The URL can be used to link to this page

16-1032701�kCITY OF Federal Way April 28, 2017 Paul Noyes 31327 10"' Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File #16-103270; ENVIRONMENTAL PASS-THRU REFUND Wetland Peer Review Dear Mr. Noyes: 0 p LL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www cityoffederalway. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor The wetland review for the above -referenced project has been completed by the City's wetland consultant, Landau Associates. Our records show a balance on the pass-thru account in the amount of $1077.50. Enclosed is a check for the balance, which will close the account. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 253-835-2602. Sincerely, Tamara Fix Administrative Assistant CITY OF � Federal Way November 1, 2016 Paul C. Noyes 31327 10"' Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 i�awr CITY Hi4LL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor RE: File #16-103270-00-AD; WETLAND RATING AND BUFFER DETERIVIINATION Noyes Wetland Review, 31327 10th Place SW, Federal Way Dear Mr. Noyes: This letter is to notify you that the Community Development Department has accepted the wetland delineation.and rating form completed for your property as shown in the October 24, 2016, Updated Wetland Delineation and Rating, prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC. The wetland was rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update (publication no. 14-06-029) as required by Federal Kly Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.420(1). The findings of the wetland rating forms identify the wetland on your property as a Category III wetland. The rating form also identifies the wetland score of four habitat points. The City's wetland consultant, Landau Associates, concurs with the updates and the rating as a Category III Wetland. The 60-foot buffer width is consistent with the habitat score and wetland rating pursuant to FWRC 19.145.420(2). The department will update the city's Critical Areas Map to reflect the wetland delineation and rating from the report above. The delineation is valid for 5 years from the October 24, 2016, report. Please be advised, a more detailed critical areas report will be required for any potential impacts to the wetland or wetland buffer with any future development. Also, any site plan submitted to the City must include an accurate site survey of the delineated wetland boundary and corresponding buffer. You may contact me at 253.835.2641 or Becky.chap 1n@cityoffederalway. corn if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Becky Cha in Associate Planner c: John Altmann, Altmann Oliver Associates. LLC_ PO Box 578. Carnation. WA 98014 Doc. I D. 74912 Becky Chapin From: Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:40 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Becky, I have reviewed the revised wetland rating information and concur with the updates and the rating as a Category III wetland. The 60-ft buffer width is consistent with the habitat score and wetland rating in accordance with FWRC 19.145.420(2). Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Steven Quarterman Landau Associates Ext. 121 Direct: (425) 329-0321 From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Becky.Chapin@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:50 AM To: Steve Quarterman <suarterman@landauinc.com> Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Hi Steve, Attached please find the revised wetland delineation and rating, prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC, for Mr. Noyes' property, in response to your previous comment letter. When the applicant submits a permit application, a more detailed critical areas report will be prepared for any potential impacts to the buffer. At this time the City just needs verification that the rating and buffer widths are correct. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner L Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com From: Steve Quarterman [mailto:squarterman@landauinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:56 AM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Becky, Attached is the final version of the memo. We have some remaining budget, which should be sufficient for follow up review of the wetland rating form (item 5 in our memo). Steven Quarterman Landau Associates Ext. 121 Direct: (425) 329-0321 From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Becky.Chapin@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:31 AM To: Steve Quarterman <squarterman2landauinc.com> Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Good Morning, I have not sent this Memo to the Mr. Noyes yet. Before I do I wanted to check and see if there would be any funds for review if the applicant makes the needed changes. If not, I need to let him know that additional funds would be needed to review any revised report. Also, the memo says draft; is this the final version of the memo? Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner �r -k Federa[ Way 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com From: Steve Quarterman [mailto:squarterman.@landauinc.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 10:53 AM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Becky, Please find attached draft of the Noyes wetland peer review. Please let me know if you have any questions/comments on the attached. Thank you, Steven Quarterman Landau Associates Ext. 121 Direct: (425) 329-0321 From: Becky Chapin [ma iIto: Beck .Cha pin 0 cit offederalwa .com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 9:48 AM To: Steve Quarterman <s uarterman landauinc.com> Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Hi Steve, I've attached the signed Wetland Consultant Authorization Form, you are now authorization to proceed. The applicant has funded the environmental pass -through account for the task totaling $3,720.00. If you don't mind the property owner, Paul Noyes, has asked to notify him if a site visit is needed. He can be reached at (253) 709-8723. For city records, can you please sign and return a copy of the attached wetland consultant authorization. If you have any questions regarding this project or need additional information please contact me. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner - Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.co From: Steve Quarterman [mailto:souarterman@landauinc.corn] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:08 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review No problem, revised proposal is attached. Steven Quarterman Landau Associates Ext. 121 Direct: (425) 329-0321 From: Becky Chapin maiito:Beck .Cha in cit offederalwa .com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:46 PM To: Steve Quarterman <squarterman llandauinc.com> Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Hi Steve, Thanks for providing the cost breakdown. Would you be amendable to revising the scope of work/cost estimate to remove the review of resubmitted documents as you mentioned below, see attached revised Task Scope. The applicant is aware that any additional review beyond the initial technical memo (Task 1.3 in the cost breakdown) would require a new scope and funds. I have a meeting with the applicant next week to discuss, but I think this may be a good compromise. Please feel free to call if you would like to discuss further. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner ...1 W Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.co From: Steve Quarterman [mailto:squarterman@landaulnc.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 9:26 AM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Becky, cost breakdown is attached. The staff rates used are based on our on -call contract, which use our 2013 staff rates. The oncall was originally signed back in 2013 and extended through an amendment signed in 2015. The amendment did not include a condition allowing use of updated rates. The cost estimate includes drafting review comments, which includes internal review efforts (i.e. technical and quality reviews). There may be opportunity to reduce budget if review of resubmittal is not necessary. In addition, we propose to provide the review on a time and expenses basis (as opposed to a lump sum for the total amount). Let me know if you have any questions on the attached. Thank you, Steven Quarterman Landau Associates Ext. 121 Direct: (425) 329-0321 From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Becky.Chapin@citvoffederalway.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:31 AM To: Steve Quarterman <sguarterman@landauinc.com> Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Hi Steve, I provided the applicant with the cost estimate and he was a bit shocked by the cost. He said it was several times the cost of the wetland report he was provided. Can you provide me with a cost breakdown so I can go over it with the applicant. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner 4 Federal Way 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.citVoffederalway.com From: Steve Quarterman[mailto:squartermanCa7landauinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 3:13 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Becky, Please find attached proposal to provide the requested peer review. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Steven Quarterman Landau Associates Ext. 121 Direct: (425) 329-0321 From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Becky.Chapin@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:54'AM To: Steve Quarterman <sc1uartermanC&Iandauinc.com> Subject: FW: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Hi Steve, See email below from Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer for Public Works. The City doesn't have records of permitting the storm water pond. I've attached old Wetland Assessment, Function Assessment, and Hydrological Impact Assessment for this property for your reference. If you have any additional questions please let me know. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com From: Kevin Peterson Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 10:00 AM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Becky, I verified with SWM that that is a privately -owned 'facility'. I'm not quite sure why it's got the stormwater control pond designation (I think that's an old King Co designation that we've held onto), but the best I can tell is that it is a wetland that has off -site storm water coming into it, and then discharges out to the south, but it isn't intended to detain/retain the storm water, since there's no outlet control structure. Kevin From: Steve Quarterman [mailto:squarterman@Iandauinc com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:13 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: RE: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Becky, Upon review of the wetland report, the consultant has identified the wetland as a City stormwater pond (Stormwater Control Pond D #90545). Do you know if the City has any information on the development/permitting for the pond? As you may know, the City's definition of wetland includes the following: 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 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. As part of our review, I would like to determine previous existing conditions of the pond site (i.e. was there existing wetlands?). Thank you, Steven Quarterman Landau Associates Ext. 121 Direct: (425) 329-0321 From: Becky Chapin [mailto: Beck .Cha pin cit offederalwa .com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:05 PM To: Steve Quarterman <squarterman@landauinc.com> Subject: Noyes Wetland Report Peer Review Hi Steve, The City of Federal Way would like to utilize Landau Associates to conduct peer review of the attached wetland report. The applicant has submitted the Updated Wetland Delineation and Rating, prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC, for review and approval prior to proceeding with a survey and submittal of a short plat application to the City. The report depicts a Category II wetland with 75-foot buffer. Please review the scope of work on the task authorization form, enter a cost estimate, sign, and return to the City. Following the deposit of funds by the applicant, I will provide with you an authorization to proceed with the scope of work. Let me know if you would like the task authorization and/or wetland report mailed to you. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. Thanks again, Becky Chapin Associate Planner T. W -..& Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.dtyoffederalrvay.:co i� Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC AOA - I'OiiUC;�� ('niii.uiuii.AVV'.��)II 11!i�ill':�i:'�",a-1:�'.-� ...�.�I`_'ii:�:'�.'•-:lrH' �'.Il\IlY�llIl1C11l:i1 Plani�in� �� Lancl.�r�hc .1rcl� i lcrei n-c October 24, 2016 AOA-5110 Paul Noyes 31327 10th Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 SUBJECT: Updated Wetland Delineation and Rating (Revised) Noyes Property, Federal Way, WA Parcel 072104-9082 (City File #16-100301-00-PC) Dear Paul: We have revised our wetland delineation and rating report to: 1) incorporate Comment #5 presented in the September 7, 2016 Technical Memorandum from Landau Associates, peer review consultants for the City of Federal Way and 2) the October 19, 2016 e-mail comments from Becky Chapin, Associate Planner with the City of Federal Way. The focus of the revisions pertaining to Comment #5 of the memorandum are regarding approval of the wetland classification. It is understood that a detailed wetland report meeting all of the evaluation criteria provided in FWRC 19.145.410(2) would be prepared at the time of a permit submittal. Background On June 21, 2016 1 conducted a wetland reconnaissance and updated delineation on the subject property utilizing the methodology outlined in the May 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). One wetland (Wetland A) was identified, delineated and surveyed in the northern portion of the site as part of a previous development proposal on the property. The City of Federal Way has requested a new wetland delineation and rating be conducted as part of the February 18, 2016 Pre -Application Conference Summary letter. Wetland A Wetland A consists of a topographic depression located in the northern portion of the subject property. Overflow runoff from the wetland drains south through a culvert in the southeastern portion of the wetland into a biofiltration swale located off -site to the east. The entire wetland appears to be seasonally ponded, with potential permanent ponding occurring in the lowest portion of the wetland. Paul Noyes October 24, 2016 Page 2 The on -site boundary of the wetland was delineated with pink flagging labelled A-1 through A-20. The wetland boundary has subsequently been surveyed and is depicted on the survey drawing. Attachment A contains data sheets prepared for a representative location in both the wetland and upland. These data sheets document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary delineation. Vegetation within Wetland A consisted primarily of a Palustrine Scrub -Shrub plant community dominated by willow (Salix sp.) and spirea (Spiraea douglasii) with a Palustrine Forested fringe that included red alder (Alnus rubra), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and crab apple (Malus fusca). Based on the comments presented by Landau associated, Wetland A meets the criteria for a Category III wetland with 4 Habitat Points per the current City of Federal Way rating system (Attachment B). Category III wetlands with 4 Habitat Points require a standard 60-foot buffer from the wetland edge per FWRC 19.145.420(2). Comment Response We have updated the rating form and figures per the following peer review comments: a. It is not clear if response to D 3.3 is accurate. It should be confirmed that the site is identified in a watershed plan or local plan as important for maintaining water quality; likewise, provide a screen capture of the list of total maximum daily limits (TMDL) for the watershed resource inventory area in which the wetland unit is found and identify if a TMDL applies to the basin in which the wetland unit is found. Per staff from the City of Federal Way's Surface Water Management (SWM) Division, the wetland is NOT identified in a watershed plan or local plan as important for maintaining water quality. Figure D depicts the requested screen capture of the TMDL for the WRIA. Changing Question D3.3 from Yes to No reduces the total D3.0 score to 1 giving this section a Moderate Value. b. Provide a figure identifying the contributing basin (area upstream) of wetland. Confirm responses to questions D 4.3 and D 5.3 once contributing basin has been determined. The upstream drainage basin as provided by the City pertaining to the immediately upstream McAlpine Addition indicates the contributing basin is 96.1 acres (Figure C). Since the total size of the wetland is estimated at about 1.25 acres the contributing basin is about 77 times the size of the wetland and the responses to D4.3 and D5.3 do not change. Paul Noyes October 24, 2016 Page 3 c. It is not clear in the response to question D 6.1 how flooding has been determined to be an issue down gradient within the sub -basin. Per staff from the City of Federal Way's Surface Water Management (SWM) Division, there are no known flooding issues in the sub -basin immediately down - gradient of the wetland. Since SWM indicates that surface flooding is a potential further down gradient the scoring of this question does not change. d. The basis of response to D 6.2 is indicated as "assumed" and should be confirmed. Per staff from the City of Federal Way's Surface Water Management (SWM) Division, they are NOT aware of the wetland being identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan. This reduces the score of Question D6.2 to 0 and the overall score for D.6 to 1 giving this section a Moderate Value. e. In regard to responses in H 2, provide a figure identifying polygons representing areas of undisturbed habitat and moderate and low intensity land uses; and provide corresponding calculations as indicated on the rating form. Figure A depicts polygons indicating that undisturbed habitat within the 1 km polygon occupies 37% of the polygon in greater than 3 patches. The remaining 63% was determined to be high intensity land use. Therefore the rating of this section does not change. f. The rating form is accompanied by a number of figures and we suggest providing figure titles and scales (scale is included on some but not all figures). Figure labels and scales have been included as appropriate_ Recommendation It is my recommendation that the updated wetland rating be approved by the City prior to detailed site planning. Paul Noyes October 24, 2016 Page 4 If you have any questions regarding the delineation or rating, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALTMANN, OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC John Altmann Ecologist Attachments W a Z g W W 0 J D YL N �- - -—EB'99G3.BQEO.ION m N �g W W W IWOLL 3 tO 51aK r v � cm d 7X 11 d G n ill J W a 2 P co O Eqy bV'9Z8 3.SO,ZO.ION Q� O 6 Z m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N Z W Ti N m J J �ry J J ��pp J J mm J Z J J J.2 J J J 3 17M A Z I.ZO.ION I King County Map 311 7;1 7 ,ram e klfw � A PP I A f Iff'26, f611 -� r ti 1 tlr-1 4 � PI It 41 >'r 2.1 3. r 14U0 �3.1L3.25 .3. Or G 3, 4 3110 { w � 4�� n� •y ik .a r 03 tow 1� r Y 1r E1, I �3 iZra. 4,2Q i.. 3rI. 4 +► �^� +' � - Il�"�1 1 ,•ti fi� W �. aar• �asd ..� F - ' 1r , ICl�lfi I{1[1 0 s 1.: " 1'4 � 1�i.15 ,T" 1U20 t1. 6 i. I i •• � is z 1 +�-_:.��+ ' id rTI Lai The inforroalion included on this map has been compiled by King County slaff from a variety of sounces and's suboclto change without nolice, King County makes no rejo—enlations orwarranlies, express orimpied, N King County as to ace uracy,completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use ofsuchinformation• Ths d cumenlis rot intended For use as a survey product. King County shall notice liable for any general, special, indirect, incidenlal, or consequential damages including, butnal lirritedto, bstrevenues orbstprofs resulting fromtheuse ormisuse GIS CENTER off he in romnation contained on this map. Any sale of Ills map or information on this map is piohib led except by written permission of King County. Date:7/7/2016 Notes: ATTACHMENT A DATA SHEETS -1F --A { N ic' I'rJ ,o tv!:! /Aj-0 1 A- II WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProlecUSlle: �� 1` C C D- :; 7 �. } yj �C'( City/County: F `7 -► � w j Sampling Date: L t (G Appllcant/Ovmer. NOES State: t^' Sampling Point: 1 I Investigator(s): A L t" 1 NVI.-y Section, Township. Range: SEC T 2,14 `{ E W m . Landlorrn (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): r r rs L-L 5t•Gf'r_ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ' I, Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes '5L 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 X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X_ No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes x No yv 3u?r,.r� 15 etSi�y> A� S �f MWk'1L�� Ce�Tjre� �e.,I} 7 C�ja S VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. 7rog Stratum (Plot size: + r; (2, 1 Absolute % Cover Domhani Indicator Species7 Status ^�baRp�� tt 1 b Siralum (Plot size: (vr fL Total Cover 1. . _ �y v 2. 00- 6.. l 5 cc•4- r 11�-&C- 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Total Cover _ y 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominan! Species Across All Strata Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A,g) rctal h Cover of: Mute OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU spedes x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' - MarphologlealAdapiations' (Provide supporting data In Remarks or an s separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic HydrophyUc Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_ No US Amy Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point: -T? xi I Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to documenttho Indicator or confirm the absence of indlcators-) Depth Maur& Redox Features ilnchesl Color lmols6 °% _ Color (moist) % Tvoe, Loc R ToApte__ Remarks 'Type; G=Concentration. D=De tenon. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocatlon: PL=Pora Lining, M=Matrbr. Hydric Soll Indicators. (Applicable to ali LRiRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis': Histosot (Al) ~_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Hlstic Eplpedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Hisdc: (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 (Al 2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophyticvegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) weband hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrik (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic- Resfrictivo Layer (if present): Type:-- , Depth (inches): _-_- Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No L _ HYDROLOGY Primary,Indleators imInimum of one required; gherk all that an 1 Secondary fndFfor 2 or more ire _ Surface Water (Al) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) X Saturaton (A3) _ Salt Crust (Bii) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (Bi) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhlzospheres 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 Reductlon 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 (88) Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes No V Depth (Inches): Saturation Present? Yes_ No Depth (Inches): �' Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Data (stream gauge, 5Hf.,.�6„J ?Qro,N(, �>CW[,�-Slti�l it available: us Army Corps of Engineers "' Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Tr -0,- v — lC k % A-�-7 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Pro)ect/Sifa: ?i�F C 6� L IQ — y at: 2,' City/County: ' k 7L j�At I SAY Sampling Date: G Ll Appllcant/Owner: t.-i l� j� L State: Sampling Point: 1 Investlgator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landlorm (hillslope, terrace, etc.): GYLocal relief (concave, convex, none): Ce.Jc4 ✓�_ Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lal: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification_ Are dlmatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 Hyddc Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No A within a Wetland? Yes No � RemarJcs: �� VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indlcalor Tree Stratum (Plot size: ty 1 % Cover Soe ses? Status o 2 l j -AC--, sell /Shrub Sinturn ({Plot size: 1 t�t (L ] = Total Cover 3. ens , c.r Iu ist~L 4. 5. " '-) = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size. 2. 3. 4. 5. e. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: t Total Cover 1. = Total Cover %6 Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 00MInance Fast wafthoot. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominan'. SpecieS Ac,oss All Sirata Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC (A/B) Fspecles x worksheet erot: htuttiply b _ x 1 = x 2 = I L U x 3= FACU species f G x 4= (- Q UPL spades x 5 = Column Tolafs: - (Al Prevalence Index = B/A Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicato 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test Is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4-h4orghologlcalAdaptation s' (Provide supporung data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic HydrophytJc Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators o7 hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. HydrophytIc Vegetation Present? Yes No X US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point: T I -6 Profile Description: (Dascrlba to the depth needed to document the Indleator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth tdalrix_ _ Redo Features (incf•resl C Imo ()_ �_ Color (molst) Loc Texture Rernaits 'Type: C--Concentrallon, D=De pleklon, RM=Reduced Matnx, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains, 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Hisllc Eplpedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (fF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophyticvegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. FtWrIcbm Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Remarks: 01L(-�C,.� HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Present? Yes No l� Primary Indicators minimum of one reoulred the rk all tha I a oplyl Secondary I1idlratoN Q or more reouired) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ 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 Mal or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aqultard (D3) r _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Visible on Aerial Imagery (K) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) =Inundation Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No US Anny Corps of Engineers - — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 ATTACHMENT B WETLAND RATING Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): EL, 0'72. l D q - 9 0 %-Z- Date of site visit: Rated by Trained by Ecology?-CYes_No Date of training OF HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y _2�_N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined), Source of base aerial photo/map , AAA? OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functionsAor special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 Category III - Total score =16 -19 Category IV -Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriat angs Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value _ H M L H L H M U TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal III III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2.0.14 Update. Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 1 Wetland name or number A DEPRESSI0NAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improvw water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1, Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The sail 2 in below the surface for duff laver) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes f4 0 = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin clas s): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondine or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland pointQ=4Area seasonally ponded is > X total area of wetland point Area seasonally ponded is < X total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:,4 12-16 = H _6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page ❑ 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = DNo = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes — 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No(o) (� D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No 0 -� Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 or 4 = H _j�' 1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable. to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 O D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 I D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer if there is a TMDC for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 N = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above C Rating of Value If score is: _2-4 = H _ 1 = M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page �,j(ii So✓ !� Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions = Indicators that the site functions to reduce. flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 flowing C2 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently outletpoints Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet Aeriods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points 3T S The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points03 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_32-16 = H `. 6-11= M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes 1 No = 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes Q1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at i >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes 1 ❑ = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ?S3 = H _1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points (1) f Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 I The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control ply 7 Yes = 2 No 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above f Rating of Value If score is:-2-4 = H r1 = M —0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form —Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site, functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches maybe combined for each class to meet the threshold of ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. _Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points - _Emergent P� , ` 4 AC. a C CO- l d %c 3 structures: points Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points =1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or Y. ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). X Permanently flooded or inundated Pc45t 3L-E� 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 _Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points Z ; _Saturated only 1 type present: points _Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland _Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland _Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points Cl < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. (:D (: ) * (*) () 0rateOp None = 0 points Low =1 point Modelnts Allthree diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number k H 1.5. Special habitat features: Chock the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). _Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland _Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) _Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cutshrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least X ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above I`'1 D�►i..n ..f Ci+n Dn+nn+i.l If i- 1 c-12 - U 7.1 d = M n.s = I Rernrd the ratina on the first Dane H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 O 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = I < 10% of 1 km Polygon points - 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 0 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points . Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If % > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) — Z 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:-4-6 = H _____1-3 = M 2(< 1= L Record the rating on the first page f H 3.0. is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? I H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 does not meet anv of the criteria above Ratin¢ of Value If score is: 2 = H 1= M A 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January-1, 2015 rip] Record the rating on the first page - 14 Iu i"'rFIMM� M a FLAN LEr--7ENF,) OF I KM POLYGON THAT IS RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC IAOA Por-ft E VJII; l Planning K Landscape A,Oimicaurc 5110-MIT-09-30-16.dwg �._+T�- 1� E or-3 1 GRAPHIG SCALE N (IN FEET) *MEN I O 500 1000 1500 2000 5000 SCALE: 1: 1000 DRAWN OJECT 75110 SO FIGURE A SCALE PARCEL 0-72104-G082 AS NOTE FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON DATE q-SO-1( 1�11 REVISED fN" �. Z .� d r 3 Z 4jW R EL Y C7 L T '• A r ' SY :J] top s = Z 4-1 ♦r. new V r OZ fit E E m m m -N Olt n �t i • T a c m vEi r w rn T J 1 •�r �.^,.■'��F�-NCO d �� •' r e cam N i0w� c •�. �: ws E.�waE` p �'e y•4 �, z [ .1-•. �. � � der a�� w� � !!| £ t,\ |[)! 10/12/2016 TMDL Project Information for WRIA 9 1 WA State Department of Ecology DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY About us Contact us State of Washington & Toxics Air & Cjilis . ?e:: ::ll; CS: 5)_.i!!s Water Oualitv Improvement > Watei'SLUality i'mnrovement P!'OleLtsb%r WRI > WRIA 9: Duwamish-Green WRIA 9: Duwamish-Green a a A The following table lists overview information for water quality improvement projects muss (including total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs) for this water resource inventory area (WRIA). Please use links (where available) for more information on a project. Counties King Waterbody Name Pollutants Status** TMDL Lead Duwamish and Lower Ammonia-N Approved by EPA Joan Nolan Green River 425-649-4425 Approved by EPA Fauntlerov Creek Fecal Coliform Joan Nolan Has an implementation plan 425-649-4425 Fenwick Lake Total Phosphorus Approved by EPA (1993, Tricia Shoblom Clean Lakes Program) 425-649-7288 Category 5, 2008 Water Quality Assessment Green River and Temperature Green River TMDL Approved Joan Nolan Newaukum Creek Dissolved Oxygen by EPA 425-649-4425 Newaukum Creek TMDL Approved by EPA Total Phosphorus Has an implementation plan Lake Sawyer Approved by EPA Tricia Shoblom Has an implementation plan 425-649-7288 Newaukum Creek Bacteria Under development Joan Nolan 425-649-4425 Soos Creek Fecal Coliform Under development Joan Nolan 425-649-4425 Aquatic Habitat Dissolved Oxygen Temperature * * Status will be listed as one of the following: Approved by EPA, Under Development or Implementation For more information about WRIA 9: Waterbcpdin WRI - using the Water Quality Assessment Query Tool Watershed Information for WRIA 9 * The Department of Ecology and other state resource agencies frequently use a system of 62 "Water Resource Inventory Areas" or "WRIAs" to refer to the state's major watershed basins. Eck t9 ton of nape Last updated August 2016 http:/twww.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdlrTMDLsbyWria/tmdl-wria09.htmi 1/2 3/24/2016 Water Quality Assessment Map Viewer Water C�uaii-Ly Assessment for Washington I TDOIS® I j1_ f Cl >" LO r Active: t m stf+0"h—,yh Q C RS' V .s•. rr a' sw312t *11120, 11 o l _ to AA va 1 'arm ,i SW 317th PI I 1 iaaOA — � � tip! J+f �%Im.? �X�. u5 s]! ry' Ii a �," •�' G' Water Quality Assessment for Washington Data Disclaimer Privacy Notice Contact Us Copyright Q 2012 Washington State Department of Ecology. All Rights Reserved. Map Search 8 Layers 9 Help — v — 40 S a t 9 p.SbilA li! is \• 5 3oath S1 � .Y s S 317th St S 320th Stm � Y C(finn On3 5320fh 51 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecytwgamapviewer/default.aspx?res=128Ox720 1/1 Becky Chapin From: Becky Chapin Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:08 AM To: 'psnoyes@comcast.net' Subject: RE: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 (Noyes Wetland) Hi Paul, Before I send the revised wetland delineation to the City's consultant, I wanted to have Kevin Peterson review it since he is mentioned in the report. Please see the comments below made by Kevin and revise the report accordingly. Once these changes are made I will send the report to Landau Associates for review. Page 1, under paragraph titled Wetland A: The wetland that's being delineated on Parcel 072104-9082 is INCORRECTLY identified as "being utilized as a stormwater facility by the City of Federal Way (Stormwater Control Pond D #90545)." The storm water control pond identified under D90545 is a storm water pond, owned and maintained by the City, but actually lies on the north side of 312'" St (across the street from Parcel 072104-9082) and was developed as part of the McAlpine Add subdivision. All the information that the City has on previous development in this area (McAlpine Addition construction plans and drainage basin maps, and Hidden Lane Condo's development plans) do not identify the wetland in question as a storm water facility, in the sense that I can't find anything that indicates it's ever been used or identified as some kind of formal detention pond. Any `Comment Responses' listed on pages 2 and 3 of this report that represent myself as the respondent (i.e., responses that start with "Per Kevin Peterson...") to the questions is, essentially, incorrect. While I did respond to Mr. Altmann's e-mailed questions, the actual responses came from the City's Surface Water Management (SWM) Division, as they would have any of the detailed information (if it exists) that was being requested. I was basically just trying to facilitate communication between a developer's consultant and the appropriate City staff/division. These responses should be revised to reflect that City SWM Division staff provided the response. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www, c ityoffed e ra Tway. co m From: psnoyes@comcast.net [maiito: sno es comca t.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 7:22 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: Fwd: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 (Noyes Wetland) Hi Becky: Attached is my revised wetland delineation and rating report, responding to the peer review. Paul From: "John Altmann" <'ohn -altoliver.com> To: psn❑yes _ comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:20:56 PM Subject: RE: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 (Noyes Wetland) Becky Chapin From: Kevin Peterson Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:09 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: Noyes Wetland Delineation Report Attachments: RE: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 Becky, Thanks for the opportunity to review the Altmann Oliver Associates wetland delineation and rating report dated Oct 12, 2016. Please see my comments, below, in regard to issues that I find with this report: Page 1, under paragraph titled Wetland A: The wetland that's being delineated on Parcel 072104-9082 is INCORRECTLY identified as "being utilized as a stormwater facility by the City of Federal Way (Stormwater Control Pond D #90545). The storm water control pond identified under D90545 is a storm water pond, owned and maintained by the City, but actually lies on the north side of 312th St (across the street from Parcel 072104-9082) and was developed as part of the McAlpine Add subdivision. All the information that the City has on previous development in this area (McAlpine Addition construction plans and drainage basin maps, and Hidden Lane Condo's development plans) do not identify the wetland in question as a storm water facility, in the sense that I can't find anything that indicates it's ever been used or identified as some kind of formal detention pond. Any 'Comment Responses' listed on pages 2 and 3 of this report that represent myself as the respondent (i.e., responses that start with "Per Kevin Peterson...") to the questions is, essentially, incorrect. While I did respond to Mr. Altmann's e- mailed questions, the actual responses came from the City's Surface Water Management (SWM) Division, as they would have any of the detailed information (if it exists) that was being requested (see copy of e-mail, attached). I was basically just trying to facilitate communication between a developer's consultant and the appropriate City staff/division. I think these responses should be revised to reflect that City SWM Division staff provided the response. Thanks, Kevin Peterson Engineering Plans Reviewer Ext. 2734 Becky Chapin From: Fei Tang Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 8:27 AM To: Kevin Peterson; Tony Doucette Subject: RE: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 From: Kevin Peterson Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:09 PM To: Tony Doucette; Fei Tang Subject: FW: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 Tony, Fei, The following questions are from a developer and his wetland consultant that are working on a proposed short plat on the referenced parcel. The wetland/pond that's being referred to in his questions is on the south side of SW 312th St, across the street from the storm water pond with the sport courts in the bottom. As far as I know, the answer to all but Question 2.3) are all NO, but can you take a look and respond back to me, and I'll pass that info on. Thanks Kevin Kevin, See my response below in red. Fei Tang, P.E. SWM Project Engineer X 2751 From: John Altmann [mailto:'ohn altoliver.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:00 PM To: Kevin Peterson Cc: 'psnoyes@comcast.net' Subject: RE: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 Hi Kevin - I am working with Paul on determining the rating and required buffer for the wetland/stormwater pond on his subject property. As part of that effort, I was hoping you could answer some questions regarding the wetland/stormwater facility: 1. Is the site identified in a watershed plan or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (Not that I know of) 2. Does flooding: 1) occur in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of the pond, (Not that I know of.) 2) occur in a sub -basin further down gradient, (This is a really broad range. Flooding could definitely occur somewhere downstream.) or 3) flooding is not an issue in this basin? (It depends on how big "this basin" is.) 3. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? (Not that I know of). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. John John Altmann Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC 425.333.4535 lohn(o)-altoliver.com www.altoliver.com From: Kevin Peterson [maifto:Kevin.Peterson cit ❑ffederafwa .com) Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 11:31 AM To: 'psnoyes@co mcast. net' <psnoyes@comcast.net> Cc: John Altmann <jo_h@_altohver.rom> Subject: RE: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 Paul, I looked at the storm water design plans for the McAlpine plat, and it appears the pond was designed as what I call a 'back-up' system rather than the 'flow -through' systems that we normally have seen designed over the last 18 years or so. With a flow -through pond, you would see one or more inlet pipes into the pond, with a single outlet pipe out of the pond. With a back-up pond like this one, water enters and exits the pond through a single pipe. In this type of pond, stormwater will by-pass the pond until it reaches a certain level, at which time a restrictor orifice in the outlet structure begins to limit the flows out of it, and the stormwater then 'backs -up' into the pond and will continue to do so as the storm event continues or until such time as storm subsides, the pond level recedes, and the stormwater once again starts to bypass the pond. However, that doesn't seem to be the case with this pond, as I, like you, have never really seen any real buildup of water within that pond in the 20-plus years I've worked in Federal Way. So, there could be any number of things going on that result in that pond seeing no water, even during the larger storm events, and it would probably take a significant effort by an engineer to try and analyze and determine why this pond gets little to no water in it. Kevin Peterson Engineering Plans Reviewer City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 835-2734 From: psnoyes@comcast.net fmaiita:psnoyes@comcast. in Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:12 AM To: Kevin Peterson Cc: altman, john Subject: Re: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 Hi Kevin: Thanks for looking into this matter. I appreciate the info that you were able to locate. In walking around the McAlpine (pond) sports courts, there appears to be no inflow culverts or channels. Is it possible the existing storm drainage is not connected to the sports courts other than perhaps surface flows in a very rare event? In looking at Google Earth, I see no other retention ponds. In my 22 plus years at this address I have never seen any ponding. And we have seen a few major precipitation events during that time. Thanks, Paul From: "Kevin Peterson" <Kevin.Peterson@cit, offederalway.com> To: "psnoyes .comcast.net" <psnoyesCcDcomcast.net> Cc: "john altman" <john altoliver.com> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 10:04:30 AM Subject: RE: Surface Water on Parcel 072104-9082-06 Hi Paul, I looked for any records we might have on file regarding that wetland and unfortunately came up empty. I was able to find a drainage basin map (attached) from the McAlpine Plat files that shows the upstream tributary area to the McAlpine pond, as well as the original pond design for McAlpine. I also looked up the files we had for the condo's that are .adjacent to your property, but found even less there. However, I did attached a copy of the drainage system for the Hidden Lane condo's, which does show the outlet from the wetland and down through the condo project. I hope some of this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, Kevin Peterson Engineering Plans Reviewer City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 835-2734 CITY OF �. Federal September 8, 2016 Paul C. Noyes 31327 10`' Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 psnoyes@comcast.net FI49LL 33325 8th Avenue WSouth ®■ Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 1Jy (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor RE: File #16-103270-00-AD; 3RD PARTY WETLAND REVIEW Noyes Wetland Review, 31327 loth Place SW, Federal Way Dear Mr. Noyes: On July 7, 2016, the City of Federal Way received your request for third party review of the Wetland Delineation and Rating Report for parcel number 072104-9082 (dated July 7, 2016) prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC. Per the report, it was concluded Wetland A meets the criteria of a Category 11 wetland with a 75-foot buffer. The City forwarded your request to our wetland consultant, Landau Associates, for their review. Landau completed a site visit and reviewed relevant docurnents. Landau prepared a technical memorandurn (dated September 7, 2016) in which they agree with the portion of the wetland boundary flagged. However, Landau cannot verify wetland rating without additional information. Please review the comments in the memo prepared by Landau and revise the Wetland Delineation and Rating report accordingly. I did confirm that the existing funds are sufficient for Landau to review the revised report to verify the wetland rating. When resubmitting, please provide three copies of the revised report, accompanied by the enclosed Resubrmittal Information form. I can be reached at 253-835-2641 or beck .cha innav+ offederalway.com If you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Becky C ` pin Associate Planner enc: Landau Technical Memorandum. dated September 7, 2016 Resubmittal Form Handout Doc I D 74635 Technical Memorandum TO: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner FROM: Steven Quarterman DATE: September 7, 2016 RE: Peer Review Noyes Short Plan — Wetland Delineation and Rating Federal Way, Washington 0238072.010.011 Introduction This technical memorandum provides Landau Associates' (LAI) peer review comments regarding the Updated Wetland Delineation and Rating, Noyes Property, Federal Way, WA, Parcel 072104-9082 (City File #16-100301-00-PC) (Wetland Report) for the existing lot located at 31327 101h Place SW, Federal Way, Washington.' The purpose of this peer review is to provide a professional opinion regarding applicable regulatory requirements in the City of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19.145, specifically under Article IV. Wetlands. Wetland A is identified in the Wetland Report as being utilized as a stormwater facility by the City of Federal Way (the City), and LAI assumes that the wetland existed prior to modification as a stormwater facility. Peer review comments regarding the Wetland Report include: 1) LAI wetlands staff conducted a reconnaissance of the onsite portion of the wetland (identified as Wetland A; flags A-1 to A-20) on August 10, 2016, and agree with the portion of wetland boundary flagged, which generally follows the slope of the depression on the site. It is noted that the delineation is limited to the western and southern boundary of the wetland on the property (north edge adjacent to SW 312th Street is not delineated). 2) The Wetland Report does not satisfy all of the evaluation criteria provided in FWRC 19.145.410(2). We understand the intent of the Wetland Report as presented is to provide an update to the boundary delineation and rating. A subsequent report may be required to include the following items referenced in FWRC 19.145.410(2): (a) Critical area report information identified in FWRC 19.145.080, specifically items: (a) The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the type of approval (use process, subdivision, building permit) requested; (b) The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any reconnaissance on site; 'Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC. 2016. Updated Wetland Delineation and Rating, Noyes Property, Federal Way, WA, Parcel 072104-9082 (City File #16-100301-00-PC). July. LANDAU ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907 Landau Associates (d) A scaled site plan depicting critical areas, buffers, setbacks, and proposed improvements; (e) Photographs of the site and critical areas; (f) Identification and characterization of all critical areas adjacent to the proposed improvements; (g) A description of efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to FWRC 19.145.130 to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas, (h) A copy of the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) if applicable; (b) Identification of all local, state, and/or federal wetland related permit(s) required for the proposal. (e) Identification and characterization of all wetlands and buffers on and within 225 feet of the subject property. For off -site areas with limited or no access, estimate conditions using best available information. And if applicable for wetlands within 225 feet of the subject property: (f) Provide the following for each wetland identified on and/or within 225 feet of the subject property. Acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings shall be based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the subject property: (i) Wetland rating and score for each function; (ii) Required buffers; (iii) Hydrogeomorphic classification; (iv) Wetland acreage; (v) Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; (vi) Habitat elements; (vii) Soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and (viii) To the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/ outlets, estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, and flood debris). 3) Soil within Sampling Point TP1 is identified as having hydric soil indicator Al2: "Thick Dark Surface"; however, the soil profile presented in the data form does not satisfy the hydric soils criteria. At the time of the site reconnaissance, the LAI biologist observed a soil profile with a depleted matrix, satisfying the criteria of a Thick Dark Surface in the vicinity of flag A-6. 4) The dominance test for vegetation within Sampling Point TP2 is not calculated and is indicated as not satisfying the hydrophytic vegetation parameter. Based on data provided, the sample point is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., exceeds 50 percent). However, this sampling point is still considered upland as only one of the three mandatory wetland parameters is satisfied. 5) LAI has reviewed the wetland rating form and cannot provide concurrence on the wetland category based on the information presented in the report. Confirmation of items below may Noyes Short Plan — Wetland Delineation and Rating September 7, 2016 Landau Associates result in a change in overall score and final wetland rating. We provide the following comments related to the wetland rating: a. It is not clear if response to D 3.3 is accurate. It should be confirmed that the site is identified in a watershed plan or local plan as important for maintaining water quality; likewise, provide a screen capture of the list of total maximum daily limits (TMDL) for the watershed resource inventory area in which the wetland unit is found and identify if a TMDL applies to the basin in which the wetland unit is found. b. Provide a figure identifying the contributing basin (area upstream) of wetland. Confirm responses to questions D 4.3 and D 5.3 once contributing basin has been determined. c. It is not clear in the response to question D 6.1 how flooding has been determined to be an issue down gradient within the sub -basin. d. The basis of response to D 6.2 is indicated as "assumed" and should be confirmed. e. In regard to responses in H 2, provide a figure identifying polygons representing areas of undisturbed habitat and moderate and low intensity land uses; and provide corresponding calculations as indicated on the rating form. f. The rating form is accompanied by a number of figures and we suggest providing figure titles and scales (scale is included on some but not all figures). This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Federal Way in evaluating the adequacy of the Wetland Report for the 31327 loth Place SW property. The focus of this review was the wetland delineation. 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 delineation practices. 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. SJQ/JWW/Ijc [P:\238\072\R\NOYES_WErLAND_PEER TM.DOCX] Noyes Short Plan — Wetland Delineation and Rating September 7, 2016 cm OF 4A Federal Way WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: July 29, 2016 City: City ofFederal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Steve Quarterman 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 329-0321 sm aterman landauinc.ca Project: Noyes Short Plat — Wetland Delineation and Rating Parcel # 072104-9082 File No.: 16-103270-00-AD Project Proponent: Paul Noyes 31327 10°i Place SW Federal Way WA, 98023 Project Planner: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner t�eckv.r-I,Lapingi[ vffederalwa .c w, 253-835 2641 Project Background: Prior to submitting formal short subdivision application, the applicant has submitted the attached wetland delineation and rating report for peer review. Per the report, the on -site wetland is a Category Il wetland with a 75-foot buffer. Documents a Updated Wetland Delineation and Rating, prepared by Altmann Oliver Provided: Associates, LLC (report date: July 7, 2016) Task Scope: 1. Review the wetland delineation and rating report for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, `Environmentally Critical Areas,' especially: Article TV. `Wetlands' 2. Conduct site visit as necessary. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant if needed. Task Cost: Not to exceed $3,720 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acoe0aum City cle 4 b7m [OTM Paco161¢1zu.AD w Pyr3 QeciD74i11 LANDAU ASSOCIATES July 29, 2016 City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Ms. Becky Chapin, Associate Planner RE: Proposed Scope of Services and Cost Estimate Third -Party Review Wetland Delineation — Noyes Property (King County Parcel 072104-9082) Federal Way, Washington Dear Becky: Landau Associates (LAI) is pleased to provide this proposed scope of services and cost estimate to provide peer review services to the City of Federal Way (City) for the above -referenced project. This proposal is in response to your request dated July 12, 2016 and is based on a brief review of the information provided with your request and our experience on similar projects. Background Information The City has received an updated wetland delineation report (Report) for King County Parcel 072104- 9082 (Noyes Property) located at 31327 101h Place SW. The Report was prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC (dated June 7, 2016) and identifies approximate wetland boundary and wetland rating for one wetland. We understand that the City is requesting peer review of the Report. Proposed Scope of Services LAI will provide the following specific services: 1. Review the wetland delineation and rating report for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, 'Environmentally Critical Areas,' especially: Article IV. 'Wetlands' 2. Conduct site visit to review existing conditions. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant if needed. 4. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required. Assumptions: 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • www.landauinc.com Critical Areas Determination Landau Associates • We will provide a draft version of the memorandum for City review, and will provide a final version after addressing/incorporating any City comments, as appropriate. • Written responses to the Report and resubmitted/corrected documents will be provided in memorandum format. • If necessary, meeting with the applicant's wetland biologist will occur at the time of the site visit. ■ The City will coordinate necessary access permissions to the property. • Onsite soil sampling test pits, if necessary, will be excavated by hand for comparison with conditions noted in the Report. Deliverables: ■ Electronic (Adobe PDF) copies of the draft and final Third -Party Review memorandum. Cost Estimate We propose to provide the above -described services on a time -and -expenses basis in accordance with our existing professional services agreement with the City for Third -Party Wetland/ Stream Review and Evaluation (Amendment No. 1 signed August 11, 2015). The estimated cost for the scope of services is $3,720. If project requirements change or unforeseen conditions are encountered that require services beyond the scope outlined above, we will bring these to your attention and seek approval for modification to the scope of services and budget, as appropriate. We will not exceed the total estimated cost for our services without prior authorization from the City. If the above -described scope of services and cost estimate are acceptable, please provide us with written authorization. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Federal Way on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions about our proposed scope of services and cost estimate for this project. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven J. Quarterman Senior Associate SJQ/rgm 2016-3824 Attachment: 2013 Compensation Schedule July 29, 2016 2 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE - 2013 14 LANDAU ASSOCIATES Personnel Labor Hourly Rate Principal 210 Senior Associate 190 Associate 170 Senior 155 Senior Project 140 Project 130 Senior Staff 115 Senior CAD 115 Staff / Senior Technician II 99 CAD / GIS Technician 95 Project Coordinator 90 Assistant / Senior Technician 1 87 Technician 74 Support Staff 65 Expert professional testimony in court, deposition, declaration, arbitration, or public testimony is charged at 1.5 times the hourly rate. Rates apply to all labor, including overtime. Technical disciplines include: Biologist, Chemist, Engineer, Environmental Planner, Geochemist, Geologist, Hydrogeologist, Hydrologist, Risk Analyst, Scientist. Equipment Field, laboratory and office equipment used in the direct performance of authorized work is charged at unit rates. A rate schedule will be provided on request. Subcontractor Services and Other Expenses Invoices Term Subcontractor billing and other project expenses incurred in the direct performance of authorized routine services will normally be charged at a rate of cost plus a twelve percent (12%) handling charge. A higher handling charge for technical subconsultants and for high -risk field operations may be negotiated on an individual project basis; similarly, a lower handling charge may be negotiated on projects requiring disproportionally high subconsultant involvement. Invoices for Landau Associates' services will be issued monthly. Interest of 1'/z percent per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law) will be payable on any amounts not paid within 30 days. Unless otherwise agreed, Landau Associates reserves the right to make reasonable adjustments to our compensation rates over time (e.g., long-term continuing projects). 1110/13 CADocuments and Settingskmoon\My Documents\COMPENSATION SCHEDULE.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 41k CITY OF Federal Way WETLAND CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: July 29, 2016 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Landau Associates Steve Quarterman 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 329-0321 so uarterman(g7,landauinc.com Project: Noyes Short Plat — Wetland Delineation and Rating Parcel # 072104-9082 File No.: 16-103270-00-AD Project Proponent: Paul Noyes 31327 10t' Place SW Federal Way WA, 98023 Project Planner: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner bec .cha in cit offederalwa .coin, 253-835-2641 Project Background: Prior to submitting formal short subdivision application, the applicant has submitted the attached wetland delineation and rating report for peer review. Per the report, the on -site wetland is a Category H wetland with a 75-foot buffer. Documents • Updated Wetland Delineation and Rating, prepared by Altmann Oliver Provided: Associates, LLC (report date: July 7, 2016) Task Scope: 1. Review the wetland delineation and rating report for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, `Environmentally Critical Areas,' especially: Article 111V. `Wetlands' 2. Conduct site visit as necessary. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant if needed. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ 3,720 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: Consultant Date V11g, City of Fe ral Way Ataff Date Gc IA4-q U-- g- r - (� Date File # 16-103270-AD Page 2 Doc ID 74311 LANDAU ASSOCIATES July 29, 2016 City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Ms. Becky Chapin, Associate Planner RE: Proposed Scope of Services and Cost Estimate Third -Party Review Wetland Delineation — Noyes Property (King County Parcel 072104-9082) Federal Way, Washington Dear Becky: Landau Associates (LAI) is pleased to provide this proposed scope of services and cost estimate to provide peer review services to the City of Federal Way (City) for the above -referenced project. This proposal is in response to your request dated July 12, 2016 and is based on a brief review of the information provided with your request and our experience on similar projects. Background Information The City has received an updated wetland delineation report (Report) for King County Parcel 072104- 9082 (Noyes Property) located at 31327 10th Place SW. The Report was prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC (dated June 7, 2016) and identifies approximate wetland boundary and wetland rating for one wetland. We understand that the City is requesting peer review of the Report. Proposed Scope of Services LAI will provide the following specific services: 1. Review the wetland delineation and rating report for consistency with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, 'Environmentally Critical Areas,' especially: Article IV. 'Wetlands' 2. Conduct site visit to review existing conditions. 3. Provide written response to findings, recommendations, and request additional information from applicant if needed. 4. Project management as necessary if additional land use review is required. Assumptions: 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • www.landauinc.com Critical Areas Determination Landau Associates • We will provide a draft version of the memorandum for City review, and will provide a final version after addressing/incorporating any City comments, as appropriate. • Written responses to the Report and resubmitted/corrected documents will be provided in memorandum format. • If necessary, meeting with the applicant's wetland biologist will occur at the time of the site visit. • The City will coordinate necessary access permissions to the property. • Onsite soil sampling test pits, if necessary, will be excavated by hand for comparison with conditions noted in the Report. Deliverables: • Electronic (Adobe PDF) copies of the draft and final Third -Party Review memorandum. Cost Estimate We propose to provide the above -described services on a time -and -expenses basis in accordance with our existing professional services agreement with the City for Third -Party Wetland/ Stream Review and Evaluation (Amendment No. 1 signed August 11, 2015). The estimated cost for the scope of services is $3,720. If project requirements change or unforeseen conditions are encountered that require services beyond the scope outlined above, we will bring these to your attention and seek approval for modification to the scope of services and budget, as appropriate. We will not exceed the total estimated cost for our services without prior authorization from the City. If the above -described scope of services and cost estimate are acceptable, please provide us with written authorization. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Federal Way on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions about our proposed scope of services and cost estimate for this project. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven J. Quarterman Senior Associate SJQ/rgm 2016-3824 Attachment: 2013 Compensation Schedule July 29, 2016 2 O LANDAU COMPENSATION SCHEDULE - 2013 LA ASSOCIATES Personnel Labor Hourly Rate Principal 210 Senior Associate 190 Associate 170 Senior 155 Senior Project 140 Project 130 Senior Staff 115 Senior CAD 115 Staff / Senior Technician Il 99 CAD / GIS Technician 95 Project Coordinator 90 Assistant / Senior Technician 1 87 Technician 74 Support Staff 65 Expert professional testimony in court, deposition, declaration, arbitration, or public testimony is charged at 1.5 times the hourly rate. Rates apply to all labor, including overtime. Technical disciplines include: Biologist, Chemist, Engineer, Environmental Planner, Geochemist, Geologist, Hydrogeologist, Hydrologist, Risk Analyst, Scientist. Equipment Field, laboratory and office equipment used in the direct performance of authorized work is charged at unit rates. A rate schedule will be provided on request. Subcontractor Services and Other Expenses Invoices Term Subcontractor billing and other project expenses incurred in the direct performance of authorized routine services will normally be charged at a rate of cost plus a twelve percent (12%) handling charge. A higher handling charge for technical subconsultants and for high -risk field operations may be negotiated on an individual project basis; similarly, a lower handling charge may be negotiated on projects requiring disproportionally high subconsultant involvement. Invoices for Landau Associates' services will be issued monthly. Interest of 1'/z percent per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law) will be payable on any amounts not paid within 30 days. Unless otherwise agreed, Landau Associates reserves the right to make reasonable adjustments to our compensation rates over time (e.g., long-term continuing projects). 1/10/13 Q\Documents and Setlingskmoonft Documents\COMPENSATION SCHEDULE.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES AOA - Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC PO Hox:i78 Carnation. WA 9801A Office (A 3) 33!'�-A535 Fax (423) 33:�_15119 Environmental Planning & Landscape Architecture July 7, 2016 AOA-5110 Paul Noyes 31327 loth Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 SUBJECT: Updated Wetland Delineation and Rating Noyes Property, Federal Way, WA Parcel 072104-9082 (City File #16-100301-00-PC) Dear Paul: On June 21, 2016 1 conducted a wetland reconnaissance and updated delineation on the subject property utilizing the methodology outlined in the May 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). One wetland (Wetland A) was identified, delineated and surveyed in the northern portion of the site as part of a previous development proposal on the property. The City of Federal Way has requested a new wetland delineation and rating be conducted as part of the February 18, 2016 Pre -Application Conference Summary letter. Wetland A Wetland A consists of a topographic depression located in the northern portion of the subject property. The wetland is currently being utilized as a stormwater facility by the City of Federal Way (Stormwater Control Pond D #90545). Overflow runoff from the stormwater pond/wetland drains south through a culvert in the southeastern portion of the wetland into a biofiltration swale located off -site to the east. The entire wetland appears to be seasonally ponded, with potential permanent ponding occurring in the lowest portion of the wetland. The on -site boundary of the wetland was delineated with pink flagging labelled A-1 through A-20. Attachment A contains data sheets prepared for a representative location in both the wetland and upland. These data sheets document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary delineation. RECEIVED JUL 0 7 2016 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Paul Noyes July 7, 2016 Page 2 Vegetation within Wetland A consisted primarily of a Palustrine Scrub -Shrub plant community dominated by willow (Salix sp.) and spirea (Spiraea douglasii) with a Palustrine Forested fringe that included red alder (Alnus rubra), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and crab apple (Malus fusca). Wetland A appears to meet the criteria for a Category II wetland with 4 Habitat Points per the current City of Federal Way rating system (Attachment B). Category II wetlands with 4 Habitat Points require a standard 75-foot buffer from the wetland edge per FWRC 19.145.420(2). Recommendation it is any recommendation that the updated wetland delineation and rating be approved by the City prior to detailed site planning. Following approval of the delineation as flagged in the field, the wetland boundary should be surveyed as part of any development proposal. If you have any questions regarding the delineation or rating, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC John Altmann Ecologist Attachments ATTACHMENT A DATA SHEETS Wf kLA JD P-i A - I J -) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Sits: A i= t L- 0-12 i O — 0'8 2 City/county: w AIY Sampling Date: I b Applicant/Owner. N o 4 Es State: W A Sampling Point:_ Investigator(s): A Ll"O AaJr, Section, Township, Range: SEc �� Z! fail �- `� E W,M - Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): ! i £ �' cF 5 Lip Local relief (concave, convex, none)- Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Let Long: _ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NW classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes '-IL No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X 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 Hydric Sal Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �_ No within a Wetland? Yes x No Remarks: �y VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. f Tme Stratum (Plot size: 1 c tZ J n Uio wPPPN un nwn:m" % Cover Species Status _ 0_ ; Mco 2. �� x s a,�s ; n•zg rF� �tyakwC _ 3 �\rt.JS f JYot"N 'L4 v`i 4. f u t. = Total Cover SagMQJShrub Stratum (Plot size: I l7 R 1 1. rift c'"ra: f- k C-15` 01 rAco 2. q�+ti- 5 S C[ I i Zi 1 f�G 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3_ 5: t3_ Z.. 8. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vlne Stratum (Plot size: i 1. 2. = Tote Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (8) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Total % Cover of: MuHJQIV by, OBL species x1 = FACW species x 2 = FAG species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophyllc Vogot3tlon Indicators: 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation A 2 - Dominance Test Is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index Is 53:0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland NorrVascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes -'>C No -=US�trmy Corps•ofEngineers— - — - "' --- -'' ' "=Weste"W-Mouhtalds, Valleys; and Coast - V&sktn 2.o SOIL Sampling Point ''e 'i I Proffle Doscriptlen: (Descrlbe to the depth needed to documentthe Indicator or conflrm the absence of indfcstors.) Depth Matrix s (IDChss3 Color olsll Color fmistl ems— Tme_ Texture Pernafks a Islet iol((z 3 f 14" Sur'C7 core? L�.A„j 'Type: C-Concentratfon, D-Deplelton, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Gralns.. location: PL=Pore Lining, M-Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Hlstosol (Al) - Sandy Redox (35) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) _ Hlstle Eplpedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrbc (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black HlaW (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) Depleted Befow Hark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Resbrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (Inches): _ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Lo,, ; ,, RR im A - HYDROLOGY vvetrano o-ryarotogy maicators: ma lndlcat Inf r f I afE a s !SecondaDf I dicala 2 2r more ulr Surface Water (Ai) WatsrStaiined Leaves (B9) (except _ WaterStafned Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) K Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhirospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Gaomorphlc Position (132) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) Presr.•nce of Reduced kon (C4) _ Shallow Aqultard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (CB) _ FAC-Neutral Test (135) _ Surface Soil Cracks (BB) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) _ Ralsed Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (W) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No '� Depth Qn&es): _ Saturation Present? Yes _ No Depth (inches): Fi' Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Recorded Data (stream gauge, \-k7r41Dt N(7 ---- _ :h c- _" - -. rVF2srsm'tdourM9lnR; Vafie s and Coast - Versfon 2.0 US Army CuY�s xif F�n§i�eenr "' Y J,F I. Z ( a' r s o JFL-A,s'> k-c A - 1�y WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Pro)ect/Slte: ?*NC-C-6, L, C 7-M I o — 9 082�- Clty/County: • -� � �'� OrAY Sampling Date: q� I (c Appllcant/Owner. Na �I Stale: UA Sampling Point: -VT I-- Investigatorfs): tnwt�i l rJ Section, Township, Range: S - - i �� ? -'1_ l�✓rf 4 Landform 0111slope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none)- Co -1C ✓r Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: _ NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Sol 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No A within a Wetland? Yes No �C VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stmtum(Plot size: [ dr V— ] a r Snedes? Status 3. 4. =Total Cover Sa200g5hrub Stratum (Plot size: _ d 3. Its hl 6w- 4. 5. to o = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. - 8_ .r 7. B. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover (Plot size: i 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (g) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover• of. Multiply by— OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC spades I (P t3 x 3 = V Y0 FACU species `f 0 x 4 =_ UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: Z 0 v (A) b Z (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. �— Hydrophyrdo Vegetatlon Indicators; _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test Is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index Is 53:0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptatlons� (Provide supporting data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Welland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophyde Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problemada Hydrophytic Vegetation 'r Present? Yes No — --- - -UaAnnyEor s ofPrrgirreers —,� -- --- : = ' YNest6M Mountains. Valays.'and'Caast --Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point T 1 Z Profils neScripmon: jumcribe to tine aepm ne"" to aocumentule rnalnarorgr CCnnrm me aaaence or malcaLora.I Depth _MQW3 Redox Fealur¢q-- T_—�- Finchesf � % Color rmols(j_ 1e 1i112� Lac Texture E§marks Io"({- � -i ", LuAw1 'Type: C=Concentration D=De letion RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. `Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MabV. Hydric Boll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solle.- _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (At 0) _ Hlstic Eplpedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material 0-F2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (fF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (At 2) _ Redox Dark Surface (176) 'Indicators of hydrophyticvegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (Ffi) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Dyer (if present): Depth (Inches): k�1 6lv C HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Indicators: P irdicatm (Minimurn of one I • check all that a Secondary Indlcatoss-j[Lor more, raoulred) Surface Water (Al) _ WaterStained Leaves (69) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (Bi) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Waler-Table(C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rh¢ospheres along Uving Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal IA at or Crust (134) _ Presence ❑f deduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow AquItard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solls (C6) _ FAG -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (137) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B6) 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 Recorded [Pate (stream gauge, --- US Arinim.0.31 Eii7r@'9 �'"„�•,`�,°�----- Inspections), If available: mtterri Mounts-rk Valleys, and Coast -- Version 2.0 ATTACHMENT B WETLAND RATING Wetland name or number A RATING SUMMARY —Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): ?A,?Lc�- `' fl'i 2 toy ' a °�Z Date of site visit: �ik j I b Rated by _T+P'lA,r� rl _ Trained by Ecology?_?'Yes _No {late of training o *3 a ?, HGM Class used for rating i5tE:~ 5'Si4,-J Wetland has multiple HGM classes?—Y 7,� N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map % AA? OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY :El- (based on functions K or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I -Total score = 23 - 27 i< Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 Category III -Total score =16 -19 Category IV - Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving j Hydrologic ; Habitat water -Quality I .Site Potential H M L H _(Mj L H M Landscape Potential H M L M L H Value H M L H M L H M Score Based on f� [Ratings I L Z� 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form- Effective January 1, 2015 - - Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L i Wetland name or number A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1,u. Ones the site have thc, potential to imp rave water q"!ity? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Z pain Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. Dints = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layerl is true clay or true organic (use NRc5defrnitions).Yes 4 0 = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin clas ' Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > Y of area points = 3 1/110 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponclingor inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at feast 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points Area seasonally ponded is > X total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < X total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:�L 12-16 = H _6-11 = M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0.-Does the landscape have the,.potenti l to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes 1 Na = 0 tl D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes 1 a = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 No 0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes =1 No 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Z Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H ?K— 1or2=M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page f] 3 0. Is- the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable. to socie: ? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 U D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes r1 o = 0 j D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality nswer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes Do = 0 Total for D 3 5To&" w q--TE i= FA C Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H _1= M _O = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System.for Western WA: 2014 Update - Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 1u6ti <,._','9 Wetland name or number L DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETiAN©S Hydrologic functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.4. Does the site have the potential to reduce Handing and 2rosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points =1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. De oth of stora ge d urin g wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points( The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of thew tIand to storagg J n the watersh d: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit The area of the basin is 10to 100 times the area of the unit points = 5 points The area of the basin is more than 300 times the area of the unit points - Entire wetland is in the Flats class points - 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Ratine of Site Potential It score Is: 12-16 = H i` tr11 = M a-7 = L ncwru uOc Iuau.y un .11.J. .. r.,y� D 5-0. Does th.e landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes 1 No = 0 I D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes 1 No = 0 j D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses idential at >S residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes 4 1 No = 0 p I Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential It score is:_M,_s = H _1 or c = M W = L nc. w u u.c . uuny .+,....c J.r— r..y.. ❑ 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuabi.e to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landsca a that has f loodine Drobleins. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland raptures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points 0 I Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points =1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood c'qnveyance in a regional flood co itrol plan? 2 ASS-Jvt,- S aS& S�-i`-w�� ?"N; Ye =2 o=0 r Total for D 6 Add the points in the b xes above 3 Rating of Value If score Is: 7 2-4 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating -Form - Effecri►ie January T, 26 i5- necora the ruang on rnejrrx pugc 6 Wetland name or number A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. nBITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of X ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points =4 Emergent .4-- 12.4'44 op, r" rO 3 structures: pfllntso scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points =1 X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.- �The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or Y. ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). X Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 X:Seasonallyflooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 _Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points 0 t _Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 1 _Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland _Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland _Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 W. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle - If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 points 0 -19 species < 5 species paints = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. CD CD (:*D (0) None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points u Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update- 13 _ Rating Form - Effective-january-1; 20-1-5-------- —: ---- - -. - - - •---- Wetland name or number H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). _Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland _Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree _Stable slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least X ac ofthin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of srrato) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H 2L 7-14 = M _0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0- Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ _ % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10%of 1 km Polygon points = 0- H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat_+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]_ = % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 I Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) - 2 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above - I Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:-4-6 = H _1-3 = M !nX < 1= L Kecora me raring on me Jusr page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet a ny of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is:_2 = H _3 = M ]C 0 = L Kecora ine raring on me Jrrsr page Wedand Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update. 14 -. -- Rating Farm - Effecdve -January- -2915 ----- CL Cu CU IF t,6 C 0 N (D U) C 5- as A wR - l r.�-... r t •� E� n tl Tax:. •• � .� P_ $ s� 5 jLly! �t ► c�2 �� boy 1.� • cEm ` mmmmr---Ymk- 1 7T t 1416 n 5 Id 143L s a5v 44-f S W-V tj .1; 0 14' A u u M cn Lr. C S =v.v lilt. Zt, Z� U-1 fU7 fn T. F,-A trk in a'v rJ M CU Ji 6! ZZ 4 m I V ja a It 1. . 1 E t 'E 9-2 51 a 0 Sao z H R PS2 12 ?t Ef ;-AV .s 52 m;1 4vs 141T !p Lr iMap Page 1 of 2 771 0.6km-13.619,001.96000 5,993,667.64391 Meters a4mi file://simone-pc/ Jsers/Simone/SkyDrive/AOA%20documents/5100-5199/5110/iMap.html 7/7/2016 '3/24/2016 Water Quality Assessment Map Viewer Water Quality Assessment for Washington V _ a 11'x S — 11 2zvl[r Se S . Water Quality Aseea W for W,,hlnytan Data Dioclalmer Pfi cy NoUre Wnt Us apynpht ® 2012 Wa hlnpton Stale Department of Eralopy. All Nlphts R —d. ^ ➢1r SITE —�' 1'fA l L:Iv tna PWasrlua I ' ..Mid i 'S'Z:Opt gyr ]2CY SI t' Ste Map S..mh 0 I Layers ® 1 Help 3 5 'f a w 3 � 6 slydr.31 - G.rinlYn, https:/Mortress.wa.gov/ecy/wgamapviewer/default.aspx?res=128Ox720 1 /1 oana 41k CITY OF � J Federal Way 1 ! 9?I! E NUMBER Appnranr NAME I (0 KEQUEST FOR ADlv-W-41STRATIVE IJECISION I)EP.ARTh4.FNI ()F (-WN iii iNi i i jAVFLOP11ENT O A D 253-835-2607_Fax 253-835-2609 1 27,7 O O xnsll.cil nCl'edera!�1a1 cnni (o O C) Date 7— ! - la A MA G ADDRESS 3132:Z CITY STATE V1�- 11 PR.IKARY PHONE 253- 4*(- 48(07 ALTERNATE PHONE 7 5 5 - 7aI- S 7z3 osvto4es Com�as�, Property AddressfLocation Gf WiQ s r1[7 A ► I l to cr C� dd rz'? s C G -,e-6e ( 07 2 1 O o j Description of Request v ee 4 { -6 vv+- . 4� Got�n t r wit (t I b� oreed �v .....5,�rt, _Sur via o. + r1�;-, List/Describe Attachments_ b . I - - _ _J. _ I _ ► ..... „ _ _ r ciF �,, A, c. _ L.. U C- For Staff Use ❑ Code interpretation/Clarification VCritical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review ❑ Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval) ❑ Revisions to Approved Permit ❑ Tree Removal ❑ Zoning Compliance Letter Bulletin #079 — January 4, 2016 - No Fee - No Fee (Actual Cost if Applicable) - Check Current Fee Schedule - Check Current Fee Schedule - No Fee - Check Current Fee Schedule Page l of 1 k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision RECEIVED JUL 0 7 2016 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS