The URL can be used to link to this page

19-105322 (2)Soundview Consultants LLC Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Technical Memorandum To: Quinn Closson, Pape Properties Inc. RESUBMITTED DEC 0 6 2019 CRY OF FEDERAL. WAY COMMUN Y C]EVELrOPMENT File Number:1779.0002 From: Matt DeCaro, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: October 29, 2019 Rachael Hyland, Soundview Consultants LLC Re: Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment 3014 South 320' Street & 31625 32ad Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington 98003 Dear Mr. Closson, Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) conducted a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment of a 19.89-acre property located at 3014 South 320' Street and 31E25 3T' Avenue South in the Federal Way area of unincorporated Ding County, Washington (Figure 1). The property consists of seven tax parcels located in the Southeast '14 of Section 9, Township 21 North, Range 04 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160, 0921049187, 092104920E and 092104931E) that are under consideration for potential annexation into Federal Way jurisdiction. SVC investigated the site to evaluate if any potentially regulated wetlands, streams, or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas ,are located on or adjacent to the subject property. This assessment was conducted to support the Applicant assess the feasibility of redeveloping the subject property for commercial purposes and is intended for review by the City of Federal Way. Soundview Consultants LLC October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 1 of 7 Background Data Prior to the site investigation; SVC staff conducted background research using the City of Federal Way's Critical Areas Map, King County iMAP, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape mapping tools, Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stream typing system, U.S. Fish and Wildlife .Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey (Attachment B), and various orthophotographic resources. The Federal Way Critical Areas Map (Attachment Cl), WDFW PHS map (Attachment C3), USFWS NWI map (Attachment C5), and King County iMap (Attachment C6) identify one potential wetland on the western portion of the subject property, extending offsite. to the north and southwest. No other wetlands are identified on or within 225 feet of the subject property. No streams or other priority habitats and species are identified within 225 feet of the site by any of the critical area inventories, including by the Federal Way Critical Areas Map, WDFW SalmonScape (Attachment C2), WDFW PHS Map, DNR stream typing inventory (Attachment C4), or King County iMap. The nearest documented stream (Mill Creek) is mapped 0.5-mile to the east of the subject property. The NRCS soil map (Attachment C7) identifies the following soils on the subject property: two types of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8 to 15 percent and 15 to 30 percent slopes) and Seattle muck. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8 to 15 percent and 15 to 30 percent slopes) are listed as primarily non-hydric soils with potential hydric soil inclusions. Seattle muck is listed as a hydric soil (MRCS, 2019) and is mapped on the western portion of the site within the mapped wetland area. Methods Formal site investigations were performed by qualified SVC staff in June and September 2019. The investigations consisted of walk-through surveys of the subject property and any accessible areas within 225 feet of this area for potentially regulated wetlands, streams, and other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as specified in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas). Wetlands, streams, and select fish and wildlife habitats and species are regulated features per FWRC Chapter 19.145 and subject to restricted uses/activities under the same title. Wetland boundaries were determined in accordance with FWRC 19.145.410(1) and as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), as modified according to the .guidelines established in the Regional 5ulement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. WVestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA, 2018). Qualified SVC wetland scientists marked boundaries of any onsite wetlands with orange surveyor's flagging labeled alpha -numerically and tied to vegetation along the wetland boundary. SVC only delineated the onsite wetland boundaries facing the proposed development; the remaining wetland boundaries were estimated using visual observations and/or aerial imagery. Pink surveyor's flagging was labeled alpha -numerically. and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at formal sampling locations (DP-1 through DP-G) to mark the points where detailed data was collected. Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals inside and outside of the wetland boundaries to further confirm the delineation. Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 2 of 28 Wetlands were classified using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin, 1979; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) classification systems. Following classification and assessment, wetlands were rated and categorized using the current Washington State WWetland Rating System for Wlestern Wlashington (Hruby, 2014) and guidelines established in F'WItC 19.145.420(1). The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visit by qualified fish and wildlife_ biologists. The experienced biologists trade visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of fish and wildlife activity. Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at the Seattle -Tacoma International Airport Station in order to acquire percent of normal precipitation during and preceding the site investigation. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Preci itation Summary'. Percent Site Visit Day 1 Week 2 30 Days Prior Year to Date of Date Day Of Before Prior Weeks (Observed/Normal) (Observed/Normap2 Nortnal3 Prior 6/13/2019 0.00 0.00 1 0.11 0.11 0.73/1.91 14.08/18.24 38/77 9/12/2019 0.24 0.00 1 1.16 1 1.16 1 1.61/1.13 18.38/21.09 142/87 1. Precipitation volume provided in inches. Data obtained from NOAA (http://w2.weather.govlclimate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew) for Sea-Tac International Airport. 2. Year -to -dare precipitation is for the 2019 calendar year. 3. Percent of normal is for the 30 days prior/2019 calendar year. Precipitation levels during the September 2019 site investigation, when the formal delineation fieldwork was performed, were elevated for the previous 30 days (142 percent of normal.) and within normal range for the 2018 calendar year (87 percent of normal). This precipitation data suggests that relatively normal hydrologic conditions were encountered during the September 2019 investigation which was performed near the end of Summer when conditions were generally dry, although greater than 1 inch of precipitation accumulation was reported for the previous week. The June 2019 reconnaissance was performed earlier in the growing season during a period of relatively low precipitation. Such conditions were considered in making professional wetland determinations. Results The 19.89-acre subject property is located in an urban -residential setting in unincorporated King County. The southern portion of the site is developed with three single-family residences and a high voltage transmission line corridor. The northern portion of the property is developed with a single- family residence with a horse barn and multiple paddocks. The subject property abuts South 320`' Street to the south; Interstate 5 to the west; an undeveloped, forested lot to the north; and an access road/32"d Avenue South to the west, with single-family residences beyond. Vegetation on the western portion of the site is generally dominated by a forested community of red alder (Alnrrr rubra), black cottonwood (Rop►rlrts balsam fern), and westem red cedar (Tbjja plieata) with an understory of non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armeRiams), salmonberry (Rubiu .rpectabilis), salal (Gaultheria shallon), red huckleberry (Vaednir►r►tparuifolium), and trailing blackberry (Rabb s Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 3 of 7 ursinus). Where undeveloped and vegetated, the eastern portion of the site is generally dominated by big -leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), black cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry, narrowleaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and various grasses. Topography is relatively flat on the eastern portion of the subject property with an elevation of approximately 485 feet above mean sea level (amsl), while the western portion of the site slopes moderately downward to the west to an elevation of approximately 420 feet amsl within a depression at the bottom of the Interstate 5 road embankment (Attachment C8). Wetland Findins}s SVC identified one potentially regulated wetland (Wetland A) on the subject property. The identified wetland contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. The onsite wetland is depicted on the site plan in Attachment A. No other potentially regulated wetlands, streams, and/or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas were observed on or within 225 feet of the site. The wetland data forms, wetland rating form, and wetland rating maps are provided in Attachments D, E, and F, respectively. A summary of the identified wetland is provided in Table 2 below. Table 2. Wetland Summary. Predominant Wettand Classification / Rating City of Wetland Size Buffer Width Wetland Co�vardini HGMZ WSDOE3 Federal Onsite (feet)5 Way4 A PFO/ABE Depressional III III 184,500 ft2 80 Table 1 Not": 1. Cowardin et al. (1979) or NWI Class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested, AB = Palustrine Aquatic Bed; Modifiers for Water Regime: E = Seasonally Flooded/Saturated 2. Brinson, M. M. (1993). 3. Cumnt WSDOE wetland rating system for western Washington (Hruby, 2014). 4. FWRC 19.145.420(1) wetland definitions. 5. FWRC 19.145.420(2) wetland buffer standards. Wetland A Wedand A is approximately 184,500 square feet (4.23 acre) in size onsite and is located within a depressional area on the western portion of the subject property, extending offsite to the south and north. Hydrology for Wetland A is likely provided primarily by a high groundwater table, direct precipitation and surface sheet flow; with some stormwater runoff from South 320`" Street and Interstate 5. Wetland vegetation onsite is dominated by red alder, hardhack (Spiraea douglasiz), crab apple (Males fused), salmonberry (1 vbas specta6ilis), twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata), yellow pond lily (IV'rrpharpolysepala), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), nodding beggartick (Bidens cernua), and smartweed (Persicatia sp). Soil within Wetland A met hydric soil indicator F1 (Loamy Mucky Mineral). Wetland A is a Palustrine Forested/Aquatic Bed, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated wetland (PFO/ABE). Per FWRC 19.145.420(2), Wetland A is classified as a Category III depressional wetland with a low habitat score of 5 total points. Wetland A does not appear to contain an outlet, but instead is impounded by Interstate 5 to the west and South 320`h Street to the south. The wetland receives overflow from upgradient storm ponds located on the opposite side of 32nd Avenue South, at the far northern offsite extent of the wetland (greater than 600 feet north of the subject property). No surface water outlet was identified. Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 4 of 7 The southern portion of the wetland (approximately 17 percent of the total wetland area) ponds long enough during the growing season to exhibit aquatic bed plants, but the wetland lacked surface water during our September 2019 investigation. Our observations during multiple seasons indicate that the water storage during wet periods is less than 2 feet of water in the seasonally ponded area, due in part to the shallow nature of the ponded portion of the depression. The seasonally ponded area (17 percent) does not comprise greater than 25 percent of the total wetland area. Regulatory Considerations Wetland Buffer Requirements FWRC 19.145.420.(1) has adopted the current wetland rating system used by WSDOE. Category III wetlands score between 16 and 19 points, generally provide a moderate level of function, have usually been disturbed in some way, and are often less diverse and/or more isolated in the landscape than Category II wetlands (Hruby, 2014). Wetland A is a Category III depressional wetland with a low habitat score of 5 points which requires a standard 80-foot buffer per FWRC 19.145.420(2). An additional 5-foot building setback is required from the outer wetland buffer edge per FWRC 19.145.160. A specific development project is not being proposed at this time; the Applicant is assessing the feasibility of developing the property for commercial purposes following confirmation of the results of this wetland assessment by the City of Federal Way. Due to topographical constraints and encumbrance of the onsite wetland and buffer, minor administrative buffer modifications may be required to facilitate a future proposed project. As such, the Applicant may seek to modify the buffer administratively (Use Process III) under FWRC 19.145.440 (Development within wetland biffiers) which allows the buffer to be averaged or reduced by a maximum of 25 percent provided that the proposed project can mitigate the necessary buffer impacts (e.g., via a buffer enhancernent plan with mitigation sequencing). Following the development of engineered site plans, specific project impacts will be quantified and appropriate mitigation sequencing and mitigation plan specifications per FWRC 19.145.130 and 19.145.140 can be provided in a future iteration of this report, if necessary to accomplish the Applicant's objectives. Abbreviated State and Federal Conside tions The onsite Wetland A is potentially unregulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) due to its lack of surface water connection and distance to Waters of the U.S. Should the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers not assert jurisdiction under the CWA, then WSDOE would assert jurisdiction as WSDOE regulates natural wetlands and surface waters under RCW 90.48. If the future project can avoid direct impacts to the identified wetland, state and federal wetland authorizations will not likely be required. Conclusions SVC identified and delineated one Category III wetland (Wetland A) on the subject property. Wetland A has a low habitat score of 5 points and, therefore, requires a standard 80-foot buffer and additional 5-foot building setback. No other wetlands, streams, or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas were identified on or within 225 feet of the subject property. Based on preliminary conceptual Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 5 of 7 design, a future commercial redevelopment project may require minor administrative wetland buffer impacts. Following verification of SVC's wetland findings, establishment of regulatory status by the City of Federal Way, and with preliminary regulatory coordination and site planning efforts, project impacts can be better quantified and appropriate permitting and application requirements can be identified in a future iteration of this report, if needed. If you have any questions, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ��.. ..�� October 29, 2019 Matt DeCaro Date Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner October 29, 2019 Rachael Hyland Date Environmental Scientist Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 6 of 7 References Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classajacation for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland bating System far Western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List. 2016 wetland rotaiagr. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). 2018. Title 19.145— Entimnmentally CriticalAreas Website: h ttps : / / www. co depublishing. c om/ WA/ Fede ralWay / #! / FedenlWay 19 / FederalWayl9 l 45. htm 1#19.145 Current through July 02, 2019. Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Stnvy of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. MunsellG Color. 2000. Munselffl sail color eharls. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2019. Hydric Soils Last: King County Area, Washington. Website: https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/use/hydric/. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA. March 2005. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Enjineers Wetland Delineation Manual- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators ofHydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Weiland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 7 of 7 Attachment A - Wetland Exhibit Soundview Consultants LLC October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment SOUTH 320TH & I5 - EXISTING CONDITIONS Soundview Consultants LLc Environmental M505: 111edll • Planning • Lang Use Solutions 2907 HarborviewDr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax (253) 514-8954 www.soundviewconsultgLnts.com SOUTH 320TH & 15 3014 S 320TH ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0921049028,0921049139,0921049140, 0921049160,0921049187,0921049206 & 0921049316 OATE:9/23/2019 JOB:1779.0002 BY: DLS/RJK SCALE: 1 " = 180 ' FIGURE NO. 1 4 • M ILI y r ON :�.. ;fir.- 7. +,�� ; ,y - �'•5; . i' q ``+� ' ■Ly 49 r � � F too ♦ - � a4ir � �� • � _pr ram. X '� •"f. � �- . �i.'"� F- /" � � � !I - • y . f � { i,• ., -�� ` �., � -- ^i~ Fri •�y ..�i. r. ' s �� •i C ol 10 al Ir t -k 49- LL is 9 lit 1' Attachment C - Background Information This attachment includes a City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory (Cl); WDFW SalmonScape Map (C2); WDFW PHS Map (0); DNR Strearn Typing Map (C4); USFWS NWI Map (C5); King County Sensitive Areas iMap (C6); NRCS Soil Survey Map (C7); and King County Topographic Map (C8). Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment AC:1 — C►tv of Federal Wav Wedand Inventory 7:9,919 1 Ql112013. 923:27 AM 0 0.03 0.06 0.1 tni 0 Federal way Wetlands - Federal_ Way_ Wetlands o o.a o - 0.16w. King County - Parcels _Que✓j result °�°'•"�°�"�"d °ms"°""' Soundview Consultants LLC October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment 1011=19, 111M79AM King County -Parcels _Query result All SalmonScape Species Soundview Consultants ta.c 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment �-Vz?s OAS 0.1 0 0.07 0.i6 October 29, 2019 r} , } WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT SOURCE DATA*V-. PHSPkaPubl a Query1D_ P191001006107 REPORT DATE: 10MV201p 51 p7rMw N om 'WERM& P--kn AM A*Ira:y reftfs twm zlr%sr..M! Dag 5Y.Irk Erti}.' cat" OTi" =&w S� p: � R9Y]I4.C11 t :'i. l0 y ' )ram.a sokvdft� .SO=yacord s10tf L'brvunniuRLI PN9U"3nd: ftasr--. rEmw3en NA Agou: Hat= K& N'A N tJSF\na7'p1VIdKlF'JN�I�! NNWaaas& Agwd;habf N-A AS MAPPED )apxw w.sc{.4ca PM UM FR6NAatrf-M@bb:ZUw NSA Aquak NabW NA NrA N llfii FNr.1PC W IpIfE :.✓!r'•i:t NVApV*aw4ft Aq6= habw Nql ASYAPPED PN1q� hmaro .".en PN."i UM Frea7.•Aatw Foru!*e' wLlb NOK Agwu N2bw NA NA k us m am Wp51 ww" NWIWW & A: -stl- ham tm AS MAPPED aa79DIS n ;- '"W&Acy+:a PKS U0d VAUN s NYUBGS CREEK WETLAN'DSAg t Nab= vA wxLe tajwtir NIA N WA DepL O1FU aNvoldIR PN5REGM NIA NIA AS YAPPED Po)g➢rd 9a2M rcl9:':w .acy w PNS Lem Sounciview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment 1Oil =19, 8:4:-46 FUN S + Ca rty - P=ez _Query resut— Type F . .. . )S, nor�gped Per WAC 22&16 1 ad! a,la — o, wn 5v�irrs �T},e N, NP, KS Stesm Nunes awa.us" —" Type S --- U, unluwyn October 29, 2019 Soundview Consultants LLC 1779.0002 Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Attachment C5 — USFWS NWI Mal) 1:4,014 I IWI% 9,30.37 AM 0 0.03 0.05 0.1 R+ Ll Kirg C---r.f - azr_rl• _C. r-? -r_ ❑ Eaur.M ahi �avr 14'c a^d ".u�?end 0 as 0.06 0.1E km Wetlands ❑ Re�A�oe��. yer- Wetland L.* ■ E— ad 14--De— ■ FaeAedlSlwb Wetlrd ❑ Other Soundview Consultants etc 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment October 29, 2019 Attarhment C6 — King Countv Sensitive Areas iMap 10/112019. 12-33:42 PM 0 0.05 0.1 King County - Parcels _Query result 0 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.9 km Wetland (1990 SAO) CYI t�11C, OtBw, Id �� m.F4ba a0 M OR Wr Swndviety Consultants LLC 1777.1X1(Y0—, Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildhfe Habitat Assessment'; October 29, 2019 Attachment C7 — NRCS Soil Survev Map 101112019. 9:55M AM a OAS 0.05 0.1m1 King County Parcels L "" '�'"� AgD Al6;rw.ad iiznUy' sandy loam, ib 4v I.0 pprcwtl slopos 0 O.Od 0.05 0.16 hm NRCS Soil Map Units AgCAlddewooilgrwolysa*41low, Stu 1Spsiccidsbpoa w vtdF Soundview Consultants LLC . 177%0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment '4 October 29, 2019 knachment C8 — Sing County Topographic Map 4- - -tic � !1 � i i �., J f ; � � • r r •� r } -�1 i �f � rr� fir i t ,� � � j�--�/ - � �1_'�y J�-�___J f j � {+ i:' •�, Subject Property ' Location el y�6, I l fr y Ak. �,� ��; r I it �� -�} �jpL IV -� Id it ;( 4e0 i M11201% 9:33 xi AM I j K-rlg Cojnty - Parcels _QUerr result Soundview Consultants LLc 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment ".a14 0 0.03 0.w 0.1 TM 0 0.04 0.06 0.16 km October 29, 2019 Attachment D — Data Forms Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1779.0002 - South 320th Street & 1-5 City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date: 09/12/2019 Applicantlowner: Pape Properties Inc State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman Section, Township, Range: 9 / 21 N / 04E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2 A2 Lat: 47.316476 Long:-122.29508700 Datum: WGS 84 Subregion (LRR): Soil Map Unit Name: Seattle Muck NWI classification: PEM1 F Are climatic / 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 P9 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 ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes 9 No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes 9 No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes El No ❑ Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data collected within southern portion of Wetland A. 1 VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) °% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1, Alnus rubra 65 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2• Total Number of Dominant 3 w Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 65 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1000% (A/B) SaplinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) Prevalence Indexworksheet: 1- Rubus spectabilis 5 Yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2 _ 3 OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = 4 5 FAC species x 3 = 5 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Harp Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species x 5 = 1. Solanum dulcamara 40 Yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2• Nuphar polysepala 10 No OBL 3. Persicaria h dropiperoides 5 No OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 0 Dominance Test is >50% ti ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 7 El Adaptations' (Provide supporting $ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must 55 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1 Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 45 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation met through dominance test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL DP-1 Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Doscribe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color moist] 010 _ Type' _ Loc' Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - SaLo Mucky sandy loam 5 - 14 10YR 2/1 100 - - _ - SaLo Mucky sandy loam with cobble and gravel 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL-Pare Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) x❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type -_None Depth (inches]: "- Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soil indicators met through indicator F1 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators minimum of one re uiredm check all that a Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)_ ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑x Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑x Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 9 Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): None Water Table Present? Yes © No ❑ Depth (inches): 18 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 14 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑ includes ca Illa fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Hydrologic criteria observed through secondary indicators 139, C2, and D2. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1779.0002 - South 320th Street & 1-5 City/County Federal Way / King Sampling Date: 09112/2019 Applicant/owner: Pape Properties Inc State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman Section, Township, Range: 9 / 21 N / 04E Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): HIIISIope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.316490 Long:-122.29494723 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / 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 ❑x Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Remarks: No wetland criteria met. Data collected east of Wetland A in southern portion of the site. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator DominanceTest worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) °% Cover Some'sStatus Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 40 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3 _ Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4• Percent of Dominant Species 40 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40% (A/B) SaplinolShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 • Gaultheria shallon 25 Yes FACU 2. Spiraea douglasii 15 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply b 3. Rubus spectabilis 10 No FAC OBL species x 1 = 4. Malus fusca 5 No FACW FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = 5 55 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species x 5 = 1. Pteridium aquilinum 20 Yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Rubus ursinus 15 Yes FACU 3. Polystichum munitum 5 No FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 ❑ Dominance Test is >50% 6. ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 7. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting $• data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 40 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Wo2dy Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met; prevalence index not warranted due to lack of wetland hydrology an hydric soils. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: D P-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color moist)_ % Redox Features Color mois �T — % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 5YR 2.5/1 100 - - - - SaLo Sandy loam with organics 6 - 12 5YR 3/2 100 - - . - - SaLo Sandy loam 12 - 14 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - SaLo Gravelly sandy loam 'T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ElRedox 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 (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: None Depth (inches): - Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators minimum of one required; check all that a I S conda ry Indicators f 2 or more re aired ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): None Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): None Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): None Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ includes ca iila fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks- No hydrologic criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1779.0002 - South 320th Street & 1-5 City/Counly Federal Way / King Sampling Date: 09112/2019 Applicant/Owner: Pape Properties Inc State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator(s): Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman Section, Township, Range: 9 / 21 N / 04E Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.318100 Long:-122.29473055 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Seattle muck Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑x Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? NWI classification: PFO No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑x (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No ❑ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑X No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes l] No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes El No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data collected in northern portion of Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2, 3. 4. Sa lin /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Lonicera involucrata 2. Rubus spectabilis 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. L sichiton americanus 2. Solarium dulcamara 3. Athyrium cyclosorum 4. Oenanthe sarmentosa 5. Urtica dioica 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. Absolute uominant inuicator ° Cover Species? Status 0 = Total Cover 60 Yes FAC 20 Yes FAC 80 = Total Cover 35 Yes OBL 30 Yes FAC 25 Yes FAC 25 Yes OBL 5 No FAC 19n in = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC- 6 (A) 6 (B) 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: _ MuitlDly bv: OBL species x 'I = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ❑x Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is s3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation met through dominance test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Color (moist) Redox Features % Color moist °k Tyne' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 7.5YR 3/1 100 - - - - McLo Mucky medium loam 7 - 11 2.5Y 3/1 100 - - - - SaLo Sandy loam 11 - 14 2.5Y 4/2 93 5YR 4/6 2 C M SiLo Silt loam 11 - 14 2.5Y 5/4 5 C M 'Type: C=Concentration. D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Lovereo orc�oateq nano Grains. 2LocaliOn: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) x❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (except MLRA ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑x Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: None Depth (inches): -- Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicators Al and F1. HYDROLOGY 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that a Iv ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑x Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 14 Secon dary Indicators 2 or more re uired ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 12 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Hydrology criteria met through primary indicator A2. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1779.0002 - South 320th Street & 1-5 city/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date: 09M2l2019 Applicant/Owner: Pape Properties Inc State: WA Sampling Point: DP-4 Investigator(s): Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman Section, Township, Range: 9 / 21 N / 04E Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toe of Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.318038 Long:-122.29462011 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: Ni Are climatic / 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 ❑x Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No El within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ❑x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Remarks: No wetland criteria met. Data collected east of Wetland A in northern portion of the site. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover S❑ecie_S? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Thuja plicata 25 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. 3 (A) 2. Alnus rubra 15 Yes FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 Yes FACU Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 50 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 43% (A/B) SaalinglShrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Gaultheria shallon 20 Yes FACU 2. Rubus spectabilis 10 Yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Sambucus racemosa 5 No FACU OBL species x 1 = 4. Vaccinium parvifolium 5 No FACU FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = 40 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species x 5 = 1. Rubus ursinus 40 Yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Polystichum munitum 25 Yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 ❑ Dominance Test is >50% 6 ❑ Prevalence Index is 153.0' 7. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting $ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 65 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35 due to lack of wetland hydrology and Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met; prevalence index not warranted hydric soils. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix for moist Redox Features % Color moist % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-4 5YR 3/1 100 - - - - McLo Medium loam 4-8 2.5Y 5/3 100 - - - - SaLo Sandy loam with <1% concretions 8 - 13 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silt loam 13 - 15 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 6/8 5 C M SaCILO Sandy clay loam `Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand G Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (All) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: None Depth (inches): " Remarks: No hydric soil indicators met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one re uired: check all that a1291v rains. 2Location: PL=Pore Unin M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Seconda Indicators 2 or more re aired ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): None Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): None Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): None Wetrand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x includes ca iila ry frin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks_ No hydrologic criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1779.0002 - South 320th Street & 1-5 Gityrcounty. Federal Way / King Sampling Date: 09/12/2019 Applicant/Owner: Pape Properties Inc State: WA Sampling Point: DP-5 Investigator(s): Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman Section, Township, Range: 9 / 21 N / 04E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.317108 Long:-122.29307512 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 9 Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? NWI classification: N/A No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑x (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No ❑ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 59 Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Remarks: No wetland criteria met. Data collected in central -eastern portion of the site. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Populus balsamifera 2. Acer macrophyllum 3. 4. Sa lln Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 2. Populus balsamifera 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Tanacetum vulgare 2. Plantago lanceolate 3. Phalaris arundinacea 4. Trifolium repens 5. Cirsium vul are 6. Gnaphalium uliginosum 7. Rubus laciniatus 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 15 Yes FAC 10 Yes FACU = Total Cover 25 20 Yes FAC 1 No FAC 21 35 15 10 2 2 2 2 FR = Total Cover Yes FACU Yes FACU No FACW No FAC No FACU No FAC No FACU = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40% (A/B) Prevalence Indexworksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x t = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ❑ Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 =Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 32 Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met; prevalence index not warranted due to lack of wetland hydrology an hydric soils. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % COlor (moist) % Tvoe, Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - SILo Silt loam 7 - 13 10YR 4/3 95 5YR 4/6 5 C PL SILo Silt loam, cemented layer TT e: C=CDncentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location! PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) El Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: None _ Depth (inches): ` Hydric Soil Present? Yes [I No ❑x Remarks: No hydric soil indicators met. Second layer is extremely compacted and cemented, shovel refusal at 13" due to compaction. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators* Prima Indicators (minimum of one re uired: check all that aqq�] ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): None Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): None Secondary Indicators 2 or more re uired ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): None Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring tivell, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No hydrologic criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1779.0002 - South 320th Street & 1-5 City1County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date: 09112/2019 Applicantlowner: Pape Properties Inc State: WA Sampling Point: DP-6 Investigator(s): Rachael Hyland, Jake Layman Section, Township, Range: 9 / 21 N / 04E Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): HillSlope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 6 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.316032 Long:-122.29437407 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification- N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 9 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 I] No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; only hydrophytic vegetation present. Data collected within powerline easement, approximately 215 feet east of Wetland A. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species-? Status 1. 2. 3.- 4.- 0 = Total Cover Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 25 Yes FAC 2. Cytisus scoparius 1 No UPL 3. 4. 5. 26 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Plantago lanceolata 35 Yes FACU 2. Agrostis capillaris 25 Yes FAC 3. Hedera helix 15 No FACU 4. H pericum perforatum 1 No FACU 5. - 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 76 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 24 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the dominance test. Dominance IestworKsneet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by; OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 - Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Inolcators: ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ❑x Dominance Test is >50% ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must he nresent. unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of inoicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moister % Color moist % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 7.5R 4/3 100 - - - - SaLo Sandy loam 3-11 10YR 5/3 100 - - - - SaLo Gravelly sandy loam 'Type. C=Concentration, D=De lotion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (it present: Type: None Depth (inches): 21-ocation: PL=Pore Limn , M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Remarks: Shovel refusal at 11 inches due to compaction. No hydric soil indicators met, and no possible indicators due to bright matrices despite the refusal at 11 inches. HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one re uired: check all that a I ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): None Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No © Depth (inches): None Seconda Ey Indicators 2 or mare re uired ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): None Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspecuons). << avail -lc. Remarks No hydrologic criteria met. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Attachment E — Wetland Rating Forms Soundview Consultants LLC October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Wetland name or number A RATING SUMMARY —Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): A Rated by Rachael Hyland, Matt DeCaro Date of site visit: °9f12'f Trained by Ecology? ✓ Yes —_No Date of training 9i2016 HGM Class used for ratingDepressianal Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y ✓ N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ESRI ArcGIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions ✓ or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II —Total score = 20 - 22 X Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV —Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic�H�abital TWater Quality Site Potential Landscape Potential Value Circle the appropriate ratings M M M M H L L L M TOTAL Score Based on 5 6 5 ` 16 Ratings —L — 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 N/A Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington DepressionaI Wetlands Riverine Wetlands Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another fig, 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology websi, Screen caoture of list of TMOLs for WR{A in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 L 1.2 L 2.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 3.1, L 3.2 L 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update L Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Figure # Wetland name or number A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ❑XNO-goto2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) [:]YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ❑X NO - go to 3 ❑YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ❑XNO-goto4 ❑YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit 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. ❑XNO-goto5 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? [—_]The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A ❑X NO - go to 6 ❑YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which, water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑ NO - go to 7 ❑X YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑ NO - go to 8 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Depressional Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve 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. 3 points = 2 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 soil 2 in below the surface or duff laver) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 4 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > '/,.0 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded far at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > X total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < %total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H X 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H X 1 or 2 = M _o = L Kecora me raring on me J1rsL puyC 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 0 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 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 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 0 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Value If score is: _2-4 = H _1= M X 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: D 3.2 - Wetland A does not appear to have a hydrologic connection to any water on the 303(d) list. The only nearby 303(d) waters (Lake DollofF and Mill Creek) are located in a separate sub -basin. D 3.3 - There are no water quality improvement projects covering the wetland according to WSDOE's Water Quality Atlas. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A ❑EPRESSIONAL 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 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 4 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 wetperiods: 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 3 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 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 3 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 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 10 Ratine of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H x 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 3 = H _1 or 2 = M _0 = L Kecora me rating on ine j1r.5L Nuyr D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a Iandsca p et has fIoodin g p roblems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetlond 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): e Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 e Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 1 0 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 Roadways (I-5 and 320th) act as levees and decouple Wetland A from downstream fioodinq. There are no problems with loo in downstream o 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 plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above o Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H _1= M X 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of X ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. x Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 2 x Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• x 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). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 x Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 1 x Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 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 2 If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. (D (:: 0 :) (*) (0 ) 1 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams , , in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 201S Wetland name or number A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. x 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) 3 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) x At least Y. 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) x Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 19 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H X 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: 1.26 % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) �.�s /2] If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 0 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: 15.87 % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)�/2] = 25.63 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) -2 <_ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the,points in the boxes above -1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _4-6 = H _1-3 = M X < 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — 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 x Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: _2 = H X 1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A WDFW Priority Habitats Priority ha (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http-/Iwdfw.wa gavor access the list from here: httn:l tw►,ya.gov/conservation4i2li5fii W Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west o_�C_a_s_caddg cc - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158 - see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. X Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? 0 The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and 0 With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt i] Yes —Go to SC 1.1 L7No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Dyes = Category I ❑No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? EJThe wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartino, see page 25) OAt least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. OThe wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑Yes = Category I ❑No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes — Go to SC 2.2 ❑x No — Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes = Category I ❑X No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? htt wwwl.dnr.wa. ov nh refdesk datasearch wnh wetlands. df ❑ Yes —Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 ❑p No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ❑Yes = CategoryI ❑x No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. if you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes — Go to SC 3.3 pp No — Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? El Yes — Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑No — Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? []Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). ❑Yes = Category I []No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ❑Yes - Go to SC 5.1 ❑x No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ) []Yes = Category I []No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ❑Yes - Go to SC 6.1 ❑x No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑Yes = CategoryI ❑No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑Yes = Category II ❑No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑Yes = Category III ❑No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number A This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment F - Wetland dating Maps Soundview Consultants LLC October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment SOUTH 320TH & I5 - COWARDIN MAP Soundview Consultants LLC Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions 2907 Harbomiew Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone:(253) 514-8952 Fam (253) 514-8954 www. soundviewconsultants.c om .SOUTH 320TH & I5 3014 S 320TH ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0921049028,0921049139,0921049140, 0921049160,0921049187,0921049206 - & 0921049316 DATE:9/27/2019 JOB: 1779.0002 BY: DLS SCALE: 1 = 300 FIGURE NO. 1 of 5 11 PAPE KENWORTH 320TH SITE - HYDROPERIOD MAP Soundview Consultants 11.E Envlmmmnntdl Asstssmcal • Plannlnq • Llr+d USe Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fam (253) 514-8954 www soundviewconsultants.com PAPE KENWORTH 320TH SITE 3014 S 320TH ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0921049028,0921049139,0921049140, 0921049160,0921049187,0921049206 & 0921049316 DATE:10/29/2019 JOB:1779.0002 BY: DLS SCALE: 1 = 300 ' FIGURE NO. 2 of 5 SOUTH 320TH & 15 - CONTRIBUTING BASIN MAP ji�it �ifrlF: frf.! "`.. 404.: - Wetland Rating Maps 03 Wetlands Intensive Land Use ? ;) Contributing Basin _.. King County D.4.0 D.4.3 Area of Contribudn Basin (SF) 2,293,140 Area of Wetland A (SF) 184,396 Percent of Wetland A within Contributing Basin 8.041% D.5.0 D.5.3 Area of Contributing Basin 2,293,140 Area of Intensive Human Land Uses 709,642 Percent of Intensive Human Land Use within Contributing Basin 31% I#***- Soundyiew (C:GtssUjtai1ts LLC Givironmental Assessment - Planning - Land Use Solutions 2907 Harbo,vie-Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone (253) 514-8952 E— (233) 514-8954 �.soundvic�vconsultuntS.COln SOUTH 320TH & I5 3014 S 320TI4 Sl' PFDJ-'RU,, XVAY, XVA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCE"I., NUMBER: 0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160,0921049187,0921049206 & 0921049316 D:r1r�: 9/27/2019 C ii: 1779.0002 iiY: DLS 1`t(,,UR1" NCO. 3 :-F PAPE KENWORTH 320TH SITE - HABITAT MAP H.2.0 Wetland A. H.2.1 Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 1.26% Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 1.79% Accessible Habitat 2.16% H.2.2 _ Undisturbed Habitat 15.87% Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 19.52% Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 25.63% H.2.3 High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 64.61% Soundview Consultants LLc Environmental Assessment • Planning • land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fay (253) 514-8954 www soundviewconsultants.com PAPE KENWORTH 320TH SITE 3014 S 320TH ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160,0921049187,0921049206 & 0921049316 DATE:8/26/2019 JOB:1779.0002 BY: DLS SCALE: 1 " = 1,750 ' FIGURE NO. 4 of 5 PAPE KENWORTH 320TH SITE - 303(D) MAP Wetland Rating Maps C3 Sub Basin Water Quality Improvement Project ty' Category 5 Assessed Waters ! r ' 5 � f 0 0.5 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, AC/A 98335 Pbone:(253) 514-8952 Fa%:(253) �14-893$ �soundvicwconsultants.com SITE 1 t I '$ote: There are no Category 4A assessed waters 3.;.l-meted within HUC,Nati11ZL1_Q0J9,0,205 PAPE KENWORTH 320TH SITE 3014 S 320"I',1-I Sl' r1,DI RAI., WAY, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCE';, NUMBCR: 0921049028, 0921049139, 0921049140, 0921049160,0921049187,0921049206 & 0921049316 n,rTll: 8/26/2019 JOB: 1779.0002 BY: DLS SCrAI,t':: 1 ° = 1 mt r1GURi�, uo. cj t>E s Attachment G Qualifications All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland boundary delineations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland and Rib and wildYfe Ha b 'ta t Assess ent Rethnics i Memorandum prepared for Page P-Mperdes Imo,. were prepared by, or under the direction of, Matt DeCaro of SVC. In addition, site inspections and report preparation were assisted by Racheal Hyland and Jake Layman. Matt DeCaro Senior Scientist / Environmental Planner Professional Experience: 10+ years Matt DeCaro is a Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner with a diverse background in environmental planning, wetland science, stream ecology, water quality, site remediation, and environmental regulatory compliance. Matt currently provides permitting and regulatory compliance assistance for land use projects from their planning stages through review, approval, and construction. Matt performs wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish & wildlife habitat assessments; provides land use planning assistance for residential, commercial, and industrial projects; conducts code and regulation analysis; prepares reports and permit applications; and provides restoration and mitigation design. Matt earned a Bachelor of Science degree with a focus in Environmental Science from the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, with additional graduate -level coursework and research in aquatic restoration and salmonid ecology. Matt has received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mtns, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement), and he is a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wildlife Biologist. Matt has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System and Determination of Ordinary High -Water Mark by the Washington State Department of Ecology. He has attended USFWS survey workshops for multiple threatened and endangered species, and he is a Senior Author of WSDOT Biological Assessments. Matt holds 40-hour HAZWOPER training and has managed Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, subsurface investigations, and contaminant remediation projects throughout the Pacific Northwest. His diverse experience also includes NEPA compliance for federal projects; noxious weed abatement; army ant research in the Costa Rican tropical rainforest; spotted owl surveys on federal and private lands; and salmonid spawning and migration surveys. Rachael Hyland Environmental Scientist Professional Experience: 6 years Rachael Hyland is a Wetland Professional in Training (WPIT) through the Society of Wetland Scientists and a Certified Associated Ecologist through the Ecological Society of America. Rachael has a background in wetland and ecological habitat assessments in various states, most notably Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Washington. She has experience in assessing tidal, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations, permitting, and site assessments. She also has extensive knowledge of bats and white nose syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus destructans), a fungal disease affecting bats which was recently documented in Washington. Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Rachael earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Connecticut, with additional ecology studies at the graduate level. Rachael has completed Basic Wetland Delineator Training with the Institute for Wetland Education and Environmental Research, received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement), and received formal training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the Using the Revised 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark, Navigating SEPA, and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach. Jake Layman Environmental Scientist Professional Experience: 10+ years Jake Layman is an Environmental Scientist with a varied background in fisheries, wildlife, and aquatic invertebrate biology and stream and lake ecology. Jakes's expertise includes endangered species monitoring, lake limnology assessments, water chemistry profiles, off -channel habitat characterization, laboratory management, and terrestrial and aquatic amphibian identification with associated habitat assessments. Jake also has experience in fish population assessments, stream typing, spawning escapement, environmental disaster recovery, and amphibian toxicology research. Jake has over 10 years of experience at the federal and state level conducting ecological monitoring surveys throughout eastern and western Washington. He worked with the National Park Service to conduct environmental compliance monitoring on park construction projects, infrastructure maintenance projects, and federal highways projects. This position also included environmental spill response, fish exclusion surveys in support of construction, and effectiveness monitoring on Engineered Logjam (ELJ) projects. Jake has worked with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to assess and inventory fish passage barriers and monitor culvert removal projects throughout Western Washington. While working for WDFW, Jake managed the daily operation for the intensive habitat study, on off - channel wetlands, for the Chehalis Aquatic Resources Protection Plan (ASRP). Jake earned Bachelor's degrees in both Biology, with an Ecology specialization, and Geography, with a Natural Resource Management specialization, from Central Washington University. In addition, Jake also has a Minor in Environmental Studies and a Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Cartography form Central Washington University. Jake has received training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in Environmental Negotiations; Navigating SEPA, Conducting Forage Fish Surveys, Puget Sound Coastal Processes, Shoreline Modifications, and Beach Restoration, and Using the Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines for Marine Shoreline Stabilization. Jake has electro-fisher operation and safety training from Smith -Root INC and Department of the Interior POI). Soundview Consultants LLc October 29, 2019 1779.0002: Pape Properties — Wetland and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment