Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
19-101611
� I _ CITY HALL CITY 0F Federal Way, , Avenue South J Federal Way Federal Way, WA 3) 835-6325 7000 (253) 835-7000 V; www.cifyoffederalway.com Centered on Opportunity Jim Ferrell, Mayor Mr. Eric Labrie November 13, 2019 ESM Consulting Engineers LLC 33400 8th Avenue South, Suite 205 Federal Way, WA 98003 FILE eric.labrie@esmcivil.com Re: File #19-101611-AD; CRITICAL AREA DETERMINATION Wall Property, 3020118th Avenue SW, Federal Way Dear Mr. Labrie: The City of Federal Way has completed the peer review process to identify the baseline conditions at the above referenced property for the purpose of on -site septic application submittal to the King County Health Department for a future short plat. The city agrees with the steam classification (Type F) and buffer width determination (100 feet) for the stream running north and south along the west property line and adjacent to 20t' Place SW. T-le OHWM along the Type F stream and stream buffet of 100 feet should be depicted on any development proposal to ensure compliance with Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145, Additional land use preview is required for any fixture development proposal that may intrude into the stream buffer per FWRC 19.145.330. Per FWRC 19.145.240, the subject property is located within an area underlain by soils considered to be an erosion hazard and do not contain standard buffers. All proposed improvements within an erosion hazard area or seismic hazard area shall follow the recommendations within the geotechnical report, prepared by Earth Solutions, LLC, to ensure the improvements will not adversely affect geologic hazards. Temporary erosion control measures and Best Management Practices prepared by the project civil e4neers shall be reviewed, approved, and installed prior to construction. Regulated Wetlands per FWRC 19.145.410 are not present on the site. Should you have any questions about this letter or your property, I can be reached at 253-835-2638, or natalie.karriieriiecki@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, r Natalie Kamieniecki Associate Planner enc: Site Plan c Jeffery Wall 30201 181h Avenue SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Doc 1-D. 79821 19-1016 1 1-00-AD t-- RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. MARKUP FOR OCT. 16, 2016 REVISED CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN REPORT ' 1 6*ANQ- AS M STREAM CULVERT 12' CPP IE 209.1 TOP OF DITCH BANK CATCH BASIN RIM 214.1 12' CPP E IE 212.2• / 1 01 t 4/ / U) 1 m r � L I [ I , I r ! r � I � / a A ! r Q I f N S I ~I o f I I I I I ! 1 R=925.37' L=280.64' I I I ! A=17.22'35" II I ++ ��'�: �� ■Illf+lltiiiiiil V DRAIN R .17 I Hou E PARCEL A f BLA 16-100077-00-SU ti� �Lr fPi{ 4B'I b r PARCEL B Y BLA 16-100077-00-SU I "r� 1 + LOT 3 1� � t I ! BLAESIWOOD PLAT I I If 5' POWER EASEMENT 19TH PL SW I 61 it 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 9' BUILDING POWER SET BACK LINE EASEMENT AFN7905010HB2 LOT 3 I- I SHORT PLAT 1277151 I AFN7910020898 r If- / I I Q III H II � TREE KEY Maple • Dou9las Fir Holly Hembck Alder Cedar • Cyprus Cedar Plum FIGURE 8 JEFFREY & KAREN WALL WALL SHORT PLAT FEDERAL WAY, WA CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND -- — PROPERTY LINES wL wL A wL ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE EXISTING CONTOURS -- — — — BUFFER LEGEND (UTILITIES) U CABLE MARKER POST ® CABLE RISER/ PEDESTAL QQ SS CLEANOUT CABLE VAULT/MANHOLE (s) SS MANHOLE �� SS MARKER POST CULVERT O SEPTICTANK OLUMINAIRE WITH ARM STORM CATCH BASIN LUMINAIRE 8 STORM MANHOLE # LANDSCAPE/YARD LIGHT STORM CLEANOUT ® STORM ROOF DRAIN ® NATURAL GAS MARKER POST STORM YARD DRAIN p NATURAL GAS METER 9 STORM MARKER POST ® PROPANE TANK p NATURAL GAS VALVE ® TELEPHONE CABINET M TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX ® POWER CONDUIT (D TELEPHONE RISER J. GUY ANCHOR Ilr TELEPHONE MARKER POST OG"'GUY POLE O TELEPHONE POLE 19 POWER JUNCTION BOX OT TELEPHONE VAULT/MANHOLE a POWER MARKER POST R1 POWERMETER O POWER POLE B WATER BLOW OFF PP Wf"' DROP LINE A FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION PP WITH DROP AND LIGHT it HOSE BIB PP WITH DROP, LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER ® IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE PP WITH DROP AND TRANSFORMER 0 WATER MARKER POST PP WITH LIGHT ANDTRANSFORMER ® WATER METER PP WITH LIGHT ® WATER POST INDICATOR VALVE PP WITH TRANSFORMER # SPRINKLER HEAD p POWER TRANSFORMER DG WATER VALVE ® POWER VAULT/MANHOLE )Cf WATER FIRE HYDRANT APPR�4yl�. Q WATER VAULT/MANHOLE St#E P�A1�1N A,, A ►ed*' ow: I Fes• POWER - J&edeke 37.00 nc. Associates, INGRESS EGRESS 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 AND UNLINES Seattle, WA 98133 NORTH RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 DATE: 10/4/2019 DRAWN BY:AC 7 PM-WH 0 501 1001 200, BASE INFORMATION: BASE SURVEY FILE INFORMATION PREPARED BY MTN 2 COAST LLC SURVEY DATED 0212812017 SIGNED/SEALED 08129119. TREE SURVEY DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTED BY SCALE: 1 " — 1 OOI PROJECT OWNER (MR. JEFF WALL) ON 11/2612018 AND PROVIDED TO RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. ON 12120/201 B BY ESM CONULTING ENGINEERS- August 13, 2019 Project 5917179020.009 Natalie Kamieniecki Associate Planner City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Subject: Task: Third Party Geotechnical Review Proposed Short Plat 30026 — 20th Place SW Federal Way, Washington Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 4020 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Suite 200 Kirkland, Washington 98033 USA T: 425-368-1000 www.woodplc.com Dear Ms. Kamieniecki, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood) is pleased to provide the results of our third - party review of the geotechnical engineering report and supporting documents related to construction of the Proposed Short Plat at 30026 — 26th Place SW in Federal Way. The development plans include construction of five single-family residences on the 7-acre parcel. Scope of Work: As outlined in our Task: Third Party Geotechnical Review proposal letter dated April 23, 2019, and subsequently modified by your acceptance letter dated April 25, 2019, we reviewed the following documents: • Geotechnical Engineering Study— Proposed Short Plat, 30026 — 20th Place SW prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated August 3, 2017); • Letter — Review of Proposed Septic System prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (dated April 3, 2'019); • Site Plan — Sheet 1 of 1, 30201 —20`h Place SW — prepared by ADC Wastewater Engineering (dated March 26, 2019), 'Wood' is a trading name for John Wood Group PLC and its subsidiaries is Natalie Kamieniecki City of Federal Way August 13, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Wood was requested by the City to review the geotechnical report to identify baseline conditions on site including the location and buffer of applicable landslide hazard area(s) and discussion of general erosion and seismic hazards area(s) and protection measures. Site specific development recommendations will be reviewed with future development applications. Project and Site Description: The subject site is currently occupied with two single-family residences and associated improvements. A stream is present in the western area along 20th Place Southwest and a 100-foot buffer has been shown on the site plan. The construction of five single-family residences are proposed on the 7-acre parcel. We understand that anticipated cuts and fills will be in order between 5 to 10 feet. Retaining walls and/rockeries may be incorporated to address grade transitions. Grades descend from southeast to northwest; approximately 80 to 90 feet of elevation change occurs across the property (approximate gradients 30 to 35 percent). Septic systems are proposed for each individual lot, as sanitary sewer is not available in the area. Review Comments Our review and comments have been based on, 1. City of Federal Way critical area regulations, Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas Article II "Geologically Hazardous Areas." 2. Standard engineering geology and geotechnical engineering practices in the Puget Sound region. Geotechnical Engineering Study 1. Include the seismic coefficient for the design earthquake loads. 2. Include permanent erosion and sediment control plan recommendations. 3. Include the recommendations to reduce the potential for instability related to the seepage. Plan Sheet Review 1. The plan sheets should be stamped and signed by a professional engineer. 2. Include stormwater management system, possible retaining wall locations and engineered slope fill areas. Natalie Kamieniecki City of Federal Way j August 13, 2019 Page 3 of 4 3. Include structural notes stating the design assumptions, including the design earthquake loads. 4. The geotechnical engineer should review the latest plan sheets to confirm the geotechnical recommendations contained within their report have been properly interpreted and implemented. Septic System Letter Review 1. Include any information regarding the mound system, septic system and sand filter system. 2. Include Best Management Practices prepared by the project civil engineer. 3. Include Temporary Erosion Control Plan. q Natalie Kamieniecki City of Federal Way August 13, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Closure We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. It should be noted that our scope of work for this third - party review was limited to a review of the documents supplied to us. Our scope did not include subsurface exploration or engineering analyses, nor does our review purport to verify the accuracy of the geotechnical engineering results presented within the documents. Should you have any questions or comments concerning our review and conclusions please contact us at your convenience, Sincerely, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. Dong-Soo Lee, PE Sr. Geotechnical Engineer Direct Tel: (425)921-4007 E-mail: dongsoo.lee@wooplc.com -Jd Todd D Wentworth, PE, LG Principal Geotechnical Engineer Direct Tel: (425)368-0938 E-mail: todd.wentworth@woodplc.com r'. �'K- Technical Memorandum TO: Natalie Kamieniecki, Associate Planner, City of Federal Way RESUBMITTED FROM: Eve Henrichsen, PWS, and Steven Quarterman OCT 17 2019 DATE: July 29, 2019 COMMUNNOF ITY�DEVELOPMENT RE: Peer Review Wall Short Plat —Critical Areas Assessment 30201 18th Avenue SW, 30026 20th Place SW, and 3030019th Place SW Parcel Nos. 012139146, 0121039013, and 0850500040 Federal Way, Washington LAI Project No. 0238088.010 Introduction This technical memorandum provides Landau Associates, Inc.'s (LAI's) peer review comments on the February 19, 2019 Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Buffer Mitigation Plan (February 2019 Critical Areas Report) prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc.' 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 (FWRQ Title 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas), specifically under Article IV Wetlands and Article III Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. As requested by the City, this peer review is limited to the baseline conditions provided in the February 2019 Critical Areas Report. Peer review comments regarding the February 2019 Critical Areas Report are as follows: 1) LAI staff conducted a reconnaissance of the subject property (i.e., Parcel Nos. 012139146, 0121039013, and 0850500040) on June 21, 2019 and agree with the absence of wetlands within the subject property. LAI noted a wet area located on maintained lawn downslope from the primary residence, located on Parcel B (see attached). This area contained saturated soils and met criteria for hydric soil indicator F3, Depleted Matrix. Vegetation met criteria for hydrophytic vegetation and included species typical of lawn areas, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, facultative [FAC]), broadleaf plantain (Plantago major, FAC) common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale, facultative upland [FACU]), and white clover (Trifolium repens, FAC). However, investigation and conversation with the landowner, Jeff Wall, revealed that hydrology to this area was originating from an uphill constructed pond with a drainage malfunction. We do not consider this area to be wetland as hydric conditions were created temporarily and outside of normal circumstances. LAI was able to locate several ordinary high water mark flags on the subject property north of the gravel access road remaining from the January 12, 2018 delineation and concur with their placement (generally following the top of bank) and classification of the onsite stream as Type F. 2) LAI requests that Figure 7—Existing Conditions be updated to show the extent of the stream adjacent to the subject property and 100-foot (ft) stream buffer extending onto the subject 1 Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2019. Critical Areas Assessment and Buffer Mitigation Plan, Federal Way Wall Short Plat. February 26. 14 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907 Landau Associates property (see attached). At the time of LAI's site reconnaissance, no flow was observed in the stream, but the area to the south of the gravel road showed evidence of ordinary high water similar to downstream segments identified as stream and is connected to the onsite segment of stream via a culvert beneath the gravel access road. LAI acknowledges that stream buffer is shown on Figure 8—ESM Consulting Engineers Proposed Plan extending from the area in question indicating the area was intended to be included as part of the stream extent. LAI also acknowledges that buffer is shown on Figure 8—ESM Consulting Engineers Proposed Plan. 3) Photographs of site conditions and associated critical areas are required in accordance with FWRC 19.145.080(2). 4) LAI notes that City critical areas mapping does not identify any wetlands within the subject property or within 225 ft. The February 2019 Critical Areas Report includes reference to the King County iMap critical areas data in Section 6.1, whereas FWRC 19.145.070(4) identifies City critical areas mapping as a source for identifying possible critical areas and their buffers within the project area and its vicinity. 5) LAI notes that the last paragraph of Section 7.0 states that visual observations were made of offsite conditions to approximately 300 ft beyond the project site boundaries, which is acceptable, although in excess of the 225 ft referenced in FWRC 19.145.410 (e). 6) LAI requests clarification of the project limits, specifically regarding area to the west of 20th Place SW. The second paragraph of Section 9.0 describes widening of the western edge of 20th Place SW to meet roadway design standards as part of the proposed project, which would include relocation of a ditch on the west side of 201h Place SW. Figure 8—ESM Consulting Engineers Proposed Plan also shows proposed work on the west side of the road. This area should be included in the project area boundaries presented in Figures 1 through 7 and clarification should be provided regarding onsite evaluation for wetlands and waterways as part of the field assessment. LAI noted the presence of a ditch in this vicinity, which is not identified on City critical area mapping. This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City in evaluating the adequacy of the summary of baseline conditions presented in the February 19, 2019 Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Buffer Mitigation Plan. The focus of this review was the wetland and stream delineations. The impacts analysis and buffer mitigation plan were not evaluated. The purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the submitted documents for compliance with City requirements as promulgated in FWRC 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 LAI. 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 LAI, shall be at the user's sole risk. LAI 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. Peer Review Wall Short Plat — Critical Areas Assessment July 29, 2019 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. Eve Henrichsen, PWS Project Scientist Steven Cluarterrnan Senior Associate ERH/SJQ/ccy \\edmdata0l\projects\238\088.010\R\LAI Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Peer Review_tm-07-29-19.dooc Attachment Figure 7: Existing Conditions Markup Peer Review Wall Short Plat — Critical Areas Assessment 3 July 29, 2019 FIGURE 7 - EXISTING t MITIONS fi lffliill)ii P�—���— ei i 1 N. Narthgate Way, Suite 219 111 ! !1 I II I f I I I 1 I r+ 1 r r Seattle, Washington 98133 !+I 'go II�{! — Illl ti 11II I I I I I I I I r r 1 1 ~r, g II PROJECT_ 1j1 till ti11111111+11 ! i f i r ��/� l D. 4D an, WALL 30�07SmAve W?PMERALWAY.WA 111 p I1jV ��f �j4�l1�i111111j11j i!1 �f/!l RA1 PR01EC7:2017.102 p 9611E r a4W PREPARED: 071M9c rn -au 9R 0A I IW BY: WH STF RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. MARKUP FOR 02/26/2019 CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN REPORT TOP OF DITCH BANK I / r I / ' 1 SURVEY NOTES UTILITY NOTE 1. INSTRUMENT USED: SOKKIA SRX 3 TOTAL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM STATION AND TOPCON GR5 GPS. MAPPING VISIBLE SURFACE 2. THIS SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE APPURTENANCES, REFERRING TO AS -BUILT STANDARDS OF WAC 332-130-090. RECORDS AND MAPPING UTILITY PAINT 3. SURVEY COMPLETED 2/1/2017. MARKS FROM A UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE. 4. INDIVIDUAL TREES NOT MAPPED. BURIED UTILITIES ARE ONLY SHOWN AS 5. WETLAND ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK(OHWM) APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED SHOWN AS DELINEATED BY MARK HECKERT BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. WITH BEAVER CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. ACCORDING TO MR. HECKERT THE OHWM DELINEATES A MINOR STREAM CLASSIFICATION WITH 50' BUFFER. HATCHING DATUM HORIZONTAL — CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, BASED GRAVEL ON GPS TIES TO MONUMENT FW154. ASPHALT VERTICAL — NGVD-29 BASED ON GPS TIES TO FW154 MONUMENT ELEVATION = 236.5. 1 CONCRETE RFACE FEATURES) p ALUMINUM CAP BRASS CAP ® HUB AND TACK 0 IRON PIPE 0 MONUMENT IN CASE + PK NAIL O REBAR AND CAP LINE TYPES WOOD FENCE �.e.� CHAIN LINK FENCE WIRE FENCE TOE GROUNDTOE TOP GROUNDTOP GROUNDBREAK —D 0 D— STORM LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE —7 i T— BURIEDTELEPHONE —p p P— BURIED POWER OP --OP— OVERHEAD POWER —WJ w11Y--- WATER LINE NATURAL GAS LINE —i T T— BURIED CABLE TV LINE -- — - DITCH LINE — — — ---- — -- MAJOR CONTOUR ------ MINOR CONTOUR WL — WL — ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK LEGEND (UTILITIES) ® CABLE MARKER POST ® CABLE RISER/ PEDESTAL QQ SS CLEANOUT CABLE VAULT/MANHOLE (S) SS MANHOLE '-§§ 5S MARKER POST --C CULVERT OO SEPTIC TANK O LUMINAIRE WITH ARM ^ STORM CATCH BASIN LUMINAIRE `J STORM MANHOLE # LANDSCAPE/YARD LIGHT €1 STORM CLEANOUT ® STORM ROOF DRAIN ® NATURAL GAS MARKER POST STORM YARD DRAIN ® NATURAL GAS METER 11 STORM MARKER POST © PROPANETANK NATURALGASVALVE TELEPHONE CABINET © m TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX M ® POWER CONDUIT m TELEPHONE RISER 1 GUYANCHOR TELEPHONE MARKER POST O—GUY POLE O TELEPHONE POLE ® POWER JUNCTION BOX OT TELEPHONE VAULT/MANHOLE 0 POWER MARKER POST E3 POWER METER O POWER POLE B WATER BLOW OFF PP WITH DROP LINE 10 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION PP WITH DROP AND LIGHT R HOSE BIB 7--(� PP WITH DROP, LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER ® IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE PP WITH DROP AND TRANSFORMER B WATER MARKER POST PP WITH LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER M WATER METER PP WITH LIGHT ® WATER POST INDICATOR VALVE PP WITH TRANSFORMER * SPRINKLER HEAD ® POWER TRANSFORMER M WATER VALVE © POWER VAULT/MANHOLE U WATER FIRE HYDRANT 19 WATER VAULT/MANHOLE SITE DATA ADRESS:30201 18TH AVE SW 98023 PARCEL NO.:0121039146 ACRES: 6.246 LOT 4 ADDRESS 30300 19TH PL SW 98023 PARCEL NO.: 0850500040 ACRES: 0.48 41k RECEIVED MEMORANDUM CITY OF F o- �� JU� � I �'!' CITY O� �� Community Development Department CITY OF FEDEP..�L `0'.' COMMUNITY CITY OF FEDERAL WAY WETLAND AND STREAM CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: April 25, 2019 Department: Community_ Development Services — Planning Division 33325 8`� Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Consultant: Landau Associates Attn: Steve Quaterman 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Sent via email: s uaterman landauinc.com Project: Wall — Critical Areas Assessment Parcels: 0121039013, 0121039146, 0850500040 File No.: 19-101611-AD (Administrative Determination) Agent: Matt Reider, ESM Consulting Engineers 33400 80' Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 Applicant/ Owner: Jeffery Wall 30201 18a' Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98023 City Planner: Natalie Kamieniecki, Associate Planner natalie.kamieniecki cityoffederalway.com Telephone: (253) 835-2638 Documents Provided: Critical Areas Assessment and Buffer Mitigation Plan, prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., dated February 26, 2019. Task Scope: The city requests that Landau review the Critical Areas Assessment to determine if the report adequately depicts baseline conditions of the site, to include the location of the on -site stream, rating, and standard buffer width. Confirm absence of wetland conditions as stated in the assessment. Mitigation to be reviewed with future development application. To that end, please conduct the following tasks: 1. Verify plan for baseline conditions with respect to FWRC Chapter 19.145 — Environmentally Critical Areas; Article ID - Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas and Article IV — Wetlands. • 2. Confirm findings that wetland conditions are not present on the site. 3. Conduct site visit as necessary. 4. Possible meeting with applicant's biologist and city staff if necessary. 5. Review of resubmitted/corrected documents as needed. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by as soon as is Feasible. Task Cost: Not to exceed *I.itr mo - _without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. (The total task amount to be filled in by planner after the consultant returns this form with all items filed out including the tota, work estimate and said estimate has been approved by the Project Planner.) Acceptance: 5.7.17 (Planner) Date April 252019 (Consultant) Date (Project nt) Date Eastgate Environmental Health Services Public Health a 14350 SE Eastgate Way Health Bellevue, WA 98007-6458 Seattle & King County 206-477-8050 Fax 206-296-9792 TTY relay: 711 www.kingcounty.gov/health February 20, 2020 ADC Wastewater Engineering Attn: Rocky Anderson 729 Court C Tacoma, WA 98402 Re: PRELEMI NARY Subdivision Application Review Address: 3020120' PL SW Activity: SU0991438 Parcel No: 012103-9146 Owner: Jeffrey Wall Dear Rocky: Public Health has received your PRELINE NARY SIX (6) Lot Subdivision application for the above referenced property. It has been reviewed in accordance with the King County Board of Health Code Title 13. Based on this review, it has been approved with the following conditions (to be met by final), comments or concerns: 1. For Final a minimum of 4 soil logs per lot shall be provided in a contiguous area that in accordance with KCC 13.28.050 and Table 13.28-1. The applicant shall submit site designs for those lots where it is unclear that there is sufficient area for an on -site sewage system and a one hundred percent reserve area. 2. A scaled plot plan of the proposed Final Subdivision depicting the land area proposed for an initial on -site system and a contiguous one hundred percent (100%) system reserve area and soil log locations. The plot plan shall also identify any critical areas, any critical area buffers, utility easements, road easements, storm water/surface water retention facilities, wells, surface water bodies and other features relevant to the sighting of an on -site sewage system either on the proposed or adjacent parcels. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 477-8137 between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM or leave a message on my voice mail. Sincerely, ' c Jarone Baker, R.S. Health and Environmental Investigator III Community Environmental Health cc: City of Federal Way — 33325 81 Ave S — Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Jeffrey Wall — OWNER '. a CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT & BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN RESU13MITTED OCT 17 2019 COMMUNITY D�ELO A&, Federal Way Wall Short Plat Federal Way, Washington February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. i Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture Report To: Jeffrey Wall & Karen Wall C/O Matt Reider, ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 30201 18a' Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Title: Critical Area Assessment and Buffer Mitigation Plan Federal Way Wall Short Plat Federal Way, Washington Project Number: Date: 2017-102-002 & 003 February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98153 206-525-8122 raedeke.com Project Manager: Will Hohman, B.S., P.W.S. Senior Wetland Ecologist Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture Project Personnel: Will Hohman, B.S., P.W.S. Senior Wetland Ecologist Annamaria Clark, B.S., W.P.I.T. Wetland Technician Chris Wright, B.S. Principal / Soil and Wetland Scientist Submitted b Signature Will Hohman Printed Name February26, 2019 (REVISED October 16, 2019) Date: 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 206-525-8122 raedeke.com I I _1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES............................................................ ... ................ ............................ V LISTOF ATTACHMENTS...............................................................................................V 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 2.0 PURPOSE......................................................................................................................1 3.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES............................................................................................1 4.0 PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................................2 5.0 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................2 6.0 BACKGROUND REVIEW...........................................................................................3 6.1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................4 7.0 RESULTS OF FIELD WORK AND SITE OBSERVATIONS....................................5 7.1 Stream Buffer Assessment.....................................................................................7 8.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................8 8.1 Federal Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)...................................8 8.2 Washington State....................................................................................................9 8.3 City of Federal Way................................................................................................9 9.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.......................................................................11 9.1 Mitigation Sequencing.........................................................................................12 9.2 Impacts Analysis...................................................................................................13 10.0 PROPOSED BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN....................................................15 11.0 MAINTENANCE, MONITORING, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ........15 12.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................16 13.0 LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................16 14.0 LITERATURE CITED..............................................................................................17 FIGURES...........................................................................................................................21 iii ATTACHMENTS........................................................................ . .....................................3 5 I I I i I j iv i l l 1 l 1 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Site Vicinity Map...................................................................................................22 2. King County Parcel Map.......................................................................................23 3. NRCS Web Soil Survey.........................................................................................24 4. USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map............................................................25 5. WDNR Forest Practice Water Type Map..............................................................26 6. SalmonScape Map.................................................................................................27 7. City of Federal Way 2016 Sensitive Areas Map...................................................28 8. MTN 2 Coast LLC 2/28/2017 Topographic Survey (SV 1 Sheet 1 of 1)..............29 9. ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 11/16/2018 Preliminary Utility & Grading Plan (UT-01 Sheet 4 of 4)..............................................................................................30 10. Proposed Impacts Plan and Mitigation..................................................................31 11. Proposed Planting Schedule...................................................................................32 12. General Notes.........................................................................................................33 13. Maintenance & Monitoring...................................................................................34 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT Page A. Sample Plot Data Forms (SP 1 through 7).............................................................36 B. January 25, 2018 and August 6, 2019 Emails from Larry Fisher, WDFW Habitat Biologist.................................................................................................................51 C. WDFW PHS Report ...............................................................................................60 ,., D. Existing Conditions Photographs.................................................... E. Mtn 2 Coast LLC Wall Short Plat Topographic Mapping Survey ........................67 vi J 1.0 INTRODUCTION Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff visited the Federal Way Wall Short Plat property located in Federal Way, King County, Washington, on January 12, 2018 to perform a critical -1 areas assessment for wetlands, streams, and associated habitats (Figure 1). During our 1 site visit, we did not find any wetlands on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. We did find and delineate the ordinary high-water mark of a stream located on the project site. Based on our review of engineering design plans prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers, LCC, we understand that the proposed development plan will result in buffer related impacts requiring mitigation in accordance with Federal Way Revised Code -� Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas (City of Federal Way, 2019a). We j revisited the site on September 9, 2019 to collect data in the drainage ditch west of 20th Place SW, across the street from the project site at the request of the City of Federal lWay's third -parry consultant's (Landau Associates) review letter dated July 29, 2019. This report presents results of our delineation, assessment of critical areas and their buffers, and summarizes our analysis of the proposed development plan's buffer related impacts. Enclosed are proposed buffer restoration and enhancement plans to provide mitigation for the calculated impacts. Results of our critical areas assessment and the mitigation proposed herein is subject to review and approval by the City of Federal way prior to constructing your project. 2.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this site visit was to identify and delineate any wetlands or streams on the property or within the immediate vicinity, and to search for the presence or habitat of Federal or State -listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate, other priority, or monitored wildlife species, and/or areas that meet criteria to be considered Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2008, 2019) priority habitats. During our site visit, we identified one stream (Type F) on the Wall Short Plat project area. No other critical areas were identified on or within the vicinity of the project area. This report provides a summary of our findings and is intended to be used for project planning purposes regarding critical areas wetlands, streams, and associated habitats regulated by the City of Federal Way. Regulatory considerations regarding Federal and State regulations for wetlands and streams are also included herein. J3.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES Since this is a residential site development project, Mr. Jeffrey Wall is responsible for the implementation of this mitigation plan and any associated permitting. The list below presents the project owner's information along with project consultants that Raedeke l Associates, Inc. understands have been involved with this project to date. J Federal Way Wall Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 J 2 Project Owner/Applicant/Tree Surveyor: - Mr. Jeffrey Wall 30201 18th Avenue SW Federal Way, WA 98023 J Project Topographic Surveyor: Mtn 2 Coast LLC Blair E. Prigge, PLS 1506 Fairview Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 Wetland Consultant: Raedeke Associates Inc. Mr. Will Hohman 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98133 4.0 PROJECT LOCATION Project Engineer: ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC Mr. Matt Reider, PE 33400 8th Avenue South, Suite 205 Federal Way, WA 98003 Project Geotechnical Engineer: Earth Solutions LLC Keven D. Hoffmann, PE 1805 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington, 98005 The Federal Way Wall Short Plat project site consists of three parcels totaling approximately 7.93-acres, located at 30201 181h Ave SW, 30026 201h Place SW, and 30300 191h Place SW within Section 1, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. in the City of Federal Way, King County, Washington as described in information received from ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC on October 6, 2017. The project site is comprised of tax parcels 0121039146, 0121039013, 0850500040, and a portion of the right-of-way west of 201h Place SW that is proposed for roadway width expansion. Parcel maps retrieved on-line from King County depict the property boundaries (Figures 1 and 2). The property is bordered to the west by 20th Place SW, to the south and east by single- family residential lots, and to the north by forested private lots. The property is accessed primarily from 20th Place SW along the western side of the properties. However, there is also a private access driveway to one of the two residential homes on the property from 181h Ave SW. 5.0 METHODOLOGY Wetlands and streams are protected by federal law as well as by state and local regulations. Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States," including certain wetlands, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE 2012). The COE makes the final determination whether an area meets the definition of a wetland and whether the wetland is under their jurisdiction. Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ~1 The COE wetland definition was used to determine if any portions of the project area could be classified as wetland. A wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986:41251). We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1994), as updated for this area by the regional supplement to the COE wetland delineation manual ' for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (COE 2010). The COE wetlands i manual is required by state law (WAC 173-22-035, as revised) for all local jurisdictions, including Federal Way, Washington. We based our delineation of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for streams within the Phase II area on definitions provided under the Washington State Shorelines Management Act of 1971. The Washington State definition for the OHWM is as follows: Ordinary high water line" or "OHWL"means the mark on the shores of all waters that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil or vegetation a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, provided that in any area where the ordinary high water line cannot be found, the ordinary high water line adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high water, and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be the elevation of the mean annual flood. "...(RCW 90.58.030(2)(b) and WAC173-22-030(5); WDOE 1994). ' As outlined in the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 1994) Shoreline Administrators Manual, the general guidelines for determining the OHWM include: (1) a clear vegetation mark; (2) wetland/upland edge; (3) elevation; (4) a combination of -' changes in vegetation, elevation, and landward limit of drift deposition; (5) soil surface changes from algae or sediment deposition to areas where soils show no sign of depositional processes; and/or (6) soil profile changes from wetter conditions (low chroma, high soil organic matter, and lack of mottling) to drier conditions (higher chroma, less organic matter, or brighter mottles). 6.0 BACKGROUND REVIEW Prior to and after our site visit, we reviewed existing background maps and information for the project site from the King County iMaps (King County 2019), U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS 2019) Web Soil Survey, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS 2018) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) in order to assist in our Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 I 4 determination of whether wetlands were present within the property or its vicinity. We —� also reviewed current and historical aerial photographs (Google Earth 2018) to assist in the definition of existing plant communities, drainage patterns, and land use. To understand the possible stream characteristics and priority habitats on the project sites, we also reviewed Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species maps (WDFW 2018), SalmonScape interactive mapper (WDFW 2019), Washington Department of Natura Resources ()A7DNR) forest practices application review system mapping tool (WDNR 2019a), and WDFW fish passage barrier maps (WDNR 2019b). 6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ' King County GIS data (King County 2019) maps an erosion hazard in the northern and northwestern portions of the project site (Figure 2). No wetlands or other critical areas are mapped on King County Map. The King County Map hydrography and hydrology layer depict a stream entering the project site in the southwest corner and exiting through the northwest corner of the site. Review of the City of Federal Way (2016) sensitive areas mapping depicts an erosion hazard area and stream in the northwest corner of the project site (Figure 7). No wetlands are depicted on the City's sensitive area map (Figure 7). The USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USFWS 2019) identifies Alderwood soil series in the study area (Figure 3). Although Alderwood soils are not listed as hydric soils on either the state or national hydric soils list, it may contain the following potential hydric soil inclusions: Norma and Mckenna soils (USFWS 2019; U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service 1991, Federal Register 1995). Soil series boundaries or mapping units are mapped from aerial photographs with limited field verification. Thus, the location and extent of boundaries between mapping units may not be accurate for a given parcel of land within the survey area. The USFWS (2019) NWI does not show any wetlands on or within the vicinity of the project site. The nearest NWI mapped wetland is approximately 0.25 miles north of the project site located along the edge of the Puget Sound. National Wetland Inventory does map an intermittent riverine streambed on the project site that is indicated to be 1 seasonally flooded and in the vicinity of the stream observed during our field investigation (USFWS 2018, Figure 3). Wetlands shown on the NWI are general in terms of location and extent, as they are determined primarily from aerial photograph J interpretation. J Google earth imagery shows the site is primarily forested with coniferous and deciduous tree canopy and surrounding residential development. Review of WDFW SalmonScape and Fish Passage Barrier maps depict a stream with potential salmon habitat along the western project site boundary. The stream feature extends from the northwest corner to just upstream (i.e. south) of the apparent driveway culvert off of 20 Place SW (Figure 6). It continues off -site from the southwest corner of the project area. WDFW maps do not depict any fish passage barriers such as culverts dams, or other barriers along this mapped stream feature. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) J Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ti 5 forest practices mapping tool maps a stream in the same location as WDFW. However, WDNR map the stream as Type-N on the project site. The stream is mapped off -site as Type-F. This water typing is located downstream (i.e. north) of a mapped unknown barrier north of the project site (Figure 5). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife PHS maps source data for three species of salmonids in the mapped stream including: Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Fall Chum (Oncorhynchus keta), and Resident Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki). Refer to Attachment C for results of the PHS search. 7.0 RESULTS OF FIELD WORK AND SITE OBSERVATIONS The project site consists of three lots and three single-family residences. A gravel road entering from 201h Place SW traverses the central and northern lots, providing access to two of these houses. The third house, located on the southernmost lot, is accessed from 19th Place SW. The site is primarily forested with some gravel and dirt access drives throughout the central portions. Each residence has maintained lawn and landscaped areas. The primary residence on the center of the project site includes an outdoor basketball court. Overall the site generally ranges in elevation from 280 in the southeast corner to approximately 180 in the northwest corner. The majority of the site drains from southeast to northwest toward the stream. The drainage feature west of 20th Place SW drains from south to north, along the western edge of the road, into a pipe and catch basin and then outlets from the catch basin via a culvert that drains east beneath 20th Place SW and into the on -site stream. During our January 12, 2018 site visit, we did not identify any wetlands on or within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. We identified one stream in the western area of the property, flowing to the north. During our site visit, Raedeke staff walked the onsite portions of the stream feature and field flagged the ordinary high-water mark on both the left and right banks of the stream. Flagging was only hung within the apparent project site boundaries and not within the road right of way. The offsite stream portions were observed from existing rights -of way associated with 20 Place SW. The upstream -� and offsite portions of the stream along the western boundary exhibited artificial drainage features such as linear and trapezoidal shape parallel and typical to roadside swales and 1 ditches. The feature generally continued south along the eastern side of 20th Place SW. Our field data averaged a greater than two -foot bank -full -width along the longest and narrowest reach of the stream, less than 16 percent slope on site, and approximately 2-3 1 feet deep in the section of the stream reach located on -site and along the eastern side of J 20th Place SW. The downstream onsite portion of the stream exhibited more natural channel features. Based on the background information reviewed for the site and these observations, the stream is expected to be considered Type-F by WDFW. We confirmed this during the site visit with Mr. Larry Fisher, a habitat biologist with WDFW. Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. -� Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 Dominant vegetation across the site consists of big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU), red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), and fragrant fringecup (Tellima grandijlora, FACU). We also observed some larger conifer species including western arborvitae (Thuja plicata, FAC) douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga mensiesii, FACU), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FACU). Refer to sample plots 1 through 7 in Attachment A. Approximate locations of each sample plot are depicted on Figure 2. Soils on the Wall Short Plat project site consist of up to 5 inches of very dark brown 1 (7.5Y 2.5/2) gravelly sandy loams over up to 15 inches of dark yellowish brown (IOYR J 4/4 or l OYR 4/3) gravelly sandy loams. During our site investigation, we did not encounter any primary indicators of wetland hydrology such as saturated soils or a water table within 18 inches of the soil profile, nor did we observe any evidence of seasonal inundation or flow patterns on site (with the exception of Sample Plot 6, located within the OHWM of the stream). Thus, the area lacked positive evidence of hydric soil or wetland hydrology (see Sample Plot 1, attached). Although some sample plots exhibited positive indications of hydrophytic vegetation (wetland plants) which is a criterion for identifying wetlands, the lack of hydric soils (wetland soils) and wetland hydrology confirms that the site does not contain wetlands. Refer to the sample plot data sheets presented in Attachment A for more information on the data collected to make this determination. We did not observe any evidence of nesting within the site or vicinity by hawks, eagles, great blue herons, or other species of concern during our field investigation. We did ' observe signs of current and past foraging activity typically evidence of the presence of woodpecker on some of the larger woody vegetation but no apparent nest or roost I cavities. The WDFW (2018) PHS database does depict priority species within the stream J running through the project site: coho, fall chum, and resident coastal cutthroat, but we did not observe any fish during the delineation. At the request of the City's third -party consultant, we revisited the site on September 18, 2019 to collect additional data on the western roadside drainage feature located west of 20th Place SW. The drainage feature west of 201h Place SW averaged 5-7-foot bank -full - width, 6-8 percent slope, and approximately 1-2 feet deep in the section of the drainage J within the street right-of-way, immediately west of the road, and in the nearest vicinity of the project site. The unusually wide bank -full -width (top of bank) appears to coincide with the roadside edge and nearby residential lawn areas elevations. This feature maintains a general bottom width average of approximately less than 1 foot and up to 2 feet in certain portions. It appears to be entirely influenced by stormwater runoff. The drainage feature west of 201h Place SW contained no trees or shrubs and averaged 20 percent herbaceous cover dominated by Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis, FAC), Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. J Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 7 fringed willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum, FACW), bittercress (Cardamine sp.), and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC). Generally, soils in the drainage feature appeared disturbed and contained gravels, cobbles, and concrete rubble throughout most of it. Soils consist of 1 to 4 inches of very dark brown (1OYR 2/2) to very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) gravelly sandy loam or sands with cobbles, over 1 to 6 inches of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) to very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam, over compact gravels in the roadside drainage feature west of 20th Place SW. Soils in this area are not —� mapped as hydric but rather mapped as Alderwood soil series typically found in upland areas (Figure 3). The feature did not meet the criteria to be mapped as a wetland. Furthermore, correspondence with Mr. Larry Fisher of WDFW on October 14, 2019 -� indicated that this drainage feature does meet criteria to be considered a jurisdictional 1 watercourse. Based on observations and our desktop analysis, the drainage feature west of 20th Place SW appears to be primarily constructed to serve as roadside drainage, 1 constructed from uplands, and is separated from the onsite stream feature by 20th Place SW, a catchbasin, and 12-inch pipe underneath the roadway. We performed visual observations from the site of off -site conditions. Generally, the surrounding area extending approximately 300 feet beyond the project site boundaries consists of developed single-family residential properties with no signs of potential wetland habitats. 7.1 STREAM BUFFER ASSESSMENT The stream is located along the western project site parcel boundary and along the eastern ' edge of 20th Place SW. In the vicinity of the project site, 20th Place SW has a roadside swale along the western edge of the road and the project site stream along the eastern edge. This segment of road is crowned draining roadway runoff to the east and west sides of the road. Therefore 201h Place SW appears to act as a stream buffer barrier west 1 for any standard buffer area west of the crown of the road. This limits and greatly reduces the function and value of the 100-foot buffer, located off -site, along the western side of the stream. Portions of the western stream buffer which abut and serve to protect the stream consist of mowed grasses and forested areas. .J The eastern part of the stream buffer which extends onto the project site, is forested containing the following dominant plant species: red maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU), J western arborvitae (Thuja plicata, FAC) (Alnus rubra, FAC), douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga mensiesii, FACU), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus i armeniacus, FAC), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), and sword fern J (Polystichum munitum, FACU). These dominant species are prominent north of the private driveway and established on steep erosion proned slopes depicted on the topographic survey, Figure 8 and Attachment E, and King County Map environmental layers, Figure 2. The eastern stream buffer south of the access driveway is in a degraded condition containing fewer woody species and a more dominant understory of Himalayan blackberry. At the time of our site visit, many plant species were dormant revealing a Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 8 large opening in the buffer canopy south of the private access driveway and areas that were poorly vegetated. 8.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Wetlands and streams are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and other state and local policies and ordinances including City of Federal Way (2019a) code. Regulatory considerations pertinent to these types of resources identified within the study area are discussed below; however, this discussion should not be considered comprehensive. Additional information may be obtained from federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for, or interest in, the site. A brief review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, Washington Department of Ecology regulations, and City of Federal Way policy, relative to wetlands, streams, and their associated buffers are presented below. 8.1 FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT (U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) discourages the discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands and streams, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of "Waters of the U.S." as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251), and thus, if it is under their jurisdiction. We should caution that the placement of fill within wetlands or other "Waters of the U.S." (ex. streams) without authorization from the COE is not advised, as the COE makes the final determination regarding whether any permits would be required for any proposed alteration (COE 2012). Because the COE makes the final determination regarding permitting under their jurisdiction, a jurisdictional determination from the COE is generally recommended prior to any construction activities, if wetland and streams exist on or near the project and any modification of these resources is proposed or work near these features may result in impacts to the wetland or stream. Although, the current proposed development plan does not appear to impact the on -site stream feature, we recommend that you submit this information and your proposed development plan to COE for a request "letter of no permit required." Based on the streams dimensions, connectivity with the Puget Sound, and characteristics described herein we would expect COE to claim jurisdiction of this feature. From our experience with similar projects, we would expect COE would grant this project a confirmation response that no permit is required for the proposed work. However, Raedeke Associates, Inc. is not regulatory. Ultimate authority and jurisdiction to verify your project is compliant with applicable Federal law lies with COE. Federal Way Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 J_ W 8.2 WASHINGTON STATE Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, an activity involving a discharge in waters of the U.S. authorized by a federal permit must receive certification by the affected certifying agency. In Washington State, the certifying agency is the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), which has regulatory authority over waters of the state, including streams and isolated wetlands, under the state Water Pollution Control Act (90.48 RCW) and the Shoreline Management Act (90.58 RCW). If the proposed project does not propose discharge in to the site stream feature or any changes to existing structures, we do not anticipate the need for a water quality certification from WDOE. However, ultimate authority and jurisdiction lies with WDOE in making this decision. 8.3 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Critical areas regulated by the City of Federal Way code include geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, wetland, critical aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded areas and their corresponding buffers. The City of Federal Way (2019a) regulates wetlands and streams under Chapter 19.145 of its Environmentally Critical Areas code. Although all critical areas are discussed to some extent herein, this report specifically describes the work performed to verify and delineate the presence and/or absence of wetlands and streams on the project site and identify the anticipated critical area buffers for each. The City of Federal way is the jurisdictional authority assigned to review and verify the extent and limits of any wetlands and streams delineated onsite, estimated buffers, and the information provided in this report for planning purposes. Wetlands The city classifies wetlands as Category I, II, III, or IV based on the Washington Department of Ecology's (WDOE) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (publication #14-06-029) (Hruby 2014). The City of Federal Way (2019a) determines wetland buffer widths based on their classifications and habitat function. Standard buffer widths, in general per code, may be modified by averaging or be reduced or increased as evaluated on a case by case basis by the City of Federal Way. Wetlands are defined under the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.05.230 "W" definitions (2019b) as: " `Wetland' or `wetlands' means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm Federal Way Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 10 ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands. " During our site visit, we did not observe any wetlands on site or where accessible and observable from onsite within 225 feet of the outer most limits of the project site. Therefore, no wetland impacts are anticipated with the proposed project development plan. Streams Streams are defined under the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.05.190 "S" definitions (2019c) as: "...a course or route, formed by nature, including those which have been modified by humans, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks or sides throughout substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining from higher to lower elevations. A stream need not contain water year-round. In development, streams may run in culverts or may be channeled in a concrete, rock or other artificial conveyance system. This definition does not include irrigation ditches, stormwater facilities or other artificial watercourses unless they are used by resident or anadromous salmonid dish, or the feature was constructed to convey a natural stream which existing prior to construction of the watercourse. Those topographic features that resemble streams but have no defined channels shall be considered streams when hydrologic and hydraulic analyses done pursuant to a development proposal predict formation of a defined channel after development. For the purpose of defining the following categories of streams, normal rainfall is rainfall that is at or near the mean of the accumulated annual rainfall record, based upon the current water year for King County as recorded at the Seattle -Tacoma International Airport. " The city classifies streams as Type F, Type Np, and Type Ns. City of Federal Way (2019a) further defines these classifications as follows: j Type F stream are those stream that are used by fish or have the potential to support fish. J Type Np streams are those streams that are perennial during the year of normal rainfall and do not have the potential to be used by fish. Type Np streams include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of the perennial flow. If the uppermost point ofperennial flow cannot be identified with simple, nontechnical observations, then the point of perennial flow should be determined using the best professional judgment of a qualified professional. Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. .J Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 11 Type Ns streams are those streams that are season or ephemeral during a year of normal rainfall and do not have the potential to be used by fish. The identified stream flowing north along the western portion of the project site meets criteria to be classified as a Type-F stream and is anticipated to have a 100-foot setback by the City of Federal Way. The City of Federal Way is responsible for reviewing and approving all critical areas as delineated and discussed herein. The director at the City may require increased buffer widths when necessary to protect habitat, health, safety, and welfare on site specific areas. These often include areas with insufficient buffers, when a channel migration zone or erosion/landslide hazard is present in the stream buffer. Permanently altered buffers such as buffer reduction may occur in certain circumstances upon approval by the director of the City of Federal Way. For example, a buffer in permanently altered state or one that does not provide any function or value toward protecting the resource is considered a permanently altered buffer. Furthermore, intrusions into stream buffers may occur when reviewed and decided upon using process III in Chapter 19.65 of Federal Way Revised Code (2019d) and must coincide with a buffer enhancement plan that demonstrates the remaining and enhanced reduced buffer will function at an equivalent or high level than the standard buffer. Permanent and temporary impacts to the stream buffer are anticipated with the proposed development plan. Therefore, a proposed buffer enhancement plan is included herein. The following sections describe the proposed development plan, assess buffer impacts, and proposed a buffer enhancement plan suitable for City of Federal Way review. Off -site Drainage Feature The drainage feature west of 20th Place SW will be relocated west of the proposed road widening described below. The roadway widening is proposed within the existing right- of-way, adjacent to the overall proposed project parcel development plan, in order to bring the roadway up to current design standards. No critical areas were identified within the artificial roadside drainage feature. WDFW has determined the feature does meet criteria to be considered a jurisdictional watercourse and that it could be relocated without a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Follow-up correspondence with Mr. Larry Fisher is provided in Attachment B. Streams defined under the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.05.190 "S" definitions (2019c) are further defined to exclude ditches, artificial drainage features created in uplands through purposeful human action, from regulated streams definitions. Furthermore, the proposed development plan proposes to maintain this roadside feature as an open, vegetated roadside drainage ditch. 9.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN The site currently has two single-family residences which will remain in the proposed development plan. Based on our discussion with Mr. Jeffrey Wall and his consultants, Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 12 1 ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC, several single-family residential lots with related improvements (water, electric, septic, etc.) are proposed under this development plan. Based on the information provided to date, finish grade elevations and the exact locations of each residential structure and associated improvements were not available for review. However, the design plans provided did include proposed project site improvements for access and anticipated stormwater management. These include widening the existing private access driveway from 20th Place SW at the stream crossing and through the stream buffer, installation of an additional site access point off of the cul-de-sac of 191h Place SW, installation of a stormwater detention facility with associated outfall pipe, installation of a stormwater dispersion trench, installation of a roadside interceptor ditch to direct driveway runoff toward the detention facility, layout of associated utility and drainage easements, and associated site grading required for each of these project elements. 1 The project also proposes to widen the western edge of 201h Place SW to meet roadway design standards. Widening this section of road will result in the need to relocate the grass lined roadside swale along the western side of 201h Place SW further west. It is our understanding that ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC will be finalizing all stormwater management facility designs and associated best management practices with the final design documentation per City of Federal Way Code and associated federal and state stormwater management regulations. Final construction documents are anticipated to include the required design plans, Construction Stormwater General Permit Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plans consistent with the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington or most current and the City of Federal Way requirements (WDOE 2012). For purpose of this development review, we specifically asked ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC to provide all proposed project elements within the stream buffer and immediate vicinity of the outer limits of the buffer to understand the proposed development plans impacts on the stream buffer. Figure 9 and the buffer mitigation shown on Figures 10 through 13 assumes that y all of the proposed development plan work in the stream buffer and immediate vicinity is fully designed. Any changes required during final development plan design must be 1 evaluated for compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations prior to construction. Changes from the design herein do not obviate the need to obtain additional approvals for the proposed work. 9.1 MITIGATION SEQUENCING 1 Mitigation has been defined by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197- J 11-768; cf. Cooper 1987), and more recently in a Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 (Anonymous 1989). In order of desirability, mitigation may include: 1. Avoidance - avoiding impacts by not taking action or parts of an action; Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 13 2. Minimization - minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3. Compensation - which may involve: a) repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; b) replacing, enhancing, or creating substitute resources or environments; c) mitigation banking. Project elements that consider mitigation sequencing include but are not limited to the following: 1. (Avoidance) An additional access off of 19th Place SW was added to I j accommodate the proposed site development plan and avoid existing access drive upgrades that would result in direct impacts to the stream; 2. (Avoidance) removal of native vegetation within the proposed enhancement and restoration areas will be avoided; 3. (Avoidance) the design utilizes the extents of the existing stream crossing and access drive without touching the existing culvert to avoid direct discharge to the stream; 4. (Minimization) widening of the access driveway through the buffer will be done in a manner to minimize impacts to existing trees and designed using minimum engineering design standards; 5. (Minimization) utility improvements and new utilities will use the additional access off of 19th Place SW instead of the existing driveway through the ' stream buffer; 6. (Minimization) temporary erosion and sediment control (TESL) measures would be installed during construction and would utilize appropriate best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction, including placement of straw bales and silt fencing between work activities and adjacent wetlands; 7. (Avoidance and minimization) all other construction areas and proposed site development activities will be outside of the stream buffer (ex. no residential structural encroachment); 8. (Avoidance and minimization) proposed stormwater management is located outside of the buffer area between the site development activities and the outer J portions of the stream buffer providing the stream and buffer with protection from pollutants commonly found in stormwater runoff. 9.2 IMPACTS ANALYSIS This section presumes that the existing site contains currently serviceable structures or fill that either received a permit, if required, is considered previously authorized, or is grandfathered in to the regulations and requirements relating to wetlands, streams, and Federal Way Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 14 their associated buffers. Based on the proposed design, Figure 9, this project proposes to make some improvements to the existing private access driveway that crosses the stream. The crossing improvements include expanding the existing driveway width in a manner that will not result in direct discharge into the stream or change the vertical elevation of the driveway. Personal communication with ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC in emails received November 7 and 16, 2018 indicates that the driveway width is designed to the minimum standards required for private driveways serving 3 or 4 lots. The project also -� does not propose to disturb the existing stream culvert under the driveway per personal communication with ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC and Mr. Jeffrey Wall. Work is anticipated to occur within the limits of and on the existing fill overtop of the culvert. To avoid having to meet additional standards which would result in direct impacts to the } stream, this project proposes to add a site access point from 19th Place SW. This new site access point will carry all required utilities and utility upgrades necessary for the proposed site development. Per these design considerations, the stream crossing is not expected to be an impact requiring mitigation. We included the driveway width expansion from pre -development to post -development in our calculated impacts within the stream buffer. The existing driveway is not included in these impact calculations since it regularly used and remains as buffer existing in a permanently altered state. The proposed development plan will result in stream buffer related impacts based on the proposed driveway improvements from 20th Place SW, including driveway width expansion and associated grading necessary to tie the nearest existing grade. It also includes stream buffer impacts related to the proposed stormwater detention facility's principal spillway. This includes installation of an overland outfall pipe down the steep slopes located in the northern portions of the onsite stream buffer. Pipe installation will need to occur in a manner to avoid existing native trees and shrubs currently established in the buffer. At the end of this pipe, a rocked outfall protection will be installed. The location and extent of the temporary and permanent impacts calculated are depicted on Figures 10 and 11. Specifically, the calculated impacts include 2,653 square feet of permanent buffer impacts including the driveway width expansion, the overland outfall pipe, and the pipe outfall area. Temporary impacts include 724 square feet during construction to install the stormwater outfall pipe through the stream buffer. Mitigation for these stream buffer impacts are presented in the following section. If proposed development design described herein is incorrect or changes, Raedeke Associates, Inc. should be contacted to review this report to verify if the recommendations for mitigating stream buffer related impacts remain compliant with the City of Federal Way critical areas approved documentation and their associated code. Raedeke Associates, Inc. should be provided copies of final design packages to confirm 1 that all proposed and City approved mitigation is included appropriately in the final project construction documents. Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 15 10.0 PROPOSED BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN According to observations made during our site visit and results of a limited tree survey performed by Mr. Jeffery Wall, the proposed stream buffer impacts will result in the loss of a few trees serving to provide habitat, water quality, habitat, and erosion protection for the stream. We understand that the proposed stormwater outfall will be installed in a manner to avoid direct impact to trees in the stream buffer. Furthermore, the outfall protection is being designed by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC to manage erosive velocities leaving the pipe. Since the stormwater management detention facility is designed not only for volume control but also water quality, we do not anticipate any adverse impacts to water quality and installation of the overland pipe will serve to maintain stormwater retention and groundwater recharge capabilities down the existing slope. Based on this analysis of the stream buffer impacts, the proposed buffer enhancement ' plan proposes a buffer enhancement to permanent impact ratio that is approximately 6:1 and a ration that is 1:1 by means of buffer restoration for all temporary impacts. Figures 10 and 11 depict 16,510 square feet of buffer enhancement and 724 square feet of buffer restoration to compensate for the proposed stream buffer impacts. f The area proposed for buffer enhancement is in a degraded condition containing Himalayan blackberry and limited forest canopy. The buffer enhancement will consist of % three different strata of plants designed to establish native forest and create structural diversity with an array of trees, tall and medium stature shrubs, and low groundcovers. Figures 10 and 11 detail the proposed plant schedules, critical area buffer protection measures, and buffer enhancement notes. Work in both the stream buffer enhancement area and at the location of temporary stream buffer impacts will also include removal of invasive species prior to planting to further encourage establishment of a native forest stream buffer. 11.0 MAINTENANCE, MONITORING, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Environmental goals and objectives of the proposed buffer enhancement plan is presented on Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13. These figures also include details and information regarding the following mitigation plan requirements: J1. General notes for installation, 2. Schedule 3. Invasive species removal 4. Critical areas site fencing 5. Performance standards 6. Monitoring program 7. Contingency plan, and Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. J Critical Areas Assessment and ;l hfigtition Plan February 26, 2019 l Revised October 16, 2019 �J 16 8. Maintenance The owner will be required to provide a financial guarantee to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented and fulfilled. This must be posted in accordance with Chapter 19.25 of the Federal Way Revised Code (2019e). Furthermore, the critical area tract shall be designated on the final project plat as shown on the figures herein. The plat shall include the following note required by City of Federal Way (2019a): Native preservation shall be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including but not limited to controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat. Removal or disturbance of vegetation and landscaping within the tract is prohibited, except as necessary for maintenance or preplacement with approval by the City of Federal Way. 12.0 CONCLUSIONS i Due to unavoidable impacts to a Type-F stream buffer, this project requires review by the City of Federal Way for authorization of impacts that require mitigation. The analysis ' herein, concludes that the anticipated project development impacts can be mitigated for within the existing standard 100-foot stream buffer. The report was prepared using the best available science practices recognized by WDOE and the City of Federal Way to support the proposed mitigation herein. With this report, we propose that the critical areas delineation, characterization and estimate of stream buffer width, proposed development plan analysis of impacts, and proposed buffer enhancement plan be reviewed for compliance with the City of Federal Way code requirements. Based on the proposed development stream crossing design and email correspondence with WDFW, we do not anticipate the need for a Hydraulic Project Approval (Attachment B). 13.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Jeffrey & Karen Wall, and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Jeffrey & Karen Wall. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction activities. Federal Way Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 17 We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and has been prepared substantially in accordance with then -current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. If you have any questions or comments, or wish to discuss this issue further, please contact Will Hohman at (206) 525-8122 or at wholunan ibraedekc.com. 14.0 LITERATURE CITED Anonymous. 1989. Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 404 B 1 Guidelines. Effective 7 November 1989. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. Cooper, J.W. 1987. An overview of estuarine habitat mitigation projects in Washington State. Northwest Environmental Journal 3(1): 112-127. City of Federal Way. 2019a. Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. City of Federal Way. 2019b. Chapter 19.05.230: Zoning and Development. W definitions current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. City of Federal Way. 2019c. Chapter 19.05.190: Zoning and Development. S definitions current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. City of Federal Way. 2019d. Chapter 19.65: Process III — Project Approval current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. City of Federal Way. 2019e. Chapter 19.25: Bonds current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 18 City of Federal Way. 2016. City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map. GIS Division, Map Date: May 2016. htt :llwww.ci offederalway.condsites/default/fil.es/ni s/sensitive 2016. df. Last Accessed January 18, 2018. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Volume 59, No 133, July 13, 1994. Revised September 15, 1995. Google Earth. 2018. Image for Lat. 47.331756, Long.-122.359123 in Federal Way, WA dated May 2018. © 2016 Google Inc. Accessed January 25, 2019. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State wetlands rating system for western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 14-06- 029. October 2014. King County. 2019. King County iMap Geographical Information Interactive Mapping Tool with Environmentally Sensitive Areas layers on. littps://gisinEs.kingcounty.gov/iMap . Last accessed February 19, 2019. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: western mountains, valleys, and coast region (Version 2.0). Wakeley, J.S., R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. May 2010. Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 19 ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Special Public Notice. Final Regional Conditions, 401 Water Quality Conditions, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Responses, for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. March 19, 2012. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States: In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. On-line Web Soil Survey. httn-//websoilsurve-v.nrr-s.usda.gov. Accessed February 20, 2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online Mapper. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs-gov/wdnds/launcli.html. Accessed December 28, 2018 Washington Department of Ecology. 1994. v.I Shoreline Administrators Manual. Shoreline Management Guidebook, 2"d Ed. Publication No. 93-104a. January 1994. Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and the 2012 Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority habitats and species list. August 2008. Olympia, Washington. 174 pp. htt ://wdfw.wa. oy/ ublicationsl ub. h ?id=00165. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. PHS on the web. Available at: hM.//wdfw.wa.gov/mai)ning/ hs/. Accessed January 11, 2018. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019a. WDFW Maps and Data products SalmonScape mapping tool. htt://a s.wdfw.wa. ov/salmonsca a/ma .htni]. Last accessed February 19, 2019. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019b. WDFW Maps and Data products Fish Passage Program map application. h s://wdfw_wa. ov/conservation/habitat/fish passage/data ma s.html. Last accessed February 19, 2019. Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 20 I Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2019. WDNR Forest Practices 1 Application Mapping Tool. httRs://fvamt.dnr.wa.gov/default.aspx. Last accessed February 19, 2019. I 1 1 1 1 li li 1 J Federal Way Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 21 FIGURES Federal Way Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 Pc Trades 1p M S'V.' 301 s I. 'S t CN =r 7E S I&V 304,h Si of--innth 51 Elementary School Adelaide t. APPROXIMATE PROJECT SITE LOCATION Elementary rQ St -V.f 9C.16th St Grace C I ro sir;'3UQ01 p�' �N"' '�Qt.tn P1 U; SW 3-1.16at Ln S%V 307th,�;,, 5�1,, no Ith :it FIGURE 1 - SITE VICINITY MAP WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 PREPARED: 12/28/2018 UPDATED: 10/04/2019 BY: WH I N — �Iliw I 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 SOURCE INFORMATION: SNAPSHOT IMAGES FROM https://www.bing.com/maps Seattle, Washington 98133 n>- tx r; I Wetland (1990 SAO) i 63, Sensitive area notice on title Erosion hazard (1990 SAO) `30U28 e APPROXIMATE SAMPLE DATA PLOT LOCATION (TYP. NOT TO SCALE) r1 ,P - c rl L3 D201 i• IF 302271 APPROXIMATE r303'01 PROJECT SITE y .,� LOCATION s �^ A6631,11--3 � 30331 T LM King County FIGURE 2 - KING COUNTY PARCEL MAP n GIS CENTER WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT V�1 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA The lnformalten included an this map has been mmpiled by King County slag from a variety of sources and is RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 subled la oh-ge wilhoul nohm lQng County makes no representations, or mrranlles, e,rpraw ar implied. PREPARED: 02/19/2019 as to accuracy, —plats ness, timeliness, or dghls to the use of such Information This document Is Iwl Intended ea.edeke for use as a survey prod ud.Idng Co, my shall not be lbble for any genaral, pedal, inched, lndd-da 1, or UPDATED: 10/03/2019 nsequential damages Including, but not limited to, lost revenues a r lost pmfAs resulli,g fmm the use or misuse oflhe IAnmNgontatyainid on this map Any sale of Ihls map orinformation on This map Is pmhldled evmpl by BY: WH mitten p«maaan od"County. SOURCE INFORMATION: KING COUNTY iMAP GIS INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 hftps:Hgismaps.kingcounty.gov/imap/ Seattle, Washington 98133 a N N N N N N m e o pcc O N �= LU .•. T co o N .-.c� e C (Cp W. C N tOi1 U IE Q N N N h rp.. m O a •� N O O �•(O N 3 �•" 7. (0 3 N Q. Z .O O e�0 O N C O N O r w (� Cl) v U U t pvN O N NL y O >-�L lC rL W� m c K u p U U a m 4) m N� m a� mm a 'm 01 o m m p c a T c T �. i = rnnm rno a Z a (' c W o to c w d in c m m m m o z o z v o o�° w m o`mo o m >" o c J r A - : arm �2 :moo :. d LL /0 El ❑❑ N` N O S U m O c d m p Q a Q m W n n O i0 o y _ CO`D 3 0° 3 3 C 0 ~ y Q O N Q N LU O N = Q Q w w UZ) J —a LU O � w 0 ti U) w co0� Q a 0 LU 'l ' N C) LU � a Zco J M w o D N M _V LL 00 W-, 1 ✓ h 1p .� :-tea, •�a - •r# �� -4 LO f d- TT . 3". a M z� mX Q A � O ~ i ww a I �UQ Zip J w ' F-a �o WSW OQ N Q CS aLLJ 3: Q " w° wm H tea¢ o �w a _��� ~TQ as Q Z J OD L.L O N O � M qt W �w -wa N L N C D N O f0 C .r C C n ❑ ❑ LL 7 O co U f6 rp D Q d m O N a N (6 010 m H N C N T jU f0 E S C U N N om3>. ®m v -'. U1 m° n •L-• w a a E ..— N ddN;•h ❑ �i � N N N � O C N no w 3 w ii �� a° �'3❑a m n m ° or N 0 3 3 Z m m 3 C n m m W v w w t LL y ay E -Om(D C d n w � 3■CJ Q!❑ H-C/) S Puget Sound 4 LEGEND Water Bodies Water Bodies Flats?Gravel Bars Ice Man Made Features Open Water Wet Area WRIA Streams WRIA Streams", "'22 — Type S — Type F — Type N. Np. Ns U. unknown X, non -typed per WAC 222-16 Fish Passage Culverts • Total Blockage Dams ® Total Blockage Fish Distribution All SalmonScape Species Hydrography r. NHD Water Courses r — Coastline Stream 1 Perennial -- IntermitterltI Ephemeral -- Canal, Ditch NHD Water Bodies E Swamp, Marsh [� Lake, Pond, Reservoir Glacier NHD Area Features I Canal, Ditch El Large Rivers Rapids l ' VAr .?'10 th S•r SW 311 Ili S1 f APPROXIMATE PROJECT SITE LOCATION 3' X� rfi -- u, Adelaide z r r, SW 304th SI N Ada laid, ti�N ;1�tr; f+r fal Park +�7 =e ay i'%N 308th PI to a <V SW 30 itt St d, a+ c r' err// 0 � SW30611, St �r+ SW 30H It, Sl 2, SW 31uth SI z R $W 312th $I Lakote Porkit D r RW.D!& ti �? rn r% it d ui %V 3151h St � =� SOURCE INFORMATION: Washington FIGURE 6 - SalmonScana Ma Department of Fish &Wildlife M p SalmonScape interactive Mapper, WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT http://app://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/sa Imo nscape/ USGS/NHD Sources: Esri, HERE, 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA Garmi, Intermap, increment P Corps., RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance PREPARED: 01/25/2019 Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China UPDATED: 10/04/2019 (Hong Kong), swisstopo, (C) BY: WH 'i!A/ 31 Ath Pj Mirror Lake AN 74V OpenStreetMap cotributors, and the 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 I GIS user. Seattle, Washington 981SS APPROXIMATE PROJECT SITE LOCATION 6delaid Elem. Adelaide Park ng Lakota Park Lakota — - Micidle eca 419h School _ Legend: r�-- 2rainaee basins: Critical Areas: Water Features: Hylebos Creek Erosion Hazard Area Lakes Lower Green River ® Landslide Hazard Areas —\— Streams f arfl . t Lower Puget Sound Wetlands(1998 City Survey) ���Oth St Mill Creek L White River Boundedesereapproximete Remamber,ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE ARE4S MAY EXIST. Sae Map Nofes below for more Intormeb'on Groff Eler mil-ror Lake Map Hama: Watinda end afrmmma ware td.W.A.d in a 1998CMeIFpde-wW"wr- Leta for theL-01- Ir D hazed end F,"— hazard ore- rc providn0 b1 #rip _ .� County. OraL oge hams bou w u—w-1h. city Lrnits lure 4' _ y i*".mrrfwd Ly the Ciyof Faftuil Way 9dxln L[ 0 bcunea -ea. 0"ift of" amfj Ma pro'+ipea by KVip N County end hara not beenvonhad by ina City el G F.doral W.y CIIeCate.ra pronde tl ate. War —teen d far _ YIuWa9Ytl pur{aMes ONLY — Actual boundanesare subjectoffieldverification .— j� ADDMONAL CRITICAL AREAS MAYENIST. Critical areas in Pierce County are notshown The City of Federal Way shall not be liable for any damages due to the use or misuse at the infprmat"' repraaantep on 2 map µyppnda ata only shown in Federal Way and its Potential Annexation Area. Contact the City for an explanation of these areas and the regulations that govern them. I, Source: City of Federal Way, King County _ _(1Y i \1 a 1 I Iff_77 T1 1. 1 I A FIGURE 7 - City of Federal Way 2016 Sensitive Areas Map /N� WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT Vv 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 PREPARED: 01/25/2019 ' UPDATED: 10/04/2019 BY WH SOURCE INFORMATION: City of Federal Way, General Maps, Snapshot from 2016 Sensitive Areas Map 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 hftps://www.cityoffederalway.com/maps; Map Date: May 2016 Seattle, Washington 98133 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. MARKUP FOR OCT. 16, 2016 REVISED CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN REPORT STREAM CULVERT 12' CPP IE 209.1' TOP OF DITCH BANK CATCH BASIN RIM 214.1 12'CPPE IE 212.2' 1 / 1 I 1 / 1 _ � 1 r / � 1I 9L I iZ7 r I _ 1 N r j 1 CL rr o r 1 cn ► i i r 1 r 1 r r ay �`t i 11 j r l 1 1 i r N I TV k r I I r R=925.37' cy r I r rr I I r L=280.64' i t I i t A=17*22'35" !r I Ir , CULVERT 20' RCP IE 175.3'�{ MVERI 20' RCP IE 1BD.2' �yL JAN. 26. 2015 e0.00 - 1. k 1e 1 1 LOT 3 fI + BLAESIWOOD PLAT I i I 5• POWER \ I EASEMENT \ + 19TH PL SW -� I I TREE KEY I Mine Dou9las Fir • Holly O Hemlock ry / Alder Cedar . Cyp= Cedar n � DRAIN F Q� Plum I,� 215 I HOU E- PARCEL A BLA 16-100077-00-SU PARCEL B BLA 16-100077-00-SU Ii wTs rl1 t S s C/�I r I I 10• DRAINAGE I EASEMENT 9' BUILDING POWER L — — SEr BACK LINE EA Mi NT b AFN7906OW662 LOT 3 fl > SHORT PLAT 1277151 i 1 AFN7910020898 i D _ t I I I� II 1 POWER EASEMENT - 37.00 INGRESS EGRESS AND UTILITIES FIGURE 8 JEFFREY & KAREN WALL WALL SHORT PLAT FEDERAL WAY, WA CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND PROPERTY LINES wL wL wl m- ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE EXISTING CONTOURS -- — — — BUFFER LEGEND (UTILITIES) ® CABLE MARKER POST 0 CABLE RISER/PEDESTAL SS CLEANOUT C CABLE VAULT/MANHOLE (s) SS MANHOLE SS MARKER POST CULVERT O SEPTICTANK WITH ARM STORM CATCH BASIN 0ILUMNAIRE LUMNAIRE STORM MANHOLE V * LANDSCAPE/YARD LIGHT STORM CLEANOUT 0 STORM ROOF DRAIN ® NATURAL GAS MARKER POST STORM YARD DRAIN p NATURAL GAS METER 0 STORM MARKER POST ® PROPANETANK NATURAL GAS VALVE ® TELEPHON E CABINET 0 ID TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX 0 POWER CONDUIT 0 TELEPHONE RISER J. GUYANCHOR �. TELEPHONE MARKER POST d—GUY POLE O TELEPHONE POLE MI POWERJUNCTION BOX O7 TELEPHONE VAULT/MANHOLE 0 POWER MARKER POST ® POWER METER O POWER POLE 9 WATER BLOW OFF PP WITH DROP LINE A FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION PP WITH DROP AND LIGHT R HOSE BIB }-� PP WITH DROP, LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER 0 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE PP WITH DROPAND TRANSFORMER 9 WATER MARKER POST PP WITH LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER ® WATER METER PP WITH LIGHT ® WATER POST INDICATOR VALVE PP WITH TRANSFORMER * SPRINKLER HEAD Is POWER TRANSFORMER DG WATER VALVE © POWER VAULT/MANHOLE tr WATER FIRE HYDRANT 0 WATER VAULT/MANHOLE 0 50' 100' 200' SCALE: 1" = 100' Gaedeke Associates, Inc. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 DATE: 10/4/2019 DRAWN BY:AC BASE INFORMATION: BASE SURVEY FILE INFORMATION PREPARED BY MTN 2 COAST LLC. SURVEY DATED 02128/2017 SIGNED/SEALED OB29119. TREE SURVEY DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTED BY PROJECT OWNER (MR. JEFF WALL) ON 112611018 AND PROVIDED TO RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. ON 12/20/2016 BY ESM CONULTING ENGINEERS FIGURE 9 - ESM�NSULTING ENGINEERS PROP(' PLAN @aedeke A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 1, TWP 21 N., RGE 3 E., W.M. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219- Seattle, Washington 98133 4 WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT TRACT A I 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA �.2, ACRTS) f RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 ! lad PREPARED: 02/26/2019 ' IBUFFER STREAK BY: WH STORAWATOUTLET TPN 012103-9013 I ANCH �PALONG GROLjND S" ACE DOWN HILL$IRE [ J PIPE TO BE TI[LD L TED TO PROPaSEQj}ETEN110N 3AtiD A fD EXfS>f 1C TRE£S. lop; 215.00 BOTTOM: 212.00 STORWWATER LIVE STORAGE: 23,000E CIF TREMMENT FACILITY FREEBOARD: 1 FOOT . ' (ENHANCED) SEDIMENT: 1 FOOT EXISTING 6" AC WATER MAIN EDGE OF 20TH PL SW RIGHT-OF-WAY END R WIDENING, TAPER BACK 0 EXISTING. PROPOSED ROADSIDE -� DITCH REALIGN ENT BACK OF GRAVE SHOULDER PROXIMATE L0GITIO OF EXISTING WATER ET ER PARCEL 0121039146. 20'3 P OP05E0 ROAD WIDTH /RD0ITWNAL 4'� VEL SHOULDER EXISTING SIDE DITCH TENT STReAM 10' FER IMPACT, TRAFf•TC ONLY, IR INSTALLATION STORM Ol1TFALL. (1,184 SE) _ :7 APPR010MATE LOCATION OF EXISTING - �ryWATER SERVICE FOR -� PARCEL �0121039146-IF �� TO BE RELOCATED.' NEEDED �.Cr T SS SS III VENT PROPOSED A ��jj� INTERCEPTOR DITCH (TYP.) J / /!! �.aas [xsF.1 9.67 A,RL13]. A ' : D -/ ' LIMIYS (TYP,) 5' 10D' FULL STORMWATER DISPERSION . CONVEYANCE ` ' I FLOWPATI-I SYSTEM (TYP) TPN 012103-9045 I [s7.9u S'o [O,p] I APPROXIMATE NAT GROWTH -RETENTION PROPO5 FOR LOT 5 PULL At UTICO' DISPERSION 50' 015PERSION TRENCH FOR LOT 1 ROOFiOP AND DRIVEWAY RUNOFF Ek. 2Cr ACOM EASWMT AFN IONZODOW TPN 083050-0030 S EX. 5' POWER EASEMENT , J a TPN 085050-0020 �I T TPN 012103-9112 1TPN 012103-9113 84 (24,73 S F.) - - -�-�� (0.57 ACRES) 50'x5O' ASSUMED BUILDING PAD (TYP.)-� TR[ACT Lose cAcs� %f 1 _ 3' W RLLS {TYP) SHARED ACCE.S EASEMENT 4 (7➢,597 50 RDQ+70P/aR1uEwAY 9.s7 Acas) STORMIVATER STUB 1 ' PROPO5E0 20' UTILITY EASEMENT _5 .-. (23.999 S.F.) (0.55 ACRES) EX" 1D' D -.,EX. 10'. ENT DRAINAGE F 1�3� MUEN1 SULDtw • SET WK. LINE B iPN 065050-0040 WATERim METER l 1 / TPN 085050-0050 f WATER SERVICE CONNECTION TO EXISTING 4' MAIN TPN 085050-0060 SF.] 1.]6 "AOIC�Sj / I� I I POWER EASEMENT L — AFN7906060682 1 TPN 012103-9145 i II EX. 30' INGRESS/EGRESS & UTILITIES EASEMENT T'f� II N II > If Q TPN 012103-9144 I I t °D f l .— I_0 } SCALE: 1" 40' 40 Y.0 0 40 80 CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' SEWER NOTE: ALL NEW LOTS SHALL UTILIZE ON -SITE WASTE DISPOSAL (SEPTIC SYSTEMS) EARTHWORK QUAIVITITES STRIPPING (ASSUMED 67 400 CYDS USEABLE CUT (NEATLINE) 5,523 CYDS REQUIRED FILL (NEATLINE) 213 CYDS NET CUT (NEATUNE) 5,311 CYDS (ROAD SECTION HAS NOT BEEN REMCVED) LEGEND -- - EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE -- EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED 12"0 STORM DRAINAGE PROPOSED LOT LINE ----- PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED CONTOURS EXISTING CONTOURS TRACT TRACT LINE LINE 25' 125' 12.5' 25' 1 20' + ING 1 25 _ 3' 7' IIf 10' 3' S 3;t �TH".'DDGE SECTION A -A (TYPE DD) SCALE: 1 "=6' TRACT TRACT LINE LINE EX. 37' 26 POWER �• EASEMENT 10,�r 10' 2' 1 16' F41NG 1 2' I 27L 3.1 THICKENED EDGE SECTION B-B (TYPE CC) SCALE: 1"=6' FILE # i N 0 0 fL �U- 0 0 0 0 jO J 1 0 50' 100' 200' SCALE: V = 100' FIGURE 10 JEFFREY & KAREN WALL WALL SHORT PLAT FEDERAL WAY, WA CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT PROPOSED IMPACTS PLAN & MITIGATION LEGEND w PROPERTY LINES PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACT 2,653 SF TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT 724 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 16,510 SF —0--SPLIT RAIL FENCE (SEE DETAIL 1) CRITICAL AREA SIGN (SEE DETAIL 2) 4X4 P.T. POST WITH X* CHAMFER FASTEN SIGN TO POST WITH (2) &e GALV. LAG BOLTS WITH WASHERS FRONT & BACK n FINISH GRADE in 2 CRI ICAL AREAS 1 R A A Ll L D F NE (�)NTS 1)Permanent signs shall be a city —approved type designed for high durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 150 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner or homeowners' association in perpetuity. The wording, number and placement of the signs may be modified by the director based on specific site conditions. POSTS ARE PRECUT FOR FENCE RAIL INSERTS NOTES: POoT AI%1 RAILI G ARE PRECUT FENCE AND POSTS ARE TO BE UNTREATED CEDAR 4&edeke Associates, Inc. —) 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 9s 133 RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 DATE: 10/4/2019 DRAWN BY:AC PM:WH BASE INFORMATION: SURVEY AND SITE PLAN: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON 1/17/19. SURVEY UPDATED 10/3/2019 TREE SURVEY: COMPLETED BY THE WALLS J P IE 209.1' }ITCH BANK RIM 214.1 IE 212.2' 1 I 224 220 222 - % � �► � /�:.. r►r� f! I r►rr�►111>♦�, tc, ry LEGEND PROPERTY LINES �C� PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACT o� 2,653 SF �I TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT 724 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 16,510 SF PLANT LEGEND FOR BUFFER ENHANCEMENT TRFF.q FIGURE 11 JEFFREY & KAREN WALL WALL SHORT PLAT FEDERAL WAY, WA CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT PROPOSED PLANTING SCHEDULE SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS IMIN. SIZE SPACING QTY- Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir FACU 4'tall 20' O.C. 14 Thuja plicata Western red Arborvitae IFAC 4'tall 20' O.C. 18 Tsuga hetrophylla Western Hemlock (FACU 4'tall 20' O.C. 10 CI-IRI IR.q SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME IFAC I MIN. SIZE.STATUS (container) SPACING QTY. circinatum Vine Maple IFAC 2 gal. 6' O.C. 75 .Acer -Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut IFACU 2 gal. 6' O.C. 50 'Gaultheria shallon Salal IFACU 1 gal. 6' O.C. 50 Mahonia aquifolium Hollyleaved Oregon grape FACU 11 gal. 16' O.C. 150 Oemleria cerasiformis Osoberry FACU 2 gal. 16' O.C. 25 Polystichum munitum IPineland Swordfem FACU 1 gal. 6' O.C. 75 Sambucus racemosa IRed Elder FACU 2 gal. 6' O.C. 25 Symphoricarpos a/bus Common Snowberry FACU 1 gal. 6' O.C. 75 Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen Blueberry FACU '1 gal. 6' O.C. 125 PLANT LEGEND FOR BUFFER RESTORATION �HRl1RS SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME IFAC MIN. SIZE SPACING QTY. STATUS (container) --if— Msi—a c.u...•r1fn.., IFArn I 1 aal. 5' O-C. 6 Clustered Rose FAC 11 gal. 5' O.C. 6 Scouler Willow FACW 1 gal. 5' O.C. 6 Red Elder FACU 12 gal. 15, O.C. 6 Rosa pisocarpa Salix scouleriana Sambucus racemos Symphoricarpos albus y z,nowoerr 'U 11 901. 1 U U.'+ I u BUFFER ENHANCEMENT_ 1. REMOVE ALL NON-NATIVE VEGETATION FROM WITHIN BUFFER Itaedeke ENHANCEMENT AREA. KEEP ALL NATIVE VEGETATION. Associates, Inc. 2. PLACE TREES IN APPROPRIATE SUN/ SHADE LOCATIONS, AND DO NOT 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 INSTALL WITHIN THE DRIPLINE (OR TOO CLOSE) TO EXISTING TREES. Seattle, WA 98133 3. INSTALL SHRUBS PER THE SPECIFIED SPACING. 4. WATER THE NEWLY INSTALLED PLANTS AT RATE OF 1 INCH PER WEEK RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 DURING THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS. 5. MONITOR THE SURVIVAL AND GROWTH OF THE PLANTS FOR FIVE YEARS. DATE: 10/4/2019 6. MAINTAIN THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT ZONE, SO AT NO TIME IS GREATER THAN 15% OF THE AREA COMPRISED OF NON-NATIVE DRAWN BY:AC PM:WH VEGETATION, SUCH AS ENGLISH IVY OR ST. JOHNS WORT (HYPER/CUM RASE INFORMATION: SP SURVEY AND SITE PLAN: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON 1/17/19. SURVEY UPDATED 10/3/2019 TREE SURVEY: COMPLETED BY THE WALLS 7- r4 O O 0S 1= O i a) .o IU LL N 4 O G O O GENERAL NOTES AND CONDITIONS 1.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION FURNISH ALL MATERIALS, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND LABOR NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANTING, AS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS AND SPECIFIED HEREINAFTER. WORK INCLUDES REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES BY HAND METHODS, PLANTING, MULCHING, AND GUARANTEE OF PLANTED AREAS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. 1.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION I QUALITY ASSURANCE I GUARANTEE THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST / ARCHITECT SHALL BE INVOLVED DURING THE FOLLOWING PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION: (1) ON -SITE MEETING PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK (PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING), FLAG CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FOR GARBAGE, DEBRIS, AND HARD SURFACE REMOVAL (2) APPROVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL COMPLETION; (3) APPROVAL OF PLANTS, PLANTING LOCATIONS AND TECHNIQUES; AND (4) FINAL INSPECTION. PRIOR NOTICE OF 48 HOURS TO THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST FOR THE ABOVE ACTIVITIES IS REQUIRED. APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST MUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS THESE MAYBE PERMITTED BASED ON PLANT AVAILABILITY. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE FULL YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. ANY DEAD PLANTED MATERIAL OR PLANTED MATERIAL THAT IS NOT IN VIGOROUS CONDITION WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE TO THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR ALL PLANT MATERIALS AND OTHER MATERIALS USED IN THE PROJECT 1.3 SITE CONDITIONS / DAMAGE I CLEANUP THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY IF SITE CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN IN THE PLANS CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO PROTECT THE STREAM DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THE MITIGATION PLANTING AREA SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED BY CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ANY ITEMS NOT SHOWN IN THE PLANS, SUCH AS EXISTING BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, WALKS, AND/OR ROADS DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED AND/OR REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, IN A MANNER SATISFACTORY TO THE OWNER/CONSTRUCTION SITE SUPERINTENDENT BEFORE FINAL PAYMENT WILL BE MADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING PLANTED AREAS FREE OF DEBRIS. UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SURPLUS MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, AND DEBRIS FROM THE SITES. ALL PLANTED AREAS SHALL BE RAKE -CLEAN PRIOR TO MULCHING. 1.4 SCHEDULE ALL GRADING AND OTHER SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MITIGATION AREAS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO REMOVAL OF ASPHALT AND OTHER HARDENED SURFACES OR REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, SHALL OCCUR BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND OCTOBER 30 UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. ALL WORK IN SATURATED SOILS AT ANY TIME OF THE YEAR OR DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER IS NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO EXECUTION, AND MAY REQUIRE USE OF TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO SATURATED SOILS OR ADJACENT AREAS OF STANDING WATER. PLANTING OF WOODY MATERIAL SHOULD OCCUR BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND MARCH 1 TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SEASONAL RAINS AND GREATER AVAILABILITY OF PLANT MATERIAL. PLANTING DURING ABNORMALLY HOT, DRY, OR FREEZING WEATHER, OR AT TIMES OTHER THAN AS NOTED IS NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION AND MAY REQUIRE PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION. 2.0 PRODUCTS 2.1 TOPSOIL- IMPORTED THE IMPORTED TOPSOIL SHALL BE FRIABLE SURFACE SOIL FROM THE A HORIZON AS DETERMINED BY THE US AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL SURVEY. TOPSOIL SHALL BE FREE FROM: MATERIALS TOXIC TO PLANT GROWTH, NOXIOUS WEED SEEDS, RHIZOMES, ROOTS, SUBSOIL, STONES AND OTHER DEBRIS. ALL TOPSOIL SHALL PASS THROUGH A 1" SCREEN. TOPSOIL SHALL CONSIST OF A SANDY CLAY LOAM, SANDY LOAM, LOAM, CLAY LOAM, SILTY LOAM SOIL. MAXIMUM PERCENTAGES ALLOWED IN THE SOIL IS 50% SAND AND/ OR 20% CLAY. TOPSOIL SHALL BE AMENDED WITH COMPOST IF MORE ORGANIC CONTENT IS NEEDED AS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WITH A ONE POUND SAMPLE OF TOPSOIL FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO SITE. 2.2 ORGANIC COMPOST A WELL -DECOMPOSED, HUMUS -LIKE MATERIAL DERIVED FROM THE DECOMPOSITION OF GRASS CLIPPINGS LEAVES, BRANCHES, WOOD, AND OTHER ORGANIC MATERIALS. COMPOST SHALL BE PRODUCED AT A PERMITTED SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY (HEALTH PERMIT, WDOE STORMWATER PERMIT, PSAPCA FACILITY, AND EQUIPMENT REGISTRATION). COMPOST MUST MEET THE DEFINITION OF "COMPOSTED MATERIALS"IN WAC 173-350-220. THIS CODE IS AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT: HTTP://WWW.ECY.WA.GOV/PROGRAMS/SWFA/FACILITIES//350 HTML THE SOIL AMENDMENT MUST ALSO MEET THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS: • SCREEN SIZE (APPROX. PARTICLE SZE): 3/4-INCH MAXIMUM • MATURITY: GREATER THAN 80% • MATURITY MEASURE (C/N RATIO): 35:1 MAXIMUM • ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT BY DRY WEIGHT: 35% TO 80% • MEETS CONTAMINANT STANDARDS FOR GRADE A COMPOST 2.3 PLANT MATERIALS ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LOCALLY GROWN AND BE OF ACCEPTED SIZE STANDARDS AS SPECIFIED IN "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK - 2014" PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (ANSI Z60.1-2004V). ROOTED PLANTS SHALL BE FIRST QUALITY, WELL -FOLIATED, WITH WELL -DEVELOPED ROOT SYSTEMS, AND NORMAL WELL -SHAPED TRUNKS, LIMBS, STEMS, AND LEADS. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST/INSPECTOR SHALL INSPECT FOR QUALITY CONFORMANCE. ALL ROOTED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LABELED BY GENUS AND SPECIES. PLANTS DEEMED UNSUITABLE SHALL BE REJECTED BEFORE OR AFTER DELIVERY. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE FROM DAMAGE, DISEASE, INSECTS, INSECT EGGS AND LARVAE. BARE ROOT MATERIAL MAY BE USED IF PLANT MATERIAL IS INSTALLED BETWEEN FEBRUARY- MARCH. CONTACT PROJECT BIOLOGIST FOR PLANTING DETAILS FOR BARE ROOT MATERIAL. 2.4 BARK & STRAW MULCH BARK MULCH SHALL CONSIST OF GROUND FIR OR HEMLOCK BARK OF UNIFORM COLOR, FREE FROM WEED, SEEDS, SAWDUST, AND SPLINTERS AND SHALL NOT CONTAIN SALTS, OR OTHER COMPONENTS DETRIMENTAL TO PLANT LIFE. SIZE RANGE OF MULCH SHALL BE FROM 1/2" TO 1-1/4" WITH MAXIMUM OF 20% PASSING A 112" SCREEN. STRAW MULCH WILL CONSIST OF STRAW FREE FROM WEED SEEDS. 3.0 EXECUTION 3.1 SILT FENCE INSTALLATION INSTALLATION OF A SILT FENCE CONSISTENT WITH BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF ANY EXISTING NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURES, SITE GRADING, OR REMOVAL OF UN -PERMITTED FILL WITHIN THE WETLAND BUFFER, WOULD BE PROTECTED AS SHOWN ON THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN. 3.2 GARBAGE, DEBRIS, AND HARD SURFACE REMOVAL REMOVE ALL GARBAGE AND OTHER DEBRIS FROM THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA. REMOVE ALL HARD SURFACES SUCH AS GRAVEL, CONCRETE, AND ASPHALT WITHIN THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA. DISPOSE OF ALL DEBRIS OFF -SITE AT AN APPROVED CITY, COUNTY, OR OTHER WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY. 3.3 INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL WALK MITIGATION SITE WITH THE PROJECT BIOLOGISTTO IDENTIFY LIMITS OF INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL. INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL MAY EXTEND BEYOND THE PLANTING AREA TO REMOVE SEED SOURCES THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE BUFFER RESTORATION AREA. INVASIVE SPECIES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY, ENGLISH LAUREL, ENGLISH HOLLY, REED CANARYGRASS, AND OTHER INVASIVE SPECIES IDENTIFIED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. INVASIVE SPECIES WILL BE REMOVED BY GRUBBING OUT ROOT MASS. ALL NON-NATIVE, INVASIVE SPECIES INCLUDING ALL PLANT PARTS MUST BE REMOVED FROM PROJECT SITE AND DISPOSED AT A FACILITY THAT ACCEPTS YARD WASTE.. 3.5 PLANT INSTALLATION PLANTING SHALL OCCUR ACCORDING TO PREVIOUSLY DEFINED SCHEDULE. PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH DETAILS IN THE PLANS. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WILL EVALUATE IF ADDITIONAL SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED FOR PLANTING HOLES. SEE DETAILS PROVIDED IN THE PLANS. IF CONTAINER STOCK APPEARS TO BE ROOTBOUND, SLASH ROOTS VERTICALLY WITH A SHARP KNIFE ALONG OUTSIDE OF BALL IN THREE (3) PLACES MINIMUM BEFORE PLANTING. SOAK DRIED ROOTBALLS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO AND AFTER PLANTING. CLEANLY PRUNE BROKEN ROOTS ONE -HALF -INCH OR GREATER IN DIAMETER. PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED SO FINISH GRADE IS LEVEL WITH THE TOP OF ROOT BALL. PLANTS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND WATER -SETTLED. NO COMPACTION OF BACKFILL IS TO OCCUR AROUND PLANT. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE WATERED THOROUGHLY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. NO TREES OR SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED IN STANDING WATER. 3.5 MULCHING IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETION OF PLANTING, BARK MULCH SHALL BE SPREAD EVENLY TO A DEPTH OF 3 INCHES WITHIN THE ENTIRETY OF THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA. 3.6 CRITICAL AREAS SIGNS & FENCE GET SIGNS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, PRIOR TO HAVING THE SIGNS MADE. THE SIGNS SHOULD BE FOR A STREAM, NOT WETLAND, OR FOR A BUFFER, CRITICAL AREA. INSTALL SIGNS AT LOCATIONS SHOWN IN PLAN PER THE DETAIL. INSTALL THE FENCE AT THE OUTER EDGE OF THE BUFFER AND ALONG THE ENTRANCE ROAD. 4.0 IRRIGATION SUPPLEMENTAL WATER FOR ALL SHRUB PLANTINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR DURING THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASON AFTER INSTALLATION TO ENSURE SURVIVAL OF PLANT MATERIAL. HAND WATERING OR A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAY BE USED. 5.0 PLANT ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE PERIOD FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE BUFFER RESTORATION BY CONTRACTOR AND FINAL APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST, THE LANDSCAPE PLANTING WARRANTY PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IN EFFECT. FROM THIS DATE FORWARD, FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, A 100% SURVIVORSHIP OF NEWLY INSTALLED PLANT MATERIAL IS REQUIRED UNDERTHfS GUARANTEE. IF MORTALITY OCCURS DURING THIS PERIOD, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WILL SPECIFY WHICH PLANTS WILL BE REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR TO ACHIEVEA 100% SURVIVAL RATE. SPECIFIED PLANTS SHALL BE REPLACED WITH PLANTS OF SPECIES, SIZES, AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST IN WRITING. ALL MAINTENANCE OF PLANTED AREAS DURING THE GUARANTEE PERIOD SHALL BE BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL INCLUDE ITEMS AS INDICATED TO FULLY ESTABLISH ALL PLANTED AREAS TO A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS STATE. AT THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD, AND FOLLOWING REPLACEMENT OF ANY DEAD OR DEFECTIVE PLANT MATERIAL BY THE CONTRACTOR, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WILL CERTIFY IN WRITING THE PLANT MATERIAL IS SUITABLE AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND THAT THE ONE-YEAR WARRANTY IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. FIGURE 12 JEFFREY & KAREN WALL WALL SHORT PLAT FEDERAL WAY, WA CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT GENERAL NOTES ti'Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 I PROJECT: 2017-102 DATE: 10/4/2019 DRAWN BY:AC PM:WH BASE INFORMATION: SURVEY AND SITE PLAN: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON 1/17/19. SURVEY UPDATED 10/3/2019 TREE SURVEY: COMPLETED BY THE WALLS ES m O] ro tl] LL MONITORING NOTES & MAINTENANCE PLAN 1.0 MONITORING PROGRAM THIS PLAN INCLUDES A SYSTEMATIC MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE RESTORED BUFFER TO EVALUATE THE SUCCESS OF THE MITIGATION EFFORT THE RESULTS OF THE MONITORING WILL BE USED TO DEVELOP ANY NEEDED MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS OF THE SITE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE PURPOSES OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM ARE: (1) TO DOCUMENT PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MITIGATION AREA, AND (2) TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES COMPLY WITH PERMIT SPECIFICATIONS. THE MONITORING PROCESS WOULD CONSIST OF THREE DISTINCT PHASES: (1) CONSTRUCTION MONITORING; (2) COMPLIANCE MONITORING; AND (3) LONG-TERM MONITORING. THE "TIME -ZERO" OR BASELINE COMPOSITION, STRUCTURE, AND COVER ABUNDANCE WOULD BE DOCUMENTED DURING THE COMPLIANCE MONITORING PHASE. THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PROGRAM WOULD DOCUMENT THE SURVIVAL OF PLANTED VEGETATION AND RATES OF COLONIZATION BY OTHER PLANTS (I.E., IN PLANTED AREAS) OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD AFTER INSTALLATION OF THE BUFFER RESTORATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS DESCRIBE THE ELEMENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE MONITORING PROGRAM. 1.1 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WOULD BE PRESENT ON -SITE DURING THE VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO: (1) DEMARK THE LIMITS OF THE AREAS TO BE RESTORED; (2) REVIEW THE REMOVAL OF HARD SURFACES AND THE DECOMPACTION OF THOSE AREAS (3) REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PLANT MATERIALS AND RECOMMEND THEIR FINAL PLACEMENT BEFORE PLANTING; (4) ENSURE THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE CONDUCTED PER THE APPROVED PLAN; AND (5) RESOLVE PROBLEMS THAT ARISE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THUS LESSENING PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT OCCUR LATER DURING THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PHASE. 1.2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING COMPLIANCE MONITORING CONSISTS OF EVALUATING THE RESTORATION AREAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER ALL FEATURES OF THE MITIGATION PLAN HAVE BEEN INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE OBJECTIVES WOULD BE TO CERTIFY THAT ALL DESIGN FEATURES, AS AGREED TO IN THE PLANTING PLAN, HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY AND FULLY IMPLEMENTED, AND THAT ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE FIELD ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN. EVALUATION OF THE PLANTING AREAS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE DONE BY THE BIOLOGIST USING EVALUATION STANDARDS AND CRITERIA DISCUSSED IN SECTION 2 0. THE COMPLIANCE MONITORING PHASE WOULD CONCLUDE WITH THE PREPARATION OF A BRIEF COMPLIANCE REPORT BY THE BIOLOGIST. THE REPORT WOULD VERIFY THAT ALL DESIGN FEATURES HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY, FULLY, AND SUCCESSFULLY INCORPORATED. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES MADE IN THE PLANTING PLANS WOULD BE NOTED IN THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND ON THE DRAWINGS FOR USE DURING THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PHASE. DOCUMENTATION OF PLAN CHANGES SHOULD INCLUDE WHAT WAS DONE, WHERE, WHY, AT WHOSE REQUEST, AND THE RESULT OF THE CHANGE. LOCATIONS OF MONITORING STATIONS ESTABLISHED FOR THE COMPLIANCE MONITORING WOULD BE IDENTIFIED ON THE AS -BUILT PLANS. THE PLANTING PLANS, WITH THE COMPLIANCE REPORT, WOULD DOCUMENT "AS -BUILT' CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE. A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANTS ESTABLISHED IN THE BUFFER RESTORATION AREA WOULD BE RECORDED AT REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE PLOTS FOR BASELINE DATA. THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE USED TO DOCUMENT "TIME -ZERO' CONDITIONS FROM WHICH THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD WOULD BEGIN. THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND AS -BUILT DRAWINGS WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. 1.3 LONG-TERM MONITORING LONG-TERM MONITORING WOULD BE CONDUCTED OVER FIVE GROWING SEASONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND AS -BUILT PLAN BY THE CITY LONG-TERM MONITORING WOULD EVALUATE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANT COMMUNITY IN THE RESTORED BUFFER TO DETERMINE IF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MITIGATION PLAN HAVE BEEN MET. PLANT SPECIES WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AND PLANT COUNTS WOULD BE MADE DURING THE EACH YEAR OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING IN ORDER TO DOCUMENT THE PERCENT SURVIVAL OF EACH PLANTED SPECIES. PLANT IDENTIFICATIONS WOULD BE MADE ACCORDING TO STANDARD TAXONOMIC PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN HITCHCOCK AND CRONQUIST (1976). WITH NOMENCLATURE AS UPDATED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONAL WETLAND PLANT LIST (LICHVAR AND KARTESZ 2009). SIGNS OF PLANTING STRESS OR DAMAGE, PRESENCE OF INVASIVE SPECIES, AS WELL AS SIGNS OF VIGOR, AND RATES OF COLONIZATION BY OTHER PLANTS (I.E., IN BARE SOIL AREAS) WOULD BE DOCUMENTED DURING EACH YEAR OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING. PHOTOS WOULD BE TAKEN ANNUALLY TO PROVIDE PHYSICAL DOCUMENTATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE MITIGATION AREAS. PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD BE TAKEN FROM ALL LOCATIONS ESTABLISHED DURING THE COMPLIANCE MONITORING SITE VISIT AND EACH YEAR THEREAFTER OF THE MONITORING PERIOD FROM THE ESTABLISHED LOCATION POINTS. 1.4 MONITORING AND REPORTING SCHEDULE AND CONTENTS FORMAL MONITORING OF THE ENHANCED BUFFER WOULD OCCUR AFTER THE SEASON'S GROWTH IS VIRTUALLY COMPLETE (RECOMMENDED DURING AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER). IN ADDITION, SPRING SITE CHECKS WOULD BE CONDUCTED DURING EACH YEAR OF THE FIVE-YEAR LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD TO ASSESS SITE PROGRESS AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER SITE MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED MONITORING REPORTS WOULD BE PREPARED FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE GROWING SEASON OF EACH YEAR OF THE FIVE-YEAR LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD WILL COMMENCE FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND "AS -BUILT DRAWINGS BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. MONITORING REPORTS WOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE MONITORING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, WITH A TARGET DATE OF DECEMBER 31 OF EACH MONITORING YEAR. THE REPORT WOULD DOCUMENT CONDITIONS WITHIN THE RESTORED AREAS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTING ANY PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED 2 0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO BE USED IN THE FIVE-YEAR LONG-TERM MONITORING ARE THE FOLLOWING: • 100% SURVIVAL OF ALL PLANTED VEGETATION (TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVERS) IN THE RESTORED BUFFER, & THE RESTORED & CREATED WETLAND FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE FIRST YEAR AFTER PLANTING. ALL PLANTINGS THAT DO NOT SURVIVE DURING THE FIRST YEAR MUST BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR SPECIES AND SPECIFICATIONS. UPON INSTALLATION OF REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST YEAR, THE 100% SURVIVAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE MET; • 85% SURVIVAL OF ALL PLANTED VEGETATION (TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVERS) IN THE ENHANCED BUFFER FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF MONITORING YEARS 2 AND 3. SUFFICIENT PLANTINGS WILL BE REPLACED, AS NECESSARY, WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR SPECIES AND SPECIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO MEET THE 85% SURVIVAL STANDARD AT THE END OF THE THIRD YEAR THE PLANTS WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED. • COVERAGE BY TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SPECIES (VOLUNTEER AND PLANTED INDIVIDUALS) WITHIN THE ENHANCED BUFFER WILL BE THE FOLLOWING: • AT LEAST 20% AFTER THREE YEARS; • AT LEAST 40% AFTER FIVE YEARS; • THERE WILL BE NO MORE THAN 15% COVER BY HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY OR OTHER INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES, AS IDENTIFIED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST AT ANY TIME DURING THE FIVE-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD WITHIN THE AREA OF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT. 3.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN FIGURE 13 CONTINGENCY PLANS ARE NEEDED IF POST -MITIGATION MONITORING SHOWS THAT OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN MET. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT J EFFREY & KAREN WALL IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP A DETAILED CONTINGENCY PLAN UNTIL THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED ARE KNOWN. IT WOULD BE UNPRODUCTIVE TO TRY WALL SHORT PLAT TO ANTICIPATE ALL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS AND THEIR SOLUTIONS AT THIS TIME. COMMON PROBLEMS, BOTH HUMAN AND NATURAL, THAT MIGHT ARISE CAN BE IDENTIFIED AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REMEDY PROPOSED. FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER THE SECOND FEDERAL WAY, WA YEAR, PLANT COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE CREATED, RESTORED AND ENHANCED AREAS MAY NOT BE ESTABLISHED AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REPLANT WITH NEW OR CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT DIFFERENT STOCK, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WATERING OR IRRIGATION DURING CRITICAL SEASONS, OR AUGMENT THE SOIL. MAINTENANCE & MONITORING THE CONTINGENCY PLAN MAY REQUIRE EXTENSION OF THE MONITORING PHASE OF THE PROJECT, ESPECIALLY IF MAJOR CHANGES IN THE PLAN ARE REQUIRED. IF, AT THE END OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR YEAR FIVE HAVE NOT BEEN MET, IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS WILL BE ADDRESSED, AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING AN ADDITIONAL MONITORING YEAR(S) AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF SAMMAMISH. 4.0 MAINTENANCE 4.1 IRRIGATION SUPPLEMENTAL WATER WILL BE PROVIDED TO ALL TREE AND SHRUB PLANTINGS DURING THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. HAND WATERING OR A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAYBE USED. IRRIGATION WILL OCCUR FROM JUNE 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 30 OR OTHER PERIODS OF HOT, DRY WEATHER AND WILL DELIVER APPROXIMATELY 1 INCH OF WATER PER WEEK THROUGHOUT THE RESTORATION AREAS. IF WATERED BY HAND, THEN THE MINIMUM WATERING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE 1 TO 3 GALLONS OF WATER FOR SMALL SHRUBS AND 3 TO 5 GALLONS PER WEEK FOR SAPLING TREES AND LARGE SHRUBS. THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE GUIDELINES THAT MAY VARY DEPENDING ON PLANT LOCATION, EXPOSURE, SOIL CONDITION, AND PRESENCE OF EXISTING VEGETATION. 4.2 SITE MAINTENANCE THE RESTORED BUFFER & WETLAND IS DESIGNED TO BE SELF-SUSTAINING. TO ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF THE PLANTINGS, ADDITIONAL REPLANTING AND CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES MAY BE NECESSARY AFTER INITIAL INSTALLATION. THIS MAINTENANCE PLAN INCLUDES ALL ACTIONS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PLANTS FREE OF INSECTS AND DISEASE, CONTROL COMPETITION WITH GRASSES AND WEEDS, AND LIMIT DIE -BACK OR MORTALITY DUE TO INADEQUATE SOIL MOISTURE TO WITHIN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SPECIFIED ON SHEET 1. UPON COMPLETION OF THE REMOVAL OF ALL NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND UNPERMITTED FILL AND INSTALLATION OF THE RESTORATION PLANTINGS, MULCH AND ALL OTHER ITEMS SPECIFIED BY THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN, ALL SURPLUS MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE MITIGATION SITE. ALL SILT FENCES WILL BE REMOVED FROM WITHIN THE ENHANCED/RESTORED BUFFER WHEN THE ADJACENT HERBACEOUS VEGETATION IS ONE FOOT IN HEIGHT OR AS APPROVED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGISTAND OR THE CITY OF SAMMMAMISH, THE SITE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM WOULD COMMENCE UPON APPROVAL OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND AS -BUILT PLAN BY THE CITY. THE SITE WOULD BE REGULARLY MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WOULD INSPECT THE SITE DURING SPRING (MARCH-APRIL) DURING EACH YEAR OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD TO IDENTIFY ANY DEVELOPING PROBLEMS WITHIN THE MITIGATION SITE. ITEMS TO BE EVALUATED WITHIN THE RESTORATION AREAS INCLUDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM OPERABILITY (IF APPLICABLE), PRESENCE OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PLANT HEALTH, ANIMAL DAMAGE TO PLANTINGS, AND PRESENCE OF TRASH THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WOULD SUBMITA WRITTEN SUMMARY OF HIS/HER FINDINGS ALONG WITH MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PROJECT PROPONENT WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS/HER INSPECTION. MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE PROJECT PROPONENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT FROM THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. INVASIVE SPECIES WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY METHODS THAT DO NOT COMPROMISE THE ESTABLISHED VEGETATION OR THE REST OF THE RESTORATION PLANTINGS. UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST, REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES WILL BE DONE BY HAND, WITH HAND PULLING OF ALL WEEDS WITHIN THE DRIP RING OF ANY INSTALLED SHRUB OR TREE. NO WEED -WHIPPING WITH MECHANIZED LINE TRIMMERS WILL BE ALLOWED BETWEEN WOODY PLANTS Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 WITHIN CLUSTER OR CLUMPED PLANTINGS. RAI PROJECT. 201 /-102 5.0 PROJECT ACCEPTANCE DATE: 10/4/2019 AFTER COMPLETION OF THE FIVE-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD AND CONFIRMATION BY DRAWN BY:AC P M : WH THE CITY OF SAMMAMISH THAT THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT HAS SUCCESSFULLY MET THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, THE CITY OF SAMMAMISH SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN — ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT SIT AND RELEASE ALL BASE INFORMATION: BONDS IN PLACE AS GUARANTEE OF MITIGATION SITE CONSTRUCTION AND SURVEY AND SITE PLAN: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON PERFORMANCE. 1117/19. SURVEY UPDATED 10/3/2019 TREE SURVEY: COMPLETED BY THE WALLS 35 w 0 ATTACHMENTS Federal Way Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 W ATTACHMENT A Sample Plot Data Forms Federal Way Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 WETLAND DETEI __�4ATION DATA FORM — Western Mountu__ s, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Federal Way Wall Short Plat _ —City/County: Federal Way. WA Sampling Date:1/1212018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall _ State: WA Sampling Point: SP 1 Investigator(s): W. Hohman &A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N. R3E. W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long:-122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 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: Located in a section of lawn, north of the house on Parcel No. 0121039146. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra (Red Alder) 60 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 60 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus spectabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 50 _ Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry) 5 N FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = 3. 4, FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 55 _ = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) UPL species x 5 = 1. Polystichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 1 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6, ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7, ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 8. ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Hydrophytic 2• — Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 99 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 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) 616 Type' Locz Texture Remarks 0-5 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 Gr S Loam 5 - 14 10YR 4/3 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Gr S Loam 14 - 20 10YR 4/4 >95 7.5YR 4/6 <5 C M Gr S Loam 'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. zLocation: 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 (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: . Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary -Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Seconds Indicators 2 or more required ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (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 (611) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (65) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ 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): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes ca illary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETER IATION DATA FORM — Western Mounto_ ,, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way, WA Sampling Date:1/12/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 2 _ Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1 T21 N. R3E. W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Sloe _ Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long:-122.36 Datum: Unknown_ Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 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: Located in low drainage point northeast of home located on parcel 0121039013 VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophvllum (Bia-Leaf Maple) 60 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: _ (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 60 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry) 40 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4. FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5. FAC species 40 x 3 = 120 40 = Total Cover FACU species 70 x 4 = 280 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. Polystichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 5 Y FACU Column Totals: 110 (A) 400 (B) 2. Tellima grandiflora (Fragrant Fringecup) 5 Y FACU 3. Musci. species 5 NI NA Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.6 4. Unknown sedge 1 NI NA Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7. J ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01 8 ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. _ ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 16 _ Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. m Woody Vine 5[ratu(Plot size: 3 m) 1. Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation 0 _ = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 84 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 2 __j 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 0-4 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 Gr S Loam 4 - 20 10YR 4/4 100 Gr S Loam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=DeDletion. RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. zLocation: 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 (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one reauired: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ 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 (B7) ❑ 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): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes ca illary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETER XIATION DATA FORM — Western Mount. .s, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Wav: WA Sampling Date:1/1212018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 3 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N R3E W.M. _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 - 10 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long:-122.36 Datum: Unknown _ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 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: In custer of trees located in the center of the site. Refer to Figure 2 of 02/26/2019 report for all approximate sample plot locations VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyllum (Big -Leaf Maple) 60 Y FACU .. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 60 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis (Oso-Berry) 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Hedera helix (English Ivy) 5 N FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 3. Vaccinium parvifolium (Red Blueberry) 3 N FACU OBL species x 1 = 4. Rubus spectabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 1 N FAC FACW species x 2 = 5. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry) 1 N FAC FAC species x 3 = 30 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) UPL species x 5 = 1. Pol stichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 20 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Tellima grandiflora (Fragrant Fringecup)_ 15 Y FACU 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01 g ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9 ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 35 _ = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65 Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 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' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 Gr S Loam 5 - 18 10YR 4/4 100 Gr S Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: 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 (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) El❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ 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 (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETE,^ NATION DATA FORM —Western Mount —is , Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way, WA !` Sampling Date:111212018 Applicant/Owner: Jpffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 4 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N. R3E. W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 3 - 5 Subregion (LRR): Nontmy s_t Forests & Coasts [LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long:-122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravgLJ1Xsandy loam NWI classification: None Are blimatic / 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: Located north of residence and parcel 0850500040 VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyllum (Sig -Leaf Maple) 65 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. T Percent of Dominant Species 65 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus spectabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 30 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4. FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5. FAC species 30 x 3 = 90 30 = Total Cover FACU species 90 x 4 = 360 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. PoJvstichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 15 Y FACU Column Totals: 120 (A) 450 (B) 2. Tellima grandlflora (Fragrant Fringecup) 10 Y FACU 3. Rubus ursinus Califomia DewbeEyl 5 N FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3_8 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5, ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7. ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8, ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 30 Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Hydrophytic 2' Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 4 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 0-8 10YR 3/3 100 Gr S Loam 8 - 10 10YR 5/4 100 Gr S Loam With fire ped inclusions 10 - 18 10YR 3/3 100 Gr S Loam With fire ped inclusions 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: 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 (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): _ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: 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 (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ 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): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): _ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes ca illa fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETER NATION DATA FORM — Western Mount 1, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way. WA Sampling Date:1112/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrev & Karen Wall _ State: WA Sampling Point: SP 5 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1. T21 N. R3E. W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long:-122.36 Datum: Unknown _ Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 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: Located on slight slope near between southwest cornem of property an private access driveway off of 201h Place SW. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophvllum (Big -Leaf Maple) 35 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Alnus rubra (Red Alder) 15 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 50 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus speetabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 25 Y FAC 2. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry) 20 Y FAC _ Total % Cover of: _ Multiply by: 3. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4. FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5, FAC species 60 x 3 = 180 45 = Total Cover FACU species 50 x 4 = 200 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. Tellima grandiflora (Fragrant Fringecup) 10 Y FACU Column Totals: 110 (A) 380 (B) 2. Pol stichum munitum Pineland Sword Fern 5 Y FACU 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.5 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01 8 ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11, 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 15 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 5 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) % ape' Locz Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 2/2 100 Gr S Loam 3-7 10YR 3/3 100 Gr S Loam With fire ped inclusions 7 - 14 10YR 4/3 >95 10YR 4/6 <5 C M Gr S Loam With fire ped inclusions 'Type: C=Concentration. D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: 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) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one re uired: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more reouired) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ 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 (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes capillary fringe Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETEK JATION DATA FORM — Western Mounta Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way. WA Sampling Date:1112/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 6 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N. R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) _ Lat: 47.33 _ Long:-122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam _ NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 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 0 within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑ Remarks: Located within OHWM, in wide stream bow in northwest corner of project site VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyllum (Big -Leaf Maple) 75 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 _ _ (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 75 _ = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Saplfng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus spectabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 80 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Acer macroph llum (Big -Leaf Maple) saplings 10 N FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3. 4. FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5. FAC species 80 x 3 = 240 90 = Total Cover FACU species 87 x 4 = 348 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. Geranium robertianum (Lesser Herbrobert) 1 Y FACU Column Totals: 167 (A) 588 (B) 2, Tellima grandiflora (Fragrant Fringecup) 1 Y FACU 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 35 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01 8. ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9 ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. — " Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 98 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 7 soiL Sampling Point: SP 6 _A Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moist)_ % Color (moist) % Type, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0 - 18 10YR 2/2 100 Gr S Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: 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 (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, ® High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ 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 (B6) ❑ 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 (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0.5 Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETER, J'ATION DATA FORM — Western Mount&. ,), Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Federal Way Wall Short Plat _ — City/County: Federal Way. WA Sampling Date:1/12/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 7 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21 N. R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slone Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 15 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long:-122.36 Datum: Unknown _ Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam — NWI classification: None — Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 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: Located approximately 10 feet east uphill from stream and approximately 40 feet east of Sample Plot 6 near northwest comer of project site. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyllum (Big -Leal- Maple) 75 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. 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: 20 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus ursinus (California Dewberry) 40 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Sambucus racemosa (Red Elder) 20 Y FACU Total % Cover of: MultiplY_dy: 3. Alnus rubra (Red Alder) saplings 15 Y FAC OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 q, FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5, FAC species 15 x 3 = 45 75 _ = Total Cover FACU species 165 x 4 = 660 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. Polystichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 30 Y FACU Column Totals: 180 (A) 705 (B) 2. 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 39 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: q 5 ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6 ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8 ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9 ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10, ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must 30 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1 — Hydrophytic 2• — Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70 Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0 - 18_, 10YR 2/2 _ 100 Sandy Loam 'Type: C=Concentration. D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: 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 (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required ❑ Surface Water (All) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (61) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ 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 (B7) ❑ 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): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of hydrology were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 51 I I I I I I I I I I j ATTACHMENT B Email Correspondence from Larry Fisher, WDFW Habitat Biologist Federal Way Wall Short Plat Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 j �-t Will Hohman From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 9:10 AM To: Will Hohman Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Will: Yes, I still agree that feature is a totally artificial watercourse and not jurisdictional. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 Cell: 425-449-6790 - Please note phone change to just my cell phone. <N1}}>< <')((}}>< From: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 2:23 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Larry, J We received an updated survey from the engineer for this project. This email will hopefully fully close the loop on our recent discussions. The roadside feature discussed in my Tuesday, August 6, 2019 9:49 AM email does actually get piped from the catch basin on the east side of 20t' Place SW to the west side of the road where the stream is that we looked at in January 2018. Attached is an update showing the old survey (left side of the page which assisted in the basis of your determination in your email below) and the latest updated survey information (right side of the page). Again, they simply want to widen the road and move the open roadside feature west keeping it as an open roadside drainage feature. It appears to be excavated from uplands, constructed as an artificial drainage feature based on our desktop review and observations of disturbed conditions. Feel free to call me for more information if needed. When you get a moment, can you let me know if your thoughts highlighted below still stand? Attached are some photographs of this feature and here is another link to look at it in Google Maps. 47'19'52.3"N 122°21'38.1"W Thank you very much for your time in advance. Best regards, Will H. 1 Will Hohman, PWS Phone: (206) 525-8122 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.eov> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 2:19 PM To: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Will: I believe that is not a jurisdictional watercourse, so it could be relocated without obtaining an HPA. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 Cell: 425-449-6790 — Please note phone change to just my cell phone. <Nf)}>< <Nf ))>< From: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 9:49 AM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.eo_v> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Good Morning Larry, I have an issue that came up on this project that you met me at in Federal Way. Likely not an issue, but I would like to ask you in order to help check the boxes for our client? You and I reviewed a roadside ditch feature on the east side of 20th PI SW in Federal Way back in January. Here is a decent google maps link to refresh your memory so you can look at it from street views. 47°19'52.3"N 122°21'38.1"W There is another much smaller roadside drainage feature located north of the intersection of 20th PI SW and 215t Ave SW that is located along the western side of 20th PI SW. It is much smaller than the one on the east side. I am working with the engineer and surveyor to determine exactly where this goes. Attached is a markup of the survey information. The red line is the feature in question; highlighted are details on the ROW and pipes within this roadside feature. As you can see it is likely that this feature is less than 2 feet width with 12" pipes in it and appears to be wholly excavated in uplands and is less than 1 foot deep. From what I recall during out site visit, this feature almost gets as shallow as the edge of the roadway itself. If my client needed to widen the road and push this feature west, leaving the existing pipes alone and simply reconstructing the drainage feature to the same dimensions alongside the widened roadway footprint, would that trigger an HPA for this project? I am working on collecting more information about this feature and wanted to at least start the discussion with you recognizing that you are probably very busy this summer. I hope you are doing well and ha g a great week. If I can explain this in a be__ r way, please feel free to ask questions or give me a call... Best regards, Will H. Will Hohman, PWS Phone: (206) 525-8122 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 3:35 PM To: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Will: If the culvert is not altered, an HPA would not be required to work on the fill over it. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <'){{}}>< <'){{}}>< From: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 3:21 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.eov_> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Larry. Happy New Year to you and your family! Quick question for our client: They need to expand the width of the existing driveway per their current concept design. No direct discharge into the stream or change in vertical elevation of the driveway (pre- vs post - construction). They are not proposing to replace or touch the culvert either. Still needs an HPA, right? If so, can you call me to chat about this b/c I have some concerns regarding what might be required on a site like this considering what is actually happening out there (upstream and downstream). Attached photo is looking upstream from where you and I collected some channel width measurements. Feel free to call me if I can explain better. I hope you are doing well and having a great start to the New Year. Best regards, Will H. From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Lan Y.r-isher@dfw.wa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:07 PM To: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Cc: Annamaria Clark <aclark@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Will: The photos look like that may be a totally artificial watercourse. If you are asking if the stream we looked at could be changed from F to unclassified because the artificial watercourse drains into it, the answer to that would be no. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <110 >< <') 0 >< From: Will Hohman [mailto:whohman@raedeke.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:55 PM ~ To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Cc: Annamaria Clark <aclark raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Larry, I wanted to follow up and say thanks for taking the time to meet Annamaria and I out at the property off 20`h place in the City of Federal Way on Friday January 121h. It sounded like, based on the following site conditions, the segment of stream contiguous and on portions of the property would classify as a Type F (Type 3) per the following field data: per WAC 222-16-031 "(3) Type 3 Water (b)(i) natural waters... presumed to have fish use: (a) Stream segments having a defined channel of 2 feet or greater within the bankfull width in Western Washington... and having a gradient of 16% or less." Summary of our site walk and findings: We estimated an average 3 foot bankfull width immediately downstream of the access gravel drive culvert which opens to a bankfull width that is larger than 3 feet approximately midway along the western most property edge and between a 8-12% gradient along the length of the property boundary. We also measured the same bankfull width upstream of the access drive culvert for some distance past the southern property boundary. Given this criteria, existing man-made structures (culverts), and no observed natural barriers, the stream falls in line with the definition of a Type-F stream per above referenced WAC. Do you agree with my takeaway from our meeting or see it another way to look at it given some of your recent training/discussions with DNR and others? My only last question would be, does the smaller roadside conveyance (attached photos looking upstream) get excluded from consideration as a "natural water" if it is actively maintained and artificially created. Perhaps this is a moot point since it is connected to the larger bankfull width downstream. If I can verify that this smaller section was artificially created, when it was, and that it is regularly maintained... could that result in potentially declassifying this reach 4 section? Just thought I would asl"� ee the WAC is more specific to irrigation . _These scenarios, so since it is "presumed to have fish" by definition then perhaps this does not work without further survey and/or more formal consultation. Again, thank you for your time and cooperation. I hope you are fully recovered from your cold. Have a peaceful start to your week. Kindest regards, Will H. Will Hohman, PWS Phone: (206) 525-8122 Ext. 124 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW)[mailto:Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.eovl Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 9:03 AM To: Will Hohman <whohrnan@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way I could meet either Th or F about 1:45 or so this week. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <')10}>< <')((}}>< From: Will Hohman [mailto:whohman@raedeke.com' Sent: Monday, January 8, 20181:58 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Great! I know it is short notice, but would you be available this Thursday or Friday afternoon to meet us on site? If not, J would late next week work for you? Afternoon would be best for me. The site is up off of 20th Place SW north of SW 304th street in Federal way. I still need to confirm with the project owner once we have a date that works. No rush, just thought I would ask in case we can make it happen sooner than later. Kindest regards, Will H. Will Hohman, PWS 5 Phone: (206) 525-8122 Ext. 124 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW)[mailto:Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.govi Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 8:01 AM To: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way IMR[, 11 Yes, I will be the contact for that. Thank you for the kind thoughts. Right back at you. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <Nffl>< <')f* >< From: Will Hohman fmai[to:whohman@raedeke.com] Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 2:54 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa_.gov> Subject: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Larry, I have a project that I think we are going to want WDFW to weigh in on regarding water typing/classification. It is in the City of Federal Way in King county. Are you the point of contact if we need to schedule a field site meeting in a few weeks to review? If not, could you possibly point me in the direction with whom I should be speaking. Thanks for your time in advance, Larry. I hope you and your family had a very happy and peaceful holiday season! Talk to you soon. Kindest regards, Will H. Will Hohman, PWS Wetland Ecologist whohman@raedeke.com 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98113 6 Phone: (206) 525-8122 Ext. 124 Fax: (206) 526-2880 http://raedeke.com/ I— I J SNAPSHC DF SURVEY PREPARED BY MOUNTAIN 2 COAST ON 02/28/2017 MARKUPS PREPARED BY RAEDEKE ON 08/06/2019 .Hall catch basin CULVERT IE 20"RCP=175,31 rti� I•- CULVERT IE 20"P.CR=180.2 CULVERT IE 12"RCP=16556 - �' � -� Irrl ' •Ilir fr � ��Y l +r CULVERT IE 12"RCP=18827 5� ROW PER AEN 2005082393900021 , CULVERT IE 127RCN1O h�1 CULVERT IE 12"RCP il' �- !rl +� UNABLE TO VERIFY If 14! }, 11 I ( 11 illr IA ! I STREA�rrt/rf r i rr rr1111 r � i11 I J CULVERT IE 12"RCP=212.66 - -- ROW PER QCD V655, P495 DEEDS i l l it`- '^+s.� � , f 1 1+,I llllltli r l r r y , +�'�t ill+ •r1+Ilt�t,=;kl]h1{,iisi.11� 1 r J J /rrl �}-i•IrRrnv PER GCra• J'Il,l !��,i I I lIr+Y855, P435 QEEDS J I J `J. irr' �~ ! rill:ar eruRRf:,u ° �+ L r r r Jllrr jlll I1Y r l r 1 ;I . JJ1./I it" Illl II 1 f '' lIli � r/-.��I�I+i+ IIIIIII JffJl is It r III¢1 II J'rr f! I rf r r it �1►/1111� 11 !fir 1� l ti 11 1/I 11J �. J +So' 11, �5 ��111111111/��--rls1RE: /rill r t111` 1111 j111� I11 ri�� ilr 111/ 1 �- 1 I JI l r ►-:ROW PER ROS AFN e�I/"" -"=20050823900021 �JJ l�illl\ /I J -- }fii`fl/JIr -0' �,1 •,fr rr-- . I SNAPSHOT OF SURVEY PREPARED BY MOUNTAIN 2 COAST ON 08/29/2019 MARKUPS BY RAEDEKE ON 10-11-2019 CULVERT 12" CPP IE 209.1 TOP OF DITCH BANK CATCH BASIN RIM 214.1 12'CPPEIE212.2' ! ? 1 Area reviews q0 d with Y/ !I II i WDFW on jani iary 12, _ r 2019 (determined to be a ARTIFICIAL ROADSIDE RI I r -220 �� f regulated watercourse). DRAINAGE FEATURE IN QUESTION. New area in question? r Ir Raedeke trying to verity if survey picked up the direction that this feature r1V I �!� r/ r �i ' 50- M1t*R 1 • l leaves the catchbas`in I�r r rf r - J 5 T REAM BUFFER 11 / �• 1 - . CULVERT 1E / 1$'RC.P-224.84 /• / / J/�. 1iI rJ �i� J �i CULVERT IE - r f 12"CMP=230.18 1 3h '/ / r / / I CULVERT IF 111 r /, 1IBWP-22b.9 r CULVERT IF 12"CMP=230.48 \ 1 r II � .CULVERT IE v 1 I r12`RCP-231.10 J'CULVERT 1E ••- / // r/ / / 1 12-RCP=231.67 CULVERT IE / 1 f 1 12"RCP=231.31 CULVERT IE I 12"RCP=232.70 LU + \ / I Q � f Ln rV 1 I J ATTACHMENT C WDFW PHS Report Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 w LO J G J j o � Co Q z0 0 aCL CO d LL (/) LLU 0w a z (n wo N� z I L Q a (n IL �— U N wQ a' Co z m to 2 N 0= CL cn� 0 } a o z W (/) 0 Q Q Q� o0 �a L� 11w O U N 7 Q m J W J g a = z z d CD c J W Cn J a g = z z (L W IL a a Z Q CA J W J ¢ ¢ _ z z a c J W a a Cn Z ¢ UU n2o7 UN aA ❑ L yC O J- ❑. Oa CL Li 0. N QN ° ¢ 4 p O a O a aa pN0a.0 OU� 0 Z _ Z Z Z Z� C U)C EC " C ❑ w❑ -0 : @Lq ❑ E p 0 0 3 a E 7 o 0 3❑ E z+ C C 7 o 0 3 E-0 C C = o 0 3 a E C C o 0 3 sz m m o o O) O) O) m m m o o 0) O) (:) i71 m m o o O) O) O) Cp m m o o O) _m O) O7 m m o o O) O) 0) p1 E 3 3 3 3 3 3 E 3 3 E 3 3 2 C C C C C `0 C C C 3 3 D o 0-a O O rL o o Q Q O 0-c o❑ Q o, O OtL o o Q Q O Ors o 0 oa a O OLt -W-2 -0 0d E ❑12 ❑ U ❑ Z U 2 LL N LO F/5 U) (D C/) U) V L YN U) 7 N N Z Z C U C L O $E E E . m o 0 r U U) Z U 0 LL m N = m N Y 4 Y N U)_ _ L -Et L U U U C UO LfLLO LL m U) Cl) V >LL N > Co (D J E L r, U O tl) O U ¢ N ❑ z c E L 0 0 3 C o c E 3 3 U U C C 3 3 U U a c O O t r 0 C L m � � L md = E � 6 C O 2ED 0. ca 2' C m N 0 E N G W wr�E m .F c 'r E �1 m _ O C C C m O KZ a �E' N m U W C 0.Q N ma m a - m o = Cb c _ m j �+ C7 p w m p m a � C aE.o C C m .2L O L y C m m i m o N C E j m N : E ' q to ❑ -2 U. Cam N ❑ O mm io 0 _ m = D mdmr .cr c m N N'� 7 ❑ O m ,5 C = N q y U �? E -ooN N T� m a D N ❑ c =op� N ❑ cw w Wit- 7'3 co cp SO .m C F3a w m m❑ =�m N C C U a aO`j+ J _ m Q p m o°M= O D i j w N CO y O O N H N r li ate) noOD W E m o N o ID - w N �wa c c U ❑ w E w G a x o m m a.'N o I CN r a) L L M O r m � O W Ul T W U ,n n w c� N ci v C7 � m L Q❑ t O O WC - O N �W G d CO IL CO F d O 0 w a Z Q O � U cn w Q cn J O IL m m Q a U tf CC) o a o N � a a Z (0 c co 63 ATTACHMENT D Existing Conditions Photographs Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Midigadion Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 M O 41 O N C � U � O � 3� coo N N 00 U ^'a c a. o N � O � D1 y O_ U N U cc NE > Q cz � 3 Q o tt "C1 N *a O t O IL o. N o �o y N '3 N 0. No s. 00 -4 M 0 O N � y O � co GL 'O U O 4-4 N a� o b -b N co 3 cz .- I I I I E 0 O N N O C� O\ 4. 0 M a) E a� N 0 - r~ cz ' o c h U � cz cz Q �0 cu > 0 U o Ln 0 o� r a� ■ 7p U d, t"� k a• r PN "7. Cd N goo 4 � O a Q to p.0 y bA � � Q r b o ai n. IS 0 WO C � O •� a a ce f �yl ATTACHMENT E Mtn 2 Coast LLC Wall Short Plat Topographic Mapping Survey Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 CULVERT 20' RCP & 175.3' I C 1>,,' III111IIry t r! SURVEY NOTES 1. INSTRUMENT USED: soKREA sRx 3 TOTAL — �= I STATION ANY TOPCSN CAS GPS. i - l��� J , + CULVERT 26' RCP IE I BO.2' j M7E 2. STANDARDS OF WAE C 332-150-C90. `Y.f !1 / 1 .I.I� : - J ' ^ _ ♦ ♦ J I..�,L„F /j ij r ��- � ` _�. 3. SURVEY COMPLETED 2/1/2017. ♦ ! f l J• i �s •I !f !+! I I I I1 r �Z. 1 r ► f ► r ^ - ^ `- ~ 1tt}, N Z. +f l I + I f �f ++ ► 1 j ra l r ' �' «." 4. INDIVIDUAL TREES NOT MAPPEO, WETLAND ORDINARY HIr OWN AS DELINEATED BY MA3HARK HECKERTm4) i , i! !+ 1 f r ! 1 �Ilyiy LIE l+ �+ ► l r r I ! 1 + l l L I MATH BEAVER CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL SEANCES. + ly yi Il I I l l f E ! Ilt l� I I r N i l yy} i l 1 l` y y y i + f l l I r r! I• Il y l y it ly 1 I r r r r/ r f p' 40' 60 I r ACCORDING TO SLR. HECKERT THE OHWM DELINEATES A MINOR STREAM 47LA59FICATiON I!r r Il it ll{r1/ 11 ')I If r rrrr/rrr s[�LE r =e0 WITH 54' BUFFER. WETLAND AS MAPPED ,tnN. 28, 2018 ► i+Ell 1111�111 1►Ir rrrr r r r J I + ++j1(Illl zit /�►i� 1 /r ??Jrrr rril HATCHING E�aa I r++ Iy IJ _ flr ii ili�jflr�j l��(r� ; I ��irrf r .� =''��r�itlf L•hI` GRAVEL rr Iq. -/ � f/Ilrl►+I�IIIy l► f ! �! r I!f !, � --_- -` �=■ ----- rr r � r►� .■.� rIr rl. I 1 Yrl� 4 rJ�■A=I�1111 Iyly II r// I /! /jr/ '-/f::- ►►fi+�llt+�11 i r r rrrr -��-- �. . ��- �r/IfIIII'el ^ T _ =:� =:•;'/r�'li 1►�1 ASPHAit �rl! fl I I I I;! l!� rrrr-�_-IrJihl�+ ++f + +fr r 1 + f 1 III ! Irl l liltr r l+ f+► -- �_ �- J/r!lJ11IrJr► J'7-aFy=rrrr r1111► Ir r i CONCRETE 1 / l�It - rr►1 rl r�--�rll Ir +++rr � + ! + + - �_- ��.-� __.../� r rr 1 IIr I+II ►1 Ilrr ^ II 1+lf+f+r r 11 I �7:�_�- ��rr r �r rrrrri► I + f f rl� 1�r111J1Ir^ ^ II ++ J+++ rrrr rr 7L �■ J- -- - . r - = JJ/i f �. 1 r ► ► I r r lr+1 Tr+ r r a PARCEL �• Y-`��r�. -:-�■ l eLll ''` 111 Ilrl rt/ + if ■ r~� rr--r - rr ■ ■ J// rJ J f ! < LLI rJ►Ir►Jr►rrjrr== 1r�„fl !+J ��'? BLA J6-100077-00-SU-'.r -rJ r-�_ - r err ! /!1 LEGEND (SURFACE FEATURES) �f+ 1I \ \� ~- 1►11 r/r r J ++ { y r rr e / .- �_� jrJ / r 1 p AWMINUMCAP t �, I rl 1'rir' i!/rr !! " / 4p' '� r� J/ % �' ~~^ ! rrrr f M 1 + l I '1►11 J rr r f Cr J1gr, - r / ! r r ~ r` J r ! J D£CIDu0L15 TREE � BRASS CAP ff�jl+/ r f I )7'y 11 j1f IIr1'I11/� r■r`J �! >� r!r}~�� .- rr /rt` % 1 r f f rr fir / �rr/ CONIIER TfIfE 8 HVBANATACK f f} 1 I I I + /r lf r!!1 fI t J ~^ ���� r /f r 1 1 1 t r I�r !I 7APIE TREE O 3AON PIP£ 17r+11 !�� r 1 I r/ 1 t IU! I I r/J� f �ODi1GIN54IRTREE B M014UMENT INCASE I E - /r!r rlJr J _ J r r, I r f 1 r/ 1` r�r if l f/ a PR NAIL I+f f ! I I �. 1r/rii rimy rimJrr- / / r r -- ---` / • r I / r f r r/ /iril/rIr ❑ REBARANDCAP 1 I! rr ��� /r r r J r r-� ~ ^� ►. — ,. � _ r r J r I.. Jir r f flll I I ! `T �iii■I�r,lrr . r1 r �� ��� �^ r_r r /r �■rr Ir rlrri .•; Jr CULVERT 12" CAP iE 209.1' �/ ! r! �r r r �� r � � � ...^ ^'_���■fJJ rr Nr� �i�■■i irlrrr TOP OF DITCH BANK / ► l Jr r Jr� ! f r r I ■ _ r rrrr _rrrr ■ _I rrJ! N rr y y Ir �J ir�r/J � � / rr Ii/ J / r � .��_�~~ _.-^'- r � ■ J r^rJfJr.�r■_J rr! CATCH BASIN RHA 2$4.1 ,�r�r�il/r'% Jrrr / f -_ 12' CAP E IE 212.2' I j l \\L\\r■ rrJ IIr -� rr r ■r/ J r'~J� PARCEL B _ - ' - � �`' �!�-+•`rJ�%rj�rrr�i IrI rrr r F 1 \ . -� ■ . BLA 16-100077-00-SU ~a-rr' r� rrrr/rrr II�r11 r \ `rr�l11j r rrrr �`r■ rr Err rrr/ rJf IJII .\'� \\ \�=�r= ==:■ / ..� rc` y,r■ ;r� / =■ !�xi/�' I F - � � \ • . ■ / r i"�'-r r .� _� I f Jrr Jr / r I r .� rrr r`•�!_.�'� r rr r l _ /rJ �/ i / 11 J�- Jr � flF% r J \r rrr r ■ �i J !-♦ ��r���.y.� � r �� r �---' -` �Jr rr �%Ji r�" r rr ��-...jjjjjj 1 Jrrr\.■r - rr rr'r �!■ �JJ ! r' �'I�"7rr r' _-- ^^~^�+�� rJ,1 1 T//II1 %C` ■i �i- .e i'' r r r r / r r""� _ !rrrjl r r rr / I ~ J r f r■ r r r y I r fJ r Jrr �r --_-'' _ � �:.�► � � � r•-- = �i%I%■ �.■r �iJ r r r■ ' r r ■ rr rr r r'- �+c�r r/ ■r Jr� /J/ r J r I of T�� r � �r�►� �_ � . r-��■Jrr � rr ��. r' ■ �-�`~J" `^^ ~ � _ L`r. � rJ rrJr! rr./r r rf J r J rrJr '--'�"�� ��� ^ J-.rr r r r'r frJr Jrr ! r r I / �r ■t I f r r f _IIr J J ■ - _ _ � � �•- . ■ ■ ■ r / J _ Jrr �fr r � r � - r rrJr rr % rJrr� Jr Jr i r~ ^ ` ._^ � _ � r� � s ■ � �'J��ri�%r Jri�r� r Jr �i•r� !� 1 ]Jj 1 rrr r r / / / / r . r r! - -. r _1 rr iirr rrrr rr J� r f� J ■ J, I � IJ //"f�,r� �/-i! r' r■ rr J rr/J /!Jr- rr � r _ �^ � - . .x rr J�rJr■Jf!'1y...J /'r�/ rI ft / J! �r ■Ir =.rr /ff J/J` r r- / � ►� "; -� rrJJ/rJr •- / /! r- I�I ��� �'r-J � r■■ rr rr r f rrJ !! // / rr � � r`� _� �rr� ■r/■ir=r rrJr. r J �r � r I I ��} J■�■/ r r r r Jr J rrJ �/! ! / / . _ _R -Jrrr-_ r. rrI rrJr Irr r'. 1 ! ! I�C r � I r ■ ■r % r r / r I `�--.- � � Irr � r %Jrr J/rrrJ=rrry~r r f r ►_- r�1 AQELAIQE �V I r �r -r f r .r I r rrr % r!�! r % r r~� _ �v r � ~~ � r rr /l/ r / r ■r- '\ + 1 r I + r r J. ! / s .r • J r J J rr !r 11^-------r r i �� :/r ! i r/� + ! r FOREST f _ I J r r Jrr f .J .' / J r r/ / //! / ^ \_ !~ �- ;-.: Jry .:■/ 1rr/r Jti f f +r ! ESTATES 1 1 ' f! Air" r - f J r ! ! r J J / ! !/ 1r / r / -~~~ � . � r r__-_ r � ■ r ■fir r/ // f r, : ' _�--� _ J r r �■ r ■ J f %r J/ J �� --r _ r r r r/ r r+ ! rr +Ell � w / rr ■r � t� rJ ■r rr rr i !i//% ! / rr r =rr-- _ '�� r^ - � Irr. r rfJrrJ r/r + y �! Jrr r +J r r • r % r f/ r rr J rf r � J^ -� y_�ir'-_�- ■ • / / 1 1 /` I �� ■� __r Ir r / r1 / ■ Jrrr rrr f/r r� r. .�- _~ r- �~ T;��•_ r. Irr � ! 1 1 / jr/ � r I ^� 1 or/ r r r r r / rrr rr �- �^ � - r J r . 1 /• rrr .. / / r -^r J J 1! Jrr fr r r r / / /I //I r^a-�-�--r���^Jr--=rr// / rr 1 ! '�/irJr� fr ♦ ''.;:. / 1 r� r I. r r■ r /1 / r r I I, r- �r J ■ I I r ram' JJJIr �r r r-' I _ r f I / /!! /% I J r r ■ ■ r/1 1 1 r- r r` r r'S'� rfaT r~ !�T r = �'�rfr . r J' r � 4� � rxJ r! ! ! I f / r! f Irr? r■ � / y1 J f 1 1 1 J 1 rr rr Jr r� rr j ^r/ _� r ! rr %'�r-��'�^_.�"1r : V _ s� J � I / / r r// rJ 11 !- ■ r r rr- I J r r r T r �'" � ■fJ / r '\ f� J r If J % f r1 rrr � fr : r- � Jr/! / I' 1 -�. r 1 /. f• ■ � i / / r f%f � rJ f/ ! r / ■ r r/ � P / I r. r� r rr r r / r J 1r //r J r r r J r ! r /�_r ► I r r / I r r J r r! _J /�! r Jr- ■l / rr r /rJ /J / J r JJ / rr / r f 1 1 I / rf rr-~^ rJJJ rrJ' / r ! !f! L, r� �r� I �^ �r J /.J fr f�/rf if�r rr%rr rrri rrr �/rrf/rlf� � -►r fJ►J ter► f�rrJr f� y'�■ ��rr �`/ r' J r rrI � 1 rr r / 1 ■ r .� J! r / ■ .� r i % fry �� "� : ~^ C % r / N j I ■ POWER 'L°,mwa . IV DRIUNAG£ I J ' ��'; � I � ErSEI.IENT EASEµ>HT L_ CI / 9' BUILDING .. POWER J MENT LOT 3 / % � -'t-y .y �r f SET DAICX LINE AFNLO�06P 3 .CDOO f - > I INGRESS EOR_SS Q I AND U'rILJTIES _ SHORT PLAT 12771,1 � = - �>r AFN7910020898 DO I � l►�� I r fi UTILITY NOTE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM MAPPING VISIBLE SURFACE APPURTENANCES, REFERAING TO AS -BUILT RECORDS AND MAPPING UTiUTY PAINT MARKS FROM A UTIUTY LOCATING SERV.CE BURIED UTIUAES ARE ONLY SHOM AS APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE VERAEO BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. DATUM HORIZONTAL - CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, BASED 6" CPS TIES T❑ MONUMENT FWI54. VERTICAL - KGVD-29 BASED ON CPS TIES TO FWIS4 MONUwWT ELEVATION - 236.5. LINE TYPES �L . 1N000 FE VICE CHAIN UNC FENCE ,—• WIRE FENCE i0E GROIJNDTOE TOP GROUNDTOP GROUND BREAK STORM LINE SW ';ATIY SEWER UUE I =� BURIED TELEPHONE —1 •I�-P— Bufulu POWER Ilt`----EP-- OVERHEAD POWER WATERLINE _ NATURAL GAS LINE —, T :--- BURIED CABLE TVLINE DITCH LINE — — — MAJOR COWTDUR _ - -- MINOR CONTOUR ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARL LEGEND (UTILITIES) O CABLE MARkERPDST G CABLE SISER1 PEDESTAL O A 55 CLFAMDLIF MANHOLMAAURE CABLE VAULTIMAN10a GM 55 ST --? CULVERT 45 SEPTIC TANK t IUMFNAIM WITHARM STOF141 CATCH WIN 0 STORM MANHOLE 5 IUMIHAIRE �• LAHDSCAPEPARD LIGHT STORM CLEANOUT 0 STORM ROOF DRAIN NATURAL GAS MARKER POST STORM YARA DRAIN .. NATURAL GAS METER D STORM MARKER POST PROPARCTANK NATURAL GAS VALVE p rELEPHONE CAEI NET EO TELEPHONE iuNCTICN'1 BOX 0 POWER CONDOR O TELEPHONE RFSfcR a. TELEPHONE MIARKER POST L SOY ANCHOR c"'GWPOLE GR TELEPHONEPDLE v POWER!UNCTION BDX V TELEPHONE VAULI-IMANHOLE R POWER MARKER POST IS POWER METER POWERFOLE B WATER Bl.DIV OFF PP WITH DROP LINE A FIRE DEPARTMEW CORRECTION PP WrTH CROP AND LIGHT PP WITH DROP, HGHT AND TRANSFORMER A HOSE 615 4P IRRIGATIDN CONTROL VALVE PP WITH DROP AND TRANSFORMER 8 WATERMARXER POST PP WNTH LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER Lq WATER METER s, WATER P09 INDICATOR VALVE PP WITH LIGHT -R- "Wm-t TRANSFORMER ■ SPRINKLER HEAD {g POWERTRANSFORMER °� WAIERVALVE -Q © POWER VAULT? MANHOLE WATER FIRE HYDRANT Fi WATER VAULTINLANKME SITE DATA PARCEL R BLA ADRES&30201 TBTW AVE SW 98023 PARCEL. NO.:0121039146 ACRES: 6-246 i_Di 4 ADDRESS 30300 19TH PL SW 98023 PARCEL NO.: OB505OM40 ACRES: 0.45 I - �� DATE 2r2812u17 BLAE5IWOQQ PLAT t j - /j SCALE r �+ f Jf FOFs I REVISIONS L•Fao�s i � _ 5' POWER _ 1 I'+ 2DISM12 REVISED WETLAND PER .11.542 1 'Y` a illlt F EASEMENT '' ♦ "' I NEW DEUNEA71ON BY OTHERS. DRAWN a I JI1Kp 5EP �- 2320 MOTTMAN RD SW, STE 106 I Z9TH PLSW _ _ _ - _ _ 20190529 ADDED CULVERT BEP r re,aee•Lyy�~ TUMWATER,WA98512 APPROVID"L FA"' 360.668.1949 ' GRADES, BEP ®EP PROJECT NAME I SHEET NAME: WALL SHORT PLAT TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING Sv-1 CLIENT NAME JEFFREY WALL SHEET NO. I OF I f R' Geotechnical Engineering Geology Environmental Scientists Construction Monitoring r GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SHORT PLAT 30026 - 20TH PLACE SOUTHWEST FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-5165 RECEIVED -i a 1 gas '• .l�Y :V 1 • Bel levliON A I tit <<:C�ri'e^.i.�ii'r u�''u'�';���ifu1E_�1�' •- t+Eill _ __ PREPARED FOR MR. JEFF WALL August 3, 2017 Bogdan S. Tirtu, G.I.T. Staff Geologist 53 `cr�_rtR !0 N rXJ_ V Keven D. Hoffmann, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Kyle R. amphell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SHORT PLAT 30026 — 20TH PLACE SOUTHWEST FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-6165 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 —136t' Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-47041 Fax: 425-449-4711 www.earthsolutionsnw.com Geolechnical Engineering Report —) Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one —notevenyou—should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical kngineeping Report Is Rased on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factoils Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, not prepared for the specific site explored, or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional OyWallis Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during cons,�lon. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointr1`l claims, and disputes, To help reduce the risk Of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled 'limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their awn responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvimn- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Youi, ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFElfhe hest People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE The aesl F0000 on EsTih 8811 Colesvi Ile Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, tnc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, In whole or In part by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with A5FEs specifrc written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or WO Wlse ex6actin9 Wiling from this document is permitted only wfth the express riRtten permission orASFE. and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review, only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotachnicat engineV1179 report. Any other firm. Individual, or other Wily that so uses this documenl without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M August 3, 2017 ES-5165 Mr. Jeff Wall 30201 —18th Avenue Southwest Federal Way, Washington 98023 Attention: Mr. Jeff Wall Dear Mr. Wall: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Consti uction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Short Plat, 30026 — 201h Place Southwest, Federal Way, Washington". Based on the results of our investigation, the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Our study indicates the site is underlain primarily by advance and recessional outwash. During our subsurface exploration completed on July 5, 2017, light groundwater seepage was observed within TP-6 at a depth of about 11.5 feet below existing grades. In our opinion, the contractor should be prepared to respond to discrete zones of groundwater seepage during construction. In our opinion, the proposed residential structures may be constructed on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing upon competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new structural fill. In general, competent native soil suitable for support of foundations will likely be encountered within the upper two to three feet of existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill, will be necessary. Based on our field observations, it is our opinion infiltration is not feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The majority of outwash soils observed at the test pit locations were medium dense to very dense, cemented, and contained significant silt content. Such soils should be considered impervious for practicable stormwater design purposes. Relatively clean sands encountered at TP-4 and TP-6 were either oxidized or contained groundwater seepage. Conventional stormwater controls, e.g., detention and/or dispersion, will likely prove more practicable for the proposed development, from a geotechnical standpoint. Pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in this study. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC ke n aD.H o inn" P.E. Senior Project Engineer 1805 - 1361h Place N.E., Suite 201 0 Bellevue, WA 98005 1 (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 Table of Contents ES-5165 PAGE INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 1 General..................................................................................... 1 Pro'ect Description...................... ....................................... .... 2 SITECONDITIONS.............................................................................. 2 Surface..................................................................................... 2 Subsurface............................................................................... 3 Topsoil and Fill.............................................................. 3 NativeSoil..................................................................... 3 GeologicSetting.......................................................... 3 Groundwater............................................................................ 4 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT ................. 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS......... ............................... 4 General......................................................................... ......... 4 Site Preparation and Earthwork ............................................. 5 Temporary Erosion Control ......................................... 5 Stripping........ ................................................................ 5 Excavations and Slopes ............................................... 6 Engineered Slopes ....................................................... 6 In -situ and Imported Soils ............................................ 7 Subgrade Preparation .................................................. 7 StructuralFill................................................................ 8 Foundations............................................................................. 8 SeismicDesign........................................................................ 8 Slab -on -Grade Floors.............................................................. 9 RetainingWalls........................................................................ 9 Drainage................................................................................... 10 Infiltration Feasibility..............................................:..... 10 Utility Support and Trench Backfill....................................... 10 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................ 11 Additional Services................................................................. 11 Earth Solutions NW, LLC GRAPHICS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Table of Contents Continued ES-5165 Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Slope Fill Detail Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Footing Drain Detail Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SHORT PLAT 30026 — 20TH PLACE SOUTHWEST FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-5165 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study (study) was prepared for the proposed residential development to be constructed northeast and/or east of the intersection between 201h Place Southwest and 21st Avenue Southwest, in Federal Way, Washington. The purpose of this study was to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed project. The scope of services for completing this study included the following: ■ Completing test pits for purposes of characterizing site soil conditions; ■ Completing laboratory testing of soil samples collected at the test pit locations; • Conducting engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents and maps were reviewed as part of preparing this study: • Record of Survey, prepared by MTN2COAST, LLC, dated March 11, 2016; • Basemap (Preliminary Site Layout), prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC, dated November 25, 2015; • Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5' Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, prepared by Derek B. Booth, Howard H. Waldron, and Kathy G. Troost, dated 2004; • King County Liquefaction Susceptibility Map, endorsed by the King County Flood Control District, dated May 2010; • Critical Areas Map prepared by the City of Federal Way, Washington (City), dated May 2016; • Chapter 19.145 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), and; • Web Soil Survey (WSS) online resource, maintained by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall August 3, 2017 ES-5165 Page 2 Proiect Description The site is currently occupied by two single-family residences and associated improvements, which will remain. We understand that several single-family residential lots and related improvements will be constructed across undeveloped site areas. New utilities improvements will likely mimic existing services (City -provided water and on site septic systems). At the time of report submission, specific grading and building load plans were not available for review; however, based on our experience with similar developments, the proposed residential structures will likely be two to three stories in height and constructed using relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations. Perimeter footing loads will likely be about 1 to 2 kips per lineal foot (klf). Slab -on -grade loading is anticipated to be approximately 150 pounds per square foot (psf). We anticipate grade cuts and fills of about 5 to 10 feet will be necessary to achieve the majority of finish grade elevations. Retaining walls and/or rockeries may be incorporated into final designs to accommodate grade transitions, where necessary. The proposed development will likely incorporate conventional stormwater management techniques. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should review final designs to confirm that appropriate geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located generally northeast and/or east of the intersection between 20th Place Southwest and 21St Avenue Southwest, in Federal Way, Washington. The approximate location of the subject property is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The property is comprised of three adjoined tax parcels (King County Parcel Nos. 012103-9013, -9146, and 085050-0040) totaling roughly seven acres. The property is bordered to the north, south, and east by single-family residences and associated open space, and to the west by 20th Place Southwest. Vegetation is dense, comprised primarily of mature trees and an established brush understory. Grades descend from southeast to northwest; approximately 80 to 90 feet of elevation change occurs across the property (approximate gradients of 30 to 35 percent). A stream is present in the western site area, along 20th Place Southwest, and a 100-foot buffer has been incorporated into the plans. Earth Solutions NW, LLC ES-5165 Page 3 Mr. Jeff Wall August 3, 2017 Subsurface A representative of ESNW observed, logged, and sampled seven test pits, excavated at accessible site locations, on July 5, 2017 using a trackhoe and operator retained by our firm. The test pits were completed for purposes of assessing soil and groundwater conditions. The approximate locations of the test pits are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of subsurface conditions. Representative samples collected at the test pit locations were analyzed in accordance with both Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) methods and procedures. Topsoil and Fill In general, topsoil was encountered within the upper two to eight inches at the test pit locations. The topsoil was characterized by dark brown color, the presence of fine organic material, and small root intrusions. Based on our field observations, we estimate topsoil will be encountered with an average thickness of six inches across the site. Fill was encountered at TP-1 during our fieldwork. The fill was characterized as loose to medium dense, silty sand and did not contain deleterious material or debris. We anticipate fill deposits around the perimeters of the existing single-family residences to extend to approximately three to four feet below existing ground surface (bgs). Where encountered during construction, ESNW can evaluate fill deposits (as necessary). Native Soil Underlying topsoil, native soils were encountered primarily as medium dense to very dense, compact, silty sand with gravel (USCS: SM) and well -graded to poorly graded sand with or without silt (USCS: SW, SP-SM, or SP). Soil relative density generally increased with depth. In general, native soils were observed primarily in a moist to wet condition, extending to the maximum exploration depth of approximately 13 feet bgs. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map resource identifies the site as underlain predominantly by Vashon recessional outwash (Qvr) and/or Vashon advance outwash (Qva). As described on the geologic map resource, advance outwash deposits are characterized as well -bedded sand and, less commonly, gravel deposited subaqueously or by streams and rivers in front of advancing ice sheets. Vashon recessional outwash deposits are characterized as lightly oxidized, stratified sand and gravel, deposited in broad outwash channels carrying meltwater during glacial retreat. The referenced WSS resource indicates the site is underlain primarily by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Map Unit Symbol: AgB). The Alderwood series consists of soils formed in glacial drift and outwash, typically as ridges and hills. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 4 Based on our field observations, native soils on site generally correlate with a transitionary geologic setting between advance outwash and recessional outwash. Groundwater During our subsurface exploration completed on July 5, 2017, groundwater seepage was encountered at TP-6 at a depth of approximately 11.5 feet bgs. In our opinion, perched groundwater seepage should be anticipated within site excavations. Seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the winter, spring, and early summer months. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT Based on our review of the FWRC and the referenced City critical areas map, the site is mapped within an erosion hazard area. The FWRC defines erosion hazard areas as those areas having a severe to very severe erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action, or stream flow. As outlined in the Geologic Setting section of this study, Alderwood series soils are mapped on site. These soils are typically associated with moderate to high erosion hazard potential, especially during the wetter, winter months. Provided appropriate temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures are incorporated into final designs, however, erosion potential can be adequately mitigated both during and after construction. Site -specific ESC measures are typically prepared by the project civil engineer during the appropriate phase of design. No evidence of either shallow or deep-seated slope instability was observed during our July 2017 site reconnaissance. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our investigation, construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include foundation support, slab -on -grade subgrade support, the suitability of using on site soils as structural fill, and installation of stormwater management facilities. In our opinion, the proposed residential structures may be constructed on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing upon competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new structural fill. In general, competent native soil suitable for support of foundations will likely be encountered within the upper two to three feet of existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill, will be necessary. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 5 Based on our field observations, it is our opinion infiltration is not feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The majority of outwash soils observed at the test pit locations were medium dense to very dense, cemented, and contained significant silt content. Such soils should be considered impervious for practicable stormwater design purposes. Relatively clean sands encountered at TP-4 and TP-6 were either oxidized or contained groundwater seepage. Conventional stormwater controls, e.g., detention and/or dispersion, will likely prove more practicable for the proposed development, from a geotechnical standpoint. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Jeff Wall and his representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Prevaration and Earthwork Initial site preparation activities will consist of installing temporary erosion control measures, establishing grading limits, and performing clearing and site stripping. Subsequent earthwork activities will involve mass site grading and related infrastructure improvements. Temporary Erosion Control Prior to the installation of either initial or final pavement sections, temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least six inches of quarry spalls, should be considered to both minimize off -site soil tracking and provide a stable access entrance surface. Geotextile fabric may also be considered underlying the quarry spalls for greater stability of the temporary construction entrance. Erosion control measures should consist of silt fencing placed around the site perimeter. Soil stockpiles should be covered or otherwise protected to reduce soil erosion. Temporary approaches for controlling surface water runoff should be established prior to beginning earthwork activities. Additional Best Management Practices (BMPs), as specified by the project civil engineer and indicated on the plans, should be incorporated into construction activities. Stripping Topsoil was encountered generally within the upper two to eight inches of existing grades at the test pit locations. ESNW should be retained to observe site stripping activities at the time of construction so that the degree of required stripping may be assessed. Over -stripping should be avoided, as it is unnecessary and may result in increased project development costs. Topsoil and organic -rich soil is neither suitable for foundation support nor for use as structural fill. Topsoil and organic -rich soil may be used in non-structural areas, if desired. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall August 3, 2017 ES-5165 Page 6 Excavations and Slopes Excavation activities are likely to expose both isolated fill areas and medium dense to very dense native soils. Provided appropriate methods of sloping and shoring (as necessary) for the excavations are incorporated into the design and construction, overall stability of site excavations is anticipated to be good. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test pit locations, the following allowable temporary slope inclinations, as a function of horizontal to vertical (H:V) inclination, may be used. The applicable Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) soil classifications are also provided: v Loose and medium dense soil and/or fill 1.51-1:1V (Type C) a Areas containing groundwater seepage 1.51-1:1V (Type C) 0 Dense to very dense, cemented soil 0.751-1:1V (Type A) If desired during construction, steeper temporary slope inclinations within undisturbed, dense to very dense native deposits may be feasible based on the soil and groundwater conditions exposed within the excavations. Steeper inclinations may be considered, and must be subsequently evaluated, by ESNW at the time of construction. Permanent slopes should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion, and should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V or flatter. The presence of perched groundwater may cause localized sloughing of temporary slopes due to excess seepage forces. An ESNW representative should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations are suitable for the exposed soil conditions and to provide additional excavation and slope recommendations as necessary. If the recommended temporary slope inclinations cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. Engineered Slopes Existing slopes within the property boundaries may be modified and reconstructed as engineered fill slopes. The following considerations should be incorporated into the design and construction process of an engineered fill slope: • The slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavation of the keyway or bench. In general, the bench should be equal to a bulldozer blade width of approximately eight feet, but shall be at least four feet. a The final slope gradient should be 2H:1 V. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 7 The final slope face should be densified by over -building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with a bulldozer, vibratory drum roller, or sheepsfoot roller. Planting or hydroseeding the slope face with a rapid growth deep-rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of the slope area. Use of pegged -in -place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in situ until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in this report. Additional lifts should not be placed until adequate compaction is achieved. A typical slope fill detail is provided on Plate 3. The recommendations provided in this section are also included on Plate 3. ESNW should be retained to observe the complete construction sequence of engineered fill or cut slopes in order to provide supplementary recommendations as necessary. Compaction testing should be performed for each loose lift of fill placement. In -situ and Imported Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, on site soils may be suitable for use as structural fill. On site soils are moisture sensitive, and successful use of on site soils as structural fill will largely be dictated by the moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Remedial measures, such as soil aeration and/or cement treatment (where approved by the local jurisdiction or utility district), may be necessary as part of site grading and earthwork activities. If the on site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. In our opinion, a contingency should be provided in the project budget for export of soil that cannot be successfully compacted as structural fill if grading activities take place during periods of extended rainfall activity. Soils with fines contents greater than 5 percent typically degrade rapidly when exposed to periods of rainfall. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded, granular soil with a moisture content that is at (or slightly above) the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded, granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less (where the fines content is defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three -quarter -inch fraction). Subgrade Preparation Foundation and slab subgrade surfaces should be compacted in -situ to a minimum depth of one foot below the design subgrade elevation. Uniform compaction of the foundation and slab subgrade areas will establish a relatively consistent subgrade condition below the foundation and slab elements. ESNW should observe the compacted subgrade areas prior to placing formwork. Supplementary recommendations for subgrade improvement may be provided at the time of construction; such recommendations would likely include further mechanical compaction effort and/or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall August 3, 2017 ES-5165 Page 8 Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fill placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas is considered structural fill as well. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D1557). For soil placed in utility trenches underlying structural areas, compaction requirements are dictated by the local city, county, or utility district, and are typically specified to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade areas should also be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. Foundations In our opinion, the proposed residential structures may be constructed on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing upon competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new structural fill. In general, competent native soil suitable for support of foundations will likely be encountered within the upper two to three feet of existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill, will be necessary. Provided the foundations will be supported as prescribed, the following parameters may be used for design: ■ Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf • Passive earth pressure 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) Coefficient of friction 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity may be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor -of -safety of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch and differential settlement of about one-half inch is anticipated. The majority of settlement should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Seismic Design The 2015 International Building Code recognizes the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for seismic site class definitions. In accordance with Table 20.3-1 of the ASCE Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual, Site Class D should be used for design. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 9 The referenced liquefaction susceptibility map indicates the subject site maintains "very low" liquefaction susceptibility. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated or loose soils suddenly lose internal strength and behave as a fluid. This behavior is in response to increased pore water pressures resulting from an earthquake or other intense ground shaking. In our opinion, site susceptibility to liquefaction may be considered negligible. The relatively consistent densities of the native soils and the absence of a uniformly established, shallow groundwater table were the primary bases for this consideration. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors for the proposed residential structures should be supported on well - compacted, firm and unyielding subgrades. Where feasible, native soils exposed at the slab - on -grade subgrade levels can likely be compacted in -situ to the specifications of structural fill. Unstable or yielding subgrade areas should be recompacted, or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill, prior to slab construction. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free -draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slabs. The free -draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (where the fines content is defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three -quarter -inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of vapor barriers below the slabs should be considered. If a vapor barrier is to be utilized, it should be a material specifically intended for use as a vapor barrier and should be installed per the specifications of the manufacturer. Retaining Walls Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters may be used for design: • Active earth pressure (yielding condition) a At -rest earth pressure (restrained condition) 10 Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) a Passive earth pressure 4 Coefficient of friction Seismic surcharge * Where applicable ** Where H equals the retained height (in feet) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) 55 pcf 70 psf (rectangular distribution)* 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) 0.40 6H psf** Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 10 The above design parameters are based on a level backfill condition and level grade at the wall toe. Revised design values will be necessary if sloping grades are to be used above or below retaining walls. Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other relevant loads should be included in the retaining wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free -draining material that extends along the height of the wall and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper 12 inches of the wall backfill may consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drainpipe should be placed along the base of the wall and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 4. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. Drainage Discrete zones of perched groundwater seepage should be anticipated in site excavations depending on the time of year grading operations take place, particularly within deeper excavations for lots and utilities. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff and groundwater during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps. ESNW should be consulted during preliminary grading to identify areas of seepage and to provide recommendations to reduce the potential for instability related to seepage effects. Finish grades must be designed to direct surface drain water away from structures and slopes. Water must not be allowed to pond adjacent to structures or slopes. In our opinion, foundation drains should be installed along building perimeter footings. A typical foundation drain detail is provided on Plate 5. Infiltration Feasibility Based on our field observations, it is our opinion infiltration is not feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The majority of outwash soils observed at the test pit locations were medium dense to very dense, cemented, and contained significant silt content. Such soils should be considered impervious for practicable stormwater design purposes. Relatively clean sands encountered at TP-4 and TP-6 were either oxidized or contained groundwater seepage. Conventional stormwater controls, e.g., detention and/or dispersion, will likely prove more practicable for the proposed development, from a geotechnical standpoint. Utility Support and Trench Backfill In our opinion, on site soils will generally be suitable for support of utilities. Remedial measures may be necessary in some areas to provide support for utilities, such as overexcavation and replacement with structural fill and/or placement of geotextile fabric. Groundwater seepage may be encountered within utility excavations, and caving of trench walls may occur where groundwater is encountered. Depending on the time of year and conditions encountered, dewatering, as well as temporary trench shoring, may be necessary during utility excavation and installation. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 11 On site soils may be suitable for use as structural backfill throughout utility trench excavations provided the soil is at (or slightly above) the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Each section of the utility lines must be adequately supported in the bedding material. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill as previously detailed in this report, or to the applicable specifications of the City or other responsible jurisdiction or agency. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is neither expressed nor implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test pit locations may exist and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions provided in this study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review final project plans with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC SO fn�lrrvrr }' •N . y• p SrD CI C k r s ADEA Aix qj Nil y j* I• aIst )i k ,i..Yry� 51 �.. Lk.V+A ;•"00 j OIL '�-�.f it A'G�1'7IIG3' ai Wlxr 710A7G! .1�•� .ns .ty¢ .T: .-. .ITS c� I 'iSill S� g ►r S]K7ilkil Ct n ENE. f a sq ' zbu�: 4 X. 0 - a r s+Y t =ASllrll ;T -: ids -iFM l7111 ,. -. L4X&rA _ i14FN 110F.HM tir.T Rz A �� `_ S;i '!r :v PST- '1 y�• ST . �� �'�� �`•�' � .ate & 112 14 411 ^t:n�u�lesSR i s'� Cr �� sl y� �y iti "• i7 tN1�71 E[: t s a .i' - ' • tHCaLT�= g � �IiAdf7�1�S" Y SSW I ;fi s _ Arhrr SS a ^J1.. a' ' i5ii1F K� �R ri fix•' �' r1 1Ql' Reference: NORTH' I I I,; King County, Washington NE=M= Map 744 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition Vicinity Map Wall Property Short Plat Federal Way, Washington NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. MRS Date 08/04/2017 Proj. No. 5165 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked KDH Date Aug. 2017 Plate 1 resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. r 190 200 I \ 210 190 220 230 11240 200 TP-6210, I- 260 C220-270 280 230 ,I 280 I i 'JI I L------`-� 250 260 270 I I / 240 I LEGEND TP-1 I Approximate Location of -- ■ — ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-5165, July 2017 I Subject Site Existing Building NORTH 0 20 40 80 1 "=40' Scale in Feet NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Drwn. By MRS Checked By KDH Date 08/04/2017 Proj. No. 5165 Plate 2 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Bench and Keyway Fill to consist of suitable granular material approved by the Geotechncial Engineer Final Slope Gradient Compacted Slope Face UPON "Key" (Minimum 2' Deep by 6' Wide) NOTES: o Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating Keyway or benches. o Benches will typically be equal to a bulldozer blade width of approximately 8 feet but shall be at least 4 feet. o Final slope gradient should be 2H : 1V. o Final slope face should be densified by over -building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with a bulldozer or vibratory drum roller. o Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep-rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. o Use of pegged -in -place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. Typical "Bench" Keyed into Existing Slope Face (Geotechnical Engineer to Confirm) Existing Grade Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. Earth Solutions N W LLc SLOPE FILL DETAIL Wall Property Short Plat Federal Way, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 08/04/2017 Proj. No. 5165 Checked KDH Date Aug. 2017 Plate 3 Sheet Drain (See Note) Floor Slab (Where Applicable) I-111- III NOTES: 18" Min. O�v(J0 d❑ �00 0 c' 0 0 00000 e0000o0p❑.00 0 00 0 0 00. 0 0 00 e 0 ❑ o ❑ 0 0 0 00 00000 00 ❑ e p 0 e poo 0 0O 8 0 0 O o Q o 0 Q o 0 0 p0 00 00� e ° e0 e ❑ 0 e00° 0 0 to ❑Q ° 0 0 ° 00 e 000 e 00 0° ❑0 Q, oo c ❑❑ o 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0❑ 0° O 00 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 AA 00 0 0 0o a V e Oo000 0o Q o 0 a ❑ ❑ 0 Q 0 0 00 O❑ o e 0 e0 � �° 0 7o e 0 0o o 0 e 0 00 00 00 0 00 0 � o 00 ❑ o Oo 0 0 0 B o0 0& o Q Ooo- 0 Oo O • Free -Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free -Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1-inch Drain Rock. LEGEND: ( Qo Free -Draining Structural Backfill o ❑ rti?S�ti*ti 1-inch Drain Rock Structural Fill Perforated Drain Pipe (Surround In Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Earth Solutions NW LLc RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Wall Property Short Plat Federal Way, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 08/04/2017 Proj. No. 5165 Checked KDH Date Aug. 2017 Plate 4 Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. r•r•r•r•r r rti�ti�tii 1 1 r �;r stir 1�� Drain Rock S•ti•ti•ti• FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Wall Property Short Plat Federal Way, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 08/4/2017 Proj. No. 5165 Checked KDH Date Aug. 2017 Plate 5 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs ES-5165 Subsurface conditions at the subject site were explored on July 5, 2017 by excavating seven test pits using a trackhoe and operator retained by our firm. The approximate locations of the test pits are illustrated on Plate 2 of this study. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 13 feet bgs. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Solutions NW, LLC --� Earth Solutions "LLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION UHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL GRAVELS AND FSAND INES NESMIXTURE5, GRAVELLY SOILS o �" POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, (LITTLE OR NO FINES) o 00 1p GP GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE ❑ n O C OR NO FINES COARSE GRAINED GRAVELS WITH ' ❑ 4;.( GM 51LTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SOILS %FINES MOF a SILT MIXTURES COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE G+G. CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND - AMOUNT OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% SAND CLEAN SANDS S WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS AND - LARGER THAN SANDY NO.200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) S'p POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MORE THAN 50% FINES MIXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION 77 PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS FINE LIQUID AND CI- MEDIUM 5 LTY VELLY GRAINED LESS THANI50 CLAYS LAYS SANDYrCLAYS, SOILS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THANN SILTY SOILS N0.200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAYS OF HIGH CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY PLASTICITY ' OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS "' `"' '—'' `—' PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth solutions r° -. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1805 -136th PI. E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 WIN Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425- 449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NAME Wall Property Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER ES-5165 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Wax, Washington DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 7/5/17 GROUND ELEVATION 232 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod T': grass — AFTER EXCAVATION uj � W U CL g TESTS V a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Lu a' Cd Q z c7 0 ! Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist (Fill) - SM 0'' _ 20 _ 230.0 TPSL ;2.5 Relic TOPSOIL Horizon 229.5 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist MC = 16.20% Fines = 44.20% [USDA Classification: gravelly LOAM] -becomes tan, medium dense to dense -mottled texture 5 MC = 27.60% SM -heavily mottled texture -becomes tannish gray, dense to very dense -weakly cemented MC = 12.90% -becomes very dense MC = 11.90% s.o- _ _ _. 224.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. i Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Earth Solutions V TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 1805 -136th Plac.. E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 WON Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NAME _ Wall Prqperty Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER E—"165 PROJECT LOCATION _FedWnWWsy, Wastf toq DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 7/5/17 GROUND ELEVATION 240 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD ATTIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH _ AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": crass AFTER EXCAVATION — w }W U w w 00 a2 TESTS v o- O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o jdz 0 Tan silty SAND, medium dense, damp to moist -mottled texture -becomes gray, dense - SM _weakly cemented MC = 9.20% - -becomes very dense, moderately cemented 236-0 Test pit terminated at 4.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 4.0 feet. Earth Solutions TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 1805 - 136th Pla, E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT -Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NAME Wall Property Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER ES-5165 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 7/5/17 GROUND ELEVATION 263 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsail & Sod 6": biackberr) bushes Bass AFTER EXCAVATION -- w 0. _ �W _j 2 TESTS U O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Qz C9 co 0 , TPSL ' '" v 0.5 Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 3' 262.5 Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp -cobbles MC = 11.10% -becomes medium dense -mottled texture -becomes tannish gray, dense, moist MC = 10.80% SM [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly fine sandy LOAM] Fines = 38.70% -becomes very dense 5 -weakly to moderately cemented MC = 6.70% - 6.5 258.5 Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 6.5 feet. Earth Solutions N' TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 1805 -136th Plaa -_ Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 wax Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NAME Wall Pro a IShortPlat PROJECT NUMBER E575i85 _ PROJECT LOCATION Federal WW, Wqahingtqn DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED _7/5/17 GROUND ELEVATION 242 ft — TEST PIT SIZE _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY BJP T CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES nth A TopsoiI & Sod 6"- 8": forest duff AFTER EXCAVATION — W 0_ 0: U a � ,. W 0° TESTS a 0 �2 rA �aJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �(Lz C9 Q 0 TP&L -r ' 05 hark brawn TOPSOIL 241.5 Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp -roots to 3' MC = 7.30% -becomes medium dense to dense -mottled texture SM -becomes gray, dense MC = 11.80% -weakly cemented -becomes very dense 5 MC = 10.20% -moderately cemented 5 U 236.❑ Orange -brown poorly graded SAND, medium dense, moist MC = 8.30% Fines = 2.40% [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly SAND] SP s.o 233.0 Orange -brown poorly graded SAND with sift, medium dense to dense, moist to wet 10 MC = 13.70% -mottled texture Fines = 9.20% [USDA Classification: SAND] SP- - SM MC 15.70% Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed_ h Bottom of test pit at 13.0 feet. d (7 7 :3 F L7 4 L7 H F z m .r W W 2 W (i Earth Solutions N'— TEST PIT NUMIBER TP-5 1805 -136th Pla, E_, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 WANFax: Telephone: 425-449-4704 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NAME Wall Property Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER ES-5165 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 7/5/17 GROUND ELEVATION 248 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR _ NW Excavating T GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil ✓li Sod 6"- 8": forest duff AFTER EXCAVATION — W a. C) a coo-- W J TESTS v vi Q. O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (L=) ¢Z Qq� O CO) 0 TPSL '—' 0.5 Dark brown TOPSOIL 2475 Tan silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp -roots to 2' 1 MC = 9.40% -becomes medium dense SM -becomes tannish gray, dense -weakly cemented � MC = i 0.10°� 5 -becomes very dense -moderately cemented 242a MC = 10.00% Test ptt talmigated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during ___6.0 excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet. Earth Solutions N1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 1805 -136th Place Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Washington 98005 Telephone. 425-449-4704 TaxBellevue, Fax: 425- 49-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall _ — _ _ PROJECT NAME Wall P—m erty Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER ES-5165 PROJECT LOCATION Federal WaY. Washington _ DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 715117 GROUND ELEVATION 230 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES De th of TOPWI & Sod 6"- 8": forest duff AFTER EXCAVATION uj (L U d w CO TESTS V a. 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a � _j ov adz o TPSL 0.5 dark brown TOPSOIL 2.89.E Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp -roots to 3' - MC=13.90% -becomes medium dense -mottled texture, increased gravel content -becomes tannish gray, dense, moist SM -weakly cemented 5 MC = 8.80% -increased sand content Fines = 26.20% [USDA Classification: gravelly sandy LOAM] -intermittent lightly mottled lenses MC=12.30% s t) 2220 MC = 6.70% Gray well -graded SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet MC = 9.50% I Fines = 3.60% ... [USDA Classification: very gravelly coarse SAND] 10 SW -increase in fine sand, becomes wet •• -light groundwater seepage 218.0 MC = 19.30% Test pit terminated at 12Z feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 11.5 feet during excavation. No caving observed. Bottum of test pit at 12.0 feet. 0 a EL J �a I-- 2 co 9 IL uI J J W iL x In a� w x w C7 Earth Solutions N' TEST PIT NUMBER TP--7 1805 -136th Pla E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washi%,= 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 WANFax: 425- 49-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NAME Wall Property Short Plat _ PROJECT NUMBER ES-5165 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 7/5/17 GROUND ELEVATION 225 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 8": forest duff AFTER EXCAVATION — W U _ oTESTS �W N Cd O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z (� 0 'TPSL ' ' '' Dark brown TOPSOIL ,o s 224.4 Brown silty SAND, loose, damp -roots to 3' -becomes medium dense, moist MC = 10.90°� -lightly mottled texture MC = 9.90% -becomes gray, dense 5 SM weakly cemented -becomes dense to very dense = MC 10.80% MC = 9.40% -slight increase in sand content 10 MC = 11.80% 10.5 214.5 Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 10.5 feet. Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-5165 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1 IN ON—. ai 'q I inmiii iMEN lismillillismil ■ 111 uiu lismillillismillii;l Milli, immiiiii 11 Milli millillin ME HIM IN IN 11 lllismillillismil IC1011111 iiiiiismi IN I IN ME loollilill I IN in 011111 liiii-lin 111111 11 MEMO illismillilligol I Bill! 1 NO INEII I NEED IN loop 11sM1 Ills I l�immi id 0 in I illismillillismil IRS I Hills No I lismill liimmiiiiiiimmii IN 0 iiiiiiin Hills 11111111111111011111111111 III I INNER millillismillillism 111111111110111 lmmii I inmiiiiiilmlmsmiiiiiiimmiiiiiiIONIIIIIII ■omi I liiimiiiiiiim Specimen Identificatbn� Specimen Identification mm 11 Earth Solutions NW, LLC I 1805 -136th PL%Suite 201 Bellevue, WA --- Telephone: 425-44d-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NUMBER ES-5165 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES ~ I H 2 C9 w m Cr w z li H z w U LU -a- No 85 BO 75 70 65 50 55 50 - 45 35 30 ?5 ?0 15 10 5 0 -.,GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION I PROJECT NAME Wall Property Short Plat — PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington O 4 J G 'I., 7 4W lu'vo J 9 0 6-lu l4lo zV QV 4u Ou OV IVV iqu Nu P1 1. 111 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.U1 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine 5 Specimen Identification Classification Cc CU o * TP-6 5.00ft. USDA: Gray Gravelly Sandy Loam. USCS: SM with Gravel. N m TP-6 9.50ft. USDA: Gray Very Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: SW with Gravel. 1.09 14.44 a W a a J J Q m Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 LL PL PI %Silt %Clay • TP-6 5.0ft. 19 0.509 0.099 26.2 W m I TP-6 9.5ft. 19 3.258 0.896 0.226 3.6 EMAIL ONLY Report Distribution ES-5165 Mr. Jeff Wall 30212 —18t' Avenue Southwest Federal Way, Washington 98023 EMAIL ONLY ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 33400 — 8"i Avenue South, Suite 205 Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attention: Mr. Matt Reider Earth Solutions NW, LLC RECEIVED APR 0 4 2019 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT April 3, 2019 ES-5165.01 Mr. Jeff Wall 30201 —18th Avenue Southwest Federal Way, Washington 98023 Subject: Review of Proposed Septic Systems Proposed Wall Short Plat 30026 — 20th Place Southwest Federal Way, Washington Reference: ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC Site Plans, dated November 16, 2018 ADC Waste Water Engineering Septic Plans, dated March 26, 2019 Earth Solutions NWuc Earth Solutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study, dated August 3, 2017 City of Federal Way (City) Revised Municipal Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145 Dear Mr. Wall: As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter for the subject site evaluating the suitability of proposed septic system locations with respect to erosion hazard areas. We performed our work in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in the Professional Services Agreement dated March 27, 2019 and authorized by you on April 3, 2019. A summary of pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in this letter. Project Description The subject site is located generally northeast and/or east of the intersection between 20th Place Southwest and 21St Avenue Southwest, in Federal Way, Washington. The site is currently occupied by two single-family residences and associated improvements, which will remain. We understand that five single-family residential lots, a detention pond, utility and drainage enhancements, and related improvements will be constructed across undeveloped site areas. New utilities improvements will mimic existing services in the surrounding area (City -provided water and on -site septic systems). Septic systems will be constructed in areas of the site that include relatively gentle inclinations ranging from about 10 to 20 percent. 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 0 (425) 449-4704 0 FAX (425) 449-4711 Mr. Jeff Wall April 3, 2019 Native Soil and Geologic Setting ES-5165.01 Page 2 Native soils encountered during our July 2017 fieldwork consisted primarily of medium dense to dense, sandy soils with variable silt and gravel content. Native soils were characterized primarily as "moist", becoming "wet" near where groundwater seepage was exposed. The maximum exploration depth at the site was approximately 12 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Native soils were described as consistent with Vashon advance outwash (Qva) soils in the referenced study. Advance outwash soils are commonly comprised of fine- to medium -grained sand with thin beds of silt, coarse sand, or pebble gravel. Advance outwash soils were deposited along broad channels in front of historic glaciers, prior to the glaciers advancing and overriding the material. Sediments are typically stained by iron oxide precipitation where exposed to groundwater. Distinctive features of the material are well -sorted grain size and horizontal stratification. Erosion Hazard Areas As stated in the referenced geotechnical engineering study, the subject site is underlain by soils which meet the City definition for erosion hazard areas. The FWRC defines erosion hazard areas as those areas having a severe to very severe erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, action frost, or stream flow. The subject project will include improvements within on -site erosion hazard areas, including preparation of individual lot septic systems. Septic systems will be prepared in relatively gently inclined areas of the site, with slopes of about 10 to 20 percent. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.240, it is our opinion that construction of septic systems, as designed under anticipated conditions, will not affect geologic hazards, and improvements are at minimal risk by the geologic hazard. We do not anticipate that construction of proposed septic systems will affect slope stability (either on site or on adjacent properties) or other geologic hazard critical areas. The proposed septic systems will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties and/or stormwater systems beyond predevelopment conditions. Temporary erosion control measures will help stabilize site soils during construction. Considering the nature and extent of the proposed development, it is our opinion the proposed improvements are feasibly sited within City -defined erosion hazard areas, from a geotechnical standpoint. Additional Best Management Practices, as specified by the project civil engineer and indicated on the plans, should be incorporated into construction activities. Temporary erosion control measures may be modified during construction as site conditions require, as approved by the site erosion control lead. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall April 3, 2019 Limitations ES-5165.01 Page 3 This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Jeff Wall and his representatives. A warranty is neither expressed nor implied. The recommendations and conclusions provided in this letter are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions encountered at the test pit locations may exist and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the contents of this letter if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have the opportunity to review final drainage plans with respect to the recommendations and conclusions provided in this letter. ESNW should also be retained to provide earthwork observation and testing services during construction. Supplementary recommendations may be provided at the time of construction, where warranted. We trust this letter meets your current needs. Please call if you have questions about the content of this letter or if you require additional information. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC R - I /�X- - Bogdan S. Tirtu, G.I.T. Keven D. Hoffmann, P.E. Senior Staff Geologist Senior Project Manager cc: ESM Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Matt Reider, P.E. (Email only) Earth Solutions NW, LLC MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT of Co] awlsirff DzvEt oPblr m CITY plc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 33325 eAvenue South Fed C� Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 �Va'y 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 ewa' APPLICATION NO(s) _ 1 _I tJ' f J l r f Y Y I Date '�4 L (V` 1 Project Name Wall Short Plat Property Address/Location Generally 30201 18TH AVE SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 Parcel Number(s) 0121039013; 0121039146; 0850500040 law Project Description PL.FA E PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I 0)ir3ector's Approval) Process IT (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) Process N (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process VI SEPA w/Project SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information RS-15 Zoning Designation abv^Fmr"ly• "-sowot+ Comprehensive Plan Designation Value of Existing Improvements Value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (rBC): Occupancy Type Construction Type i-e-Q Applicant Name: Jenray wall Address: m m 1 om AvE sw City/State: Federal Way, WA Zip: 9ao23 Phone: Fax: Email: *" wailasorrrasacm Signature: Jg& !�f' Agent (if dit%nent mpiant, Name: Matt Relder, ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC Address: 33400 81h AVE SE, Suite 205 City/State: Federal Way, WA Zip: 98M Phone: 25.3-M8-6113 Fax: Email: matt t smdI&DOM Signature: Owner Name: Jeffrey Wall Address: 30201 18M AVE SW City/State: Federal Way, WA Zip: 98023 Phone: Fax: Email: fp-ff.wa]14@soffiatacoma.org Signature: Bulletin #003 —January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 lclHandoutslMaster Land Use Application April 4, 2019 Mr. Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Federal Way 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 C 0 N S Q L T I N G E N G I Job No. 1879-001-015 RE: Request for Administrative Decision to Conclude Location and Buffer of Critical Areas Present on Wall Property to Include with Seattle -King County Public Health Subdivision Pre -Application Report Dear Doc: t : x Please accept this letter written on behalf 6f .Jeff and Karen Wall, as our formal request to initiate peer review of the critical areas and associated buffers present on their property located at 30201 181h Avenue SW, tax parcel 0121039146. Seattle -King County Public Health requires a "Critical Areas Designation letter" from the City of Federal Way that defines the limits of critical areas on or near the project site and establishes buffers. This letter, establishing baseline information, is required before Mr. and Mrs. Wall can apply to Seattle - King County Public Health for septic system approval. This letter provides verification from the city to the county that the septic systems are in an acceptable location. For the City of Federal Way's third -party consultant review are the following enclosed materials: 1. Master Land Use Application; 2. Site Plan depicting OSS Locations, prepared by ADC, dated 3/26/19 (4 copies); 3. Critical Areas Assessment & Buffer Mitigation Plan, prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc, dated 2/26/2019 (4 copies); 4. Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated 8/3/17 (4 copies); and 5. Review of Proposed Septic Systems Letter, prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated 4/3/19 (4 copies) Scope of peer review: 1. Review site plan and provided reports to determine consistency with applicable Federal Way Revised Codes (FWRC), specifically Chapter 19.145; 2. Exclude review of buffer mitigation and enhancement; RECEIVED 33400 8th Ave S Ste 205 TeL (253) 838 6113 Everett (425) 297 9900 APR PD -f i L 19 Federal Way, WA 98003 Fax (253) 838 7104 Toll Free (800) 345 5694 Landscape Architecture www,esmcivit.com 3❑ Laser Scanninq cITYbiF FEDERAL WAY Mr. Robert "Doc" Hansei. April 4, 2019 Page 2 3. Review critical area delineations and associated buffers as presented in included reports and provide feedback regarding acceptability of those delineations and associated buffers; 4. Prepare formal letter or technical memorandum (approval document) stating that the proposed critical area delineations and associated buffers are accurate and true and that the proposed onsite septic system locations do not present an adverse impact to those critical areas and associated buffers; and 5. If necessary, provide opportunity for applicant to respond and/or revise reports. We understand that the City of Federal Way will contract out for expert technical assistance with review of work proposed within environmentally critical areas. We also understand that review by the city's third -party consultant will be at the applicants expense. Since there is not a flat fee for third party review expenses, we respectfully request more than one third party review bid to be presented to Mr. and Mrs. Wall for consideration. Thank you for your attention to this project and we look forward to working with the City. Very truly yours, ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, L.L.C. MATT REIDER Assistant Planner CC: Jeff and Karen Wall (w/Enc.) Enc.: As Noted klesm8lengrlesm-jobs1187910011015W ocu m entl letter-007.docx 1 t gill 1 [it, l! L�' ' ,1 j � � � � `� If /• F i��-2te i�f� /���✓ J J `/f ✓ 2-20- — r.I 20' INGRESS/EAGRESS AND UTILITY _ r -,;T ►� / .L9 SL1 �' r 2 t II ► 1 (25.035 S. / (0.57 ACRES) =v0 / l - PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY ■ SL12 RESIDENCE (TYP) % f ' � 1 (37.F:) 1 � _ I�RES] ■ ` �� � l Y• `�Y � � ff l�J �' ! f �f r! ` �� 7 r I ►I : r� 1 t � � 7 Z POSSIBLE PRIMARY AND RESERVE - - r� DRAINFIELD AREA ENVELOPE (TYP) ,__-- J• _ " (24,719 S.F. i 57 o AC AES) R ACT C ■ SL 3 T- (0.38. ter/ ACRES} .� 4 r � r `� �-' � f � —■ �] f � ' �r � '�58,383 S.F.) f _ ��-'.T� '• — �- ��+ ,• � ACRES) RESERVEDRAiNF1ELD AREA ts9.34 S F.} _ FOR EXISTING RESIDENCE (0.67 , ACRES) r1 y.,................� ......._....� .- ■ - -- ,�. SLR -(23.988 SF.) SL {0.55 • � ACRES) � / � ���// r• - EXISTING RESIDENCE f '. 5L7 ■ Sig TO REMAIN 11' 11111AGE EASE111 aulLolN" 11. -, F�r,-s EASEs:.Er1 -� . "�''' GRAPHIC SCALE 729 COURT C REUMINARY SHORT PLAT PROJECT "%h n 30201 20TH PL SW 1 = 60 (111 AD TACOMA, WA 98402 4R: 30201 WALL FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 5160103 0 30 fib 12 PHONE 253.203.1200 30201 WALL PL SW 'KY R. ANDERSON — wastewater en ineerin PARCEL 121039146 .i3?;�d* ...i . rl .. 9 9 FAX 253.203.0090 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 www.adcinfo.com 100' STREAM BUFFER LINE I I. RECEIVE APR 0 4 201 CRY OF FEDERAL mmlti um-TY ❑EVELC SHEET: 1 OF 1 DATE: 03/26/19 21746 SUB -DIVISION PRE -APPLICATION REPORT RECORD I.D. NUMBER F (Submit Application, Plot Plan and Other Required Documents in Quadruplicate) S U -[ 1 q ATTACH A ROUTE/DIRECTION MAP FOR LOCATING THE PROPERTY HEALTH DEPT. USE 01� PUBLIC HEALTH—SEATTLE St KING COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW Complete the following and submit with the appropriate Fee. wsvw.k i ncrnu n Iv__�ovlclti.�fcc, APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTEDBY A LICENSED SEPTIC SYSTEM DESIGNER OR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SUBMIT APPLICATIONS TO: Eastgate Environmental Health 14350 Eastgate Way, Bellevue, WA 98007-6458 Phone: (206) 477-8050 APPROXIMATE STREET ADDRESS 30201 20TH PL SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 NAME AND/OR NUMBER OF D.P.E.R. APPLICA LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE ATTACHED PARCEL # 1011 1 21 1 10131-191 1 1416J NUMBER OF ACRES 6.25 NUMBER OF LOTS TO BE REVIEWED 6 SMALLEST LOT SIZE 23,988 SQ. FT. OWNER JEFFREY WALL ADDRESS 30201 20TH PL SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 PHONE# 253.838.6113 AGENT ROCKY ANDERSON ADDRESS 729 COURT C, TACOMA, WA 98402 PHONE# 253.203.1200 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED: WATER SUPPLY (Complete tion for 2 below): Section 1. Q Existing Public Water Supply LAKEHAVEN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Attach Certificate of Water Availability (Name) Section 2. ❑ Proposed Public Water Supply arrse ❑ Copy of Well Source Site Review Letter ❑ Copy of Declaration of Covenant(s) ❑ Recording # or To be recorded with final approval ❑ Copy of Restrictive Covenant(s) ❑ Recording # or (if applicable) To be recorded with final approval SEWAPE DISPOSAL Camolete Section 1. 2_or 3 below): Section 1. ❑ Existing Sewer System Attach Certificate of Sewer Availability (Name) Section 2. ❑X Individual On -Site Sewage Systems (OSS) ❑X Critical Area Review from the Building Official ❑X Attach Soil Log Descriptions including soil type designation; (Minimum 2 per lot) and X❑ Plot Plan (to include lot lines, lot sizes, location of existing sewage system(s) and soil log holes) Section 3. ❑ Community/Larger On -Site Sewage System (Attach Preliminary Report) I, hereby, certify that the information n in fs�•d Hcation is a true and accurate representation of the existing conditions on this plat. Signature of Owner/Agent, �� Date 12/31/2019 Name of Licensed OSS Designer/P.E. (please p Rock erSgn License # 5100103 Signature of Licensed OSS Designer/P.E � "-�-' Date 12/31/2019 APPROVED ZC) ❑ DISAPPROVED 7L4, Z_ (Date) (Ilea t nvtranmenta n ee5tlgator) IstriCi Supervisor) COMMENT CONDITIONS ee CO v-e e .r Any person aggrieved by any decision or final order of the Health Officer may rite a written application to days of the date of the above decision. (Title 13, K.C.B.O.H. Chapter 13.12 - Sewage Review Committee. FORM I A Rev 3.13.13 - Previous Versions are Obsolete a}{ire►eVFlthlds4ndarj--S � n,trrnrcr•n•r•n JAID32019 EASTGATE �ttp(nNMENTAL- F t Lakehaven WATER & SEWER DISTRICT VV►IATER CERTIFICATE OF AVAILABILITY Lakehaven Water & Sewer District — Development Engineering Section 31623 — 1st Ave S * PO Box 4249 * Federal Way, WA 98063-4249 Telephone: 253-945-1581 or 253-945-1580 * Email: DE@Lal(ehaven.org This certificate Is intended to provide the applicant, land use agencies &/or public health departments with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. Lakehaven Water & Sewer District, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to delay, or deny, water service based upon capacity &/or supply limitations in Lakehaven's or Other Purveyor's system facilities. Proposed Land Use: ❑ Building Permit-SFR ❑ Building Permit-MFR ❑ Building Permit -Other ❑ Subdivision ® Short Subdivision (6) ❑ Binding Site Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Boundary Line Adjustment ❑ Other (specify/describe) Tax Parcel Number(s): 0121039146 Site Address: 302XX —_19th P< SW Lakehaven GIS Grid: F-06 Ex. Bldg. Area to Remain: Ex. Btdgs sf of 6) New Bldg. Areas Proposed: 500-3 00 f + - ea. n w I❑ Applicant's Name: Wall WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION 1. ® Water service can be provided by service connection to existing 6" or 4'• diameter water mains that are approximately 35- 2QQ_L+_L1 feet from the site. 2. ❑ Water service for the site will require an Improvement to Lakehaven's water distribution system of: ❑ a. feet of " diameter water main to reach the site; and/or ❑ b. The construction of a water distribution system an the site; and/or ❑ c. A major portion of Lakehaven's comprehensive water system plan would need to be Implemented and/or constructed; and/or ❑ d. Other (describe): 3. ® a. The existing water system Is In conformance with Lakehaven's Comprehensive Water System Plan. ❑ b. The existing water system Is not in conformance with Lakehaven's Comprehensive Water System Plan and an Amendment to this Plan will be required. This may cause a delay in issuance of land use approvals or permits. 4. ® a. The subject property Is within the corporate limits of Lakehaven Water & Sewer District, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of water service outside of Lakehaven's water service area. ❑ b. Annexation or Boundary Review Board approval will be necessary to provide service. S. Water service Is subject to: ® a. Payment of connection charges (to be determined by Lakehaven); ® b. Proof or reservation of easement(s) as required by Lakehaven (private, across subject & adjacent parcel(s)); ® c. Other: Water Service Connection application required fray w madi a er service c to . Comments/special conditions: Service pressure(s)a) areater than8 sl Indicated, Pressure Reducing Valve(s)ica ed contact local building fl I for reaulrements Vor additional I❑ l n. The nearest fire hydrants are approximately 40-525 (+/-) feet from the Proper (as marked on map on the back of this page). Fire Flow at no less than 20 psl available within the water distribution system is 1.000 GPM (approximate) for two (2) hours or more. This flow figure depicts the theoretical performance of the water distribution system under high demand conditions. Fire flow rates greater than this may be accommodated through water distribution system Improvements, contact Lakehaven for additional Information. 538 Pressure Zone Est. Meter Elevations)-GIS: High 270+/-, Low 230+/- Est. Pressure Range at Meter(s) (psl): 107-133 I hereby certify that the above water system Information Is true. This certification shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of signature. Name: SRFRPi A5Ezl1RY Signature: Title: DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR, 0121039146 wtr.docx (Form Update 1/3/17) Date: /r v �" Page 1 of 2 0121039124 30015 CO 0121039004, 0121039031 30005 30018 fl J�f $2103913 r { 30028 N � � 1 0121039035 �+ 30108 1121039119 G+ 30019 --' la 0121039076 30021 = 1 12.1039121/ i 0121039020 29622 012103TRC T 01210390/3 30028 Ex. WtrSvc 1028O � i+h" Meter 0121039146 30201 0121039112 39010 0050700200 050700( 30107 30117 0050700070 Ex. WtrSvc 20150 30201 5/8"x3/4" Meter i 0050700060 30205 F 0121039145 it 0121039045 0850500030 0850500040 302-25 0050700050 r 30301 30215 131D39D74 30215 ' 0850500020 D30300 8505006500.121039122 OD60700D40 30218 30304 30305 30227 0121039116 0850500080 0121039144 a 30225 30308 3030308030010 0050700030 3031130303 110910121039038 OS50500070238 °6 30328 0121039133 Q 30314 30317 F. 7 mg 0050700020 12103918 1210390 4 0850500080 e- 30313 2014 ,,, 30320 0121039025 30331 12103914 12103915 0121039027 085050009D 0050700010 2020 30327 E 30328 30323 - - • gGT 6 8 AC nonrn - �n 4] JCTE: Lakehaven Water and Sewer Water Certificate of Availability district neither warrants nor guarantees Parcel 0121039146 the accuracy of any facility Information a 100 Za provided. Facility locations and condltlon% are subject tofieldverifloation. Feel 21 3J J2018 6iA 0121039146 wtr.docx (Form Update 1/3/17) Page 2 of 2 CITY OF Federal Way Centered on Opportunity Mr..Eric Labrie ESM Consulting Engineers LLC 33400 81h Avenue South, Suite 205 Federal Way, WA 98003 eric.labrie@esmcivil.com Re: File #19-101611-AD; CRITICAL AREA DETERMINATION Wall Property, 30201181h Avenue SW, Federal Way Dear Mr. Labrie: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. corn Jim Ferrell, Mayor November 13, 2019 The City of Federal Way has completed the peer review process to identiFf the baseline conditions at the above referenced property for the purpose of on -site septic application submittal to the King County Health Department for a future short plat. The city agrees with the steam classification (Type P� and buffer width determination (100 feet) for the stream running north and south along the west property line and adjacent to 20,h Place SW. The C►I-IWZvf along the Type F stream and stream buffer of 100 feet should be depicted an any development proposal to ensure compliance with Federed IFIV Remised Code (laWRC) 19.145. Additional land use review is required for any future development proposal that may intrude into the stream buffer per FWRC 19.145.330, Per FWRC 19.145.240, the subject property is located within an area underlain by soils considered to be an erosion hazard and do not contain standard buffets,. All proposed improvements within an erosion hazard area or seismic hazard area shall follow the recommendations within the geotechnieal report, prepared by Earth Solutions, LLC, to ensure the improvements will not adversely affect geologic hazards. Temporary erosion control measures and Best Management Practices prepared by the project civil engineers small be reviewed, approved, and installed prior to construction. Regulated Wetlands per F`vY,`RC 19.145.410 are not present on the site. Should you have any questions about this letter or your property, I can be reached at 253-835-2638, or natade.kamieniecki@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Natalie Kamieniecki Associate Planner enc: Site Plan c: JefferyWall 30201 186, Avenue SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Due. I.D- 79821 19-101611-00.AD RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. MARKUP FOR OCT. ti 16, 2016 REVISED I CRITICAL AREAS CULVERT 20' RCP IE 173.5' ASSESSMENT AND �i CVL1'T RT 20' RCP PIE180.2' BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN REPORT _14111 JAN. 28. Tole 1 [_ DRAIN _J PARCEL A BLA 16-100077-00-SU � PARCEL B BLA 16-100077-00-Su euesl woad ra f I eer. ,1 Irr. ema..s,-u,w, 5 lit 70' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 9' BUILDING SET BACK LINE SHOP AFN7 I^ - - 1 I� S EAYIEMENT AFN79060G0692 LOT 3 rl Qe )LAT 1277151 I x 0020898 f ffl I ems+ i I' i FIGURE 8 JEFFREY & KAREN WALL WALL SHORT PLAT FEDERAL WAY, WA TREE KEY CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT Dauglcs Fir EXISTING CONDITIONS H,ly AldJv k LEGEND Ald Cedar cyp— — PROPERTY LINES wL y& wl wL ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE EXISTING CONTOURS -------- BUFFER LEGEND (UTILITIES) p CABLE MARKER POST © CABLE RISER/ PEDESTAL G CABLE VAULT/MANHOLE QQ 5S CLEANOUT (S) SS MANHOLE � MARKER POST � CULVERT @ SEPFCTANK / LUMINAIRE WITH ARM STORM CATCH BASIN rDi d LUMINAIRE STORM MANHOLE �' # LANDSCAPE/YARD LIGHT STORM CLEANOUT © STORM ROOF GRAIN p NATURAL GAS MARKER POST STORM YARD DRAIN B NATURAL GAS METER 0 STORM MARKER POST ® PROPANETANK © NATURAL GAS VALVE ® TELEPHONE CABINET m TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX ® POWERCONDUIT CD TELEPHONE RISER 1 GUY ANCHOR ® TELEPHON E MARKER POST -°'"GUY POLE O TELEPHONE POLE ® POWER JUNCTION BOX (D TELEPHONEVAULT/MANHOLE H POWER MARKER P05T IH POWER METER 4 POWER POLE IB WATER BLOW OFF PP WITH DROP LINE AND LIGHT • FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION R HOSE BIB 1 PP WITH DROP PP WITH DROP, LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER ® IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE PP WITH DROP AND TRANSFORMER 0 WATER MARKER POST PP WITH LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER RT WATER METER PP WITH LIGHT ® WATER POST INDICATOR VALVE PP WITH TRANSFORMER * SPRINKLER HEAD POWER TRANSFORMER d4-WAT RVALVE LT/ ® POWER VAUMANHOLE W j fjANIHVDWT_._ TFRVgLL[T+II�{¢Akg4[I;LE A$p[Ioved'�r; JAN 0 I n�; ... ...... _ . �. ,... _ _ EA8TGATE POWER -` — 5703 S�0 INGRESS EGRESS AND UTILITIES NORTH 0 50, 100, 200' SCALE: 1" = 100' I vrvl"JYJh I � Iftile T G H Associates, Inc. 21 11 N. Northgate Way, Ste 2 19 Seattle, WA 9813s — RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 DATE: 10/4/2019 PM:WH SASE INFORMATION: BASE SURVEY FILE INFORMATION PREPARED BY MTN 2 COAST LLC, SURVEY DATED 02/2812017 SIGNED/SEALED 0829119. TREE SURVEY DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTED BY PROJECT OWNER (M R. JEFF WALL) ON 11262018 AND PROVIDED TO RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. ON 12/2812018 BY ESM CONULTING ENGINEERS ADC 4 wastewater engineering SOIL LOGS PROJECT: WALL LOGGED BY: Jason Jacobson LOGGED 10/10/17 SL-1 04" TAN SANDY LOAM 4-29" SLIGHTLY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAMY FINE SAND 29-43" DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAM ROOTS TO 29" FAINT MOTTLING AT 30" SL-2 0-2" TAN SANDY LOAM 2-24" GRAY -TAN LOAMY FINE SAND 24-46" MODERATELY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAMY FINE SAND 46-48" TILL ROOTS TO 30" FAINT MOTTLING AT 30" SL-3 0-32" TAN SANDY LOAM 32-43" MODERATELY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAM ROOTS TO 32" SL-4 0-43" TAN SANDY LOAM ROOTS TO 43" SL-5 0-30" TAN SANDY LOAM WITH COBBLES 30-50" MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL SL-6 0-6" BROWN LOAM 6-26" TAN SANDY LOAM 26-39" MODERATELY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAM ROOTS TO 39" FAINT MOTTLING AT 34" SL-7 0-6" BROWN LOAM 6-50" MODERATELY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAMY FINE SAND ROOTS TO 48" FAINT MOTTLING AT 46" SL-8 0-9" BROWN LOAM 9-26" TAN SANDY LOAM 26-48" MODERATELY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAM ROOTS TO 42" ADC Wastewater Engineering I P 253,203.1200 729 Court C F 253.203.0090 Tacoma, WA 98402 W adcinfo,com SOIL LOGS - WALL Page 12 SL-9 0-19" TAN SANDY LOAM 19-38" SLIGHTLY DENSE GRAY -TAN SANDY LOAM 38-73" LOAMY MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL SL-10 0-18" BROWN SANDY LOAM 18-30" SLIGHTLY DENSE GRAY -TAN SANDY LOAM 30-48" DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAM ROOTS TO 30" FAINT MOTTLING AT 31" SL-11 0-3" BROWN LOAM 3-26" SLIGHTLY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAMY FINE SAND 26-40" MODERATELY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAM FAINT MOTTLING AT 30" SL-12 0-18" TAN SANDY LOAM 18-28" MODERATELY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAMY FINE SAND 28-48" DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAM ROOTS TO 28" FAINT MOTTLING AT 30" SL-13 0-18" TAN SANDY LOAM 18-36" MODERATELY DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAMY FINE SAND ROOTS TO 36" SL-14 0-30" TAN SANDY LOAM 30-47" DENSE GRAY -TAN LOAM ROOTS TO 30" FAINT MOTTLING AT 33" JA CJ0Orri tlWAS&, �P z �45$43 !VQ FG�STe2�O ,A-810NAL ADC Wastewater Engineering P 253.203.1200 729 Court C F 253.203,0090 Tacoma, WA 98402 W adcinfo.com PROJECT SITE S 272ND ST 20TH PL SW 21 ST AVE SW HIGHWAY 509/ S DASH POINT RD SW 304TH STY T FEDERAL 12TH AVE SW WAY ` �' 21ST AVE SW c I S 320TH ST I CH WAY 18 VICINITY MAP NTS Legal Description: PORTION OF SE QTR SE QTR STIR 01-21-03 DAF: LOT 4 KING CO SHORT PLAT NO 12277151 RECORDING NO 7910020898 (BEING A PORTION OF SE QTR SE QTR STR 01-21-03); TGW PORTION OF SE QTR SE QTR STIR 01-21-03 DAF: BEGINNING AT POINT ON E MARGIN OF COUNTY ROAD 555 FT NORTH OF S LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR TH EAST PARALLEL TO S LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR TO INTERSECT LINE PARALLEL TO AND 229.56 FT EAST OF W LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR TH NORTH ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO INTERSECT LINE PARALLEL TO AND 571.33 FT NORTH OF S LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR TH EAST PARALLEL TO SAID S LINE 381.2 FT TH NORTH PARALLEL TO W LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR 593.87 FT TH WEST PARALLEL TO S LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR TO INTERSECTION WITH SLY (ELY) MARGIN OF COUNTY ROAD TH SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID ELY MARGIN TO POB; EXC N 30 FT THEREOF; AND EXC ANY PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN COUNTY ROAD SURVEY NO 980 (J.M. ERCHINGER ROAD); AND EXC ANY PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN PRESENTLY RELOCATED 21STAVE SW; AND EXC FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT POINT ON E MARGIN OF COUNTY ROAD 555 FT NORTH OF S LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR TH N89-34-35E PARALLEL TO S LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR TO INTERSECT LINE PARALLEL TO AND 229.56 FT EAST OF W LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR TH NOO-08-24W ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO INTERSECT LINE PARALLEL TO AND 571.33 FT NORTH OF S LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR TH N89-34-35E PARALLEL TO SAID S LINE 381.22 FT TH NOO-08-24W PARALLEL TO W LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR 357.70 FT TO TPOB TH CONTINUING NOO-08-24W PARALLEL TO W LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR 206.17 FT TH PARALLEL TO S LINE OF SAID SE QTR SE QTR 229.96 FT TO BEGINNING OF NON -TANGENT CURVE FROM WHICH RADIUS POINT BEARS N83-47-24W 607.68 FT TH SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE ARC DISTANCE OF 215.97 FT THRU CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20-21-46 TH N89-40-49E 291.09 FT TO TPOB (AKA PARCEL "B" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NO 16-100077-00-SU RECORDING NO 20160811900004) 729 Court C (61ADTacoma, WA 98402 FOR: JEFFERY WALL 30201 20TH PL SW PHONE 253.203.1200 30201 20TH PL SW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 wastewater engineering FAX 253.203.0090 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 PARCEL #0121039146 www.adeinfo.com CULVERT IE 17RCP=18656 CULVERT iE 12'RCP=Id327 — D=018'49'02•' L=1 66,73--+ R=507.68 ROW PER RGS PFN 10050823900021 III CULVERT IE 12'RCP=21034 CULVERT IE IZ"RCP=21266 ROW PER CCD Vs55, P495 DEEDS CULVERT IE 1 T CM'r=230.48 MUMS GRAPHIC SCALE I"=100' 50 loo 13�PCHVE JAN 0 3 2019 EASTGATE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH' SEPTIC DRAIN FIELD 1 _ CULVERT IE 12"RCP �. ' � !' I )� (I / � EXISTING �.. u0UNABLE TO VERIFY' 1 j 1 —r rr I I F / HOUSE` ~POSSIBLE PRIMARY AND RESERVE r f �} �'1 'l� -� • f DRAINFIELD AREA ENVELOPE (TYP) a,172 r� STREAM S88 CULVERT IE 12"RCP=210.34 —� I �r2'T f /f TRt,T C 38 ACV CULVERT It 12"RCF-212.66 ' ROW PER QCD ' 100 STREAM BUFFER LINE P495 DEEDS --_-----• f f 04 ` tea- 0. 5 I' .�. ............... ,f r , I 20 INGRESS EAGRESS APID UIILILY— _.._ .._�_ 36 _ 1 1. EASEMENT r r ....._, - '4 � � � F ACRES) OLD GRAVEL AO n / RESERVE DRAINFIELD AREA 1 '3 FOR EXISTING RESIDENCE ' RCP=224 4i 1 �—•� �5. ...A ....!..... � �._ .... �• • .......... � e� —. -RT IE ': ► - r. �� ExISTINc 2, 1 's- ! 1 --------------- -• �•- - .. �� HOUSE r ......`' r •. PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY ,� `� f ! / r 1 2019 /` UL VIE rl I ' �■ r r /1. ---f,, + EA F—_3 8 RESIDENCE (TYP) S7G A -S SL .3,ica ,7 r / (188`4�9 .n�� GARDEN AREA r� / ; - f EXISTING RESIDENCE ' / ; TO REMAIN / - U 1 z"RCP=zz� 1 ..� .... ! _ — �f - J •—�--� � CULVERT IE S01'31'52"W I i j 12" RCP=231.67 16.33 PO PATIO 10' DRAINAGE EASEUEYT 4 SET B=C� PO'&ER EASE9ENT — `Y.' GRAPHIC SCALE 729 COURT C PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT PROJECT f SHEET: 2 OF 30201 20TH PL SW DATE:12/30/ :.� 1° = 60, A�� TACOMA, WA 98402 FOR: JEFF R WALL PL SW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 5100103 30 D a �Q 12 PHONE 253.203.1200 a=:ROCKY � R,.wastewater engineering PARCEL 121039146 AN�ERSON ticer�'seo � sie;iv€R'• 9 9 FAX 253.203.0090 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 www.adcinfo.com N0. DATE BY CK'D APP'D REVISION JOB : 21746 EXPIRES 06102+20 - -