112103-9131
File 17-102320071-00-AD (Cleary — Wetland & Stream Delineation)
Dear Stacey:
Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) is pleased to provide this proposed scope of services and cost estimate
for peer review services to the City of Federal Way (City) for the above -referenced project. We
understand that the City is requesting LAI to specifically conduct a peer review of the July 2017
Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report — 4301 SW 308th Street, Federal
Way (Report), prepared by Soundview Consultants. This proposal is in response to your request dated
July 20, 2017 and is based on a brief review of the information provided with your request in the July
20, 2017 Consultant Authorization form (attached) and our experience on similar projects.
The Report identifies two onsite wetlands and stream, and two offsite wetlands. LAI will provide the
services requested on the Consultant Authorization form. Our assumptions for the proposed scope of
services are summarized below.
Assumptions
■ The City will coordinate necessary access permission to the subject property, and the
applicant will provide necessary access permissions to offsite properties as necessary.
• Onsite soil sampling test pits, if necessary, will be excavated by hand for comparison with
conditions noted in the Report.
■ Written responses to the Report and resubmitted/corrected documents will be provided in
technical memorandum format.
• A draft version of the technical memorandum will be provided for City review. A final version
will be provided after addressing/incorporating any City comments, as appropriate.
• A meeting with the applicant's biologist, if requested, will occur at the time of LAI's initial site
review.
• Our scope of services does not include delineation of waterways or wetlands.
130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (42S) 778-0907 • www.landauinc.com
Proposal: City of Federal Way —Third -Party Review/ClearyWetland & Stream Delineation Landau Associates
Deliverables
A Electronic (Adobe PDF) copies of the draft and final Third -Party Review technical
memorandum.
Cost Estimate
We propose to provide our services on a time -and -expenses basis in accordance with our existing
professional services agreement with the City for Third -Party Wetland/Stream Review and Evaluation
(Amendment No. 2, signed November 15, 2017). The estimated cost for the scope of services is
$8,530, which consists of $6,124 for review of the initial application materials and $2,406 for review
of revised documents, if necessary (see attached table).
If project requirements change or unforeseen conditions are encountered that require services
beyond the scope outlined above, we will bring these to your attention and seek approval for
modification to the scope of services and budget, as appropriate. We will not exceed the total
estimated cost for our services without prior authorization from the City. If the scope of services and
cost estimate are acceptable, please provide us with written authorization.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Federal Way on this project. Please contact us
if you have any questions about our proposed scope of services and cost estimate for this project.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven J. Qu rterman
Senior Associate
SJQ/BAS/ccy
2018-5458
\\edmdata02\Proposals\C_Fed era[ Way\2017-12_Cleary Wetland Stream Peer Review\LAI Cleary Peer Review_prop - 12-04-17.docx
Attachments: Cost Estimate Table
Consultant Authorization Form
December 4, 2017
Cost Estimate Table Page 1 of 1
Third -Party Review: Cleary Wetland Stream Delineation Peer Review
4301 SW 308th Street
Federal Way, Washington
TASK Billing Rate
Senior
Assoc
$210
Proj
Coord
$102
Total
Lbr Hrs
Total
Lbr$
Nonlbr
Expenses
Task
Total
1. Peer Review
1.1 Review report/code
5
1
6
$1,152
$1,152
1.2 Field Review
8
8
$1,680
$46
$1,726
1.3 Draft/Final TM (Initial)
14
3
17
$3,246
$3,246
1.4 Draft/Final TM (Resubmittal)
10
3
13
$2,406
$2,406
Subtotal Task 1
TOTAL ALL TASKS
37
37
7
7
44
44
$8,484
$8,484
$46
46
$8,530
$8,530
12/01/17 X:\C_FederalWay\CFearyWetlandStreamPeerReview\Cost Estimate #_xlsx Landau Associates
CITY OF
Federal Way
WETLAND CONSULTANT
AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date: July 20, 2017
City: City of Federal Way
Community Development Department
33325 8'h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Consultant: Steve Quarterman
Landau
130 2"i Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
su uartermanAll andaui n c.co m
Project: Cleary — Wetland & Stream Delineation
4301 SW 308`h Street, Federal Way
Parcels: 112103-9078 & 112103-9131
File No.: 17-102071-00-AD
Project Stephen Clea+
Proponent: 3016 SW 300 Pl
Federal Way, WA 98023
253-350-0035
fourf.vers'ai . cam cast. net
Project Planner: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh
Stacey.welsh(o7cityaffederalwU com, 253-835-2634
Project The applicant is interested in development of the 5.8-acre site, which contains
Background: wetlands and stream. Prior to submitting permit applications, review of the critical
areas report is requested. Some initial staff comments were provided to the
applicant and the critical areas report was revised to address Chapter 15.10 "Critical
Areas" (within the Shoreline jurisdiction).
Documents • Welland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report, prepared
Provided: by Soundview Consultants (report date: Revised July 2017)
a Email from David Pater, Department of Ecology, to Leila Willoughby -Oakes, City
of Federal Way, June 1, 2017
• Memorandum from Paul S. Anderson, Department of Ecology, to Leila
Willoughby -Oakes, City of Federal Way, May 30, 2017
Re I7.10:0714o-AD Pagel of 3 Dw M762—n
Task Scope: I- Review the critical areas report for consistency with the requirements of Federa!
Wiry Rev sad Code (FWRC) Chapter 15.10, "Critical Areas," for areas within the
Shors[inc jurisdiction, and Chapter 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas" for
areas outside of the Shoreline jurisdiction, especially:
a. Article V Chapter ls.IO -
Streams-b. Article VI Chapter 15.10 "Regulated Wetlands"
C. Article III Chapter 19.145 "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas"
d. Article IV Chapter 19.145 "Wetlands
I Conduct site visit(s) as necessary.
3„ Provide written: response to findings, recommendations, and request additional
infOl-oration from applicant if needed
4. Possible meeting with 8pplk2Ws wetland biologist.
s. Review of resubmitted/corrected docutnents as needed.
6. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required.
Task Cost: Not to exceed S �3 a
Authorization, without a prior written amendment to this Task
Acceptance:
City of Federal Way Staff
Applicant
City Map: see next page
LL-57/ 7
Date
Date
Date
Bile ll-IL`a71-MAD Page 2 00
DoclD 74=5
') INVOICE
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue S.
INVOICE TO: STEPHEN JCLEARY
3016 SW 300TH PL.
FEDERAL WAY WA 98023
BILL NO: 221061
BILL DATE: December 05, 2017
PERMIT NO: 17 102071 00 AD
PROJECT LOCATION: 4301-SW 308TH ST
FOLDER NAME: CLEARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for peer review of a wetland delineation and stream report.
FEE DESCRIPTION
CD - DEP ENV PASS-THRU (8045)
TOTAL:
PAYMENT RECEIVED:
BALANCE:
AMOUNT
$8,530.00
$8,530.00
$0.00
$8,530.00
eirr of
Federal
July 20, 2017
Mr. Steve Quarterman
Landau
130 2^d Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
am
FILE,
Re: File #17-102071-AD; REQUEST FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEW
Cleary Wetland & Stream Delineation, Parcels 112103-9078 & 112103-9131
4301 SW 308th Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Quarterman:
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Enclosed please find the task authorization form and critical area report for third party review of the Cleary
Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report. City staff is requesting review pursuant
to the agreed terms of the on -call contract. Please review the scope of work on the task authorization form,
enter the task cost on page two of the document, sign, and return it to the city. Following the deposit of funds
by the applicant, staff will provide you with an authorization to proceed with the scope of work.
Please contact me at 253-835-2634, or staceyzvelsh cityoffederalwu.com, if you have any questions
regarding this task.
Sincerely,
--<� -1-/WL
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
enc: Task Authorization Form
Email & Letter from DOE
Critical Area Report
Doc ID 76231
Stacey Welsh
From:
Stacey Welsh
Sent:
Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:41 PM
To:
'Kevin O'Brien'
Subject:
task order
Mr. O'Brien,
I'm contacting you to let you know that the Task Order for City file no. 17-102071-AD (Cleary wetland & stream
delineation) has been cancelled. If you have any questions feel free to contact Planning Manager, Robert "Doc" Hansen,
at 253-835-2643. We look forward to continued work with you on other projects.
Thank you,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
Federal Way
'o,
co-, C,1- .
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.cityoffederalway.com
Page 1 of 1
07
ce-I
,-
L V
t.r Ay _
t
Al
http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/aregis/rest/directories/arcgisoutputIPrintingIPrintingService... 7/ 17/2017
'-) FILE
CITY OF
Federal Way
June 6, 2017
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
Stephen Cleary Emailed: corvetteclea a. mail.cam
3016 SW 300t1i Place
Federal Way, WA 98023
Re: File #17-102071-00-AD; WETLAND & STREAM DELINEATION REVIEW ESTIMATE
Cleary Property, 4301 SW 3081h St. & *No Site Address* (112103 9078 & 112103 9131)
Dear Mr. Cleary:
Please find the enclosed consultant task authorization with a scope of work for review of the `Wetland
Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report — 4301 SW 30gh Street. 'The Department's
consultant, Otak, was asked to provide an estimate for their review of information prepared by Soundview
Consultants in April 2017.
The normal course of action is for the City to set up an account to be fitnded by the applicant and drawn
down by the work performed by Otak. Please note that if any of the funds are not used, they will be
returned to the applicant. A check in the amount of $7,600.00, payable to the City of Federal Way, and a
signature on the authorization form must be submitted in order for the review to begin. Please note —this
fee will cover the review of the materials, field review, and technical memorandum(s). Any meeting
would occur during Otak's field review if requested by the applicant. Additional reviews or meetings
beyond that will require a supplemental cost and authorization.
Due to the complexity of the site, shoreline issues, mapped flood plain and the subject property's
proximity to the Dumas Bay estuarine wetland, the Planning Division requested the Department of
Ecology provide technical assistance on May 10, 2017. Please find the enclosed Department of Ecology
Technical Memorandum, prepared by Paul Anderson (dated May 30, 2017), Wetlands/401 Unit
Supervisor, Department of Ecology. Should you have any questions regarding this memo please contact
Paul Anderson at 425-649-7148 or paan461 cnt,ECY.WA.GOV.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact me at 253-835-2644, or
leila.willoughby-oakes@cityoffederalway.com.
Sincerely.
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
enc: Task Authorization Form
Environmental Review Fee Invoice
Department of Ecology Technical Memorandum (dated 05-30-17)
Doc. I.D. 75881
Addft&S 430 StO 260?;t-,
S7-
Unti
Notes cleary Esturaine Wetland -
Dept. of Ecology conference call 6-1-2017-1:15 pm
Leila Willoughby -Oakes, Associate Planner
David Pater, Ecology, shoreline Planner
Paul Anderson, Ecology Wetland Unit Supervisor
-- slope wetland
FEMA flood plain indicates the OHWM
- Per Ecology there is not question that this is one wetland complex
- there is no hydrological break upstream
-the is water parsley which is indicative of salinity and can with -stand salinities
of 10 or 13 ppt. the minimum is 0.5 ppt
- as a unit the OHWM is the extent of the wetland
- on the other side of the culvert P. Anderson measured the water barely above MMHW;
this coul dbe 1-2 higher
-bogs and mature forested wetlands are only those eligible under Ecoogy Rating
system to be dual rated
Ecology did sailinty testing 60 ft. from the culvert
- there is wetland on both sides of the trail
it would be assigned category I
- would require more evidence and demonstation by the applicant where the split
would be
- they would be required to depict it was truly sloped and not influenced by tides
at all
-it therefore would a hard arguement as there is bi-directional flow
- there are is only one case per Paul of a dual rating accepted by Ecology
Page 1
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From:
Pater, David (ECY) <DAPA461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent:
Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:19 PM
To:
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc:
Anderson, Paul S. (ECY)
Subject:
Dumas bay call follow-up
I'll summary a few points from our call.
SMA Shorelands definition:
RCW 90.58.030 (2) (d) "Shorelands" or "shoreland areas" means those lands extending landward for two
hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways
and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways, and all wetlands and river
deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter;
the same to be designated as to location by the department of ecology.
The definition provides some regulatory support for inclusion of entire Dumas Bay wetland complex. This
definition is also in the Federal Way SMP (15.05.030) .
A 25% wetland buffer reduction is allowed under SMP section 15.05.040 (4) (a) (ii): When 1510270
(Structures improvements and clearinq and gradinq within requlated wetland buffers), subsections, (5)
Wetland Buffer Reduction and (6) Modification are utilized for a project proposal a shoreline variance permit is
required if the overall proposed buffer width reduction exceeds 25 percent
SMP Sec. 15.10.250 Wetland categories and standard buffers: (a) Category 1 Wetlands; Does
include estuarine wetlands. Category I wetlands require a 200 ft. buffer.
Given the above State and Federal Way shoreline regulations and the findings of Paul's 5/30/2017 memo
entitled "Review of Wetland Rating for Cleary Property'; I believe it's reasonable to conclude the Dumas Bay
wetland complex (Figure 1 Wetlands B & D) are one contiguous wetland that should be regulated as
category I wetland under the City SMP. The property owner should still define the extent of the saltwater
influence on the part of the wetland bordering their property, as this would help define the extend of the
shoreline jurisdiction buffer on this section of wetland. Even if part of this wetland is found to be freshwater;
the City CAO regulations would still apply to the freshwater wetland section, and the wetland rating under
CAO sec. 19.145.420 should be based on the entire Dumas Bay wetland complex not just the freshwater part
of the larger wetland.
I hope this helps clarify the overlay of shoreline jurisdiction and the wetland buffers.
David
David Pater / Shoreline Planner
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance / Department of Ecology, NWRO
david.pater.wagoy (425) 649-4253
CITY OF
Federal Way
SUBJECT: CLEARY - (17-102071-00-AD)
4301 SW 308TH ST
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
Marine influenced
Look at OHWM (further up on shore where and is per biologist)
Category I or II- the wetlands cannot break -off even if segmented (regulated by the shoreline critical
area codes; reviewed under wrong classification system) Estuarine wetlands cannot be a IV
The FWRC 19.145.270 and FWRC 19.145.440.
Vegetated shallow estuarine
No use mean high or high water- DFW Ecology and local use OHWM
Salt water influence
Discussion with Ecology 5/3112017:
• Salinity testing performed by Ecology Supervisor
• Salinity was measured upstream of the culvert
Unknown how far that tidal influence extends
• Applicant wants to do a hydrologic study (year process), determine how far tidal influence
extends- the data would be needed to determine this
Where the slope and riverine wetland junction ends
• Applicant to contact Amy Yanke of Ecology (Manages Rating Supervisor Senior Biologist)
• Bog and a mature forested wetland
• Applicant could opt to do a hydrologic study to determine how far tidal influence extends, to
determine where the slope and riverine wetland junction ends; this data is required
• Per Ecology generally there are only a few instances in which to the rating system guidance
allows for dual ratings- a bog or mature forested wetland the (science does not support it).
• Applicant to contact Ecology 5-31-2017 if there are any questions about the technical
memorandum
Call with Parks
• Earth corps memo was not peer reviewed by the city or reviewed by SWM Division
• City and Earth Corps are partners for removing invasive species in the estuary
• Per Jason Gerwin, Dumas Bay is a highly sensitive area/sanctuary
Wedands
Wetiand5
F5tW*.AWALWIl
Dtopm 1
r JM W FWfJcd,$Kru7
wcWnd
Frc%Hu�asK �w]d
uk[
p1hK
il': f11M
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From: Matthew DeCaro <matt@soundviewconsultants.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:05 AM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc: Stephen Cleary
Subject: RE: Cleary Wetland/Stream Review- Mark-ups
Attachments: Rapid Habitat Assessment Site Report.pdf
Good morning Leila,
I am writing in your response to your initial review, which stated that the eastern -most wetland on Mr. Cleary's property
(identified as "Wetland B" in our report) is an estuarine wetland and the same unit as the off -site Wetland D to the east.
However, it just came to my attention that the City of Federal Way, Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
U.S. Forest Service, and EarthCorps teamed up to assess the wetlands on the adjacent Dumas Bay Park. As shown in the
attached Rapid Habitat Assessment Report, the study's conclusions correlate closely with the findings in our report.
Specifically, in both our study as well as the city's, an upland forested area was identified between Wetland B and
Wetland D. Based on our field findings and the attached report, we maintain that Wetland B is a freshwater wetland,
separate from Wetland D" to the east.
You indicated that you have obtained a WSDOE report that contains salinity data for water samples collected west of the
12-foot wide trail/access road that separates Wetlands B and D. Could you please send me a copy of this report? If such
data exists, we would be very curious to see it, as our field visit did not identify any signs of tidal influence within
Wetland B.
Please feel free to call me when you've had a chance to review the attached.
Thank you,
Matt DeCaro
Environmental Scientist/Project Manager
Soundview Consultants LLC
Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting
Office: 253.514.8952 x 025
Fax: 253.514.8954
Email: Matt Soundvie-,vConsultznts.com
From: Stephen Cleary [mailto:corvetteclea mail.com)
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11:13 AM
To: Matthew DeCaro <matt@soundviewconsultants.com>
Subject: Fwd: Cleary Wetland/Stream Review- Mark-ups
Begin forwarded message:
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes <LeiIa.WilIou hby-Oa kesci€ offederalwa .cam>
Subject: Cleary Wetland/Stream Review- Mark-ups
Date: May 26, 2017 at 10:30:54 AM PDT
To: "'corvetteclearv@gmaii.com"' <corvettecleary@gmail.com>
Greetings Stephen,
Thank you for meeting today. Please ask you wetland consultant to revise the submitted report (see
attached map mark-ups). The subject properties are within the shoreline jurisdiction and
therefore FWRC Title 15.10 "Shoreline Management -Critical Areas" applies. Please have your
consultant re-evaluate the wetland and stream using the correct critical area regulations (revising the
wetland buffer, rating and stream buffer).
Dumas Bay is an estuary based on the upstream salinity conducted by the State and exceed .5 parts per
thousand (ppt) (in some areas these are are 1 ppt and 2 ppt) (there are salinity tolerant plants and
inundation). Per the Department of Ecology and our peer reviewer the two wetland depicted are one
units and therefore have the same rating.
When the report is revised, please sign the task authorization that we will send to you and return to the
city with the funds to begin the peer review process (we are waiting to hear from our on -call
consultant). Optimally these revisions will reduce peer reviewer time on the project.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
L. Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
Federal Way
33325 Sth Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253/835-2644 Fax: 253/835-2609
www.citvoffederalway.com
Lft
ARTH
, . .
WASH l-FON STATE OF f• EN1 OI
Natural Resources
Rapid Habitat Assessment Site Report
OVERVIEW
The following report is based on a rapid habitat assessment and mapping conducted by an EarthCorps
Ecologist within an established natural area. The goal of this report is to provide access to assessment
data per mapped management unit (or "site"). This information includes: General site characteristics
and plant species composition by strata. These reports are general in scope but provide an adequate
overview for decision -making by land managers and the public. Below are definitions of each report
component.
Funds for this project were provided by the Urban and Community Forestry Program administered
through the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources and the USDA Forest Service. The
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
CHARACTERISTICS
Oi �Pi1I'111'%.ti `l7ii(
Habitat Type: Type of dominant landcover at the site.
Common habitat types: Wetland (Forested, Emergent or Scrub -Shrub), Forested Upland and Shrubland
Upland.
Forested areas are subdivided by overstory: Conifer upland or wetland (>25% canopy composition),
Deciduous upland or wetland (no/few Conifers), Mixed upland or wetland (Conifer/Dec composition).
Low
Medium
High
Slope: General topography of site
0 — 8%
8%-25%
25%+
Grade
Grade
Grade
Snags: Standing dead trees (>5" diameter)
<2 Snags/acre
2 — 10
10+
Snags/Acre
Snags/acre
CWD: Coarse woody debris, fallen logs, stumps (>5"
<10 pc./ acre
10 — 20 pc. /
20+ pc. /acre
diameter)
acre
Table 1 Site Characteristics Values
Aspect: Cardinal direction water travels (N, E, S, W)
PLANT SPECIES LISTS
i tii!iilitil7 (;C� i)� li %'i.'l•'(Yi('!i !' fil('1 i%i:i
Layer: Sites are inventoried at four structural layers: Overstory Tree (>30' ht., >5" diameter), Regen
(Regenerating trees <25' ht., <5" diameter), Shrub (<30' multi -stemmed) and Herbaceous (low growing,
vine).
i
VVA r' `-ATE
F 14T OF
Natural Resourcesp 7,
�W
* 0�1 3 2 A' —
0. AC DB 01— J OR 02
0.712'Ac 11." Ac
of
F U "-.-
LOCAL RESTORATION GLOBAL LEADERSHIP
1 Fo�eral Way
DIP3 10 4 7�15
DB 10
6. A A *k -
052 Ar
AV.
0- 59TP AvF y11 'Ile
OR 03 DB G9 0 1 1
1.62 Ac 2:95 Ac
'N
A
D 4
OINEA
DR 05 y DB 06
38 Ac 2.13 Ac
Du 07
5.7 Ac
41.A
ryl 'F.W
low
Habitat Types - 21.2 Acres Emergent Wetland
Deciduous Forested Upland Beach
Mixed Forested Upland Landscaped 5
14M Deciduous Forested Wetland Developed t
Scrub -Shrub Wetland
%V
jr Ar d Aw"Ji
Dumas Bay
Park a Dumas Bay Park -I.' Trails 5 ft Contours
Mgmt Units -N-, Streams Parcels
Habitat Types _j
PART{ VEGETATION
The park is predominantly a deciduous forest with large areas of deciduous forested wetland and scrub
shrub or emergent wetlands to the north east. Both wetland and upland forested overstory is
dominated by mature, moderately dense and moderately closed red alder canopy and big -leaf maple
with limited conifer pockets of hemlock or cedar. Some black cottonwood is also found in the forested
wetland areas.
Tree regeneration for deciduous trees is moderate throughout the entire park consisting mostly of big -
leaf maples. Conifer regeneration is generally low with pockets of hemlock and cedar. There is a
moderate level of invasive tree regeneration (English Holly and Laurel) in areas of the park.
The dense shrub and groundcover layer in the upland forested areas is a mix of Indian plum, sword fern
and trailing blackberry. The shrub layer in the wetland forested areas is dominated by salmonberry and
a vine Maple or Indian plum component with lady fern in the understory. Scrub -shrub areas are
dominated by salmonberry and willow with lady fern and water parsley in the understory. The
emergent area is characterized by dense cattails.
English ivy is the dominant invasive groundcover and is dense in many upland forested areas. There is
also an isolated area of knotweed near the shore and invasive jewelweed and nightshade throughout
wetlands in the park. Occasional patches of dense blackberry are present throughout the park as well.
RESTORATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the prevalence and density of English ivy throughout the park it will be most cost effective to
continue creating Ivy rings around native trees and remove small ground patches as fit for volunteer
groups. Replanting after removal is advised at a small scale to increase regenerating tree diversity.
Abundant larger patches of Ivy throughout the park will require a greater amount of professional crew
time (due to steep slopes or access) and as a result a larger budget. Invasive trees are not yet
dominating the understory but should be treated soon to prevent a wider infestation.
Knotweed and jewelweed are at a low enough level to be spot treated while the nightshade is denser
and more widespread.
Short Term (5 Years)
1. Focus on English ivy survival rings
2. Spot treat knotweed, jewelweed and invasive trees
3. Maintain existing restoration areas
4. Replant small areas with native conifers where possible
Long Term (>5 Years)
1. Long term maintenance of ivy rings, plantings and removal areas
2. Large scale ivy removal and re -planting to increase regenerating tree diversity
W 5HING ON STATE OF.PAfamw Of
Natural Resources a 0
]sapid Habitat Assessment Park Summary
OVERVIEW
The following summary is based on rapid habitat assessments and mapping conducted by EarthCorps
Ecologists in June of 2012. The goal of the rapid habitat assessments is to document habitat conditions
within each mapped management unit (or "site"). This is an overview of that data and provides a broad
view of park conditions in addition to providing general guidelines for future restoration projects. See
the individual Site Reports generated for each management unit for more detailed information.
Funds for this project were provided by the Urban and Community Forestry Program administered
through the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources and the USDA Forest Service. The
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
PARK BACKGROUND
Dumas Bay Park is a 21 acre near -shore and forested park located off SW Dash Point Road in the City of
Federal Way, Washington state. The park sits in the near -shore drainages for Puget Sound and is part of
the WRIA 9, Dumamish-Green River watershed and is managed by the City of Federal Way. The park is
bounded by a mix of light residential development and non -city greenspace areas to the south west and
east. To the north the park is bounded by the shoreline of the Puget Sound and a denser residential
subdivision to the northeast.
The City of Federal Way manages the park for public access and wildlife habitat. A parking area at the
western boundary leads to a developed trail that curves northeast through the park and provides beach
access to the Puget Sound shoreline in the north_ There is ongoing restoration activity in the park
consisting of ivy survival rings on native trees and native replanting in the western and southeastern
portion of the park. Portions of this park have been previously characterized by Bob Keller and Marcia
Fischer of Natural Resources Designs (March, 2010) for Friends of the Hylebos (now EarthCorps).
PARK CHARACTERISTICS
Dumas Bay Park consists of dry, well -drained upland forested areas in a western and southern ring
around the park that transition down through three drainages to wetlands towards the Puget Sound.
The northwest drainage at the park boundary feeds into a steep ravine and joins a small stream and
scrub -shrub wetland to the north. The middle drainage is a small perennial stream that feeds into the
site from the southwest. A small, undefined seep drains through a culvert from the south east of the
site where it joins the middle drainage into a large emergent wetland near Puget Sound. Glacially
created soil in the Alderwood soil series dominate most of the park and are generally considered
moderately well -drained with a gravelly, sandy loam profile.
Memorandum
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes, City of Federal Way
From: Paul S. Anderson, Ecology NWRO Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor
Cc: David Pater and Doug Gresham, Ecology
Date: 05/30/2017
Re: Review of Wetland Rating for Cleary Property
Background
Thank you for seeking technical assistance from the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) related to the category of wetlands and shoreline jurisdiction for the wetlands on and near
the Cleary property in the City of Federal Way (City). As the acting Ecology Wetland Specialist for
King County jurisdictions, I am happy to assist the City in answering wetland- and shoreline -related
questions. Ecology is the state agency responsible for regulating wetlands and shorelines and, as
such, has developed a number of guidance documents for protecting these valuable resources. To
ensure that regulatory interpretations are consistent with that guidance and state law, Ecology staff
routinely provide technical assistance to other agencies and local governments.
The Cleary property, located at 4301 SW 3081h Street in Federal Way (File No. 17-102071-AD),
involves two tax parcels (Tax Parcel numbers 1121039078 and 1121039131). A critical areas study
for the property, prepared by Soundview Consultants LLC (Soundview; dated April 20, 2017) identifies
two wetlands (A and B) on the property as well as a small stream (Stream Z). Two other wetlands are
found in the vicinity; Wetland C to the south of the Cleary property across 44th Avenue SW and
Wetland D within the Dumas Bay Sanctuary to the north. Soundview rated wetlands A — C as
Category IV wetlands, Wetland D as a Category I wetland and typed Stream Z as Ns. The critical
areas figure provided with the report (Sheet 1 of 1; prepared by Tyee Surveyors and dated 4/14/17)
shows SMA (Shoreline Management Act) jurisdiction as offset 200 feet from the approximate ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) of Dumas Bay and bisecting wetlands B and D (Figure 1). Ecology does
not concur with the rating of wetlands B and D, the typing of Stream Z nor the extent of shoreline
jurisdiction as shown in the critical areas figure.
Regulatory Context
In addition to other waters, associated wetlands are subject to state SMA regulation (RCW 90.58) and
the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP; Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Ch. 15.05). Under
the SMA, associated wetlands are defined as those wetlands in proximity to and that influence or are
influenced by other shoreline waters (see WAC 173-22-030(1) and WAC 173-22-040(1)(b)). Wetlands
and other critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the City through the standards in
the SMP. Stream Z discharges directly to Dumas Bay where it has formed a small delta and estuarine
wetlands (the delta is not depicted on the critical areas figure). A 24-inch diameter culvert carries
Stream Z beneath the Dumas Bay Sanctuary trail to the beach. The trail was constructed through
Wetland B/D and the culvert appears to be at grade allowing the tide to ebb and flow through the
Page 2 of 7
May 30, 2017
culvert. The wetland immediately downstream of the culvert is a salt marsh composed primarily of salt
tolerant species. Upstream of the culvert the wetland transitions from salt marsh to a freshwater
wetland. Shoreline jurisdiction (shorelands; see WAC 173-22-030(7)) extends 200 feet landward from
the OHWM but also includes floodways, as well as associated wetlands and river deltas. For
regulatory purposes, Ecology considers any wetland that falls within 200 feet of a shoreline OHWM to
be associated as there is no ecological or hydrological basis for dividing a wetland; if any portion of
the wetland lies within shoreline jurisdiction, the entire wetland is within (Figure 2; see SMP
Handbook, Ch. 5).
Because there is a bi-directional flow through the culvert (see Field Investigation, below), the Dumas
Bay OHWM extends upstream of the culvert and Wetland B and D are in fact components of one,
singular wetland (Hruby 2014). Again, there is no ecological basis for dividing the wetland and in only
limited situations will a wetland receive a dual rating (Hruby 2014). My reading of the City's SMP
indicates that Wetland B/D is a Category I wetland (exceptional local significance and estuarine
wetland) with a standard buffer of 200 feet (FWMC 15.10.250(1)(a)(ii) and 15.10.250(1)(a),
respectively). Stream Z appears to meet the definition of a major stream as it is classified as a coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) stream by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Modeled
Presence) and does not appear to have fish -passage barriers in the lower reaches. The required
setback in the SMP on major streams is 100 feet from the OHWM (FWMC 15.10.170(1)(a)).
VIE%AND C
CATEGORY IV
BB•333 SF
SIN 308TH ST ,
STANDARD IO'
BUFFER
I SANDARD<D
f 31UfT�
I
1 1
I 1
I
131
,1
\
rr EXISTING CATEGORY IV I B4 B255F
HOUSE
VIETLANDA T"7iP-P`,-ZZCATEGORYIV~
.II SF r
DUMAS BAY PARK
y�1L•WILf f
r�� 1
= aT7 @TS 1
STANDARD40
BUFFER (IVL B1
10'-12 CO MPACTED GRAVEL
TRAIL I ACCESS ROAD
` 190
INTERRUPTED
BUFFER
, .. .l. ..
DUMAS
g l
BAY-
�>
PUGET
SOUND
•—STREAM Z-TYPE Ns
BUFFER
`J
3 y
V7$
i'
135'1TREAI1
ETLAND D
CATEGORY
Sp
n
g Q
I 375•830 SF
APPRO%
-' OMM _
� Su[x3ti9a:r.G. _
1 DUJOA IS_BQN PARi<
v ;
1
-v lass{]ulf
- 7N✓ . yn. uu
L`/DS
ORVlR'�RC.
.1.F1 n
Figure 1. Critical areas figure for Cleary property (Tyee Surveyors).
Page 3 of 7
May 30, 2017
Legend:
❑ SMPjurisdiction
Wetland in SMP jurisdiction
i fi Wetland nut in SMP jurisdiction
Water
100-year floodplain
f
Hydraulic connection
Figure 5-16_ Wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction are either
fully or partially within 200 feet of the OHWM, within the
floodplain, or associated through hydraulic continuity -
Figure 2. Figure 5-16 from the SMP Handbook showing shoreline jurisdiction, including associated wetlands
(available at: htt ://www.ec .wa. ovl ra rams/sea/shorelines/sm Ihandbook/index.htrni).
Office Assessment
A number of resources were reviewed in determining the appropriate wetland categories and limits of
shoreline jurisdiction for the Cleary property, including the City's SMP, Ecology's current wetland
rating system (Hruby 2014) and OHWM guidance (Anderson et al. 2016), aerial photographs,
floodplain maps, and tidal data (available at: htt s://tidesandcurrents.noaa. ovl). The Dumas Bay
Sanctuary wetland and Stream Z are clearly visible on aerial photographs. The flood plain map for
Dumas Bay (Figure 3) has mapped the lower portion of Wetland B/D below 13 feet elevation as Zone
AE, subject to flooding during a 100-year event (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
accessed May 15, 2017).
Reviewing tidal data can provide valuable insights into historic tidal elevations and the expected tide
height at the time of a site visit. Field indicators of the OHWM are typically seen 1.5 feet above mean
higher high water (MHHW) in the Salish Sea, which is equal to 13 feet elevation for the central Salish
Sea (NGVD29; Figure 4). The OHWM elevation at a given site may vary due to exposure and fetch.
In low energy tidal systems the OHWM extends to the landward limit of salt tolerant vegetation (WAC
173-22-030(5)(a)(ii)) and in these settings the OHWM on streams extends to the upper limits of tidal
influence (WAC 173-22-030(9); Anderson et al. 2016).
Page 4 of 7
May 30, 2017
ZONE VE
f (Sav IV)
•'�.. ASP',
ZONE AE
(Elevmxl
CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY
Figure 3. FEMA flood zone map showing Dumas Bay and 1 % probability floodplain (Zone AE; yellow polygon)
encompassing much of Wetland B/D.
Figure 4. Historic observed tides for Seattle (StationlD No. 9447130), typical central Salish Sea OHWM elevation
(13 feet) and elevation of observed Seattle tide during May 25, 2017 site visit to Dumas Bay Sanctuary.
Page 5 of 7
May 30, 2017
Field Investigation
I visited the Dumas Bay Sanctuary on March 31, 2017 and again on May 25th to measure salinities
and observe high tides in Stream Z and Wetland B/D. During my March site visit I measured salinities
up to 21 parts per thousand (ppt) at the morning high tide (observed Seattle elevation of 11.83 feet) in
Stream Z and an interstitial salinity of 2 ppt in the adjoining wetland (left bank) just downstream from
the culvert.
During the May 25th site visit I was there for the evening high tide, (observed Seattle elevation of 11.45
feet, just above MHHW). I arrived two hours before the predicted high tide and a moist water mark
was visible on the culvert (upstream and downstream) from the morning high tide as well as on the
adjoining floodplain of Stream Z upstream from the culvert (Photo 1). The observed elevation of the
morning high tide was 11.90 feet at Seattle. Over the course of the two hours I was onsite, I
documented a rise in the water level of 3 inches at the culvert inlet and 1 inch approximately 60 feet
upstream of the culvert on Stream Z during a high tide that was just slightly over MHHW at Seattle.
The dominant plants (creeping bentgrass; [Agrostis stolonifera] and water parsley [Oenanthe
sarmentosa]) on the adjoining floodplain bench were species tolerant of salinities greater than 0.5 ppt
(Photo 2; Hutchinson 1988), indicating this portion of the wetland meets the definition of an estuarine
wetland (Hruby 2014). Maximum measured salinities upstream of the culvert were 2 ppt in the stream
and 1 ppt on the right bank floodplain bench (interstitial). I did not determine how far tidal influence
and the OHWM extended upstream of the culvert.
Conclusion
Ecology does not concur with the wetland categorization for Wetland B nor the limits of shoreline
jurisdiction in the Soundview critical areas study and figure prepared by Tyee Surveyors. Based on
my review of available background information and my site visits on March 31st and May 25th, Ecology
has determined that the Dumas Bay OHWM extends upstream of the Dumas Bay Sanctuary trail and
that wetlands B and D are components of the same wetland (Wetland B/D); a Category I wetland
under the City's SMP (this estuarine wetland would be a Category I I wetland under the current state
rating system). Shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet landward from the OHWM and encompasses
the entire boundary of the associated wetlands, which for the Cleary property, includes all of Wetland
B/D (Figure 5).
Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo or if we can be of any further
assistance to the City.
Page 6 of 7
May 30, 2017
Shoreline jurisdiction and Wetland B/D boundary at Du"'s
SAY-
PUGET
Dumas BaySanctus and Clea property. Dumas SOUND a
SOUND
,q 11AYUG � Sanctuary \P P Y• � £ .t
Bay OHWM extends upstream of �raiE.,� .• 51REYVL r.4,r
UiSTIY�i UIL ;.,;n
�. -�, I i•I C_. Si ' ... �1R[l1.I D.V;CR C��g
SW 308TH ST
A TFCJ]Rr rr `6, 04'
WL
I � aE �
j 4 —
i °watrfr ncrnn:wr ��- _ _• nt • PUMAS B41Y PA[i15
W l STu.•�.r,Rf..:
� DUMASBAY PARK�•RSIR;n•.D� _ `
O iw.l 'I.:Lf ST R!IACI li
' Y.'%P o'EC .
Figure 5. Corrected shoreline jurisdiction and Wetland B/D boundary for Cleary property. Tidal influence, and
therefore, the Dumas Bay OHWM extend upstream of the Dumas Bay Sanctuary trail in Stream Z and also
indicates that wetlands B and D are one continuous wetland (bi-directional flow).
References
Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water
Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State, October 2016 Final Review.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 16-06-029, Lacey, WA.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Update -
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029, Lacey, WA.
Page 7 of 7
May 30, 2017
Site Photographs
� A:44 +y -
iWINdy ,rye �1�
• ,`Ti'• y�'a 1'� � YET'-�Yy
Photo 1. Stream Z culvert (24-inch interior diameter) inlet. Right photo, taken at 1650, showing moist water mark
from morning tide approximately 6 inches above Stream Z water surface. Left photo, taken at 1821, shows
approximately a 3-inch rise in water surface.
n�4
Photo 2. Stream Z and floodplain benches, facing upstream (south) approximately 20 feet upstream from Dumas
Bay Sanctuary trail. Measured interstitial salinity of 1 ppt taken just to the left of date stamp.
CITY OF
Federal Way
May 17, 2017
Mr. Kevin O'Brien
Otak, Inc.
11241 Willows Road NE, Suite #200
Redmond, WA 98052
kevin.obrien a otak. orn
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FILE
Re: File #17-102071-00-AD; WETLAND/HABITAT ASSESSMENT PEER REVIEW
Cleary Properties, 4301 SW 3081h Street, Federal Way, Parcels 112103-9078 & 112103-9131
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
Please find the enclosed peer review task authorization form for parcels 112103-9078 and 112103-9131. The
Community Development Department requests the submitted report undergo a third -party review pursuant
to the agreed terms of the on -call contract. Please review the scope of work contained in the task
authorization form, enter the task cost on page 3 of the document, and return to the city by email and the
signed original by mail. Following the deposit of funds by the applicant, staff will provide you with
authorization to proceed and scope of work.
For the purposes of expediting review timelines, the city requests the proposed tasks are completed within 10
business days of receiving notice to proceed from the city.
Please contact the me at 253-835-2644, or leila.%villoughl)y-aakesQcityoffederalway.cos 7, if you have any
questions regarding this task or the proposed scope.
Sincerely,
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
enc: Task Authorization
Documents Listed in TA
File 17-102071-00-AD Doc. LD. 75880
�rL
CITY OFF -
Federal Way
DATE: May 10, 2017
TO: IT-GIS
FROM: L. Willoughby -Oakes, Planning
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: 2013 CLEARY BLA LOT LINES - (13-105346-00-SU)
4301 SW 308TH ST & *NO SITE ADDRESS*
See the attached recorded BLA for parcels 112103 9078 & 112103 9131. Please revise planning maps
(zoning, comprehensive plan and critical areas etc.)
Let me know if you have any questions.
Leila
QUEST FOR AD1-w_ I.41STRATIVE DECISION
RECE
CITY OF � - �-- -
I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way MAY 0 5 2017 Federal Way, WA 9800
253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY www.cit offederalwa .cons
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FILE ?NUMBER r � � � i Date
Applicant
NAME
§-
G 1 �L
PRIMARY PHONE
E- o -Q0
BUSMESSIOR ANMATION /
OI (4 �1 3 0- --
ALTERNATE PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS
EMAIL
r O U r I -I G/ S v Gpiryl ij(�S1 _
CITY
STATE
ZIP
FAX
Property Address/Location
Description of Request P _P. RE P01- I �-o C'4 �n
C2 P lco n0
List/Describe Attachments y f-0 ?I rh bk i t � l <
�S p Vnd �I v ,vim _ 0 In � �f i `�Gr Yl oti � �� 1`-�o t Lor;
I�� %T-t ID C r o -
❑ Code Interpretation/Clarification
Critical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review
❑ Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval)
❑ Revisions to Approved Permit
❑ Tree Removal
❑ Zoning Compliance Letter
171
- No Fee
- No Fee (Actual Cost if Applicable)
- Check Current Fee Schedule
- Check Current Fee Schedule
- No Fee
- Check Current Fee Schedule
1)(.
Bulletin #079 - January 4, 2016 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision
suoianjoS ash puel+ 5uiuueid
auawssassy Ie;uaiuuoainu3
siu InsuoD
M;DlA unto
.P S
ZS68-KS (�SZ)
S££86 NOlONIHSVM `2IOfl2 VH OID
Q MLIfIS `anlxQ MHI -dO9'dvH L06Z
:)ZZ SJNVIIrISNOD tAHIA(INflOS
Ag (Iauvdaxcl
�Z086 VM `,r VMqvuHag3
HDTId HI00£ ms 9IN
AUVHz3 NgHdgJ S
Hod (1312Ivdauci
£Z086 VM `) VVM Tv-dgaa3
J'E[HUJ-S H180£ MS IO£t
NOUVOO'I ,I OHfOud
A,VAX Jxaaa3 - J aaHJIS H180£ AXS t0£V
luoaau J N2[NSSEISSV Lvj lsvH
Hal-RIMAX QNV HS13 (INV NOI VIIN1I'I21( QN"J,21AX
i li
LIOZ `OZ ludV
D-I-I sluellnsuOD matApunoS
liodag luomssassy migEH pue uoAvauilDC puvp aAA,
133s1S ySO£A%S IO£b—Z000'6LZI
•pazecunsa 8ugzs axis-Jjo -:)
•a4Ts-33o pue aa;Inq pa;druaalul q
'sdUUM Tueas;s ?T �J(-i pue spoqPur WuTxEi puepam {{.Tirr. `Agmg4) .00103H 30 juauruedaQ air
ag val3urrfsvr�1 ;uaun:) y
�ia�ITI
ila�lTZ -
— saw
sN ICUI.
A £LL
Z u u;)-Qs
saw
saw
saw
�I
a1is-}3o
ale 00.0
g Q
Xla,F'i
DAI
alis 330
a D
�le 00.0
SOA
saw
saw
Al
q
saw
saw
saw
Al
ale IO 0
5W61.Tax r-gD `apoD
vacua,
alisuo
auivN
Iav sa3loA& uralz)
8V06 ALL
PasTnag AUM I10a3pa3
/bo2a;r
qI2u �/azl
ureaslS/Pue is k1
paizin a�
spun palsln2
apupajujn2a[apun
saTDua le jlezapa,q pule `a1le1S lrDOl
jo smms faollejn-Vale jupuoiod oTII soTj!ivapj pule suzleazls pule spulepam aTII SDZlJUuzums mojaq aiglel z)ql
Auadozd IDafgns aTII jo Iaaj SZZ urglTm paT�livapi osjle anm (punoS
IQ-Vnd) �rq sleumQ 3o auTlazoTls auuleuz aLp pule (Cl pule D spulepaA\) spulepam alas JJo om,l, •-TaJJnq
pzlepulels Iooj-S,£ le of 1Dafgns si pule uTlearls (TIsg-uou `Fuosleas) sN D&I le Klo3lq sT Z uzleazlS •szajjnq
pzlepulels IooJ-pt, D-Unbaz T :)MM spulepam Al fuo-'dalle:) a.Tle q pule V spulepam `jlejaua2 ui •(Z uTleazlS)
uTleajls QjTsuo pauTleuun Duo jo 3j.TleuT ( Ip) sallem tj nj fzleulpxo wqi pule (q pule v spulepaA\) spulepom
DITSuo pallejn-Vaz-,ijjleuualod omI jo saulepunoq xp palleauTjap pule paT�TluapT s od}a uouivnsanut alas
aTp `aojopoTpauT luazmD 2ulsn •LIOZ `LI q:).TeW uo soTDads ,�juoud zo/pule `llelTquq ajTjplim pule qsu
`sa.pogsallem `spulepam pallejn2a.T-djjleuualod jo aDuasazd aLp io3 24jodosd 1Datgns aLp palle2usaeuT DAS
•(I£I6£OIZII Pule 8L06COIZI I szaqumN IaDzled xuj ,�junoD $uy:4) -W-M `� aSuv-d
`LI1zoN IZ d.gsumoL It uor;aaS 3o z�i TI1zoN atjl uT pallenlTs sT zado�d laafgns aql uo uTgsuM
`pile jlezapa,q 3o fjTD aTp m IaazlS „80£ /AS IO£V It palleaol fuado.Td azDle-8.5 le jo IuauTdojaeapaz
jleuuopTsas amin3 TUTImlod zoj IuauTssossle 1le1Tgrq ;)ygppm pule LIsg pule uorlleau-qop puzpam
le uuojzad of (IuleDTjdd-) kmajD u3TIdD1S ,�q poiouiluoD uaaq suiq (DAS) D'I I slulellnsuoD mDTApunoS
Si u mnS aminaaxa
f
W jjCnnoaz
oto
•.�.F.
. .
. . . . . . . .
EY• -
f •••
E
�0:�
rj D
m
m0
_ O
b --I cn
CC
fl+
Table of Contents
Chapter1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Project Location............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Location................................................................................................................................. 2
Chapter3. Methods......................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 4. Existing Conditions....................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Landscape Setting.................................................................................................................. 4
4.2 Soils.....................,.................................................................................................................. 5
4.3 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................. 5
4.4 Local and National Wetland and Stream Inventories.............................................................. 5
4.5 Priority Habitats and Species.................................................................................................. 5
4.6 Precipitation........................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 5. Results........................................................................................................................... 7
5.1 Wetlands................................................................................................................................ 7
5.1.1 Overview........................................................:.................................................................... 7
5.1.2 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................... 11
5.1.3 Wetland Buffers................................................................................................................. 11
5.1.4 Wetland Functions............................................................................................................. 11
5.2 Drainages............................................................................................................................. 12
5.2.1 Overview........................................................................................................................... 12
5.2.2 Stream Buffers................................................................................................................... 13
5.3 Marine Shoreline of Dumas Bay (Puget Sound).................................................................... 14
Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations........................................................................................... 15
Chapter7. Closure........................................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 8. References................................................................................................................... 18
Figures
Figure1. Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of the Subject Property ...................................................................4
Tables
Table1. Precipitation Summary ...................................................................................................6
Table2. Wetlands Summary ........................................................................................................7
Table3. Wetland A Summary ...................................................................................................... 9
Table4. Wetland B Summary ....................................................................................................10
Table 5. Functions and Values of Existing Wetlands.................................................................12
Table6. Drainage Summary — Stream Z....................................................................................13
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 30811, Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 111 April 20, 2017
Appendices
Appendix A
— Methods and Tools
Appendix B —
Background Information
Appendix C
— Site Plan
Appendix D
— Data Sheets
Appendix E
— Wetland Rating Forms
Appendix F —
Qualifications
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report iv April 20, 2017
Chapter 1. Introduction
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been contracted by Stephen Cleary (Applicant) to perform a
wetland delineation and fish and wildlife habitat assessment for potential future residential
redevelopment of a 5.8-acre property located at 4301 SW 3081h Street in the City of Federal Way,
Washington. The subject property is situated in the North 1/2 of Section 11, Township 21 North,
Range 3 W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1121039078 and 1121039131).
The purpose of this wetland delineation and fish and wildlife habitat assessment report is to document
the presence of potentially -regulated wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species on or
near the subject property. The Applicant is assessing the feasibility of redeveloping the subject
property for residential purposes.
This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding:
■ Site description and area of assessment;
• Background research of potentially -regulated critical areas and habitats within the vicinity of
the proposed project;
• Identification, delineation, and assessment of potentially -regulated wetlands and other
hydrologic features;
• Identification and assessment of regulated fish and wildlife habitat;
Standard buffer recommendations, building setbacks, and development limitations;
Existing site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers; and
® Supplemental information necessary for Federal, State, and/or local regulatory review.
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report
Soundview Consultants LLC
April 20, 2017
Chapter 2. Project Location
2.1 Location
The subject property is located at 4301 SW 308t' Street in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The
subject property is situated in the North'/2 of Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 3 W.M. (King
County Tax Parcel Numbers 1121039078 and 1121039131). A King County parcel map is provided
in Appendix B1.
To access the site from Interstate 5 South, use the right lane to take Exit 143 for South 320t' Street
toward Federal Way. Use the right 3 lanes to turn right onto South 3201' Street and continue for 4.5
miles, Turn right onto 47`t' Avenue SW and proceed for 0.4 miles. Turn right onto SW Dash Point
Road and continue for 0.1 mile. Turn left onto 44' Avenue SW and proceed for 0.3 mile. Continue
onto SW 308`' Street, continue for 423 feet, and the site will be on the right.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Subject Property
(_lpproxun-,itcj
P,.i:JXJ. -
r'xr.
:f
SW 3$41h u:
n
Source: Soundview Consultants LT-C
34Ih
i
4
a'
475 �d�l ttd. i•i}-„
& y
rq a
C�j Syy
ry� � lflx
ts•
r
e
r
.a vrh
� �Tr
o r
c rj5 �
n
ti
9W
9W slrnh 91 . �.� . ��•
t+rmus Hq
caul"
suns"
SIN
5W
127M002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 2 April 20, 2017
Chapter 3. Methods
SVC investigated, assessed, and delineated wetlands, drainages, and other potentially -regulated fish
and wildlife habitat within the subject property and identified critical areas within 225 feet of the
subject property on March 17, 2017. All wetland and ordinary high water (OHW) determinations
were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S.
Geographic Survey (USGS) topographic maps, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
Soil Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NVv ), Washington
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW),
City of Federal Way Geographic Information System (GIS) data, King County GIS data, local
precipitation data (NOAA), and various orthophotographic resources. Appendix A contains further
details for the methods and tools used to prepare this report.
Wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and modified
according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Qualified
wetland scientists marked boundaries of on -site wetlands with orange surveyor's flagging labeled
alpha -numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation along the wetland boundary. Pink surveyor's
flagging was labeled alpha -numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at formal sampling
locations to mark the points where detailed data was collected (DP1-DP3). Additional tests pits were
excavated at regular intervals inside and outside of the wetland boundaries to further confirm each
delineation.
OHW mark determinations were made using Washington State Department of Ecology's (WSDOE's)
method as detailed in Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline ManagementAct Compliance in
Washington State (Anderson et. al., 2016) and the definitions established in the Shoreline Management
Act (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 90.58.030(2)(b) and WAC 173-22-030(11). To mark the
centerline or banks of potentially -regulated streams, blue surveyor's flagging was alpha -numerically
labeled and tied to vegetation. Following delineation, all wetland and OHW flags were located by
professional survey, and a digital map was produced.
SVC classified all wetlands using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin
(Cowardin, 1979) classification systems, and assessed wetlands using the Wetland Functions
Characterisation Tool for Linear Projects (WSDOT, 2000). Following classification and assessment,
WSDOE trained scientists rated and categorized all wetlands using the Washington State Wetlands Rating
System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014) and the definitions established in Federal Way Revised
Code (FWRC) 19.145.420. Streams and surface water features were classified using the DNR Water
Typing System as outlined in WAC 222.16 and the guidelines established in FWRC 19.145.260.
The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visits by qualified fish
and wildlife biologists. Experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking
survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of
fish and wildlife activity.
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 3 April 20, 2017
Chapter 4. Existing Conditions
4.1 Landscape Setting
The subject property contains one 1,720-square foot single-family residence located on the north -
central portion of the subject property. The remainder of the 5.8-acre property is undeveloped
forested land with a mixed deciduous -conifer canopy. The topography at the subject property
generally slopes from west to east with elevations ranging between approximately 75 to 15 feet above
mean sea level (amsl). The adjoining properties to the north and southwest are developed as single-
family residences. The subject property abuts SW 308`' Street to the northwest, 44`' Avenue SW to
the west., and Dumas Bay Park to the east and south. An existing approximately 10-foot to 12-foot
wide, compacted gravel trail/access road is located to the east and south of the site. Dumas Bay (Puget
Sound) is located approximately 50 feet northeast of the subject property. The far northeast corner
of the subject property lies within the 100-year floodplain (Appendix B2). The subject property is
within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 — Puyallup/White.
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 308'h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 4 April 20, 2017
4.2 Soils
The NRCS Soil Survey of Pierce County identifies two soil series on the site: Alderwood gravelly sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, and Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep slopes. A soil map is
provided in Appendix B5.
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (AgC)
According to the survey, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, is a moderately well -
drained soil formed in ridges and hills with a parent material of glacial drift and/or glacial outwash
over dense glaciomarine deposits. In a typical profile, the surface layer is gravelly sandy loam from 0
to 7 inches below ground surface (bgs). The subsoil is very gravelly sandy loam from 7 to 59 inches
bgs. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, is listed as non-hydric on the King County
Hydric Soils List (MRCS, 2001).
Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep slopes (AkF)
According to the survey, Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep slopes, are moderately well -drained
soils formed in moraines and till plains with a parent material of basal till with some volcanic ash. In
a typical profile, the surface layer is gravelly ashy sandy loam from 0 to 12 inches bgs. The subsoil is
very gravelly sandy loam from 12 to 60 inches bgs. Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep slopes, is
listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List (MRCS, 2001).
4.3 Vegetation
Upland vegetation is dominated by a canopy of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga men!iesiz), red alder (Alnus
cobra), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with an understory
of vine maple (Acer eircinaArw), salmonberry (Rebus spectabilis), western swordfern (Poystichum rnunitunr),
spreading gooseberry (gibes &Paricatum), stink currant (Ribes bracteosum), English bluebell (hyacinthoides
non-scripta), English ivy (Hedera helix), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), and fringecup (Tellima
grandiflora).
4.4 Local and National Wetland and Stream Inventories
The Federal Way critical areas map (Appendix B4) identifies potential wetlands on the northeast
portion of the subject property. The USFWS NWI (Appendix B6) and Federal Way maps also identify
a potential stream on the subject property, an off -site wetland to the east within Dumas Bay Park, and
a "lake" to the west of the site, on the opposite side of 44' Avenue SW.
4.5 Priority Habitats and Species
The WDFW interactive salmonid data map, SalmonScape, identifies modeled presence only for pink
salmon, Coho salmon, chum salmon, Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout on the eastern portion of
the subject property; SalmonScape does not identify documented presence of any fish species onsite
(Appendix 137). The DNR Water Typing Map (Attachment 139) identifies the onsite waterbody as a
non -fish stream.
The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) map and data (Appendix 138) identify a previous
great blue heron breeding area onsite in 2010. According to the Applicant, no great blue heron nesting
activity has been observed onsite since at least 2013. The great blue heron is not federally listed but is
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 308t' Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wedand Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 5 April 20, 2017
monitored by WDFW. No other priority species or habitats are identified on the subject property.
The PHS map identifies an off -site wetland and documented off -site occurrences of great blue heron,
green heron, and pink salmon to the east and northeast of the site.
4.6 Precipitation
Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
weather station at SeaTac International Airport in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation
during and preceding the investigations. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Precipitation Summary.
Day
Day
1 Week
2 Weeks
Month To Date Year to Datel
Percent of
Normal
Date
of
Before
Prior
Prior
(Observed/Norma42 (Observed/Normap2
(month/year)
03/17/2017
0.68
0.00
2.97
4.34
5.04/2.11 38.51/26.58
239/145
Notes,
1. Data obtained from the NOAA weather website at SeaTac International Airport http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis php?wfo=sew.
2 Month -to -date and year-to-date precipitation shown is from the first of the month to the date of the site visit, and from October I` to the date of
the site visit.
Precipitation was at 239 percent of normal for the month -to -date and 145 percent of normal for the
2016/2017 water year during site inspection and wetland delineation efforts on March 17, 2017. This
precipitation data suggests that significantly high precipitation may have caused some areas that are
not normally wet to become saturated and/or inundated at the time of the site investigation. Such
conditions were considered in making professional wetland boundary and stream typing
determinations.
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 6 April 20, 2017
Chapter 5. Results
5.1 Wetlands
5.1.1 Overview
The site investigations identified two potentially -regulated wetlands on the subject property (Wetlands
A and B) and two off -site wetlands (Wetlands C and D) within 225 of the subject property. The
identified wetlands contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of
hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. Wetland data forms
(onsite wetlands only) are provided in Appendix D, and wetland rating forms (onsite wetlands only)
are provided in Appendix E. Table 2 summarizes the wetlands identified on the subject property and
within 225 feet of the site.
Table 2. Wetlands Summary.
Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating
Wetland
Buffer
CowardinA
HGMB
Ecologyc
City of
Wetland
Size
Width
Federal WayD
(acres)
(feet)E
A
PSSB
Slope
IV
IV
0.01
40
B
PFO/SS/EMB
Slope
IV
IV
2.18
40
1.45
C
PUBHx
Depressional
IV
IV
NAG
(off-site)H
8.63
D
E2EMN/PSSB
Depressional/Slope
I F
I F
NAG
(off-site)H
Notes:
A. Cowardin et al. (1979) or National Wetland Inventory (Nab, Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013) Class based on vegetation: PEM =
Palustrine Emergent; PSS = Palustrine Scrub -Shrub; PFO = Palustrine Forested; PUB= Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom; E2EM= Estuarine
Intertidal Emergent; Modifiers (-B, -E, -H, -N, -x et cetera) = Water Regimes for saturated (B), permanent ponding (H), regularly flooding (N,
and excavated (x).
B. Brinson, M. M. (1993).
C. Ecology rating according to Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised Hruby (2014).
D. FWRC 19.145.420(1) definition.
E. FWRC 19.145.420(2) buffer standards.
F. Off -site rating estimated.
G. Interrupted buffer does not extend onsite.
H. Size estimated offsite.
Wetland A
Wetland A is 466 square feet (0.01 acre) in size, and is located in the northwestern portion of the
subject property. Hydrology for Wetland A is primarily provided by seasonally -high groundwater table
provided through hillside seeps. Wetland vegetation is dominated by salmonberry and skunk cabbage.
Wetland A is a Palustrine Scrub -Shrub, Saturated wetland. Under FWRC 19.145.420.1, Wetland A is
a Category IV slope wetland. Table 3 summarizes Wetland A.
Wetland B
Wetland B is 94,825 square feet (2.18 acres) in size, and is located in the eastern portion of the subject
property. Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081' Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 7 April 20, 2017
seasonally -high groundwater table provided through hillside seeps. Wetland vegetation is dominated
by red alder with an understory of salmonberry, swamp gooseberry, red osier dogwood, sticky currant,
devil's club, slough sedge, skunk cabbage, piggy -back plant, lady fern, giant horsetail, and field
horsetail. Wetland B is a Palustrine Forested, Scrub -Shrub, and Emergent, Saturated wetland. Under
FWRC 19.145.420.1, Wetland B is a Category IV slope wetland. Table 4 summarizes Wetland B.
Off -Site Wetland C
The off -site Wetland C is approximately 63,333 square feet (1.45 acres) in size, and is located on the
west side of 44`' Avenue SW on private property west of the subject property on King County Tax
Parcel Number 1121039080. Wetland C vegetation is dominated by cat tails, with a border of red alder
and cottonwood. The off -site Wetland C is likely a Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently
Flooded excavated wetland (PUBHx). In historical aerial imagery, it appears that between 1936 and
1964 this wetland feature was excavated and created into a pond feature. Likely under previous
conditions, this was an emergent wetland but its hydroperiod was altered sometime between 1936 and
1964 based on our best professional judgement. Under FWRC 19.145.420.1, the off -site Wetland C is
likely a Category IV depressional wetland. 44`' Avenue SW constitutes a wetland buffer interruption
per FWRC 19.145.440.4. As this wetland is located off -site, no detailed table is provided.
Off -Site Wetland D
The off -site Wetland D is approximately 375,830 square feet (8.63 acres) in size, and is located east of
the subject property within Dumas Bay Park. Wetland D is located on the opposite side of the off -
site 10-foot to 12-foot wide, compacted gravel trail/access road. The off -site Wetland D is likely a
Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Regularly Flooded (E2EMN) depressional wetland as well as a
Palustrine Forested and Scrub -Shrub Saturated slope wetland. Under FWRC 19.145.420.1, the off -site
Wetland D is likely a Category I estuarine wetland. The gravel compacted trail constitutes a wetland
buffer interruption per FWRC 19.145.440.4. As this wetland is located off -site, no detailed table is
provided.
1279,0002 — 4301 SW 308th Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 8 April 20, 2017
Table 3. Wetland A Sunimary
WETLAND A— INFORMATION SUMMARY
Located in the northwestern portion of the subject property on the north and south
Location:
sides of Stream Z.
Local jurisdiction
Federal Way
9—
'
WRIA
Duwamish/Green
River Watershed
Ecology Rating
IV
Hrub , 2014
Federal Way Rating
IV
Federal Way Buffer
40 feet
Width
Wetland Size
466 square feet
Cowardin Classification
PSSB
HGM Classification
Slope
Wetland Data Sheet(s)
DP-1
DP-2
Upland Data Sheet (s)
W
Boundary Flag color
Orange
Dominant Wetland A is dominated by salmonberry
and skunk cabbage.
Vegetation
Soils within the wetland were observed to have a dark brown gravelly sandy loam in the
Soils
upper layer with a depleted greenish gray gravelly sand matrix with prominent
redoximo hic concentrations in the lower layer with a hydrogen sulfide aroma.
Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by a seasonally -high groundwater table provided
Hydrology
through hillside see s.
Rationale for
Wetland boundaries were determined by topographic drop and a transition to hydrophytic
Delineation
2lant community.
Rationale for
Local rating is based upon Ecology's current rating system and FWRC Title 19.145.420.
Local Rating
Wetland Functions Summary
Wetland A has an extremely low potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface
runoff due to the small size and moderate sloping that do not retain water long enough
Water Quality
to provide significant water quality improvements. Wetland A's score for Water Quality
Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (5).
The wetland does not have dense uncut rigid plants that slow the flow of water enough
Hydrologic
to provide decent hydrologic improvements downstream. Wetland A's score for
Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is very low (3).
Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small forage and cover,
Habitat
small bird forage. Wetland A's score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method is low
4.
Buffer
The buffer surrounding Wetland A is dominated by big leaf maple, western hemlock, and
Condition
swordfem.
1279.0002 - 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 9 April 20, 2017
Table 4_ Wetland B Snimnary
WETLAND B — INFORMATION SUMMARY
Located in the eastern portion of the subject site along the hillside surrounding Stream
Location:
Z.
Local Jurisdiction Federal Way
9 -
-
:~ WRIA Duwamish/Green
River Watershed
T
r Ecology Rating IV
;h Hrub , 2014
Federal Wav Rating IV
Federal Way Buffer 40 feet
'• '# Width
Wetland Size 94,825 square feet
Cowardin PFO/SS/EMB
Classification
HGM Classification Slope
- - w- Wetland Data Sheets DP-3
{F. ' Upland Data Sheets DP-2
y
`
ti ' Boundary Flag color Orange
Wetland B is dominated by red alder with an understory of salmonberry, swamp
Dominant
gooseberry, red osier dogwood, sticky currant, devil's club, slough sedge, skunk cabbage,
Vegetation
i -back plant, lady fern, and giant and field horsetail.
Soils within the wetland were observed to have a greyish black sandy mucky mineral soil
Soils
in the upper layer with a depleted sand layer below. Hydric soil indicators A4 and S1 were
observed for hydrogen sulfide aroma and sandy muc mineral soil texture.
Hydrology for Wetland B, provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a
Hydrology
seasonally -high gloundwater table provided through hillside seeps.
Rationale for
Wetland boundaries were determined by point of saturation and a transition to
Delineation
h dro h tic plant community.
Rationale for
Local rating is based upon Ecology's current rating system and FWRC 19.145.420(1).
Local Rati
Wetland Functions Summary
Wetland B has a lower potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff
due to its sloped topography and but has many plants that characteristically trap sediments
Water Quality
and pollutants to provide an overall moderate potential to contribute to water quality.
Wetland B's score for Water quality Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (5).
Wetland B has a moderately low potential to provide hydrologic function to the landscape
and society as it is not located near an area that generates excess runoff but does have
Hydrologic
dense plants thick enough to remain erect during surface flows. Wetland B's score for
Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is low (4),
Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small forage and cover,
and it provides adequate special habitat features such as large, downed, woody debris and
Habitat
standing snags but also has less than 25% cover of invasive species, allowing abundant
native vegetative growth. Wetland B's score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method
is moderate (6).
Buffer
The buffer surrounding Wetland B is dominated by western hemlock, English ivy, big -
Condition
leaf maple, osoberry, false -lily -of -the -valley, and sword fern.
1279.0002 - 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 10 April 20, 2017
5 L2 Hpdxologp
Wetland hydrology appears to be from seasonally -high groundwater table as provided through hillside
seeps, and direct precipitation. Wetlands A and B are proximate to Stream Z but do not receive
overbank flooding.
5L3 Wetland Buffers
Wetlands A and B are Category IV wetlands under FWRC 19.145.420 and are subject to standard 40-
foot buffers. In addition, any buildings and other structures would require a 5-foot buffer setback
from the wetland buffer edge (FWRC 19.145.160). The buffers for the off -site Wetlands C and D do
not encumber the subject property due to the presence of 44`' Avenue SW to the west and the 10-
foot to 12-foot wide, compacted gravel trail/access road to east. The existing, linear improvements
are considered wetland buffer interruptions that meet the definition of a "permanently altered buffer"
under FWRC 19.145.440.4.
5 L 4 Wetland Functions
Using the rapid assessment method (WSDOT, 2000), the wetlands on the subject property (Wetlands
A and B) may provide very minimal if any water quality and hydrologic functions, such as sediment
and toxic removal, limited stormwater retention and infiltration, and water quality enhancement due
to their slope characteristics and position within the landscape.
Off -site Wetlands C and D may provide moderate functions for improving water quality including
sediment removal and nutrient and toxicant removal. However, Wetlands A and B onsite are unlikely
providing such functions above a de minimis level due to their sloped topography. The wetlands on
the subject property do not provide significant hydrologic function that would reduce flooding and
erosion, largely due to their slope characteristics and position in the landscape. Off -site Wetlands C
and D provided flood flow alteration due to their depressional hydrogeomorphic classifications.
Wetland D also provides erosion control and shoreline stabilization due to its abutting location to
Puget Sound.
Wetland A provides very minimal wetland habitat functions as the wetland unit has just one Cowardin
classification and one hydroperiod not suitable for aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, wetland -
associated mammals and birds, or general fish habitat.
Wetland B provides moderate habitat as the wetland unit has more than one Cowardin classification
providing diverse strata for general habitat suitability as well as the production of organic matter as
the emergent stratum encompasses 30 percent of the wetland unit. The wetland also provides habitat
for amphibians are there are enough areas of seasonal ponding pockets within the sloped topography.
This wetland does not support wetland associated mammals nor birds but provides native plant
richness as the unit has multi -strata and lacks significant invasive species.
Off -site Wetland C provides potential habitat for wetland -associated mammals as the unit is
permanently ponded. However, the permanent ponding may support invasive bull frog habitat rather
than native amphibian habitat that would thrive better under long -duration seasonal ponding. Wetland
C lacks downed woody debris.
Off -site Wetland D provides significant habitat for wetland associated birds, amphibians, and
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081" Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 11 April 20, 2017
invertebrates, general habitat suitability, and the production of organic matter due to its size and close
proximity to Dumas Bay Park. This wetland does not provided habitat for wetland -associated
mammals as the area of permanent ponding is extremely minimal.
None of the wetlands onsite are likely to provide any function of educational value, uniqueness, or
heritage to the best of our professional judgement. Off -site Wetland D has the potential to support
educational value and uniqueness as it is located within Dumas Bay Park along the shoreline.
Table 5. Functions and Values of Existing Wetlands.
Wetland
Function / ValueA
A B C D
Water Quality Functions
Sediment Removal
-
-
x x
Nutrient and Toxicant Removal
-
-
x x
Hydrologic Functions
Flood Flow Alteration
-
-
x
x
Erosion Control & Shoreline
Stabilization
x
Habitat Functions
Production & Export of Organic Matter
-
x
x
General Habitat Suitability
-
x
-
x
Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates
-
-
-
x
Habitat for Amphibians
-
x
-
x
Habitat for Wetland -Associated
Mammals
-
-
x
-
Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds
-
-
-
x
General Fish Habitat
-
-
-
x
Native Plant Richness
x
+
+
Special Characteristics
Educational or Scientific Value
-
- -
+
Uniqueness and Heritage
-
- -
x
A "-" means that the function is not present; "x" means that the function is present and is of lower quality; and "+" means the
function is present and is of higher quality.
5.2 Drainages
5.2.1 Overview
The site investigation identified one potentially -regulated waterbody on the subject property (Stream
Z) as discussed below.
Stream Z
The intermittent Stream Z flows from west to east across the subject property. Stream Z is
approximately 773 linear feet in length onsite, and originates from the off -site headwater Wetland C
to the west of the subject property. Stream Z flows onto the subject property through a culvert
underneath 441" Avenue SW. Stream Z then bisects the site through Wetlands A and B where is
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 308d, Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 12 April 20, 2017
discharges off -site into Wetland D and everntually to Dumas Bay of Puget Sound. Stream Z is
classified by the DNR Water Typing Map as a Type N (non -fish -bearing) stream. No documented
fish presence is indentified by the WDFW SalmonScape or PHS mapping tools. Observed stream
flow was very minimal for such above normal precipitation conditions. Stream Z is located within the
Duwamish/Green River Watershed (WRIA 9). A summary of Stream Z is provided in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Drainage Summary — Stream Z.
DRAINAGE INFORMATION SUMMARY
' Feature Name Stream Z
.may' •�4 �' Jk..
9 — Duwamish/Green
WRIA River
WA Stream Catalog # 1223838473262
.
i . c Local Jurisdiction Federal Way
Type N — Non -Fish
DNR Stream Type
Bearing
Local Stream Rating Type Ns
Buffer Width 35 feet
v• '9 9
Documented Fish Use None
• 3r � L
Stream Z enters the site from the west; flows to the east as it bisects the site; and
Location of Feature
discharges off -site to the east through the off -site Wetland D and into Puget
Sound.
Stream Z originates just upstream from the subject property on the east side of
Connectivity (where
Wetland C through a culvert and flows underneath 441' Avenue SW and onto
water flows from/to)
the subject property and discharges into Wetland D and Puget Sound
approximately 200 to 250 feet northeast of the site.
Under FWRC 19.145.270, Stream Z is subject to a 35-foot buffer. The on -site
Riparian/Buffer
buffer is vegetated with various species including salmonberry, slough sedge,
Condition
western red cedar, swordfem, cree in buttercup, and devil's club.
5.2.2 Stream Buffers
Stream Z is considered a Type Ns stream under FWRC 19-145.260. Type Ns streams are defined as
seasonal non -fish habitat streams. Per FWRC 19.145.270, Stream Z is subject to a standard 35-foot
buffer. In addition, any buildings and other structures would require a 5-foot buffer setback from the
stream buffer edge (FWRC 19.145.160).
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 13 April 20, 2017
5.3 Marine Shoreline of Dumas Bay (Puget Sound)
The northeastern portion of the subject property is located within 200 feet of the marine shoreline of
Dumas Bay and is therefore regulated under the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (FWSMP),
which became effective on December 2, 2011. The 200-foot limit of SMP jurisdiction is depicted on
site plan in Appendix C. Protected species that are potentially associated with Dumas Bay include:
Bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes
ruberrimus), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshanytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), killer whale
(Oninus orca), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus).
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 14 April 20, 2017
Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations
The results of the March 17, 2017, site investigation identified two wetlands (Wetlands A and B) and
one Type Ns stream (Stream Z) on the subject property. Wetlands A and B are Category IV wetlands.
Two off -site wetlands (Wetlands C and D) and the marine shoreline of Puget Sound were also
identified within 225 feet of the subject property. No other potentially -regulated wetlands,
waterbodies, or fish and wildlife habitat were identified on or near the subject property.
Federal Way has adopted the current wetland rating system used by WSDOE (Hruby, 2014). Per
FWRC 19.145.420, Wetlands A and B are subject to 40-foot standard buffers. Per FWRC 19.145.270,
Stream Z is subject to a 35-foot buffer. In addition, any buildings and other structures would require
a 5-foot buffer setback from the critical area buffer edge (FWRC 19.145.160). The buffers for the off -
site Wetlands C and D do not encumber the subject property due to the presence of 44`'' Avenue SW
to the west and the 10-foot to 12-foot wide, compacted gravel trail/access road to east. These existing,
linear improvements are considered wetland buffer interruptions that meet the definition of a
"permanently altered buffer" under FWRC 19.145.440.4.
Great blue heron breeding areas are considered priority areas by WDFW and are regulated as Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas under FWRC 19.145.26.5. The WDFW PHS map identifies a
previous (2010) great blue heron breeding area on the subject property, however, no great blue heron
individuals, roosting or nesting populations, or nests were observed during the March 2017
investigation. According to the Applicant, great blue heron nesting activity has not been observed
onsite since at least 2013. As great blue herons do not utilize the subject property for nesting purposes,
the erroneously mapped heron colony should not be regulated as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area under FWRC 19.145.26.
Due to a portion of the site being encumbered by wetlands, streams, and their associated buffers,
some buffer modification measures may be necessary for future development. All future critical areas
impacts proposed under the site development plan would need to be fully permitted and mitigated
through the City of Federal Way, WSDOE, and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In
addition, any critical areas located within 200 feet of the OHW of Puget Sound are regulated under
the City of Federal Way's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The 200-foot limit of SMP jurisdiction is
depicted on site plan in Appendix C.
In a December 2, 2008, memorandum from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
USACE, joint guidance is provided that describes waters that are to be regulated under section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) (USACE, 2010). This memorandum was amended on February 2, 2012
where the EPA and USACE issued a final guidance letter on waters protected by the CWA.
The 2012 guidance describes the following waters where jurisdiction would be asserted: 1) traditional
navigable waters, 2) interstate waters, 3) wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, 4) non -
navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent meaning they contain
water at least seasonally (e.g. typically three months and does not include ephemeral waters), and 5)
wetlands that directly abut permanent waters. The regulated waters are those associated with naturally
occurring waters and water courses and not artificial waters (i.e. stormwater pond outfalls). The 2012
memorandum further goes on to describe waters where jurisdiction would likely require further
analysis: 1) Tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, 2) Wetlands adjacent to
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 15 April 20, 2017
jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, and 3) Waters that fall
under the "other waters" category of the regulations. The onsite wetlands and stream likely meet this
criteria.
The onsite wetlands and stream likely have surface and/or subsurface connections to waters of the
United States; therefore, the onsite wetlands are likely regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. In
addition, WSDOE and the City of Federal Way will likely assert jurisdiction over all on -site wetlands
under their respective codes and regulations. Therefore, any future project with wetland impacts
should be designed to comply with all local, State, and Federal regulations and codes. Careful
consideration of the jurisdictional status of each wetland under each agency's regulatory authority is
critical before further project planning and design efforts involving potential wetland fill and/or
drainage impacts.
Based on preliminary design options, a future proposed project may impact wetland buffers, but will
likely avoid direct impacts to all potentially -regulated wetlands and streams. Under such a scenario,
wetland fill would be avoided, and State and Federal permitting would not likely be required for buffer
impacts only. Following final confirmation of site plans, establishment of wetland boundaries and
regulatory status by regulatory agencies, and with preliminaryregulatory coordination and site planning
efforts, temporary and permanent impacts can be better quantified.
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 308th Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wedand Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 16 April 20, 2017
Chapter 7. Closure
The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application
to this site. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally
exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set
forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional
opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the
operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due to such changes, our
observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part in the
future.
Wetland and OHW status and boundaries identified by SVC are based on conditions present at the
time of the site visit and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland and OHW boundaries are
validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the wetland and OHW boundaries by the
regulating agency provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the
boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are
modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification.
As wetlands and waterbodies are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities,
changes in boundaries may be expected; therefore, delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite
period of time. Regulatory agencies typically recognize the validity of wetland and OHW delineations
for a period of 5 years after completion of a delineation report. Development activities on a site 5
years after the completion of this assessment report may require reassessment of the wetland and
OHW delineations. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due
to such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly
or in part.
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 308th Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 17 April 20, 2017
Chapter 8. References
Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale, 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark
for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Publication No. 16-06-029. Final Review
Draft. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State Department of Ecology.
Olympia, Washington.
Cooke, S.S.,1997. Wetland Plants of Western Washington. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-
1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Way Revised Code, 2017. Chapter 19.145 — Environmentally Critical Areas.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press.
Seattle, Washington.
Munsell® Color, 2000. Munsell0 Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2001. Hydric Soils List in King County Area, Washington. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C.
Reed, P.B., Jr., 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands. National Summary. U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 (26.9).
Reed, P.B., Jr., D. Peters, J Goudzwaard, I. Lines, and F. Weinmann, 1993. Supplement to National List
of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest Region 9. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Supplement to
Biol. Rep. 88 (26.9).
Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle, 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual.• Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Ver2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar,
and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Washington State Legislator, 2016. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030. DNR
Water typing system. htp://apps.leg.wagov/wac/default.aspx?cite=222-16-030.
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 30811' Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report 18 April 20, 2017
Appendix A Methods and Tools
Table A-1. Methods and tools used to larenare the report.
Parameter
Method or Tool
Website
Reference
Stream
Department of Natural
Forest Practices Water Tvaingi
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030.
Classification
Resources (DNR)
http://www.stage.dnr.w%gov/forest
DNR Water typing system.
Water Typing System
practices/watertyping/
WAC 222-16-030:
Wetland Indicator
Northwest (Region 9)
http://www.fws.gov/nwi/bha/list8
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that
Status
(Reed, 1988) and
8.htrnl
occur in wetlands: Washington. Biological Report
Northwest (Region 9)
NERC-88/18.47 for National Wetlands Inventory,
Supplement (Reed et
Washington, D.C.
a-, 1993)
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993, Northwest supplement (Region 9)
species with a change in indicator status or added to the
Northwest 1988 list, wetland plants of the state of
Washington 1988. U.S. Department of Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service WELUT - 88 (26.9), Washington, D.C.
s
USDA Plant Database
s. + +
Website
Wetland Plants of
Cooke, S.S. 1997. Wetland Plants of Western Washington.
Western Washington
Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington.
s42.df
Flora of the Pacific
Northwest
ht :I wuu .washin oa.er + t s
Hitchcock, C.L. and A Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the
Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press,
s 1 /l ]=.0 -ht
Seattle, Washington.
Soils Data
NRCS Soil Survey
http://websoasurvey.nres.usda.gov/
Website
app / W ebSoilSurvey.aspx
Soil Color Charts
Munsell® Color. 2000. Munsell® Soil Color Charts.
New Windsor, New York.
Threatened and
Washington Natural
http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refde
Washington Natural Heritage Program (Data
Endangered
Species
Heritage Program
sk/datasearch/wnhpwetiands.pdf
published 07/24/15). Endangered, threatened, and
sensitive plants of Washington. Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural
Heritage Program, Olympia, WA
Washington Priority
http://wdffiv.wa.gov/hab/phspage.h
Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program (Data
Habitats and Species
tm
requested 09/21/16). Map of priority habitats and species
in project vicinity. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
Washington
hhtn://aans.wdfu•.acv.gcw/salmonsc
SalmonScape (Data requested on 09/21/16). Washington
sne/mom ]itml
SalmonScape
State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Species of Local
WDFW GIS Data
cn• . vIm i 1. f
Website
nsc e
Importance
and
://a w ftv.w . ovl th
web/.
Report
Federal Way Revised
httn://www-cadenublishine gomlW
Federal Way Revised Code — Environmentally Critical
A/FederalWay/
Preparation
Code
Areas Chapter 19.145
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 30811, Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report April 20, 2017
Appendix B Background Information
This Appendix includes a King County Parcel Map (B1), King County Flood Zone Map (B2), King
County Topographic Map (B3), Federal Way Critical Areas Map (B4), NRCS Soil Survey Map (B5),
USFWS NWI Map (B6), WDFW SalmonScape Map (B7), WDFW PHS Map (B8), and DNR Water
Typing Map (B9).
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report April 20, 2017
CL
C(a
G
V
L
LL
c
U
c
Y
c
5
� N
0
� U
7
fir' C
U U)
M
IW
T r_
4�u�
� r
' 0 U
s �t
r .9
uy
a
a
cu
Q
(a
cm
O
O_
O
F-
a
O
c
Y
c
cu
4-1
3.1
N
>
o�
V c
Y+�I
0
a
P4
N
0x
O p
cn O
C)
O �
o 'D
o �
N
Appendix B4. Federal W aV Uritical Areas Nia
City of Federal V4'EiylCriticai Areas Map
"Ic11)5ect Proper-.
: �piarl��al:�te!
r
sub-,ect PropertT-
ti 11 7
' _ r
L2gelnd
-;_.•ngci-, Basins Critical Areas Water Fear,res
�.
1iyla�jcz Crook Ercr.,;in tkazaro Area Lakes
Lowe-Grc®n RivL- Landsldc H¢e ara' Areas r- S canna a
Loner Puget Sound Weftnds 11998 CiFr Survey;
11,41 CrFNa 'ass'
NY11to IVpf 6nunl. e.a ...oc-r. �vn.b a. nrc.. R�'_1' JON41 3FtE iil'F
Ari_+3 AIAY EPV' £.ee VV r:s�e Eek7p !•: r+a �_ nM.r+zax
'{ fiiil.r tiM.r
i -
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report April 20, 2017
M.CL[ :d[
t
0
a
au
r4
S
0-
cu
Q
m
0
C
0
E
ca
a
•
C
D
.j
C
C3
M
d
�a
a
en
FL
IO
co
r3
2
Q
Ccu
G
5
H
8 F-
0
a z
CL o
U
N
a
L
5
S
D
S
U--
M
"a
yy
V
WQ�
[�i
7 Chi
Z d
z 0.
Z a
J
n
a
a
a
a
a
a
f�
LLL
<
1
2 m
2
2 d
2 4
m
1„
h
1
❑M
a
w
LO
sn
ii' �i
1z �i rzi
2 i
a
Z
z
z i
3 a=
3 a
5
zs
13
u
d
a
cx
a
n
a
�
�
n
At
m
�
S
C®
7.4
u u
u u
}
ti
J
_
b
[r
2 Z
Q
O
0
0
a
m
m
8 a
LW3p+
5
p9
1
�I �a
'itIrl
i+
�1
p a w z
rn
m
pp
2�
r. z
p�
8
a $
R
2 t
In iyGi!
W
li
0m
Y
dO
iL
IL
r�
r f•
,
r
!
i
r
,
r
l
M
X
Appendix C Site Plan
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081' Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report April 20, 2017
LTOZ `OZ ipd8 uodag 4uauissassV 3e T H pue uouvaugaa puuatA
DTJ s4uinjnsuoD enatepunoS ;aaPS m80£ IAS i0£t — Z000'6LZi
slaauS UIP,(l Q xipuaddV
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: 1279. 002 City/County: Federal I WaylKing Sampling Date:03/17/17
Applicant/Owner: Stephen Cleary State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): R. Peel and E. Swaim Section, Township, Range: 11. 21N 3E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 40
Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47-332603 Long:-122.38761 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy !.dam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑ No E (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes E No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes E No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes E No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes E No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes E No ❑
Remarks: All three wetland criteria observed.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover
1. Alnus rubra 60
2.
3.
4.
60
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft
1. Rubus s ctabilis 30
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
Y FAC
_
= Total Cover
Y FAC
Dominance Testworksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Acer circinatum
20
Y FAC
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3
OBL species x 1 =
4
FACW species x 2 =
5
FAC species x 3 =
50
= Total Cover
FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ftUP
species x 5 =
1. Lysichiton americanum
15
Y OBL
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Tolmeia menziesii
5
Y FAC
3. H acinthpi es non-scripta
5
Y NIL
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5
❑ Dominance Test is >50%
6
❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0'
7
❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
10.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
25
= Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft)
1
Hydrophytic
2.
Vegetation
= Total Cover
Present? Yes E No ❑
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-14 10YR 2/2 100
GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam
14-16 10YR 4/1 97
10YR 518 3 C M
GrSa Gravel) Sand
'Type: C=Concentration. D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
® Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks: Hydric soil indicator A4 observed.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required check all that apply)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
® High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
® Saturation (A3)
❑ Salt Crust (1311)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (84)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
❑ Drainage Patterns (610)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 12
Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks: Primary hydrologic indicators A2 and A3 observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0
�1
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: 1279.0002 City/County: Federal Wav/King Sampling Date:03/17/17
Applicant/Owner: Stephen Cleary State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): R. Peel and E. Swaim Section, Township, Range: 11, 21N. 3E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslo a Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 40
Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.32586 Long:-122.38718 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑ No ® (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks: No wetland criteria observed.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
% Cover
Ste? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnus rubra
30
Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Acer macrophyllum
20
Y FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3,
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
50
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ILft
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Rubus spectabilis 30 Y FAC
2
Total % Cover of: Multiply 6X.
3
OBL species x 1 =
4
_
FACW species x 2 =
5
FAC species 60 x 3 = 180
30
= Total Cover
FACU species 110 x 4 = 440
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ftUPL
species x 5 =
1. Hedera helix
90
Y FACU
Column Totals: 170 (A) 620 (B)
2.
3
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3_6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4
5
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ Dominance Test is >50%
6
❑ Prevalence Index is 153.0'
7
❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
10.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
90
= Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1'
Hydrophytic
2.
—
Vegetation
= Total Cover
Present? Yes ❑ No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10
_
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation critena not observed. Does not meet prevalence index.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-2
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) — % Color (moist) % -Type' LocZ Texture Remarks
0-13 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 SiLo Silt Loam. some or anus
13-16 2.5Y 3/2 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam
'Tvpe: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pare Lines, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Depth (inches):
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed.
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one reauired: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA
❑ High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 46)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Salt Crust (1311)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ®
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ®
Depth (inches):
Secondary Indicalors_(_2 or more regOrgd)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 413)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No primary nor secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Prol.ect/Site: 1279.0002 City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:03/17/17
Applicant/Owner: Stephen Cleary State: WA Sampling Point: DP3
Investigator(s): R. Peel and E. Swaim Section, Township, Range: 11, 21N, 3E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.32580 Long:-122.38710 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑ No N (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes N No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes N No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes N No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes N No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes N No ❑
Remarks: All three wetland criteria observed.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Testworksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft)
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer macrophvlIurn
45
Y FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2. Alnus rubra
30
Y FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
75
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A/B)
SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1
2
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3
OBL species x 1 =
4
FACW species x 2 =
5
FAC species x 3
= Total Cover
FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ft)
UPL species x 5
1. Lysichiton americanum
30
Y OBL
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Carex ohnu to
25
Y OBL
3. Tolmeia menziesii
20
Y FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. Hedera helix 10 N FACU
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5
N Dominance Test is >50%
6
❑ Prevalence Index is 153.0'
7
❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
10.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
85
= Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft)
1
Hydrophytic
2.
Vegetation
= Total Cover
Present? Yes N No ❑
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed. Meets dominance test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LocZ
Texture Remarks
0-10 10YR 3/1 100
SaMuMi Sandv Muckv Mineral
10-20 5Y 5/1 100
Sand Sand
'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
® Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
® Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks: Hydric soil indicators A4 and S1 observed.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators 2 or more required)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
® High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
4A, and 4B)
® Saturation (A3)
❑ Salt Crust (1311)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
® Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ®
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑
Depth (inches): 9
Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
(includes capillaryfrime)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Primary hydrologic indicators A2, A3 and C1 observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0
Appendix E Wetland Rating Forms
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 308th Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report April 20, 2017
Wetland name or number A
RATING SUMMARY —Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): 1279.0002 Wetland A
Rated by E. Swaim / R. Peel
HGM Class used for rating Slope
Date of site visit: 3/17/2017
Trained by Ecology? DYes ❑No Date of training 3/31/2016
Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ❑ Yes ❑No
NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth 2016
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions Dor special characteristics ❑)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I - Total score = 23 - 27
Category II - Total score = 20 - 22
Category III - Total score = 16 - 19
X Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat
Water Quality
List appropriate rating {N, M, Q
Site Potential L L L
Landscape Potential L L L
'Value H L M Total
Score Based on 5 3 4 12
Ratings
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC Category
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above X
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H, H, H
8 = H, H, M
7=H,H,L
7=H,M,M
6=H,M,L
6 = M, M, M
5 = H, L, L
5=M,M,L
4=M,L,L
3 = L, L, L
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)
D 1.1. D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin
D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
D 3.3
Rivprine Weflnnrk
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
H 1.2
Ponded depressions
R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure)
R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure)
R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin
R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to another figure)
S 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
S 3.3
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington
For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit
with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to
Question 8.
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
0 NO - go to 2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) ❑ YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands.
If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be
used to score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it.
Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
0 NO - go to 3 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
❑ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
❑ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
121 NO - go to 4 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
0 The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
p The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps.
It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks.
0 The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
❑ NO - go to 5 0 YES - The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow
depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
❑ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding
from that stream or river,
❑ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
0 NO-goto6
❑ YES - The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at
some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland.
0 NO-goto7
❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding?
The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high
groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet.
0 NO-goto8
❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For
example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a
Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE
HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT
(make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for
the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of
the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10%
of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine
Riverine
Slope + Depressional
Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe
Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe
Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe
Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than
2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
SLOPE WETLANDS
WSWiiy lei =. i stars That the .site functians to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1 % slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in
elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1 % or less points = 3
2
Slope is > 1 % - 2% points = 2
Slope is > 2% - 5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff laver) is true clay or true organic
0
(use MRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense
means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or
mowed and plants are higher than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
1
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants >'/ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants >'/ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
3
Rating of Site Potential If score is: ❑ 12 = H ❑6 -11 = M E0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in
0
land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are
not listed in question S 2.1?
0
Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ❑1 - 2 = M DO = L
Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river,
1
lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where water quality is an issue?
1
At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for
maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in
2
which the unit is found? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
4
Rating of Value If score is: ❑I 2 - 4 = H ❑ 1 = M 2 0 = L
Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose
the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants
should be thick enough (usually > ' /8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. 0
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: ❑1 = M LJO = L
Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land
uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 01 = M p0 = L
Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of site has flooding
problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g.,
0
houses or salmon redds) points = 2,
Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood
0
conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
0
Rating of Value If score is: ❑2 - 4 = H ❑ 1 = M 0 0 = L
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6
Record the rating on the first page
WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the
Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be
combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac or more than 10 % of the unit if it is smaller
than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
❑ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
0
❑ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
p Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1
❑ Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
❑ The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime
has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or'/4 ac to count (see text for descriptions of
hydroperiods ).
❑ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
❑ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
1
❑ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
LZ Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0
❑ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
0 Seasonally flowing stream or in, or adjacent to, the wetland
❑ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
❑ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do
not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian rnilfail, reed canarygrass, purple
ioosestrffe, Canadian thistle
0
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 -19 species points = 1
5 species pints = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes
(described in H 1. 1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)
is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open
water, the rating is always high.
(*) (ffi )
0
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row are
HIGH = 3 points
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number
of points.
❑ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long)
❑ Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
❑ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends
at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at
least 33 ft (10 m) 1
❑ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning
(> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees
that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed)
❑ At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas
that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians)
Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see
H 1.1 for list of strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Site Potential If Score is: ❑ 15 -18 = H ❑ 7 -14 = M 0 0 - 6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site?
H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:
0.97 % undisturbed habitat + ( 0 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 0.97%
If total accessible habitat is:
0
>'/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wet#and.
Calculate:
18.23 % undisturbed habitat + { 2 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 19.23%
1
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon Points = 0
H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (-2)
-2
<_ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
-1
Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: ❑ 4 - 6 = H ❑ 1 - 3 = M E < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose
only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
❑ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
❑ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant
or animal on the state or federal lists)
❑ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 1
❑ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the
Department of Natural Resources
❑ It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or
regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a
watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above 2oints = 0
Ratina of Value If Score is- [ 12 = H I -V] 1 = M _1 n = L RornM tha ratinrr nn tha first nano
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDF (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in
which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species
List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.
htto://wdfw.wa.gov/p.ublications/00165/wdfwCO165.pdf _or access the list from here:
http : //wd f w. wa . g ov/co n se rvaf i o n /p h s /i i stl
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This
question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
❑ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
❑ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species
of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
❑ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
❑ Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest — Stands of at least 2 tree species,
forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha)
> 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests — Stands with average diameters
exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200
years old west of the Cascade crest.
❑ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy
coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 — see
web link above).
p Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
❑ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a
dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161— see web link above).
p Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that
interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
❑ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open
Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of
relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report — see web link on previous page).
❑ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the
earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
❑ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m),
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May
be associated with cliffs.
❑ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay
characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast
height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12
in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are
addressed elsewhere.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
CATFrX)RI7_►4TION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Category
Check off any criteria that a22!Z to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met,
SC 1.0. Estuarine Wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
❑ The dominant water regime is tidal,
❑ Vegetated, and
❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt
❑ Yes - Go to SC 1.1 p No = Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary
Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific
Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
❑ Yes = Category I 0 No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing,
and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are
Spartina , see page 25)
At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un
grazed or un-mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with
open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
❑ Yes = Category I 0 No = Cateaory II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list
of Wetlands of High Conservation Value?
❑Yes - Go to SC2.2 ONo - Go to SC2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
❑ Yes = Category I 0 No = Not WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://wwwl.dnr.wa. ov/nho/refdesk/datasearch/wnhr)wetiands.l)df
❑ Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 p No = Not WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation
Value and listed it on their website?
❑ Yes = Category I 0 No = Not WHCV
SC 3.0. Bags
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation
in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the
wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks,
that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile?
❑Yes - Go to SC 3.3 0 No - Go to SC3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are
less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic
ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond?
❑ Yes - Go to SC 3.3 0 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground
level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4?
❑ Yes = Is a Category I bog 0 No - Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may
substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at
least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,
the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir,
western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann
spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed
in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
L.' Yes = Is a Category I bog 07 No = Is not a bogi
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number A
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these
criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you
answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
❑ Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species,
forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac
(20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height
(dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
❑ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80-
200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh)
exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
❑ Yes = Catesory I p No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
❑ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially
separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently,
rocks
❑ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or
brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to
be measured near the bottom)
❑ Yes - Go to SC 5.1 0 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing),
and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of
species on p. 100).
❑ At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un
grazed or un-mowed grassland.
❑ The wetland is larger than'/10 ac (4350 ftz)
❑ Yes = Category 1 ❑ No =Category II
5C 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland
Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland
based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
❑ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
❑ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
❑ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
❑ Yes - Go to SC 6.1 ❑ No = Not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form
(rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)?
❑ Yes = Category I 0 No - Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
❑ Yes = Category II 0 No - Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and
1 ac?
❑ Yes = Categou IH 0 No = Categm IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #) 1279.0002 Wetland B
Rated by R. Peel and E. Swaim
HGM Class used for rating Slope
Date of site visit: 3/17/2017
Trained by Ecology? 0 Yes ❑ No Date of training 3/31/2016
Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ❑ Yes [Z No
NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth 2016
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions Oor special characteristics ❑)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I - Total score = 23 - 27
Category II - Total score = 20 - 22
Category III - Total score = 16 - 19
X Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15
Improving
Hydrologic
Habitat
FUNCTION
Water Quality
I
I
List appropriate rating (H, M, Q
Site Potential
L
M
M
Landscape Potential
M
L
L
Value
M
L
H
Total
Score Based on
5
4
6
15
Ratings
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC
Category
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above
X
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H, H, H
8 = H, H, M
7 = H, H, L
7 = H, M, M
6 = H, M, L
6=M,M,M
5=H,L,L
5 = M, M, L
4=M,L,L
3=L,L,L
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Deoressional Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)
D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin
D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:
To answer questions:
Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods
H 1.2
Ponded depressions
R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland {can be added to another figure)
R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure)
R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin
R 2.2, R 2.3. R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
SlopeWet_lands
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
R2 WSDOT Adapted Form -January 14, 2015
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington
For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit
with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to
Question B.
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
O NO - go to 2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
121 NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) ❑ YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands.
If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be
used to score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it.
Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
121 NO - go to 3 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
❑ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
❑ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
21 NO - go to 4 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
D The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
p The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps.
It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks.
The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
❑ NO-goto5
2 YES - The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow
depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
❑ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding
from that stream or river,
❑ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
0 NO-goto6
❑ YES - The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at
some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland.
El NO-goto7
❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding?
The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high
groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet.
0 NO-goto8
❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For
example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a
Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE
HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT
(make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for
the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of
the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10%
of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine
Riverine
Slope + Depressional
Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe
Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe
Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe
Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than
2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
SLOPE WETLANDS
WKy Ftln0fl0(VS - Indicator-s that the site functions to ilnfrrovewater quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1 % slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in
elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1 % or less points = 3
0
Slope is > 1 % - 2% points = 2
Slope is > 2% - 5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface or duff la er is true clay or true organic
0
(use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense
means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or
mowed and plants are higher than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
3
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > Y2 of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants >'/z of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > Y4 of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes abovel
3
Rating of Site Potential If score Is: Li 7Z = ri Lib - 11 = m Vu - a = L- ncwju inc Iauny v 1 111- 111- r -&-
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in
land uses that generate pollutants?
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are
not listed in question S 2.1?
Other Sources
Total for S 2 Add the poir
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 01 - 2 = M A = L
1
Yes = 1 No =
0
Yes=1 No=O
in the boxes above 1
Record the rating on the first page
Rating of Value If score is: Li 2 - 4 = H 211 = M O 0 = L Kecora the rating on the rrrsr page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose
the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants
should be thick enough (usually > 11, in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. 1
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: Fj7]1 = M ❑0 = L
Record the rating on the first page
3 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
3 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land 0
ises or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ❑1 = M DO = L
Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of site has flooding
problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g.,
0
houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood
0
conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
0
Rating of Value If score is: ❑2 - 4 = H ❑ 1 = M [DO = L
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7
Record the rating on the first page
WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
R8 WSDOT Adapted Form -January 14, 2015
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
Wetland name or number B
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the
Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be
combined for each class to meet the threshold of is ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller
than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
❑ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
2
❑ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
0 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1
0 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
P1 The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime
has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of
hydroperiods ).
❑ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
❑ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
1
❑ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
El Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0
❑ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
0 Seasonally flowing stream or in, or adjacent to, the wetland
❑ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
❑ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do
not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple
loosestrife, Canadian thistle
1
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes
(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)
is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open
water, the rating is always high.
L�
2
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row are
HIGH = 3 points
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number
of points.
0 Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long)
121 Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
❑ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends
at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at
least 33 ft (10 m) 4
p Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning
(> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees
that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed)
p At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas
that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians)
❑ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see
H 1.1 for list of strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes abovel 10
Rating of Site Potential If Score is: L 15 - 18 = H LI 1 - 14 = M L u - o = L rcecoia ine iduny un u1C Orroe Ndyc
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site?
H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:
1 % undisturbed habitat + ( 0 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 1%
If total accessible habitat is: 0
>'/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10 % of 1 km Polygon ooints = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:
20 % undisturbed habitat + ( 2 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 21 %
1
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (-2) -2
<_ 50% of 1km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -1
Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: ❑ 4 - 6 = H ❑ 1 - 3 = M 2 < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose
only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
21 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
❑ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant
or animal on the state or federal lists)
❑ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2
❑ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the
Department of Natural Resources
❑ It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or
regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a
watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 01 1
Rating of Value If Score is 0 2 = H ❑ 7 = M ❑,0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in
which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species
List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.
htt ://wdfw.wa. ovl ubiications/001651wdfw00165. Of or access the list from here:
htt://wdfw.wa. ov/conservation) hs/listl
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This
question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
❑ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
❑ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species
of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
❑ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
❑ Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest — Stands of at least 2 tree species,
forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha)
> 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests — Stands with average diameters
exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200
years old west of the Cascade crest.
❑ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy
coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 — see
web link above).
p Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
❑ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a
dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 — see web link above).
p Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that
interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
p Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open
Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of
relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report — see web link on previous page).
❑ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the
earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
❑ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m),
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May
be associated with cliffs.
❑ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay
characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast
height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12
in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 12 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
addressed elsewhere.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Type I Category
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
SC 1.0. Estuarine Wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
❑ The dominant water regime is tidal,
❑ Vegetated, and
❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt
❑ Yes - Go to SC 1.1 E No = Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary
Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific
Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
❑ Yes = Cate o I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing,
and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are
Spartina , see page 25)
At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-
grazed or un-mowed grassland.
❑ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with
open water. or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
Yes = Category I ,1 No = Catenory II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list
of Wetlands of High Conservation Value?
❑Yes - Go to SC2.2 2No-Go to SC2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
❑ Yes = Category I E No = Not WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
hftp:l/wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nh/refdesk/detasearch/wnh wetlands. df
❑ Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 0 No = Not WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation
Value and listed it on their website?
❑ Yes = Cate"gou I No = Not WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation
in bogs? Use the key below. if you answer YES you will still need to rate the
wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks,
that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile?
❑Yes - Go to SC3.3 No - Go to SC3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are
less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic
ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond?
❑Yes - Go to SC3.3 9 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground
level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4?
❑ Yes = Is a Category I bog 0 No - Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may
substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at
least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,
the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir,
western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann
spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 14 WSDOT Adapted Form January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number B
in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
❑ Yes =
i] No = Is not a
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Weiland name or numoer es
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 Conti uous acre of forest that meets one of these
criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you
answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
^i Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest). Stands of at least two tree species,
forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac
(20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height
(dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
❑ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are
200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameterr (dbh)
exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
❑ Yes = Cateq0rV I 21 No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
❑ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially
separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently,
rocks
❑ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or
brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to
be measured near the bottom)
❑ Yes - Go to SC 5.1 B No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing),
and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of
species on p. 100).
❑ At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un
grazed or un-mowed grassland.
z
❑ The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft) 0 No = Categoryit
❑ Yes = CategoryI
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland
Ownership or WBUO)? /f you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland
based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
❑ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
❑ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
❑ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
❑ Yes - Go to SC 6.1 ❑ No = Not an Interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form
(rates H,H,H or H.H,M for the three aspects of function)?
El Yes = Category 1 No - Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1❑a Noor larger? Go to SC 6.3
El Yes - Category II
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and
El1 ac? p No = Cate o IV
Yes =Cate ❑ III
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter "Not A licable" on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015
MS ahy 415Z
26th Ave Sco
_
G � �
f
s�
..
Ave�'
J
eo�r.
CD
qW�
V
I+�J
0 []
Ccn
Appendix F Qualifications
All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland boundary delineations, OHW determinations, habitat
assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Lie and IJelinea62 d Fis and
wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared for 4301 SW 30e Street in the City of Federal
Way, Washington, were prepared by, or under the direction of Jeremy Downs and Matt DeCaro of
SVC. In addition, report preparation was performed by Matt DeCaro and Melissa Cole, and site
inspections were performed by Richard Peel and Emily Swain.
Jeremy Downs
Principal Scientist/Environmental Planner
Professional Experience: 25 years
Jeremy Downs is a Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner with professional training and
extensive experience in land use, site planning and design, project coordination, permitting and
management, marine and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and eelgrass
delineations and assessments, biological assessments, benthic surveys, stream assessments, underwater
and terrestrial monitoring programs, and mitigation planning.
Jeremy earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology with an emphasis in Marine Biology from the
University, of California, Davis. He also holds graduate -level professional certifications in various
advanced wetland science and management programs from both Portland State University and San
Francisco State University, and be has received professional training in Salmonid Biology from the
University of California Extension. In addition, he studied under the Environmental Risk and
Recovery program at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and he has extensive training and
field experience in aquatic related disciplines such as diving, boat operations, and navigation.
Jeremy is a certified wetlands delineator under US Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. He has been
formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of
Ordinary High Water Mark, Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, and
Reviewing Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and
Washington State Department of Ecology, and in conducting Biological Assessments from the
Washington Department of Transportation. He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist
and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions.
Matt DeCaro
Environmental Scientist/Project Manager
Professional Experience: 8 years
Matt DeCaro is an Environmental Scientist and Project Manager with a diverse background in
environmental compliance, project management, water quality, environmental due diligence, and site
remediation. Matt earned a Bachelor of Science degree with a focus in Environmental Science from
the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, with additional graduate -level coursework and
research in aquatic restoration and salmonid ecology. He has attended USFW$ survey workshops for
multiple threatened and endangered species, and participated on scores of biological assessments and
evaluations for private and federal projects throughout the western United States. His experience
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 308th Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report April 20, 2017
includes NEPA compliance for federal projects; spotted owl surveys on federal and private lands; and
noxious weed abatement.
Matt currently provides permitting and regulatory compliance assistance for land use projects from
their planning stages through review, approval, and construction for Soundview Consultants LLC.
Matt conducts code and regulation analysis; conducts wetland and stream delineations and fish &
wildlife habitat assessments; provides land use planning assistance for residential, commercial, and
industrial projects; prepares reports and permit applications for local, State, and Federal review; and
provides restoration and mitigation design. He has been formally trained in the use of the Washington
State Wetland Rating System and Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark by the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Richard Peel
Wetland Scientist
Professional Experience: 5 years
Richard Peel is a Wetland Scientist with diverse professional experience in wetland ecology,
monitoring, and delineation throughout Washington and Oregon. Richard is Washington State trained
in conducting wetland delineations, assessing wetland systems, mitigation planning and design,
implementation of monitoring programs, mitigation monitoring and reporting. He also has extensive
experience in an analytical laboratory using state-of-the-art equipment in bacteriological and chemical
analysis of soil and water samples.
Richard is a graduate of The Evergreen State College, with dual degrees in Ecology and Economics.
He has focused his academic career on ecology, disturbance ecology, chemistry, and the economic
impacts of current environmental management. Richard has extensive training and field experience
in wetland related disciplines, and has experience in wetland both east and west of The Cascades. He
has been trained by The Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDC►T) Wedand
Ecology and Monitoring team in the use of the wetland delineation, mitigation, monitoring, and
restoration techniques. In addition, he was directed by WSDOT"s Wetland Protection and
Preservation Policy to ensure wetlands are preserved and protected whenever possible. This direction
ensures no net loss in the quantity or quality of wetlands in the future and,r,;nirnization of impacts to
wetlands in the present.
Emily Swaim
Wetland Scientist
Professional Experience: 3 years
Emily Swaim is a Wetland Scientist and Field Geologist with a background in conducting Phase 1,11
and III Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), underground natural gas pipeline and overhead
electrical transmission line project assessment and environmental inspections, construction oversight,
stormwater compliance inspections, soil sampling, delineating and assessing wetland and aquatic
systems, and stormwater, floodplain, and wetland permitting. Ms. Swaim's expertise focuses on
projects involving sensitive wetland and stream habitats where extensive team coordination and
various regulatory challenges must be carefully and intelligently managed from project inception to
completion.
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 3081h Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report April 20, 2017
Emily earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Illinois State University and Wetland
Science and Management Professional Certification from the University of Washington, Seattle. She
is also educated in Environmental Science from Iowa State University. Her education and experience
has provided her with extensive knowledge on soils, wetland science, hydrogeology, sedimentology,
environmental law, environmental geology, landscape ecology, and structural geology. Ms. Swaim has
been formally trained in Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) and
is Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 30-hour Construction and 10-hour
Construction certified
Melissa Cole
Staff Scientist
Professional Experience: 5 years
Melissa Cole is a Staff Scientist with a background in research writing, project management, peer
review, executing scopes of work, budgeting and financing, organizing and attending technical science
seminars, public outreach, data entry and analysis, Phase I and Phase II environmental site
assessments, soil sampling, soil vapor sampling, soil excavation monitoring, field classification of soils,
stormwater surveying, water sampling, asbestos sampling, lead in water sampling, lead in paint
sampling, noise monitoring, radon sampling, tree height / width and condition measurements, tree
density measurements, seedling and sapling counting, analyzing grazing conditions, statistical analysis,
and research presentation.
Melissa received a Bachelor of Science degree from San Jose State University in Environmental Studies
with a minor in Biology. This program provided her with a strong background in natural resource
management, environmental laws and regulations, habitat conservation, and environmental
restoration. Melissa's interest in habitat conservation drove her to minor in Biological Science where
she had courses in botany, zoology, computer literacy, biostatistical analysis, and ecology.
1279.0002 — 4301 SW 308th Street Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland Delineation and Habitat Assessment Report April 20, 2017
March 2012 sa�� n�',. h
a �n
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species
FOR USE TO GUIDE SITE SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT OF PRIORITY SPECIES
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
This abbreviated version of a chapter in Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species:
Volume IV (see http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00026/) has been streamlined for easier application.
Where applicable, these recommendations should be put into practice consistently across a landscape to be
most effective. The following recommendations are not site -specific. Where available, a professional in a
relevant field (e.g., wildlife biologist) should evaluate the site and surrounding landscape when applying
these recommendations.
Attach parcel map with species location indicated if available.
INITIAL PLANNING TO PROTECT A GREAT BLUE HERON COLONY:
• Begin by identifying the Heron Management Area (HMA). An HMA consists of the nesting colony,
year-round and seasonal buffer, foraging habitat, and when present, a pre -nesting congregation area.
• All survey activity such as nest tree identification and flagging should occur in the non -breeding (mid -
September to mid -February) season, and preferably right after breeding season ends.
• Identify the nesting colony's boundary. To do this, flag all nest trees at the colony's outer perimeter.
Mark each of these trees on a map. If a nest tree's canopy overlaps the canopy of an adjacent tree, flag
the adjacent tree and consider this to be a nest tree. The outermost nest trees will be used to map the
nesting colony boundary.
• Map outer perimeter of year-round buffer. The width of this buffer depends on the setting within a '/a
mile of the nesting colony (Table 1). Using the buffer as a radius, draw a circle around each peripheral
nest tree. The outer edge of each circle will serve as the perimeter of the year-round buffer (Fig. 1).
Tahla 1 RPr-nmrnended vear-round huffers.
Year-round Buffers
Feet
Setting
% built within 1/a Hole of the nest colony
984
Undeveloped
0 - 2%
656
Suburban/Rural
2 - 50%
197 a
Urban
>_ 50%
When birds in an urban area exhibit behavior indicative of a low tolerance to people, assign the 300 meter buffer
regardless of setting.
Volume IV: Birds Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Figure 1. The left diagram shows the outer perimeter nest trees in a colony. In the middle each outer peri-
meter nest tree was given a 300 in buffer. The right diagram shows the final colony buffer area.
• Map seasonal buffer (Table 2) if any unusually loud activities will occur during breeding (i.e., Febru-
ary — September). These activities should not occur inside of the seasonal buffer during this period.
Measure the seasonal buffer starting at the outer edge of the year-round buffer.
Table 2. Recommended seasonal buffers.
Seasonal Buffers a
Meters
Feet
Land Use Activity
200
656
Any unusually loud land use activity
1,000
3,280
Blasting
Locate potential foraging habitat by mapping all waterbodies within a 1.9 mile radius of the colony.
The perimeter and shallow portions are especially important for foraging.
In some colonies outlying satellite nests can be found. These usually are represented by no more than a
handful of active or inactive nests located far from the nearest neighboring nest in the heart of the co-
lony. Although these are a part of the larger nesting colony and should be protected, do not use them
to map the colony's outer boundary. A satellite nest is any nest located a distance of no less than twice
the length of the colony's year-round buffer from its nearest neighboring nest.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS:
COLONY AND YEAR-ROUND BUFFER
• Avoid any entry into an active nesting colony or year-round buffer during breeding season (mid -
February to mid -September).
• Avoid clearing vegetation, grading, and construction.
• Direct trails away and close access during the breeding season (February to September).
• Allow low impact recreation, like hiking, only during the non -breeding season (mid -September to mid -
February).
• Limit vegetation removal to enhance wildlife habitat (e.g., eradicating invasive vegetation) or to treat a
fire -prone stand. Perform these activities in the non -breeding season under careful supervision of a
wildlife biologist. When removing vegetation, avoid noticeable loss of visual screening to the nests.
• When feasible, exclude human entry into the nesting colony and year-round buffer by use of fencing or
by planting dense thickets of vegetation (see Fencing with Wildlife in Mind).
Volume IV: Birds Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
INCURSIONS INTO A COLONY OR YEAR-ROUND BUFFER
• We discourage most activities in the nesting colony and year-round buffer, especially during breeding
season. After all options to protect a colony or buffer have been exhausted, you should follow these
recommendations:
1. Avoid all disturbances during in the breeding season (February to September).
2. Avoid any clearing, grading, or construction in the year-round buffer (and especially in
the colony proper). When unavoidable, keep the activity as far as possible and out of the
line of sight of active nests. We encourage screening by way of vegetation or topography.
3. Mitigate project impacts.
SEASONAL BUFFER, PRE -NESTING AREAS, AND ALTERNATE NEST SITES
Avoid unusually loud activities in the seasonal buffer area during the breeding season.
Minimize disturbance in pre -nesting congregations when herons are present. Pre -nesting congregations
are generally close to the nesting colony (< 1 km) and are discernable by an aggregation of birds out-
side the nesting colony from February to March, and as early as January.
Protect several alternate nesting sites of at least 10 acres with dominant trees of at least 56 feet high
within one kilometer of the colony. Options for finding ideal alternate nesting stands include:
1. Centering a stand on a satellite nest when outlying satellite nests are present.
2. Using the site of a former colony. Do not use a former nesting site if it likely was va-
cated due to nearby permanent (e.g., homes) or long-term (e.g., clear cut) disturbance.
3. Find a forest stand with similar tree structure and species makeup to the active nest stand.
FORAGING HABITAT
• Do not disturb potential foraging habitat between March and September.
• Establish adequate riparian buffers such as those recommended in the PHS Riparian Guidelines.
• Minimize the following activities where herons feed:
— removal of aquatic vegetation, especially native eelgrass.
— use of all watercraft within 590 feet of shallow waters where herons forage.
— logging mature forest close to nearshore foraging habitat.
— removing perch trees adjacent to foraging areas.
— draining, filling, or dredging wetlands or marshes.
— building close to riparian shorelines.
FORMER NESTING COLONIES
• All recommendations applying to an active colony should remain in effect for 10 years after nesting
ended at former colony, with the exception of entering a former colony when herons are absent for
uses that will not alter the habitat, like hiking or dog walking.
MANAGEMENT OF URBAN COLONIES
Avoid new activities that add to the intensity of disturbance a colony has historically tolerated (see
Page 11 of the full-length recommendations for guidance).
Avoid further infringement where development exists in the recommended year-round buffer. When
more infringement will occur, avoid it happening during breeding, and large or novel events are not
recommended at any time. A plan should be written to mitigate for habitat loss.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
• You should develop a habitat management plan whenever a proposal is submitted for an area in or near
an HMA. This detailed report outlines where there is habitat, any planned incursions or habitat im-
pacts, and a strategy for limiting impacts. See Page 12 of the full-length recommendations for more
guidance.
Volume IV: Birds Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife