Loading...
06-104037Technical Memorandum a To: 102301VE Points Drive From: Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Copies: Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 Date: Subject: Project No.: Grace Skidmore, Development Specialist, Department of Community Development Services, City of Federal Way Stephanie Smith, Field Biologist, Otak, Inc. Doug Gresham, Wetland Ecologist, Otak, Inc. February 9, 2007 Review of Wetland Assessment for the Schramovych Property, Federal Way, Washington 30879J As requested by the City of Federal Way, on January 2 and February 6, 2007 Otak conducted site visits of the Schramovych property located south of 30523 28'h Avenue SW, Federal Way, Washington (Parcel # 416660-0605) to confirm site conditions. We combined this site visit with an adjacent property to the north (Adzhigirey) because the wetland occurs on both properties. The purpose of our site visit was to confirm site conditions and to evaluate the wetland assessment by J.S. Jones and Associates for consistency with Federal Way City code. Towards that end, we reviewed the following documents: • Wletland Assessment of the Adtihigirey Property (dated June 5, 2006) prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates; Wletland Assessment of the Schramovych Property (dated June 5, 2006) prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates; Topographic survey of the Adzhigirey and Schramovych properties prepared by Sadler -Barnard & Associates (dated May 31, 2006); Summary • As required by FWCC 22-1 (Wetland Definition), J.S. Jones and Associates followed methodology specified in the March 1997 Wlashington State Wletlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecology publication No. 96-94) to identify wetlands. • We concur with J.S. Jones' proposed rating of the wetland as Category III with a 50-foot buffer. \\Kirae0l \prof\project\30800\30879J\Reports\Schramovych07_0209M.doc Andy Bauer, City of Federal Way Page 2 Review of Sensitive Areas Report for Schramovych Properly February 9, 2007 Results of the Site Visit and Review of the J.S. Jones Wetland Assessment The Schramovych property is located on the east side of SW Dash Point Road near the intersection of SW Dash Point Road and 30th Avenue SW in Federal Way. This 1.06-acre property is a rectangular parcel located between SW Dash Point Road and 28`" Avenue SW. This undeveloped property is surrounded by single-family residential lots on the north and east sides. The property drains toward Lakota Creek which runs on the west side of SW Dash Point Road. No surface water connection was observed between the onsite wetland and Lakota Creek. The property is covered with a wetland, mixed upland forest, and disturbed areas dominated by non-native invasive species. During our site visit, we located all of the wetland flags placed by J.S. Jones. As required by FWCC 22-1 (Wetland Definition), J.S. Jones followed methodology specified in the March 1997 Illashington State iuetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecology publication No. 96-94) to identify the wetland. We generally agree with the J.S. Jones boundaries of the wetland. There was a lack of consistency between the data sheets and the survey map for locating the test holes. Through process of elimination, we were able to locate the area of all of the test holes and we are in general agreement with the results of the data sheets. • Data sheet labeled SL-#1 in the report does correspond correctly with SL-1 labeled on the survey map and is located northwest of wetland flag 1-1. ■ Data sheet SL-#2 in the report is located north of the wetland boundary between wetland flags 1-4 and 1-5. This data sheet was completed in the area of an open geotech pit. Neither the test hole nor the geotech pit is on the survey map. • Data sheet SL-#3 corresponds with an open geotech pit, neither of which is mapped. This geotech pit is located just northwest of wetland flag 1-31. • Data sheet SL-#4 corresponds with an open geotech pit that also mapped as SL-1. The pit is located south of wetland flag 1-26. The J.S. Jones report identifies the wetland as Category III that receives a 50-foot buffer. This is consistent with FWCC criteria [FWCC 22-1357(a) (2), 22-1357(a) (3), and 22-1357(b) (3)]. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Stephanie Smith at 425-739- 7978 or at Stephanie.smith@otak.com. \\KiraeOl \proj\project\30800\30879J\Reports\ Schramovych07_O2O9M.doc J. S. cones atncl Associates, Inc. WETLAND ASSESSMENT of the Schramovych Property 30XXX 28th Ave S.W. Federal Way, WA 98023 Tax Parcel Number: 416660-0605 NW Quarter Section 12, Township 21 N, Range 03E Prepared for: Ruslan Schramovych 5104 Highland Dr. S.E. Auburn, WA 98092 253-905-3969 Dated: June 5, 2006 Prepared by: Jeffery S. Jones, Certified Professional Wetland Scientist, and Angelo R. Josue, Wetland Scientist 35316 28th AVENUE SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003 253-874-9588 / FAX 253-874-9579 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Description..........................................................................................................1 2.0 Site Address, Identification and Directions....................................................................1 3.0 Methodology...................................................................................................................I 4.0 General Site Description.................................................................................................2 5.0 Vegetation.......................................................................................................................2 5.1 Vegetation Methodology..............................................................................................2 5.2 Vegetation Results........................................................................................................3 6.0 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................6 6.1 Hydrology Methodology...............................................................................................6 6.2 Hydrology Results........................................................................................................6 7.0 Soils.................................................................................................................................7 7.1 Soils Methodology........................................................................................................7 7.2 Soil Series.....................................................................................................................7 7.3 Soils Results..................................................................................................................8 8.0 Wetland Determination, Ratings, and Buffers................................................................11 9.0 Functional Assessment....................................................................................................11 10.0 Impacts..........................................................................................................................12 11.0 Authority.......................................................................................................................12 12.0 Limitations....................................................................................................................12 13.0 References.....................................................................................................................12 Figures 1.0 Vicinity Map...................................................................................................................1 2.0 Soil Map..........................................................................................................................8 Tables 1.0 Plant Indicator Status......................................................................................................3 2.0 Dominant Plant Species Found at Sample Locations.....................................................5 3.0 Soil Characteristics at Sample Locations........................................................................10 4.0 Summary of Wetland Functional Assessment................................................................12 Attachments Routine Field Data Forms DOE Rating Forms for Functional Assessment Wetland Sketch June 2006 i J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 1.0 Project Description The applicants proposes to construct a single-family home on the subject property. This study was conducted to determine the type and extent of wetlands on or near the subject properties. 2.0 Site Address, Identification, and Directions The property is located at 30XXX 28th Avenue Southwest, Federal Way, Washington, 98023 (see Figure 1.0). The tax parcel number is 416660-0605. The property is located in the northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 03 East of the Williamette Meridian. Directions to the site from Federal Way's City Hall are as follows: start going out Northwest on 8th Avenue South toward South 334th Street; turn left onto South 333rd Street; turn right onto lst Way South; 1st Way South becomes I" Avenue South; turn left onto Southwest 320th Street; turn left onto Southwest Dash Point Road/WA-509; stay straight to go onto 30 Avenue Southwest; turn right onto 28th Avenue Southwest; the property is on the right side of the cul-de-sac. 744 ��• -�' w d s� a � PUv"Ei " "��q �� 09 SITE LO ti N ''. SW SW 304TH ST �?��.� � � � 2100 SW Cn s�H _ co Vn � c" _51M1I _- � ti Sti1 its, Pt- �� 3087H (PooST "�. ©2005 Thomas Bros. Figure 1.0 Vicinity Map 3.0 Methodology The field wetland delineation and wetland assessment were performed using the Routine Small Area Methodology as described in Part IV, Section D of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE, 1987) and the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997). The Routine Small Area Methodology is "used when the project area is small, plant communities are homogeneous, plant community boundaries are abrupt, and the project is not controversial". The wetland determination was based on the presence of the three criteria for jurisdictional wetlands: hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. All three criteria must be present in order to classify an area as a wetland. June 2006 1 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. The field delineation and data collection were completed on May 17, 2006. The wetland boundaries were marked with consecutively numbered orange flagging. Wetland boundaries will be surveyed prior to any development proposal. Approximate location of wetland boundaries, buffers, and sample locations are presented on the attached wetland sketch. The assessment included a review of the USDA Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (Snyder, et. al., 1973). Wetlands were rated and wetland functions were assessed using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington developed by the Department of Ecology. 4.0 General Site Description The site is a 1.06-acre parcel with a forested plant community. The parcel is approximately 462.6 feet long and 105.1 feet wide. The property is bordered by undeveloped forested parcel to the north and south, Southwest Dash Point Road is to the west and 28=h Avenue Southwest is to the east. The site is in a slope greater than 15% from east to west. The plant community is dominated by big -leaf maple, red alder, Douglas fir, vine maple, Indian plum, stinging nettle, lady fern, sword fern, slough sedge, skunk cabbage, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry. The site is in the drainage basin of Dumas Bay in the Central Puget Sound watershed and WRIA 9 (Duwamish-Green). 5.0 Vegetation 5.1 Vegetation Methodology Hydrophytic vegetation has adaptations that allow these species to survive in saturated or inundated environments. These environments are classified according to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979). The probability of species being found in wetland environments has been determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the National List of Vascular Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (USFWS, 1996). An indicator status was applied to each species according to its probability of occurring in wetlands (see Table 1.0). Vegetation data was recorded at four sample locations distributed across the property with at least one sample location in each plant community. At each sample location, the dominant species were assessed by indicator status to determine if the plant community was predominantly hydrophytic. Rules for determining dominant species were established in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE, 1997). Dominants were determined using the 50/20 rule. Using this rule, percent cover was added by order of descending cover until 50% cover was reached. These species were considered dominants. The next most common species was also included as a dominant if it had over 20% cover. Species with less than 5% cover were not considered dominant species. TahlP 1.0 Plant Indicator Status Indicator Category Symbol Occurrence in Wetlands Obligate Wetland OBL > 99% Facultative Wetland FACW 67-99% Facultative FAC 34-67% Facultative Upland FACU 1 1-33% Upland UPL I < 1% Note: FACW, FAC, and FACU have + and — values to represent species near the wetter end of the spectrum (+) and the drier end of the spectrum (-) (USFWS, 1996). June 2006 2 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. 5.2 Vegetation Results At sample location 1 (SL-1), the plant community is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FACU), big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC+), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), stinging nettle, (Urtica dioica, FAC+), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina, FAC+), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum, OBL), vine maple (Acer circinatum, FAC-), slough sedge (Carex obnupta, OBL), and common horsetail (Equisitum arvense, FAC). The plant community is hydrophytic because more than 50% of the dominant species are FAC, FACW, or OBL (see Table 2 and attached data forms). At SL-2, the plant community is dominated by big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU), red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC+), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), and lady fern (Athyrium filix femina, FAC+). The plant community is hydrophytic because more than 50% of the dominant species are FAC, FACW, or OBL (see Table 2 and attached data forms). At SL-3, the plant community is dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum, OBL), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW), and lady fern (Athyrium filix femina, FAC+). The plant community is hydrophytic because more than 50% of the dominant species are FAC, FACW, or OBL (see Table 2 and attached data forms). At SL-4, the plant community is dominated by big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FACU), English ivy (Hedera helix, NL), western red cedar (Thuja plicata, FAC), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC+), spreading wood fern (Dryopteris austriaca, FACW), vine maple (Acer circinatum, FAC-), and Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU). The plant community is non-hydrophytic because no more than 50% of the dominant species are FAC, FACW, or OBL (see Table 2 and attached data forms). June 2006 3 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Table 2.0 Dominant viant s ecies round Common Name at Sample LIndicator Locativll� Sample Locations Scientific Name Trees 1 2 3 4 Acer macro h llum Big -Leaf Maple FACU X X X Alnus rubra Red Alder FAC X X Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir FACU X X Thu'a plicata Western Red Cedar FAC X Shrubs Cornus sericea Red Osier Dogwood FACW Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut FACU Oemleria cerasi ormis Indian Plum FACU X X X X Rubus armeniacus Himalayan Blackberry FACU X Rubus s ectabilis Salmonbe FAC+ X X X Groundcovers Acer circinatum Vine Maple FAC- X X Ath rium alix- emina Lady Fern FAC+ X X X Carex obnu to Slough Sedge OBL X Drvo teris austriaca Spreading Wood Fern FACW X E uisitum arvense Common Horsetail FAC X Hedera helix En lish Ivy NL X Lysichiton americanum Skunk Cabbage OBL X X Pol stichum munitum Sword Fem FACU X Ranunculus re ens Creeping Buttercup FACW X Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle FAC+ X H dro h ric or tVprr-h dro h fkc7 Yes Yes Yes No Note: An indicator of NI is shown when no indicator status has been assigned. An indicator of NL is shown when a species is not listed in the National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (USFWS, 1996). 6.0 Hydrology 6.1 Hydrology Methodology The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual requires inundation, flooding, or saturation to the surface for at least 5% of the growing season to satisfy the hydrology requirements for jurisdictional wetlands (DOE, 1997). Areas that are saturated between 5% and 12.5% of the growing season may or may not be wetlands. The growing season can either be defined by the number of frost -free days (temperatures above 280F), or the period during which the soil temperature at a depth of 19.7 inches is above biological zero (410F). The presence of wetland hydrology was determined at each sample location by evaluating a variety of direct and indirect indicators, consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. In addition to direct visual observation of inundation or saturation, secondary hydrologic indicators were used to infer wetland hydrology. Secondary indicators include oxidized channels (rhizospheres) associated with living roots and rhizomes, water marks on vegetation or fixed objects, drift lines, water -borne sediment deposits, water stained leaves, June 2006 4 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. surface scoured areas, wetland drainage patterns, morphological plant adaptations, and hydric soil characteristics. Another 'secondary indicator is the FAC-Neutral test, which is used to determine if the plant community is hydrophytic when all species with FAC indicator status are disregarded. 6.2 Hydrology Results SL-1 has wetland hydrology. The soil profile is saturated to the surface. The water table is present within the upper 13 inches from the surface. There is seepage from the upper slope. SL-2 does not have wetland hydrology. The soil profile is dry to the surface. The water table is not present within the upper 18 inches from the surface. There are no indicators of wetland hydrology. SL-3 has wetland hydrology. The soil profile is saturated to the surface. The water table is present within the upper 16 inches from the surface. SL-4 does not have wetland hydrology. The soil profile is dry to the surface. The water table is not present within the upper 18 inches from the surface. There are no indicators of wetland hydrology. 7.0 Soils 7.1 Soils Methodology Hydric soils are soils that are "saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (COE, 1987)." They are either organic soils (peats and mucks), or are mineral soils that are saturated long enough to produce soil properties associated with a reducing environment. These soils have hydric characteristics such as a reduced matrix (a matrix that changes color when exposed to air), redox depletions (gleying), or redox concentrations (mottles). Soils were visually assessed for hydric characteristics and organic content in an 18-inch soil pit at each sample location. In Washington State, soil color is the main indicator used to determine if a soil is considered hydric. Soil color immediately below the "A" horizon or at a depth of 10 inches below ground surface was determined using Munsell Soil Color Charts (MacBeth, 1990). Soils that had a one-chroma matrix or a two-chroma matrix with mottles were determined to be hydric. 7.2 Soil Series The on -site soils were mapped by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as Indianola fine sand (InQ (see Figure 2). "The Indianola series is made up of somewhat excessively drained soils that formed under conifers in sandy, recessional, stratified glacial drift". "In a representative profile, the upper 30 inches is brown, dark yellowish -brown, and light olive - brown loamy fine sand"(Snyder, et. al., 1973). June 2006 5 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. �. AgC ■• w■■w i � it ■ ■r a rose • f Ag Q Figure 2. Soil Map of Project Site (King County Soil Survey Sheet 15, Plate 04). 7.3 Soils Results The soil at SL-1 is a hydric Indianola fine sandy loam. From 0 to 6 inches, the soil is a black (IOYR 2/1) Indianola fine sandy loam. From 6 to 14 inches, the soil is a greenish gray (Gley 2 5/5BG) Indianola fine sandy loam (see Table 3). The soil is hydric because it has a gleyed matrix immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (DOE, 1997). The soil at SL-2 is a non-hydric Indianola fine sandy loam. From 0 to 10 inches, the soil is a dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) Indianola fine sandy loam. From 10 to 24 inches, the soil is a yellowish brown (1OYR 5/4) Indianola fine sandy loam (see Table 3). The soil is non-hydric because it has a four-chroma matrix immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (DOE, 1997). The soil at SL-3 is a non-hydric Indianola fine sandy loam. From 0 to 8 inches, the soil is a black (IOYR 2/1) Indianola fine sandy loam. From 8 to 14+ inches, the soil is a dark grayish brown (IOYR 4/2) Indianola fine sandy loam (see Table 3). The soil is non-hydric because it has a two-chroma matrix without mottles immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (DOE, 1997). June 2006 6 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. The soil at SL-4 is a non-hydric Indianola fine sandy loam. From 0 to 10 inches, the soil is a very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) Indianola fine sandy loam. From 10 to 14+ inches, the soil is a dark grayish brown (1 OYR 4/2) Indianola fine sandy loam (see Table 3). The soil is non-hydric because it has a two-chroma matrix without mottles immediately below the "A" horizon or at ten inches, whichever is shallower (DOE, 1997). Table 3.0 Soil Characteristics At Sample Locations. Sample Depth Matrix Mottle Mottle Soil Comments Location (inches) Color Color Abundance/Size Texture (Contrast 0-6" 110YR 2/1 } I Fine sandy Water @ 13" SL-1 6-14" Gley 2 5/5BG I loam SL-2 0-10 1OYR 4/4 Fine sandy 10-24" ` 10YR 5/4 loam Saturated to SL-3 0-8" 1OYR 2/1 Fine sandy surface 8-14+" 1OYR 4/2 loam Water @ 16" SL-4 0-10" l 10YR 2/2 I l Fine sandy ` 10-14+" 10YR 4/2 I loam 8.0 Wetland Determination, Ratings, and Buffers A wetland was delineated on the subject property (see Wetland Sketch Map). The wetland is part of a wetland system adjacent to the subject property. Its hydrogeomorphic classification is a slope wetland. The main sources of wetland hydrology are precipitation, surface water inflows, and seepage. The soils are a hydric one to two chroma matrix Indianola fine sandy loam with sulfidic odor or common, medium-sized, prominent mottles. The wetland has palustrine scrub shrub (PSS) and palustrine forested (PFO) classes of vegetation (Cowardin, 1979). The plant community is dominated by skunk cabbage, slough sedge, common horsetail, unidentified grass, lady fern, spreading wood fern, stinging nettle, salmonberry, vine maple, red -osier dogwood, red alder, and Indian plum. The wetland has a total function score of 45 and is rated a Category III wetland (see Table 4). The wetland has a score of 25 points for habitat functions. According to Section 22-1357 (b) (3) of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC), "Category III wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 50 feet for wetlands that are greater than 10,000 square feet in area". The remainder of the subject property is upland. Originally, this project include the adjoining parcel to the north and south, but was split into separate reports. Upland sample locations for this wetland were collected but fell on adjoining properties. A non-hydrophytic plant community is present, dominated by big -leaf maple, Indian plum, Oregon grape, beaked hazelnut, and sword fern. The soil is a non-hydric, two to four-chroma matrix Indianola fine sandy loam. 9.0 Functional Assessment The wetland functions were assessed using the 2004 DOE Wetland Rating System for Western June 2006 7 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Washington. The rating system scores the wetland based on characteristics that contribute to habitat, hydrologic and water quality functions (see Table 4 and attached DOE Wetland Rating Forms). The wetland has potential to perform water quality functions because it has dense, woody, vegetation greater than '/Z of the wetland area that trap sediments and pollutants from surface runoff or groundwater. The wetland has an opportunity to improve water quality because untreated water from residential areas, parking lots, and roads drains into the wetland and downslope. The wetland has potential to perform hydrologic functions by reducing flooding and stream erosion downslope. The dense, uncut, rigid vegetation that covers greater than 1/2 of the wetland will help in reducing water velocity during peak flows that would otherwise flow directly into properties downstream. The wetland has opportunity to reduce the impact of flooding because it helps protect downstream properties during storm events. The wetland has potential to provide habitat functions for wildlife because it has three types of vegetation classes with a moderate interspersion of plant species. There are special habitat features such as large, downed woody debris, standing snags, and thin -stemmed vegetation or woody branches that can be used by wildlife. The wetland has opportunity to provide habitat for wildlife because the condition of the wetland buffer is relatively undisturbed and the corridors and connections to the larger habitat in the watershed are relatively undisturbed and unbroken. June 2006 8 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Table 4.0 Summary of Wetland Functional Assessment FUNCTIONS Wetland Scare Water Quality Functions Potential for Improving Water Quality 5 OpportunityOpporwnity for Improvina Water Quality Yes (multiplier is 2) TOTAL for Improving Water Quality 10 Hydrologic Functions Potential for Decreasing Flood and Erosion 5 Opportunity for Decreasing Flood and Erosion Yes (multiplier is 2) TOTAL for Decreasing Flood and Erosion 10 Habitat Functions Potential for Habitat 11 O ortunity for Habitat 13 TOTAL for Habitat Functions 24 TOTAL Score for all Functions 44 NOTE: Category I = Score >70; Category II = Score 51-69; Category in = Score 30-50; Caregory i v Score <30 10.0 Impacts Proposed impacts are yet to be determined. A site plan has not been developed. Impacts will not exceed those required by the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). 11.0 Authority This wetland determination is in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the objective of which is to "maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States (DOE, 1997)." Wetlands are "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3)." 12.0 Limitations Wetland determinations and delineations are not final until approved by regulatory agencies and/or local jurisdictions. J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. does not guarantee acceptance or approval by regulatory agencies, or that any intended use will be achieved. 13.0 References Cowardin, Lewis M. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jamestown, North Dakota. Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksberg, MS. Federal Register. 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. Vol. 45, No. 249, 85352-85353. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. June 2006 9 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Federal Register. 1982. Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p 31810. US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025. MacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Revised Washable Edition. 617 Little Britain Road, New Windsor, NY 12553. 10p + 9 Charts. Snyder, D. E., P.S. Gale, & R. F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 102p. USFWS. 1996. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg, FL. June 2006 10 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Attachments June 2006 11 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Shramovych Property —Tax Parcel No. 4166600605 30XXX 28 " Av. SW, Federal Way, WA 98023 Applicant/Owner: Ruslan Shramovych 5104 Highland Dr. S.E. Auburn, WA 98092 Investigators : J S Jones/A R Josue j Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No El Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Yes ❑ No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No Explanation atypical or Problem Area: VEGETATION (For Strata, indicate T = tree; S = Shrub; H = Herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Red Alder Douglas Fir Big Leaf Maple Salmonberry Stratum °% Cover T 60 T 40 T 40 S 30 Indian Plum S 30 Stinging Nettle H 10 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 67% Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Indicator Dominant Plant S FAC Lady Fern FACU Skunk Cabbage FACU Vine Maple FAC+ Slough Sedge FACU Common Horsetail FAC+ Date: May 15, 2006 County: King State: WA S/T/R: NW 12/21 N/03E Community ID: TransectlD: Plot ID: SL - # 1 SE portion, 8' from WL1-1 Stratum I % Cover Indicator H 10 FAC+ H 10 OBL V 5 FAC- H <5 OBL H <5 FAC Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptation ❑ Areas of prolonged inundation/saturation . ® Wetland plant database Morphological Adaptation ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities El Technical Literature ❑ Other ex lain .. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes M No Rationale for decision/Remarks: % of dominants ❑BL, FACW_____, & FAC > 50% HYDROLOGY Water Marks: yes ❑ No ® Sediment Deposits: Is it the growing season? Yes ® No ❑ On Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ soil temp (record temp ) Drift Lines: yes No ® Drainage Patterns: ® other (explain): Frost Free Days Yes El No Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Roots (live roots) 'Local Soil Survey: Depth of free water in pit: 13 inches Channels -eQ in. yes ❑ no ® _Yes No Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches FAC Neutral yes Ll no ® Water -stained Leaves: Yes ❑ No Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream, Lake, or gage data: ❑ Arial photographs: ❑ Other:: Wetland hydrology present? Yes N No ❑ Slope seepage, water table @ 13" Sample Location: # 9 SOILS Map Unit Name: Indianola Fine Sand (InC) Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively (Series & Phase) well -drained Taxonomy (subgroup): Dystric Xeropsamments Yes ®No El Field observation confirm ma ed_type?_ Profile Descri Pion Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance, Texture, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell, Moist) (Munsell, Moist) Size & Contrast Concretions, profile ofile Structure, etc. descri tion. 0-6" 10YR 2/1 Fine sandy water @ 13" loam 6-14" Gley 2 515BG Fine sandy loam I Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histol ❑ Histic Epipedon ® Sulfidic Odor ® Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions ® Gle ed or Low-Chroma =1 matrix Hydric soils present? Yes ® No ❑ Rationale for decision/Remarks: Sulfidic odor, aquic moisture regime, gleyed soil ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Mg or Fe Concretion ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List n Other (explain in remarks Wetland Determinatson Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric soils present Yes ® No ❑ Wetland hvdrology present? Yes ® No ❑ Rationale/Remarks: Notes: Is the sampling point within a wetland Yes ® No ❑ May 2006 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ProjectlSite: Shramovych Property - Tax Parcel No. 4166600605 Date: May 15, 2006 30XXX 28'' Av. SW, Federal Way, WA 98023 County: King Applicant/Owner: Ruslan Shramovych State: WA 5104 Highland Dr. S.E. S/T/R: NW 12/21N/03E Auburn, WA 98092 Investigator s : J S Jones/A R Josue N Communit ID: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No CI Y Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Yes ❑ No fix_] Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ❑ Plot ID: SL - # 2 Explanation atypical or Problem Area: NE portion, @ geotech pit cleared area VEGETATION (For Strata, indicate T = tree; S = Shrub; H = Herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant S ecim Stratum % Cover Big Leaf Maple T 60 Red Alder T 40 Salmonberry H 30 Plum S 15 ;1ndian Fern H 15 HYDROPHYTIC VF[,FTATI0N INDICATOF % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 60% FACU FAC FAC+ � FACU r FAC+ tS: Cover Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ` Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptation ❑ 1 Areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database Morphological Adaptation ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other ex in : Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes No Rationale for decision/Remarks: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC > 50% HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Yes ® No ❑ Based on: ❑ soil temp (record temp ) ® other ex lain]: Frost Free Days Dept. of inundation: inches Depth of free water in pit: inches Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake, or gage data: ❑ Arial photographs: ❑ Other: Wetland hydrology present? Yes ❑ No 0, Soil profile is dry Water Marks: yes ❑ No On_ Drift Lines: yes ❑ No Oxidized Roots (live roots) ,_Channels <12 in. es ❑ no FAC Neutral yes ❑ no I Other (explain): Sediment Deposits: Yes ❑ No Drainage Patterns: Yes ❑ No Local Soil Survey: Yes ❑ No Water -stained Leaves: Yes ❑ No S. May 2006 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. mewhat excessively dance, Texture, Drawing of soil ntrast Concretions, profile Project? 5hramovych Prope+ Sample Location: # 2 l descri on Fine sandy loam Fine sandy loam SOILS Map Unit Name: Indianola Fine Sand (InC) Drainage Class: So 0-10" 1 1 10YR 4/4 10-24" 1 1 10YR 5/4 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histol ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions [IGleyed or Low -Chromes} matrix Hydric soils present? Yes ❑ No ❑4 Rationale for decision/Remarks: High matrix chroma of 4 Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present Wetland hvdrologv present? Rationale/Remarks: Notes: ❑ Matrix chroma s 2 with mottles ❑ Mg or Fe Concretion ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Other (explain in remarks) Yes ® No ❑ Is the sampling point within a wetland Yes ❑ No Yes ❑ No Yes ❑ No May 2006 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Shramovych Property —Tax Parcel No. 4166600605 Date: May 15, 2006 30XXX 28 h Av. SW, Federal Way, WA 98023 County: King Applicant/Owner: Ruslan Shramovych State: WA 5104 Highland Dr. S.E. S/T/R: NW 12/21N/03E Auburn, WA 98092 Investi ator s : J S Jones/A R Josue Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes [�j No ❑ Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Yes ❑ No ® Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ® Plot ID: SL - # 3 Explanation atypical or Problem Area: Mid property, N VEGETATION (For Strata, indicate T = tree; S = Shrub; H = Herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum I % Cover Indicator Dominant Plant 5 ecies stratum % Cover Ind Himalayan Blackberry S 60 FACU I[ Indian Plum S 40 FACU Skunk Cabbage H 15 OBL Creeping Buttercup H 15 FACW Lady Fern H 5 FAC+ HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 60% Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in Areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Morphological Adaptation Technical Literature Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes [ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC > 50% HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Yes ® No ❑ Based on: ❑ soil temp (record temp ) ® other (explain): Frost Free Days Dept. of inundation: inches Depth of free water in pit: 16 inches Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake, or gage data: ❑ Arial photographs: ❑ Other: Wetland hydrology present? Yes ® No Soil saturated to surface, water @ 16" Physiological/reproductive adaptation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities F l Otherfexolain): Water Marks: yes ❑ No On Drift Lines: yes ❑ No Oxidized Roots (live roots) _Channels <12 in_yes ❑ no FAC Neutral yes ❑ no her (explain): ■ ■ Sediment Deposits: Yes ❑ No Drainage Patterns: Yes ❑ No Local Soil Survey: Yes ❑ No Water -stained Leaves: Yes F] No May 2006 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Sample Location: # 3 SOILS Map Unit Name: Indianola Fine Sand (InC) Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively (Series & Phase) well -drained Taxonomy (subgroup): Dystric Xeropsamments' Yes ®No El Field observation confirm mapped type? Profile Description Depth Horizon (inches) 0-8" 8-14+" Matrix Color Texture, Drawing of soil Moftle Colors Mottle Abundance, (Munsell, Moist) I (Munsell, Moist) Size & Contrast Concretions, profile Structure, etc. (match 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/2 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histol ❑ Histic Epipedon ® Sulfidic Odor ® Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Reducing Conditions _ ❑ Geyed or Low-Chroma =1 matrix Hydric soils present? Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Sulfidic odor, presence of aquic moisture regime Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present Wetland hvdrolodv present? Rationale/Remarks: Notes: -rt- I Fine sandy saturated to loam surface Fine sandy Water @ 16" loam ❑ Matrix chroma < 2 with mottles ❑ Mg or Fe Concretion ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Other (explain in remarks —, Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Is the sampling point within a wetland Yes ® No ❑ May 2006 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Shramov�lch Property - Tax Parcel No. 4166600605 Date: May 15, 2006 30XXX 28 h Av. SW, Federal Way, WA 98023 County: King Applicant/Owner: Ruslan Shramovych State: WA 5104 Highland Dr. S.E. S/T/R: NW 12/21N/03E Auburn, WA 98092 Investi ator s : J S Jones/A R Josue - -- Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No ❑ Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Yes ❑ No ® Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ❑ No ® Plot ID: SL - # 4 Explanation atypical or Problem Areas NW of property, 3' from e Aech ait SL3 VEGETATION (For Strata, indicate T = tree; S = Shrub; H = Herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum T %Caper 60 Indicator FACU uominanr rianr a ui Spreading Wood Fern ��a,,. H 15 - -- - FACW Big -Leaf Maple Douglas Fir T 40 FACU Vine Maple V 15 FAC- English Ivy V 40 NL Indian Plum S 10 FACU Western Red FAC Sword Fern rsia FACU Salmonberry FAC+ HYDROPHYTICVEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC 50% ` Check all indicators that apply & explain below: 1 Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological/reproductive adaptation El Areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database Morphological Adaptation 0 Personal knowledge of regional plant communities El Technical Literature Other ex lain : H drophytic vegetation present? Yes ❑ No y Rationale for decision/Remarks % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC is 50% HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Yes E3 No ❑ Based on: ❑ soil temp (record temp ) other texp€ain}: Frost Free Days Dept. of inundation: inches Depth of free water in pit: inches Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake, or gage data: ❑ Arial photographs: ❑ Other: Wetland hydrology present? Yes 0 No No indicators of wetland hydrology Water Marks: yes LJ No On Drift Lines: yes ❑ No Oxidized Roots (live roots) Channels <12 in. es ❑ no FAC Neutral yes ❑ no Other (explain): Sediment Deposits: Yes [I No Drainage Patterns: Yes ❑ No Local Soil Survey: Yes ❑ No Water -stained Leaves: Yes F] No [ _ May 2006 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Project: Shramovych Property Sample Location: # 4 SOILS Map Unit Name: Indianola Fine Sand (InC) Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively (Series & Phase) well -drained Taxonomy (subgroup): Dystric Xeropsamments' Yes ® No ❑ Field observation confirm mapped type? Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance, Texture, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell, Moist) (Munsell, Moist) Size & Contrast Concretions, profile Structure, etc. (match description.) 0-10" 10YR 212 Fine sandy loam 10-14+" 10YR 412 Fine sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretion ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gle ed or Low-Chroma =1 matrix D Other (explain in remarks) Hydric soils present? Yes LJ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Matrix chroma of 2 without mottles Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? Yes ❑ No Rationale/Remarks: Notes: Is the sampling point within a wetland Yes ❑ No June 2006 J. S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Wetland Rating Form for Western Washia ton Name of Wetland: Ste chuk Proverty 3 parcels Location: Section: NW12 Township: 21N Range: 03E (Attach map of wetland to rating form) Person(s) Rating Wetland: A R Josue Affiliation: JS Jones & Associates. ly c. Date of site visit: May 15 2006 SUMMARY RATING Category Based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I❑ II❑ III® IV Category I = Score >70 Score for Water Quality Functions 10 Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 10 Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions 25 Category IV = Score <30 Total Score for Functions 45 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I ❑ II ❑ Does Not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Check Appropriate Type and Class of Wetland Being Rated Wetland Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the Above Weiland Class Riverine Flats Fresh Water Tidal May 2006 J S Jones and Associates, Inc. Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That'Need Special Protection, and YES NO That Are Not Included in the Rating SP1. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the / appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To -complete the next art of the data sheet ou will need to determine the H dro eomor hic Class o the wetland bein rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington Wetland Name: L� �J— fw,� ;1f/1� if1%t- i Date: 1. 4r water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO I go to 2 YES —the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. Ish�topography within the wetland flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. ' go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? r' N go to 4 YES —The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? ✓ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), /The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. -`The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks( depressions are usually <3ft diame"nd less than 1 foot deep). NO - go to 5 wetland class is Slope 5. Is the wetland in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river? The flooding should occur at least once every two years, on the average, to answer "yes. " The wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is nolflapding. NC 4 go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine �J Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 3 August 2004 6. Is the wetland in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the watd. N — go to 7 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no stream or river running through it and providing water. The wetland seems to be maintained by high 707-90t08 water in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland seems to be difficult to classify. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. ,Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% classify the wetland using the first class. HGM Classes Wilh n_'VDelineated Wetland Boundary-' v Glass to Use 'in Ratin Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 S Slope Wetlands points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality S S 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of wetland: Slope is l % or less (a 1 % slope has a I foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) ......... ............................ points = 3 Slope is 1 % - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1--.. Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 ) S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface is clay, organic, or smells anoxic (hydr9M sulfide or rotten eggs). .`YEE — 3 points NO = 0 points S S 1.3 aracteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface. Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > % of area --points .= i -- Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 S Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above r S S 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Z Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of multiplier wetland — �ther YE multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 11 August 2004 S Slope Wetlands points l{YDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce and stream erosion S 3. Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) points — Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points — Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = I More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions tha fain water over at least 10% of its area. ( YE points. 2 e- -wo points = 0 S Add the points in the boxes above S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the -reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems j — Dthe r f ��'c �l multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 August 2004 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) if the class covers more than 10% of the area of the wetland or'/4 acre. Aquatic bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) ✓.Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4-,types or more _3. types 2 types 1 tvne Points points = 4 points , points = 1 paints = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or'/ acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or mop types present points = 3 _Seasonally flooded or inundated lopes present points = 2 s/ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 L/ Saturated only 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 Specie (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 f 2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Thistle List species below if you want to: If you counted: ✓> 19 species 5 - 19 species < 5 species Canadian points points = 1 points = 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 f H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation (described in H 1.1), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C:) 0 (:E)(*) - (4) None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the rating is always "high". H 1.5. Svecial Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). V Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland _Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream for at least 33 ft (10m) _Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present % At least %4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation 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 each stratum of plants I H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores in the column above Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 �L H 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing) Points = 5 — 100 in (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 100 in (33Oft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water r > 25% circumference,. Points it — 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 in (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES 4 points (go to H2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the -wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES =1 point NO = 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 H 2.3 Near or adiacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 33Oft (100m) of the wetland? (see textfor a more detailed description of these priority habitats) Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 in (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 treeslacre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. 6iature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within % mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fieId�, or other development. points -f-_5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake - fringe wetlands within %2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within % mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake - fringe wetland within '/2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within % mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within %2 mile. points = 0 I H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat I Add the scores in the column above 3 Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on � P. 1 12 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the appropriate Category when the apprq2riate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO V' SC 1.1 Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/11). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least'/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNI-IP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO --"' SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland (or part of the wetland) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 3. Is the wetland forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 4. YES = Category I No ;GIs not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. Cat. I YES = Category I NO SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO f not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover -of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least'/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO _✓not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest " rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on P. 1: It you answered NO For all types eater 'riot Applicable" on p.l Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 Cat. III CITY OF 'A Federal Way WETLANDS CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: August 18, 2006 City: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Consultant: Otak, Inc. Attn: Dyanne Sheldon/Suzanne Bagshaw 10230 NE Points Drive, #400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Project: Schramovych Wetland Inquiry; No Site Address (Parcel # 416660-0605) File No.: 06-104037-00-AD Project Proponent: Ruslan & Svedana'Schramovych 5104 Highland Drive SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-905-3969 Project Planner: Andrew. Bauer, Planning Technician, 253-835-2647 Documents Provided: Wetland Assessment Report prepared by J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc., June 5, 2006 Task Scope: Background: According to the Federal Way Critical Areas Map, the above - referenced site does not contain any categorized wetlands. The tack of a wetland classification by the city is in question, per the enclosed wetland assessment report submitted by the applicant. This report has been submitted as a means to determine whether or not the lot is developable prior to any formal land use application being submitted. Otak, Inc., is requested to review information noted above and perform the following tasks: 1) Review the wetland assessment report and associated data for consistency with requirements of FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIV, "Critical Areas," especially Division 7, "Regulated Wetlands" 0 c-, FWCC Section 22- 1356). File k06-104037-00-AD Doc. J.D. 37675 2) Provide written response that determines if the conclusions and recommendations of the wetland assessment report prepared by J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc. are accurate, especially -in regards to potential future development of the above -referenced lot in accordance with city code. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by September 5, 2006. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ 7 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. (The total task amount is to be filled in by the Project Planner after the consultant returns this form with all items filled out. including the total work estimate, and said estimate has been approved by the Project Planner.) Acceptance: City of Federal Way (Planner) ate 1(.ib (Project Proponent) IYfY/ . Date File N06-104037-00-AD Doc.1.D. 37675 Letter of Transmittal Transmitted By... Date: September 26, 2006 ■ Mail Project: Shramovych Wetland Confirmation ❑ Courier To: Andrew Bauer ❑ Will Call Address: City of Federal Way ❑ P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 * We Are Sending You... :. ❑ Drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Specifications ❑ Plans 10230 NE Points Drive Suite 400 ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Samples Kirkland, WA 98033 ❑ Change Order Other Phone (425) 822-4446 Fax (425) 827-9577 Copies Page No. Description Project No.: 30879J Transmitted... ❑ For Approval ■ As Requested ❑ For Your Use ❑ For Comment 1 Original Signed Authorization Form f _j. Items Are... Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover via Remarks From Will Guyton cc Dyanne Sheldon Suzanne Bagshaw Architects Engineers Landscape Architects Planners Surveyors & Mappers Urban Designers K: \project\30800\30879J\Admin\Corresp\Bauer092606T. doc CITY OF Federal Way Date: WETLANDS CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM August 18, 2006 City: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Consultant: Otak, Inc. Attn: Dyanne Sheldon/Suzanne Bagshaw 10230 NE Points Drive, #400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Project: Schramovych Wetland Inquiry; No Site Address (Parcel # 416660-0605) File No.: 06-104037-00-AD Project Proponent: Ruslan & Svetlana'Schramovych 5104 Highland Drive SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-905-3969 Project Planner: Andrew Bauer, Planning Technician, 253-835-2647 Documents Provided: Wet Iarid Assessment Report prepared by J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc., June 5, 2006 Task Scope: Background: According to the Federal Way Critical Areas Map, the above - referenced site does not contain any categorized wetlands. The lack of a wetland classification by the city is in question, per the enclosed wetland assessment report submitted by the applicant. This report has been submitted as a means to determine whether or not the lot is developable prior to any formal land use application being submitted. Otak, Inc., is requested to review information noted above and perform the following tasks: 1) Review the wetland assessment report and associated data for consistency with requirements of FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIV, "Critical Areas," especially Division 7, "Regulated Wetlands" (i.e., FWCC Section 22- 1356). File #06-104037-00-AD Doc. LID. 37675 2) Provide written response that determines if the conclusions and recommendations of the wetland assessment report prepared by J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc. are accurate, especially in regards to potential future development of the above -referenced lot in accordance with city code. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by September 5, 2006. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ 7 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization- (The total task amount is to be filled in by the Project Planner after the consultant returns this form with all items filled out. including the total work estimate, and said estimate has been approved by the Project Planner.) Acceptance: /Z City of Federal Way (Planner) Drate (Consultant) Date 'q fr/ 6 . (Project Proponent) Date File N06-104037-00-AD Doc. 1.D.37675 CITY OF Federal Way Date: WETLANDS CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM August .18, 2006 City: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Consultant: Otak, Inc. Attn: Dyanne Sheldon/Suzanne Bagshaw 10230 NE Points Drive, #400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Project: Schramovych Wetland Inquiry; No Site Address (Parcel # 416660-0605) File No.: 06-104037-00-AD Project Proponent: Ruslan & Svetlana'Schramovych 5104 Highland Drive SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-905-3969 Project Planner: Andrew Bauer, Planning Technician, 253-835-2647 Documents Provided: Wetland Assessment Report prepared by J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc., June 5, 2006 Task Scope: Background: According to the Federal Way Critical Areas Map, the above - referenced site does not contain any categorized wetlands. The lack of a wetland classification by the city is in question, per the enclosed wetland assessment report submitted by the applicant. This report has been submitted as a means to determine whether or not the lot is developable prior to any formal land use application being submitted. Otak, Inc., is requested to review information noted above and perform the following tasks: 1) Review the wetland assessment report and associated data for consistency with requirements of FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIV, "Critical Areas," especially Division 7, "Regulated Wetlands" (i.e., FWCC Section 22- 1356). File #06-104037-00-AD Doc. 1 D 37675 2) Provide written response that determines if the conclusions and recommendations of the wetland assessment report prepared by J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc. are accurate, especially in regards to potential future development of the above -referenced lot in accordance with city code. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by September 5, 2006. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ 7 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. (The total task amount is to be filled in by the Project Planner after the consultant returns this form with all items filled out. including the total work estimate, and said estimate has been approved by the Project Planner.) Acceptance: City of Federal Way (Planner) Date (Consultant) Date (Project Proponent) Date File #06-104037-00-AD Doc. I D. 37675 CITY OF �. Federal March 14, 2007 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Ruslan Shramovych 5104 Highland Drive SE Auburn, WA 98092 SMRAtHOV 4 C 0 Re: Files 06-101167-00-SF and 06-104037-00-AD; A� Consultant Review of Wetlands and New Single -Family Residence Building Permit Dear Mr. Sh, 65vych: ptt,( —� Please find enclosed a copy of the City's Wetland Consultant's (Otak, Inc.) February 9, 2007 report, detailing their review of the J.S. Jones & Associates Wetland Assessment (dated June 5, 2006), as well as their findings from on -site reconnaissance of the referenced property_ Otak's review supports the findings of the J.S. Jones' report. It is clear from these reports that this site is encumbered by sensitive areas (wetlands and buffer areas) to such an extent that development of the site could not be accomplished without intrusion into a protected area. Therefore, in order to proceed with your project, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires an Environmental Checklist be prepared and submitted to the City for a threshold determination of the potential impacts of the proposed work. Additionally, encroachment into the required buffer areas requires land use review in accordance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 14, Critical Areas. Ordinarily, your next step would be to request a reduction of the wetland buffer in accordance with FWCC Section 22-1359. However, the maximum reduction allowed under that section is 25 feet, which would not sufficiently increase the buildable area to accommodate a reasonably sized structure and associated site improvements. Therefore, pursuant to Section-22-1244, you may request a modification or waiver of the buffer requirements to allow "reasonable use" of the property based on the listed criteria. This type of review also requires a preapplication conference. Since your permit application has already been reviewed and the most problematic issues identified, you may qualify for a waiver of the conference. To do so, submit a written request along with your other submittal materials. To summarize: • Submit the application materials for a Use Process III and SEPA checklist • Clarify in your submittal that your site cannot be reasonably developed through a reduction or modification of the required buffer per FWCC 22- l 359 • Indicate how your proposed project meets the criteria for approval listed in 22-1244 • Include a letter requesting a waiver of the preapplication conference I am enclosing the relevant code sections for your reference as well as the required submittal materials. I am aware that this has been a particularly challenging application process and appreciate your continued willingness to work us toward a mutually acceptable development scenario for this site. It'you have Mr. Shrainovych March 14, 2007 Page 2 any questions cpnceming this project, feel free to contact me at 253-835-2624 or grace. skidmore@cityoffederalway_com. Sin I )y /f �,Grace Skidmore Development Specialist enc: FWCC Section 22, Article XfV FWCC Chapter 18 Environmental Checklist Master Land Use Application Preapplication Conference [nformation Use Process III Handout and Checklist c: Will Appleton, Development Services Manager 06-104037 Do. I D 40119 +z o n LL] O I; a o co 4'] O yy C N L'1 0 � � n m o � } 67 G cc • v � cc i U- H , Iw � Scope of Work City of Federal Way Schramovych' Wetland Confirmation Otak Project No. 30879J Proposal for Professional Services September I, 2006 Scope of Work The following scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Otak, Inc. (Otak) for conducting a wetland confirmation at Parcel #416660-0605, on behalf of the City of Federal Way, Washington. This scope of work includes: reviewing the wetland delineation report prepared by JS Jones & Associates, Inc., June 5, 2006; site visit to confirm wetland delineation; preparing a letter of findings and recommendations; and project management. This is a not -to -exceed cost estimate and the client will be billed as hours are accrued. All in- house reimbursable costs (such as copies, reproductions, facsimiles, etc.), and any out -of - house direct costs (such as mileage), will be in addition to the labor fee and will be invoiced at cost plus ten (10) percent. Task I —Background Research Otak will research relevant background materials as well as review the June 5, 2006 Wetland Assessment by JS Jones & Associates, Inc. prepared by Jeffrey S. Jones and Angelo R. Josue for Ruslan Schramovych for consistency with the applicable portions of the Federal Way City Code. Task 2—Site Visit Otak will conduct a site visit to confirm the delineation and rating of the wetland per Federal Way City Code. Task 3—Prepare Memorandum of Findings Otak will prepare a memorandum summarizing our review of the wetland delineation, rating, buffer size, and regulatory status according to Federal Way City Code. Task 4—Project Management and Coordination This will include general project management and coordination with City staff. Schramovych Wetland Confirmation otak K.\project\30800\30879J \Con tract\30879J SOW.doc x a A O O rat O C (D n O O tv O m � CL ` 0Q 0, (D p rD P- o n PT, rt � �- Nrt C7' �C n a CL w M o 0 n � � O rD p� D . O O CD �. r. ° a rt o c A- o xr o ti O V O po r. O rD o O O `O O OCD O K R C1 p C °+ �* (n Z ° N C N 9 �. Qrt " a o CD w n O C (CD (n CL (n � CL o 0 oC c 0 CD rn 0 � N N n M d C M Cv a C d OQ (D r+ W N (A b °. b (n ~ /� 0 o 0 �d C CD (D 0 `LS O O � �b b. o 0 pit r+ O CO N. N (� cn ca 0. C O '+ C�J1 O �. 6s O to ~ 0) 00 ND CD N p o O �. �+y V Y+ O Ol 00 N � � ,'� c__.. 0 W O cn+ 01 O J N 01 Ul A y o (4 W F yA�y CA)+ Imo+ y X e.r O 00 o\° OVD 000 cn o cn A�kCi7Y OF Federal September 22, 2006 Ms. Suzanne Bagshaw Otak, Inc. 10230 NE Points Drive, #400 Kirkland, WA 98033 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Re: File #06-104037-00-AD; AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Shramovych Wetland Assessment; No Site Address, Federal Way Dear Ms. Bagshaw: The purpose of this letter is to authorize the services of Otak, Inc. in a review of the Wetland Assessment Report prepared by J.S. Jones & Associates, Inc. for the above -referenced project. In an August 18, 2006, task authorization request, the city requested an estimate and timeline from Otak for review of the wetland report. Your September 1, 2006, scope of work indicated that a budget of $3,678 would be appropriate for the identified tasks. At this time, funds in the amount of $3,678 have been received. A copy of the wetland consultant task authorization signed by the applicant is enclosed. Please consider this letter as authorization to proceed with the review as detailed in the city's August 18, 2006, task authorization, and your September 1, 2006, scope of work. I can be reached at 253-835-2647 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Andrew Bauer Planning Technician enc: Wetlands Consultant Authorization Form Doc. I.D. 38099 CITY OF Federal September 15, 2006 Mr. Ruslan Schramovych 5104 Highland Drive SE Auburn, WA 98092 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Re: File #06-104037-00-AD; PEER REVIEW COST ESTIMATE Schramovych Wetland Assessment; No Site Address, Federal Way Dear Mr. Schramovych: IL' f Enclosed please find a scope of work and cost estimate for the wetland assessment on parcel 416660- 0605.Otak, the city's wetland consultant, was asked to provide an estimate for their review of the subject site and the review of the June 5, 2006, Wetland Assessment prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. The. September 1, 2006, Otak estimate is enclosed. The normal course of action is for the city to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn down. by the work performed by Otak. If the money is not used, it will be returned to the applicant. Please note that the Otak task scope identifies several assumptions in order to determine the cost estimate. Deviation from these assumptions may require supplemental funding by the applicant. At this point, please review the proposed Otak cost estimate. The following items must be submitted prior to consultant, review commencing: 1: A check in the amount of $3,678, payable to the City of Federal Way. 2. The Wetlands Consultant Authorization Form with your signed approval to proceed. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at 253-835-2647, or andrew.bauer@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Andrew Bauer Planning Technician enc: Cost Estimate from Otak, September 1, 2006 Wetland Consultant Authorization Form, August 18, 2006 Doc 1 D. 39026 ^l RECEIVED A0 o4p-IOV03 August 11, 2006 AUG 1 x 2006 G" or FEDERAL !AT RUILDANDO DEPT. Mr. Greg Fewins Deputy Director of Community Development Services 33325 8"' Avenue South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RE: Permit #06-101167-00-SF; SHRAMOVYCH *no site address*; Wetlands Assessment Dear Mr. Fewins We would like to request an estimate for fees to perform analysis of J.S. Jones Wetland Assessment by City's Wetland Biologist consultant. Sincerely, wwbw��� Ruslan & Svetlana Shramovych Enclosure: 2 copies of all delineations and report information.