Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06-105384
Pagel of 2 Greg Fewins - Fwd: Re: OTAK Report .. - -J From: Greg Fewins To: doug.gresham@otak.com Date: 1/23/2007 3:36 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: OTAK Report Doug: Here is the last of the three emails from Dick Pierson. Please review and emails. Also a fax is coming with additional mark ups. Please take a look at these comments, then give me a call. I need to know how much of his budget is expended, and how much work it would take to address Mr. Pierson's comments. Do not start any work until we discuss budget and I have a chance to review that with Mr. Pierson. Thanks Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Operations Community Development Services City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 253-835-2611(phone) 253-835-2609 (fax) greg.fewi.n...s@ci.fe.deral-w..ay.%%la.us. or, greg.fewi na@�ci.tyoffedaraIway_,com >>> "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> 1/19/2007 4:40 PM >>> Greg --Perhaps you should be going to the person who signed the contract with Otak, as the author may not be objective in suggested changes to the report? Anyway, attached is an explination of the revised suggested edits which I will fax to you concerning the technical clarification of points related to (1) references,(2) Ecological Solutions, Inc. report representation, and (3) site specific accuracy. I consider the Jan. 3 report a draft for review by the clients for this report including myself. As you and I discussed and I documented in my December 6, 2006 letter to you in the development of this contract, was very specific in my desire to have the report reference the KC BLA which is the (attest document related to this project. This was not done. Furthermore lack of reference to residential construction of lots A, B and C of the KC BLA were not address either, but I will be willing to overlook that for a review of my suggested edits. Lack of clarity over lot references will result in the report as written compounding the comprehension of the changes that have occurred between the original wetlands report and the KC BLA as evidenced by confusion in the Otak report. I am requesting a technical review of my suggested edits as clarified in the attach document (itemization of concers with Otak Jan. 3, 2007 Report Project 30879P) within the scope of our original contract. Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 f e c e e g of c e g e Page 2 of 2 ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Fewins To: Dick Pierson Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:50 PM Subject: Re: OTAK Report Dick- I intend to call Doug Gresham once I receive and fully understand your request. On the finance side, I can probably cut to the chase with him quicker and in terms he can understand from a contract and scope of work standpoint than you can. My objective is to prevent or at least minimize any additional expenses to you. If you talk to him directly, it is likely his hourly clock will be on and running. Greg >>> "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> 1/19/2007 11:57 AM >>> Greg -- I have two thoughts relative to our conversation this AM: -first perhaps I should call Doug Gresham my self and talk to him about Otak considering reviewing my technical concerns within our budget or, -for you to call Otak to ascertain the same? Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 f e c e e g of c e g e Page 1 of 2 Greg Fewins - Fwd: Re: OTAK Report From: Greg Fewins To: doug.gresham@otak.com Date: 1/23/2007 3:34 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: OTAK Report forwarding email Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Operations Community Development Services City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 253-835-2611(phone) 253-835-2609(fax) greg.fewins@ci,federal-way...wa..us or, greg.fewins@cityoffederalway com >>> "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> 1/19/2007 4:43 PM >>> With Attachment Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 ----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Pierson To: Fewins; Greg Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: Re: OTAK Report Greg --Perhaps you should be going to the person who signed the contract with Otak, as the author may not be objective in suggested changes to the report? Anyway, attached is an explination of the revised suggested edits which I will fax to you concerning the technical clarification of points related to (1) references,(2) Ecological Solutions, Inc. report representation, and (3) site specific accuracy. I consider the Jan. 3 report a draft for review by the clients for this report including myself. As you and I discussed and I documented in my December 6, 2006 letter to you in the development of this contract, I was very specific in my desire to have the report reference the KC BLA which is the lattest document related to this project. This was not done. Furthermore lack of reference to residential construction of lots A, B and C of the KC BLA were not address either, but I will be willing to overlook that for a review of my suggested edits. Lack of clarity over lot references will result in the report as written compounding the comprehension of the changes that have occurred between the original wetlands report and the KC BLA as evidenced by confusion in the Otak report. I am requesting a technical review of my suggested edits as clarified in the attach document (Itemization of concers with Otak Jan. 3, 2007 Report Project 30879P) within the scope of our original contract. f e c e e g of c e g e Page 2 of 2 Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 ---- Original Message ----- From: Greg Fewins To: Dick Pierson Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:50 PM Subject: Re: OTAK Report Dick- I intend to call Doug Gresham once I receive and fully understand your request. On the finance side, I can probably cut to the chase with him quicker and in terms he can understand from a contract and scope of work standpoint than you can. My objective is to prevent or at least minimize any additional expenses to you. If you talk to him directly, it is likely his hourly clock will be on and running. Greg >>> "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> 1/19/2007 11:57 AM >>> Greg -- I have two thoughts relative to our conversation this AM: -first perhaps I should call Doug Gresham my self and talk to him about Otak considering reviewing my technical concerns within our budget or, -for you to call Otak to ascertain the same? Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 f e c e e g of Page 1 of 1 Greg Fewins - Fwd: Otak Contract Omission From: Greg Fewins To: doug.gresham@otak.com Date: 1/23/2007 3:33 PM Subject: Fwd: Otak Contract Omission forwarding email Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Operations Community Development Services City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 253-835-2611(phone) 253-835-2609 (fax) greg.f�+v ns...@c..i.federal-way.wa.us or, greg.fewins@c.tyofFederalway.com >>> "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> 1/23/2007 12:47 PM >>> Greg -- In addition to the technical comments and concerns that I e-mailed and faxed to you on Jan. 19, 1 raise the issue relative to the completion of the contract specifically in "Task Scope 2) Provide written response that determines if the conclusions and recommendations of the wetland determination report prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc. are accurate....". Ecological Solutions, Inc. concludes that The ditches do not appear to have been streams that were altered and placed in ditches (April 19, 2006, rage 2, paragraph 2)" to which the Jan. 3, 2007 Otak report responds "...there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it was not a natural drainage course before human modification." (2.b, paragraph 1). 1 d❑ not interpret Otak's statement as one of a accuracy determination, but of data omission and should be at least be clarified in the final report or more desirably supported by data collected on site as part of this contract. Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 f e c e e 9 of c e g e Technical Memorandum To: 90230ATEA nlr D17ie From: J,li/e 400 A1W2�.e-,1 �a -a0J;7 Copies: P/ane /V2f/ S22 4V,06 Par /VZT) X27-9s77 Date: Subject: Project No.: Greg Fewins, Deputy Director, Community Development Services Planning Division, City of Federal Way Doug Gresham, Wetland Ecologist, Otak, Inc. January 3, 2007 Pierson Property Sensitive Areas Peer Review 30879P As requested by the City of Federal Way, Otak conducted a site visit of the Pierson property located at 3516 S 336"' Street, Federal Way, Washington (file #06-105384-00-AD). The purpose of our site visit was to verify wetland and stream boundaries, determine wetland and stream classifications, and assess impacts from the proposed action. In 2004, the applicant (Dick Pierson) undertook a boundary line adjustment to divide this property into four lots when it was within unincorporated King County. Mr. Pierson proposes to sell three of these four lots, which requires providing driveway access through critical area buffers. A previous wetland delineation performed by Ecological Services identified three wetlands and a stream on the property based on King County regulations. Once this area was annexed by the City of Federal Way, protection of these critical areas required compliance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC). We reviewed the following documents for consistency with Federal Way City Code (FWCC). • P/crrenKingCallly% IFZ,7rhliglelrprepared by Ecological Services (dated March 11, 2005); J�v�xnzcr�dfAiexraxxbo�rnr�rr��ne�i�r�iireir�prepared by Hallin & Associates Land Surveying (dated June 20, 2005); and 11rIr%nd��r �a the I?rcrroi� IICilnnr%IJcli��pr�+xai� prepared by Ecological Services (dated April 19, 2006). Summary This memorandum is divided into three sections, (1) background review, (2) results of the site visit; and (3) proposed buffer impacts and mitigation. Sections 2 and 3 include issues that must be addressed in future submittals of the project. Those issues include: • Correct all site maps to show Wetlands 1 and 2 as a single Category III wetland with a 50-foot buffer. K:\ projcc t\30800\30879P \ Rcports\ Picrso n07_0103M.d oc City ofFederal Way Page 2 f�i�trlx�� flieurfl rleffi,lew Pierron 3, 2007 • Correct all site maps to designate the ditch at the northeast corner of the property as a stream, and show the appropriate buffer for either a major (100-feet) or minor (50-feet) stream. Provide information to determine whether the off -site stream that this ditch flows into is rated as a major or minor stream according to FWCC 22-1. Provide a complete Process IV application as specified below in Section 3. 1. Results of the Background Review The Pierson property is located near North Lake, between S. 334"' Street and S. 336t1i Street. This 3.56-acre property is divided into four lots (A through D). Lots A and B consists of a Christmas tree farm, upland mixed forest, and disturbed areas dominated by non-native invasive species. Lot C contains upland mixed forest, three wetlands, and a stream. Lot D contains the Pierson house, a septic drain field, several sheds, and landscaping. Proposed development of this property involves constructing a driveway from S. 334t1i Street in order to provide access to Lots A and B. This 15-foot-wide driveway would extend south from S. 334"' Street along the western boundary of Lot C and then turn southwest into Lot A. This driveway would follow a 20-foot-wide easement along the west edge of Lot C, while maintaining a 5-foot setback from the adjacent property. In addition, the southwest corner of Lot C may be developed . with driveway access from S. 336t1i Street. In 2005, Ecological Services identified three wetlands (designated as Wetlands 1 through 3) and a stream along the eastern side of Lot C. These critical areas were described in the Piemw Aellrlel Delrkofiof, Kz�ooca/m-,, lr&.rl g/w/prepared by Ecological Solutions. All three of these wetlands extend off -site to the east, and the off -site portions were delineated by Talasaea Consultants as part of the Quadrant East Campus project. According to the King County critical area ordinance regulations in effect at the time, these wetlands were classified as Category 2 and the stream as a Class 3 stream. The boundaries and classification of the wetlands and stream were verified by King County staff in 2004. In 2006, after this area was annexed by the City of Federal Way, Ecological Services prepared the ,4,1MA"Idri"itothePicrxw 1P.,11111,If elzi1eahanthat re-classified the three wetlands and stream based on FWCC. According to Ecological Services, under FWCC 22-1357(a), Wetland 1 should be classified as a Category III wetland with a 50-foot buffer (because it is larger than 10,000 square feet), while Wetlands 2 and 3 should be classified as Category III wetlands requiring 25-foot buffers. According to Ecological Services, the ditch at the north end of the property, which was rated as a Class 3 stream by King County, does not meet the definition of a stream in FWCC 22-1, and therefore should not be regulated. K:\ project\30800\ 30379p \ Reports\ Merson07_O I O3 M.J oc City of Federal Way Page 3 Seem ca�flie�r_�rre�r�ae�i f rPierrd�� A� jr Jrvilmg J 2007 2. Results of the Site Visit On December 17, 2006, Doug Gresham of Otak conducted a reconnaissance of the Pierson property to assess wetland and stream conditions. Our findings from the background review and site visit are discussed below. 2.a Wetlands During our site visit, we located most of the wetland flags placed by Ecological Services. As required by FWCC 22-1 (Wetland Definition), they followed methodology specified in the March 1997 lfnrGi��,410��.1fofe I!{r�.�ii�r,�rld�nir��ip��rr��r�De�i��ntka�i�Io�i��n/{Department of Ecology publication No. 96-94) to identify Wetlands 1 through 3. We generally agree with the Ecological Services boundaries of Wetlands 1 through 3. Wetland 1 is located on Lot C in the southeast corner of the property, and it extends off -site to the south. The on -site portion of this forested wetland is connected to a off -site mitigation site that is predominately emergent. The combined area of both on- and off -site wetland is approximately 0.5- acre. The dominant vegetation includes red alder (�4lnarrrcrbl;�, western red cedar vine maple (�4cercrrrrfrafirsrr}, salmonberry and slough sedge (Carervhmyolr . We agree with the Ecological Services classification of Wetland 1 as Category III according to FWCC 22- 1357(a) with a buffer width of 50 feet according to FWCC 22-1357(b)(3). Wetland 2 is located on Lot C in the south central portion of the property, and it extends off -site to the east. The combined area of both on- and off -site wetland is estimated at 8,242 square feet. The dominant vegetation includes red alder, western red cedar, vine maple, salmonberry, and slough sedge. Wedand 2 is directly hydrologically connected to Wetland 1 through a small man-made ditch. As a result, Wetlands 1 and 2 constitute a single wetland. Although the boundary line adjustment map combined Wetlands 1 and 2, the i!>ePisira» continues to identify them as two separate wetlands. We agree with the Ecological Services classification of Wetland 2 as Category III according to FtiY/CC 22-1357(a). However, we disagree with a buffer width of 25 feet assigned by Ecological Services. Because Wetlands 1 and 2 constitute a single Category III wetland with a combined area greater than 10,000 square feet, the combined wetland has a buffer width of 50 feet according to FWCC 22-1357(b)(3). Wetland 3 is located on Lot C in the east central portion of the property, and it extends off -site to the east. The combined area of both on- and off -site wetland is estimated at 5,978 square feet. Although this wetland is ringed by trees it is dominated by shrubs and therefore is predominately a scrub/shrub wetland. The dominant vegetation includes red alder, black cottonwood (Po/1r1In1 da%rrrrrri�j, salmonberry, hardhack slough sedge, and soft rush (%uytcurrfi�'.x+�. Although there is a man-made ditch located between Wetlands 2 and 3, there was no hydrologic connection during either the site visit by Ecological Services or Otak. We agree with the Ecological Services classification of Wedand 3 as Category III according to F'WCC 22-1357(a) with a buffer width of 25 feet according to FWCC 22-1357(b)(3). K:\ pmicet\30800\30879P\Reports\ Pic rson07_0103i\I.doc City ofFederal Way Page 4 Jewriz*flre�zr: rr rrirfc��l,l B ,,ran Proe>y ftlllnrl j 2007 2.a. I —Provide corrections on all site maps to show Wetlands 1 and 2 as a single combined wetland with a 50-foot buffer. 2.b Stream A ditch is located in the northeast corner'of the property that drains north to S. 334th Street. During our site visit, we located most of the ordinary high water mark flags that had been placed along the banks of this ditch by Ecological Services. This ditch is approximately 170 feet long, varies from three to eight feet wide, and averages one foot deep. The banks of the ditch are lined by red alder, salmonberry, hardhack, Himalayan blackberry trailing blackberry (I�11Ga1riYrril�r�j and sword fern {Pnly�fie/il�ir�i>r�rir.»>f}. It appears this ditch was excavated to drain the northern end of the property, but it does not appear to be hydrologically connected to `yledand 3. The onsite ditch is located in a natural linear depression. It conveys water seasonally through a culvert under S. 334"' Street to a natural watercourse off -site to the north that drains to North Lake. This watercourse is considered to be a stream. Although the onsite depression was excavated in the past, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it was not a natural drainage course before human modifications. This ditch was rated as a Class 3 stream by King County Senior Ecologist Greg Poels in December 2004. The King County Sensitive Areas Code effective at that time (KCC 21A.06.1240) defined a stream as irr those Graf i>1ICi>1oo Coan »�hererrrrf,rvOr al".,rpMWIlee aZnl, >lofiyrli i�� irYdip>i �riElef ca>1a/, .rtoim or.ru�ce ss�ie/• rcY>1-offr�eurtr.�' or aiher ei�dri2�� uifi esrrr/��'icrta�Yrrr, .y�ilur il>ey are abed J� rr�/%UairirJr or are alredlo eo>1>rey llr >mr ir�rlri>�J�+ ae6.a>rrrY��>rar to 011r weleaii `>1 XWc ururerx+ m,-e-r. " We disagree with Ecological Services' conclusion that this ditch does not meet the definition of a stream according to FWCC 22-1, which defines a stream as 'TIM!/!// fia l,1i1 a ioiIM o>-ro>rte, foriyee1Z, u&ir, i.r-AlIzIe share W11id haYe dee>a�•rodfie �j �i>irrr�>r, d1lelgeire1r> y ea.>.rirrrr� afa ebe111,ve1m10 a Zed, haz r arilder ✓i� gGv... urGrrn..�.rfJ aJ�ir� Ie. rl, 'al'all »Inch rrrf t? !lYI G'!T llrJ t1/YfJ rJHII/I/OZ%//11 �01Y Z/1 �!1!/!l/I� I17/.f/ I1 JlC/'t0 JAII�rC.�I�rI 1011.+: �J steam YYerYl.�of rvii/riiYY 1l�.le> jreElrrr�a.irl I& a AmI0111SJellao fh?,7,vxr my rZ11Z in ri11Mitr a> rOM511 Ze EfiryiY>ie%lrir a co>lcreie, >oe� oroiherrr> ir��J�aair �r.��rr. yrlem 7hi 46villwl ZJ>1at/fIe!/Hf to 111rAde 11Ygn1,v11 err/-; rroi711&vIe:1• 4a111ier al- u>1lerr they areilr&,ILj lexielkW ar ❑.iad> >rvi�r X4,141=11elfr/, al-A-Ivli w mzrea>1>reylwllmal rlir°rr1h.,• »which irferl�s�xa� to ea�irlrricfro.z ofi/>e >vaie>rnrrrie It has not been determined whether the ditch is rated as a major or minor stream (FWCC 22-1). Although we agree that this ditch is not utilized by anadromous fish, in order to qualify as a minor stream, it must be determined that a natural migration barrier occurs downstream of the property. 2.b. I —Provide information to determine whether the off -site stream that this ditch flows into is rated as a major or minor stream according to FWCC 22-1. Correct all site maps to designate the K:\project\30800\ 30879P\ Reports\l)icr$o iiO 7 _Q I O3i'v4doe City ofFederal Way Page 5 .fewrxliiePielroWi Pij 2007 ditch as a stream according to FWCC 22-1, and show the appropriate buffer for either a major (100- feet) or minor (50-feet) stream (FWCC 22-1306). 3. Proposed Buffer Impacts and Mitigation The proposed clearing for a driveway from S. 334`h Street to provide access to Lots A and B would impact approximately 4,250 square feet of the stream buffer. Clearing for this driveway would require removal of approximately five western red cedar trees, two black cottonwood trees, and several red alder trees. Other vegetation that would be removed from the buffer includes vine maple, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, holly trailing blackberry, and sword fern. The proposed impact to the stream buffer constitutes a buffer modification [FWCC 22-1312(c)]. Stream buffer modifications require approval through Process IV evaluation and must satisfy six criteria [FWCC 22-1312(c)]. In addition, buffer modification may require approval of a buffer enhancement plan as part of the Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-434(b)(6) and 22-12431. The buffer enhancement plan should include (but is not limited to): mitigation sequencing information; goals and objectives; measurable/quantifiable performance standards; engineered site plans; grading plan; planting plan; plant schedule; installation and construction specifications; maintenance plan; five-year monitoring plan; as -built report and annual monitoring reports; financial guarantees; and contingency plans. The buffer enhancement plan should generally be consistent with specifications in in 1fe%r4hg1,aJiJialePa&2. Plam, Version 1, March 2006, Ecology Publication 06-06-011b [FWCC 22-1243 and 22-1270]. We observed that portions of the stream buffer are degraded and therefore provide opportunities for buffer enhancement through removal of invasive species and supplemental planting of native species that will develop into a coniferous forest community. 3.a.I—Provide a complete Process IV application as specified in FWCC 22-434 including: stream buffer modification criteria; a buffer enhancement plan; and other required information. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Doug Gresham at 425-739- 7937 or at doug.gresham@otak.com K:\ project\30800\308 791)\Reports\Pierson07_0I03iNLdoc Technical Memorandum NTo: it 10230YVE1'r1e111XD.17M From: Jyile s�00 k'iraElavd I�/fl 980j3 Copies: Piiorre (10),UXAW ,-" /42S1827--Y5; 7 Date: Subject: Project No. Greg Fewins, Deputy Director, Community Development Services Planning Division, City of Federal Way Doug Gresham, Wetland Ecologist, Otak, Inc. January 29, 2007 Pierson Property Sensitive Areas Peer Review 30879P As requested by the City of Federal Way, Otak conducted a site visit of the Pierson property located at 3516 S 336`h Street, Federal Way, Washington (file #06-105384-00-AD). The purpose of our site visit was to verify wetland and stream boundaries, determine wetland and stream classifications, and assess impacts from the proposed action. In 2004, the applicant (Dick Pierson) undertook a boundary line adjustment to divide this property into four lots when it was within unincorporated King County. Mr. Pierson proposes to sell three of these four lots, which requires providing driveway access through critical area buffers. A previous wetland delineation performed by Ecological Solutions identified three wetlands and a stream on the property based on King County regulations. Once this area was annexed by the City of Federal Way, protection of these critical areas required compliance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC). We reviewed the following documents for consistency with Federal Way City Code (FWCC). • Airrrvrr lrlella'rdDel&ea'h�n, IUaS6e-1wey', /jVordragpi/prepared by Ecological Solutions (dated March 11, 2005); JuroeymfPre�rrair 6oii��Aar� �nearJiuleveiiprepared by Hallin & Associates Land Surveying (dated June 20, 2005); and fldde�idr�a�ioihePrerraf� Ir1eflandl k,1iwa �,%1prepared by Ecological Solutions (dated April 19, 2006). Summary This memorandum is divided into three sections: (1) background review; (2) results of the site visit; and (3) proposed buffer impacts and mitigation. Sections 2 and 3 include issues that must be addressed in future submittals of the project. Those issues include: • Correct all site maps to show Wetlands 1 and 2 as a single Category III wetland with a 50-foot buffer. K:\project\30800\30879P\Reports\Pierson012907M.doc City ofFederal Way Page 2 ,je�+ril�ueflrear.�i relrr�r✓if�rPs�rlorf Pi er �rrrriray 29,, 2007 • Correct all site maps to designate the ditch at the northeast corner of the property as a stream, and show the appropriate buffer for either a major (100-feet) or minor (50-feet) stream. Provide information to determine whether the off -site stream that this ditch flows into is rated as a major or minor stream according to FWCC 22-1. Provide a complete Process IV application as specified below in Section 3. 1. Results of the Background Review The Pierson property is located near North Lake, between S. 334`" Street and S. 336`h Street. This 3.56-acre property is divided into four lots (A through D). Lots A and B consists of a Christmas tree farm, shed, upland mixed forest, and disturbed areas dominated by non-native invasive species. Lot C contains upland mixed forest, three wetlands, and a stream. Lot D contains the Pierson house, a septic drain field, shed, and landscaping. Proposed development of this property involves constructing a driveway from S. 3341h Street in order to provide access to Lots A and B. This 15-foot-wide driveway would extend south from S. 3341h Street along the western boundary of Lot C and then turn southwest into Lot A. This driveway would follow a 20-foot-wide easement along the west edge of Lot C, while maintaining a 5-foot setback from the adjacent property. In addition, the southwest corner of Lot C may be developed with driveway access from S. 336th Street. In 2005, Ecological Solutions identified three wetlands (designated as Wetlands 1 through 3) and a stream along the eastern side of Lot C. These critical areas were described in the ih' Iwv Reiland Delirenlrai, Kn�Gosilry, Rur.GirgVarrprepared by Ecological Solutions. All three of these wetlands extend off -site to the east, and the off -site portions were delineated by Talasaea Consultants as part of the Quadrant East Campus project. According to the King County critical area ordinance regulations in effect at the time, these wetlands were classified as Category 2 and the stream as a Class 3 stream. The boundaries and classification of the wetlands and stream were verified by King County staff in 2004. In 2006, after this area was annexed by the City of Federal Way, Ecological Solutions prepared the clrldeirrfniothePierr�ir Te,vradlJc/rirarrlronthat re-classified the three wetlands and stream based on FWCC. According to Ecological Solutions, under FWCC 22-1357(a), Wetland 1 should be classified as a Category III wetland with a 50-foot buffer (because it is larger than 10,000 square feet), while Wetlands 2 and 3 should be classified as Category III wetlands requiring 25-foot buffers. According to Ecological Solutions, the ditch at the north end of the property, which was rated as a Class 3 stream by King County, does not meet the definition of a stream in FWCC 22-1, and therefore should not be regulated. K:\projcct\30800\30879P\Reports\PiersonOI2907M.doc City of Federal Way Page 3 .fe»s��iueflrear�4rfsrrirre��ffrPrerxanPrOeni' 29, 2007 2. Results of the Site Visit On December 17, 2006, Doug Gresham of Otak conducted a reconnaissance of the Pierson property to assess wetland and stream conditions. Our findings from the background review and site visit are discussed below. 2.a Wetlands During our site visit, we located most of the wetland flags placed by Ecological Solutions. As required by FWCC 22-1 (Wetland Definition), they followed methodology specified in the March 1997 1r1&x1, rrg.�on Male I`e�tlrrardrMerrdrfrralian rIrl. Dki mll� ,,11N,,mllal(Department of Ecology publication No. 96-94) to identify Wetlands 1 through 3. We generally agree with the Ecological Solutions boundaries of Wetlands 1 through 3. Wetland 1 is located on Lot C in the southeast corner of the property, and it extends off -site to the south. The on -site portion of this forested wetland is connected to a off -site mitigation site that is predominately emergent. The combined area of both on- and off -site wetland is approximately 0.5- acre. The dominant vegetation includes red alder (,41,v11r1w1,ra), western red cedar vine maple (,4ercrrtrairallo, salmonberry and slough sedge (Carexadivolo). We agree with the Ecological Solutions classification of Wetland 1 as Category III according to FWCC 22- 1357(a) with a buffer width of 50 feet according to FWCC 22-1357(b)(3). Wetland 2 is located on Lot C in the south central portion of the property, and it extends off -site to the east. The combined area of both on- and off -site wetland is estimated at 8,242 square feet. The dominant vegetation includes red alder, western red cedar, vine maple, salmonberry, and slough sedge. Wetland 2 is directly hydrologically connected to Wetland 1 through a small man-made ditch. As a result, Wetlands 1 and 2 constitute a single wetland. Although the boundary line adjustment map combined Wetlands 1 and 2, the to tdeP,, f=& 1Ferlagrr49elireariarY continues to identify them as two separate wetlands. We agree with the Ecological Solutions classification of Wetland 2 as Category III according to FWCC 22-1357(a). However, we disagree with a buffer width of 25 feet assigned by Ecological Solutions. Because Wetlands 1 and 2 constitute a single Category III wetland with a combined area greater than 10,000 square feet, the combined wetland has a buffer width of 50 feet according to FWCC 22-1357(b)(3). Wetland 3 is located on Lot C in the east central portion of the property, and it extends off -site to the east. The combined area of both on- and off -site wedand is estimated at 5,978 square feet. Although this wedand is ringed by trees it is dominated by shrubs and therefore is predominately a scrub/shrub wetland. The dominant vegetation includes red alder, black cottonwood (PowzIar IWIrah"Iyera), salmonberry, hardhack slough sedge, and soft rush Vlararr�hkol�. Although there is a man-made ditch located between Wetlands 2 and 3, there was no hydrologic connection during either the site visit by Ecological Solutions or Otak. We agree with the Ecological Solutions classification of Wetland 3 as Category III according to FWCC 22-1357(a) with a buffer width of 25 feet according to FWCC 22-1357(b)(3). K:\projec t\30800\30879P\Reports\Pierson0 1 2907M.doc City ofFederal Way Page 4 �errrilirreflrearF Jr,�rrrrreiilfor'Pielrorr Pr•Oery famr�ary 29, 2007 2.a. I —Provide corrections on all site maps to show Wetlands 1 and 2 as a single combined wetland with a 50-foot buffer. 2.b Stream A ditch is located in the northeast corner of the property that drains north to S. 334th Street. During our site visit, we located most of the ordinary high water mark flags that had been placed along the banks of this ditch by Ecological Solutions. This ditch is approximately 170 feet long, varies from three to eight feet wide, and averages one foot deep. The banks of the ditch are lined by red alder, salmonberry, hardhack, Himalayan blackberry (Xrrdrrrr7,-71, rA;nw. , trailing blackberry (Rridirrrrrrrirrr�, and sword fern (PolyrtirJirris�rrrrrmilrrrrr). It appears this ditch was excavated to drain the northern end of the property, but it does not appear to be hydrologically Connected to Wetland 3. The onsite ditch is located in a natural linear depression. It conveys water seasonally through a culvert under S. 33e Street to a natural watercourse off -site to the north that drains to North Lake. This watercourse is considered to be a stream. Although the onsite depression was excavated in the past, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it was not a natural drainage course before human modifications. This ditch was rated as a Class 3 stream by King County Senior Ecologist Greg Poels in December 2004. The King County Sensitive Areas Code effective at that time (KCC 21A.06.1240) defined a stream as "_'fas=w.rthose area in Kmg Corrmly ml,merrr reAwlerrPrVIlrre a bed, molrrirlrrr irg hnZ,via l d4rlwr, raiialr, dorm oust ce lvaierrrrrr o�derric�r or oilier entirey drYrfirra/rr�rrfer wifr�r, rrmlerr lhey are u ed yralrriomidr or are rued& convey X eamriralrira occrnni��rtor to rafrrlrrrrrYori in .rrrch.uw&ir&,a w.. " We disagree with Ecological Solutions' conclusion that this ditch does not meet the definition of a stream according to FWCC 22-1, which defines a stream as 'J'.trr a rorrrre orrnrrle forrireddy rrna///r, irrrIll.-liirgihore which have deem me9, red6Jrrmall, Arrdgemerrr rmrrrrlrig, ofa rfiVmel wIl a ded, b)vkr or.rider lGinrrg/ �l rrrdrfairiid allrtr /errgid, alor� mihirlh ,nyf ee maierr 111aiHri1,gVV111 Zglw-ia lowerele"4vrrr 4 rli�°rrnr rreedri�`carrsrrirr rrxrlery�srrrrrrrrr! Im a rler�ela�iugreairi� rripairir may rrrm im ralr�rlr army 6e rlrarrireldi» a raircr�te, cork ar olherarlrfrral�rrveyurrre ryrtem This defrrriliorr it motrrrenrrf la rfrc/rde rirxgaliori �lr/er, .rlar�rialerf tili.�ies orotherArxr�irrr/.i�rr�ixarirrerrrnlcrr ihey are rued � rerirlerrl or rrrrnrl zarrrorrr ralrrromidjrrlr, ord/refealir2° miar aonr�rrrcledla romveyrr�rlrrrrrl rfrearrrr which 4x 7rlerlrrnrio ebrrrlrrrcrk'orr ofihe z�lerxofrrn: „ It has not been determined whether the ditch is rated as a major or minor stream (FWCC 22-1). Although we agree that this ditch is not utilized by anadromous fish, in order to qualify as a minor stream, it must be determined that a natural migration barrier occurs downstream of the property. 2.b. I —Provide information to determine whether the off -site stream that this ditch flows into is rated as a major or minor stream according to FWCC 22-1. Correct all site maps to designate the K:\project\30800\30879P\Reports\PiersonOl2907M.doc City ofFederal Way Page 5 Ssvrifire flrearArrerrnfe��tforPre�ro�v Prery Ja»1rv y 29, 2007 ditch as a stream according to FWCC 22-1, and show the appropriate buffer for either a major (100- feet) or minor (50-feet) stream (FWCC 22-1306). 3. Proposed Buffer Impacts and Mitigation The proposed clearing for a driveway from S. 334`' Street to provide access to Lots A and B would impact approximately 4,250 square feet of the stream buffer. Clearing for this driveway would require removal of approximately five western red cedar trees, two black cottonwood trees, and several red alder trees. Other vegetation that would be removed from the buffer includes vine maple, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, holly (I�xvyfri frii�v), trailing blackberry, and sword fern. The proposed impact to the stream buffer constitutes a buffer modification [FWCC 22-1312(c)]. Stream buffer modifications require approval through Process IV evaluation and must satisfy six criteria [FWCC 22-1312(c)]. In addition, buffer modification may require approval of a buffer enhancement plan as part of the Process IV evaluation [FWCC 22-434(b)(6) and 22-1243]. The buffer enhancement plan should include (but is not limited to): mitigation sequencing information; goals and objectives; measurable/quantifiable performance standards; engineered site plans; grading plan; planting plan; plant schedule; installation and construction specifications; maintenance plan; five-year monitoring plan; as -built report and annual monitoring reports; financial guarantees; and contingency plans. The buffer enhancement plan should generally be consistent with specifications in 1P/etlafld 9ZrMzg,,&ir F1a.1ePae2.•Pla s, Version 1, March 2006, Ecology Publication 06-06-011b [FWCC 22-1243 and 22-1270]. We observed that portions of the stream buffer are degraded and therefore provide opportunities for buffer enhancement through removal of invasive species and supplemental planting of native species that will develop into a coniferous forest community. 3.a. I Provide a complete Process IV application as specified in FWCC 22-434 including: stream buffer modification criteria; a buffer enhancement plan; and other required information. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Doug Gresham at 425-739- 7937 or at doug.gresham@otak.com K:\project\ 30800\30879P\Reports\PicrsOn0I2907M.dOc Deb Barker From: Deb Barker Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:02 PM To: 'Andy Campbell' Cc: Isaac Conlen Subject: RE: Parcel # 614360-0657 - Pierson/Driveway Permit Attachments: 003 Master Land Use Application.doc; 044 Preapplication Conference.doc Andy — I've had an opportunity to review the Pierson wetland file from 2006/07, and wanted to provide a list of next steps for your client: 1) Wetland/Strearn report (a) Revise the wetland/stream report to address items 2.a.1, 2.b.1 and 3.a.1 detailed in the Pierson Property Sensitive Areas Peer Review report prepared by Otak as amended on January 29, 2007. (b) Intrusions into wetland buffers are reviewed under Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.175.040 as wetland buffer averaging, buffer reduction, and/or buffer modification. The wetland report must identify if the wetland buffer meets related criteria to be reviewed using buffer averaging or buffer reduction - both of which require Use Process III Project Approval review. If the buffer does not meet related criteria, the requested buffer intrusion would be reviewed as a buffer modification under Process IV, Hearing Examiner review. (c) The stream rating determines the size of the stream buffer. If stream buffer intrusions are proposed, they must be reviewed under Process III as a minor improvement per FWRC 19.165.070(2) or under Process IV as other intrusions per FWRC 19.165.070(3). Again, the wetland/stream report must be revised to identify if the proposed stream intrusion meets related decisional criteria. (d) The revised wetland/stream report will be peer reviewed by the City's wetland consultant. The applicant will be required to fund peer review. (Remaining funds from the Otak review were returned to Mr. Pierson in 2007). 2) Clearing and Grading-- Along with the wetland and stream buffer intrusions, the clearing and grading of the subject property in advance of building permits may require review under FWRC 19.120 unless exempt under FWRC 19.120.030. 3) SEPA Exempt - Note that SEPA will not be required for this residentially zoned property pursuant to FWRC 14.30.040. 4) Preapplication Conference - Although exempt from preapplication requirements, it is recommended that the applicant apply for a preapplication conference as there are a variety of issues to quantify, including verification of review processes and if the proposed work can be reviewed under the Clearing, Grading, and Tree and Vegetation Retention provisions of FWRC 19.120. Preapplication fees are $464; see the attached preapplication conference and master land use application handouts. I hope this information is useful. Please contact Isaac Conlen at 253-835-2643 or via e-mail at Isaac. conlenr@cityoffederalway if there are any questions. Be sure to reference Federal Way file #06- 105384-AD with any correspondence. Regards from Deb Deb 'Bark.e.r. sell or 'planner Cora. mu.n.ity and I conorn.i.c Ike elop.m uit Department Citv of Federal W€ v 33325 8th Avenue South k+eden.,ti Way, WA 08003 25 3-8 3.5-2642 (0 ` 5 3-835-2€ 09 (f) deb.ba3 keMcityoffe der alway. com From: Andy Campbell[mailto:andy.campbell@esmcivil.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 3:57 PM To: Deb Barker Cc: Isaac Conlen Subject: Pacel # 614360-0657 - Driveway Permit Hi Deb, Thanks again for taking the time to meet with me today- it was great to see you. I thought of another question that I should have asked while there though. Assuming we do need to go through a process III to construct the proposed driveway (given the environmental component) what other permits will we need to apply for (concurrent with the process III, if possible) in order to construct the driveway? Our end goal is to be shovel ready after permits are approved. Will this require some kind of site clearing/grading permit as well? Our client is leaving the country Friday and I'm hoping to have some direction for him before he goes. We need to know any and all permits we'll need to proceed, as clearly as we can. I've copied Isaac, per your suggestion and in case he is familiar with the property or has any input. After reviewing the OTAK report it sounds like there's no doubt the ditch depicted in the attached PDF is a regulated stream. If we proceed with that assumption we'd just like to better understand the permitting process to get him access to his property southwest of the stream/ditch. Any info would be greatly appreciated! Let me know if I can provide anything else that might help. Best, Andy Campbell ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Planner & GIS Analyst w+uw.esmcivil.carn gnoy.camobell6esmclvq.com Federal Way Bothell "liensburg 181 S 333rd St, Bldg C, Ste 210 Federal Way, WA 98003 Tel: 253. 838.6113 Fax: 253,838.7104 Civil Engineering- I Surveying Land Planning I Landscape Architecturel GIS f c E Z t: to L d) .13 D a) LL N C N t O t Ln N �' rn LL Y W LL CD Ln lqr Ir C) 1" to O F- 4 Z M rn >� OM W U Z �LU � W Z 0� uJ Q lu OU-) � O W Z d H V W m r :kr- a• ;r}.+Sid �� , v O t M Q M O c O c L aJ Ln C �C C 0- O w Q% rn C �N 7 O L ++ C .O O a a� io c O to C O v c E 0 w Ln cu c O J Page 1 of 5 Greg Fewins - Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: OTAK Report From: Greg Fewins To: Dick Pierson Date: 2/13/2007 1:28 PM Subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: OTAK Report Mr. Pierson: I will include these comments in the file. Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Operations Community Development Services City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 253-835-2611(phone) 253-835-2609(fax) greg.fewins.@ci.federal-way.wa.us or, gregwins ci offederalwa .Cam >>> "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> 2/13/2007 11:32 AM >>> Greg --I meant these questions to be to you --you asked if I had any further questions and I responed to you. I did not think that Doug really addressed your question of "what comments are inappropriate because of scientific or procedural basis". I guess one could imply from his response that none of them are? I still think you had a contract with them that included reference to the BLA which they did not address in the report. Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 ----- Original Message ---- From: Greg Fewins To: econoforester@msn.com Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:34 AM Subject: Fwd: RE: Re: RE: Re: OTAK Report Mr. Pierson: I asked Doug Gresham to review your comments on his revised report. Doug previously revised the errors you pointed out but does not believe that your latest comments modify any of the findings in his report. Therefore the city will let Doug's last report stand as the final report. However your comments are included in the file on this matter as a supplement to Doug's report. If you have any further questions or would like to expand the scope of prior requested services, please let me f e c e e g of c e g e Questions related to Otak January 29. 2007 Report Pro'ect 30879P : 1A sin our uestion what comments 1-14 are ins ro riate because of scientific or procedural standpoint? 2—Does not the city need to know that the latest wetland analysis done for my property was done by King CognV and recorded in the Boundary Line Adjustment L04L0030? I have not suggested a volume and page number reference, but merely an acknowledgement of the King County BLA environmental review that cost me considerable money in addition to Ecological Solutions Inc. and was highlighted in my letter of December 6, 2006 which you included in your contract with Otak. 3—Does not the Wetland Section 2a. need a reference to which of the documents cited in the beginning of the report this section is discussing, as the Lot identification in each of these documents are different? 4—Who else accompanied and collaborated with Doug Gresham on his December 17 2006 visit to my propertyas referenced "our" and "we" on pa e 3? 5—Where did Otak et its data to conclude that the 2.b Stream page 4 "conveys water ... to a natural watercourse off -site to the north that drains to North Lake."? When Doug Gresham visited my property on December 17 he communicated to me that he previously had worked on a watershed study of North Lake and was familiar with the contributory sources. Upon reading the January 3 report, I questioned the reports description as a "natural watercourse" and discussed it with the property owners through which this water flows and they told me it went through culverts and a man channeled watercourse to North Lake. 6—Ifas Otak states " ...there is insufficient evidence to conclude that is was not a. natural drainage course before human modifications." 2.b Stream then is there not insufficient evidence to conclude that it was a natural drainage? The ditch is on the flat top of a natural drainage which water moves north and south and the ditch is much straighter than anything one would find in nature. RECEIVED FEB 0 5 2007 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. Otak Questions, Jan. 29 Page 1 of 3 Greg Fewins - Re: RE: Re: OTAK Report From: Greg Fewins To: Dick Pierson Date: 2/5/2007 4:54 PM Subject: Re: RE: Re: OTAK Report Mr. Pierson: I have forwarded your questions to Doug. I will let you know when I get a response. Greg Fewins >>> "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> 2/5/2007 4:23 PM >>> Attached are my questions. Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 ---- Original Message ----- From: Greg Fewins. To: econoforester@msncorn Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:51 PM Subject: Fwd: RE: Re: OTAK Report Mr. Pierson: Attached is an updated version of Doug Gresham's analysis of your wetland and stream report. A second email provides further explanation of his changes. Let me know if you have any other questions. Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Operations Community Development Services City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 253-835-2611(phone) 253-835-2609(fax) greg Fewins@ci..federal-way.wa.us or, greg.fewins..@c€typfFederalway.com »> "Doug Gresham" <doug.gresham@otak.com> 1/29/2007 11:40 AM >>> Greg, In response to your phone message about the Pierson site, here is what I have done. I revised the memo to address items pointed out by Dick Pierson that were editorial in nature. But it is inappropriate for us to make f e c e e g of c e g e Page 1 of 1 Greg Fewins - Otak Contract Omission From: "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> To: "Fewins, Greg" <greg.fewins@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 1/23/2007 1:32 PM Subject: Otak Contract Omission Greg -- In addition to the technical comments and concerns that I e-mailed and faxed to you on Jan. 19, 1 raise the issue relative to the completion of the contract specifically in "Task Scope 2) Provide written response that determines if the conclusions and recommendations of the wetland determination report prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc. are accurate....". Ecological Solutions, Inc. concludes that "The ditches do not appear to have been streams that were altered and placed in ditches (April 19, 2006, page 2, paragraph 2) to which the Jan. 3, 2007 Otak report responds "...there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it was not a natural drainage course before human modification." (2.b, paragraph 1). 1 do not interpret Otak's statement as one of a accuracy determination, but of data omission and should be at least be clarified in the final report or more desirably supported by data collected on site as part of this contract. Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 f e c e e g of c e g e 101 r u�c i vi Z. Greg Fewins - Re: OTAK Report From: "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> To: "Fewins, Greg"<greg.fewins@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 1/19/2007 4:42 PM Subject: Re: OTAK Report Greg --Perhaps you should be going to the person who signed the contract with Otak, as the author may not be objective in suggested changes to the report? Anyway, attached is an explination of the revised suggested edits which I will fax to you concerning the technical clarification of points related to (1) references,(2) Ecological Solutions, Inc- report representation, and (3) site specific accuracy. I consider the Jan. 3 report a draft for review by the clients for this report including myself. As you and I discussed and I documented in my December 6, 2006 letter to you in the development of this contract, I was very specific in my desire to have the report reference the KC BLA which is the lattest document related to this project. This was not done. Furthermore lack of reference to residential construction of lots A, B and C of the KC BLA were not address either, but I will be willing to overlook that for a review of my suggested' edits. Lack of clarity over lot references will result in the report as written compounding the comprehension of the changes that have occurred between the original wetlands report and the KC BLA as evidenced by confusion in the Otak report- I am requesting a technical review of my suggested edits as clarified in the attach document (Itemization of concers with Otak Jan. 3, 2007 Report Project 30879P) within the scope of our original contract. Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg- Fewins To: Dick Pierson Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:50 PM Subject: Re: OTAK Report Dick- I intend to call Doug Gresham once I receive and fully understand your request. On the finance side, I can probably cut to the chase with him quicker and in terms he can understand from a contract and scope of work standpoint than you can. My objective is to prevent or at least minimize any additional expenses to you. If you talk to him directly, it is likely his hourly clock will be on and running. Greg >>> "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn.com> 1/19/2007 11:57 AM >>> Greg -- I have two thoughts relative to our conversation this AM: -first perhaps I should call Doug Gresham my self and talk to him about Otak considering reviewing my technical concerns within our budget or, -for you to call Otak to ascertain the same? Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. f e c e e g of c e g e 01/19/2007 04:53 1 c� 6 ve) I �.; Dick Pierson -- 2539272236 / RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 01/06 s �c fret", 2- — 7 �`( 7' From: "Dick Pierson" <econoforester@msn,com> To: "Fewins, Greg" <greg.fewin s@cityoffed ere Iway. cc M> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 4A3 PM Attach: Otak comrnents.doc Subject: Re: OTAK Report With Attachment Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 ----- Original Message From, Dick Pierson To: Fewins- Greg Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: Re: OTAK Report Greg --Perhaps you should be going to the person who signed the contract with Otak, as the author may not be objective in suggested changes to the report? Anyway, attached is an explination of the revised suggested edits which I will fax to you concerning the technical clarification of points related to (1) references,(2) ecological Solutions, Inc. report representation, and (3) site specific accuracy. I consider the Jan. 3 report a draft for review by the clients for this report including myself- As you and I discussed and I documented in my December 6, 2006 letter to you in the development of this contract, I was very specific in my desire to have the report reference the KC BLA which is the lattest document related to this project. This was not done. Furthermore lack of reference to residential construction of lots A, B and C of the KC BLA were not address either, but I will be willing to overlook that for a review of my suggested edits. Lack of clarity over lot references will result in the report as written compounding the comprehension of the changes that have occurred between the original wetlands report and the KC BLA as evidenced by confusion in the Ptak report. I am requesting a technical review of my suggested edits as clarified in the attach document (Itemization of concers with Otak Jan. 3, 2007 Report Project 30879P) within the scope of our original contract. Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th St. Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 ----- Original Message From: Greg_Fewins To: Dick Pierson Sent: 1=riday, January 19, 2007 1:50 PM Subject: Re: OTAK Report Dick- I Intend to call Doug Gresham once I receive and fully understand your request. On the finance side, Z can probably cut to the chase with him quicker and in terms he can understand from a contract and scope of work standpoint than you can. My objective is to prevent or at: least minimize any additional expenses to you., If you talk to him directly, it Is likely his hourly clock will be on and running. Greg 1/19/2007 01`/19/2007 04:53 2539272236 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 02/06 Itemization of concerns with Utak Jan. 3 2007 Report, Pro'ect 30879P 1-Reference clarification.... As amended in. City of Federal Way authorization for. this report on Dec. 11, 2006 with refexence to my December 6, 2006 letter empbasizing a focus on. the KC recorded BLA that is not cited in the report. 2-Citation of the report as titled.. 3-Lots A-D axe part of. item 1 above which. needs reference to avoid confusion wi.tb lot lettering in. March 11, 2005 report. 4-Accurate site location of sheds. I personally guided Doug Gresham to the surveyed. comers of the lots on Dec. 17, 2006 that should have made clear the location of the sheds. 5-This reference to Lot C is from the BLA and is an upland lot witb.out a ditch or stream. The ditch or stream on Lot C in the eastern side is from the ,e Ecological Solutions Inc, report of Marcb 2005 and is not the ditch, or stream of issue with the proposed access road. The ditch or stream of issue is called a "ditch" page 4, paragraph 1 in the Ecological Solutions Inc. report, which introduces this sentence. 6-Recognition that the two wetlands were combined .i.n the BLA that followed Ecological Solutions Inc., March. 1 1, 2005 report. 7-As 2 above. S- The area of Category ITT. wetlands is defined and so too should Category III, or both left out. 9-Ecological Solutions, Inc. did not make conclusion about regulations, but dial state, "The ditches do not appear to have streams that were altered and placed in ditches." (Page 2, paragraph 3 of Addendum to March 11, 2005 Wetland Delineation Report). 10, 1.1, 12-As all of these paragrapbs reference the Ecological Solutions, Inc. ,report of March 1.1., 2005, they should accordingly reference the lot delineations in that report. 13-Clarification reference to the document that includes Wetland 3. 14- Communications with FW Surface Water Management Department and landowner through which water drains. 01V19/2007 04:53 2539272236 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 03/06 Technical Memorandum r9161 To; FME�� From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No,: Greg Frevins, Deputy Director, DevEJo1,-.)tnctit Services Pki.ni-di-ig Divi,si.oi-I, City or Federal Way Dou., � C 7kGresham, W&1-,Ln.d fkologisl; Oi�ak, Jic- Janun.tT 3, 2007 Picnov, Properiy Scnsidvc Area,; Net Review 3087913 Asrcque5t.ed by vhc City of Feder-,il Way, Oi:nk conduci:ed n, sim visil: of 1.19.0 Pierson local:cd ,a 351.6 S 336"' Skma, Fcderfll Way, Wnshir.kgto.a (filc #-06-10531:184--0()-AD)- I'lac pti.il?.use of out site a,ries, dot.crunirte. wethitd and streamclnssificxvions, nnd 'risft was to vcrif'y weilwad nnd stream boun d,, ,issess itr.L1?qo-, Frorn t, c. proposed action.. Ti-i 2004, (-.bc applicant Pick Riu-soi-I) undetwo.k.'a boundary Rne adjustment to divide this propertyi 1.-11:0 four lou WhCn..ft ',V-t,9 1,7,7i J-.1-till UI-IiJ-icoi7?or,,i.1;cd King Cou ialy- Nfr' 13ic.1-son pvQJ-.)0qC-'S I-.0 Sell Ili= of (13esc four lot.g, which rcquixes tiroviding drivcwfty -,.Lccess i-Iii-ough cddkal area buffcrs. A pmvix.)us 'Vel1q.11d by'l.kological, Services ideni:05ed d-iree wetla,ndq atad a stre-,um on. the: property based on Kiv.g County 01-ice thisn-ix-a was arme-xed by Ific City ofFedcnlWny, p.1-or.mlion of 1-hesc Ctidc'-d areas rf-'qui-i-c-d compliance -wil]-3 Fcdctal Way Cii.y Code We, mvi mved the flowing d ocuinciats for corksisiv.) cy wi th Federal. Way C47"Oflev7w, Cc):r '05 Fe.1?0415 9 14 0 11, 2005); 617>S&199 k////*YA/,, eo-�r,:�mwlp rop-m-ed by -T I a] 1i n. & Asso6,qtc s Ua d S Urveyi nbc (da �.cdjun C' 20, Re "04 'CL h, 'at /hvptcl?,ired by 'F.colog".ca], SQPvt�. (dn mcl April. 19, 200(), f"041 w /a A�4 M'v-AL Summary 'A13,i9T31CM0J,'1A-1dut-n. Is diviAcd into three sections: (1) b-icirgi.ol.11-0 review; result's of Ilac site visit, "Ll-id (3) proposed bu Efc,17 impn-cf:s nn.d rnitkgation. Sec6orks 2 -w-id 3 include issues fliqt. rnum� be addressed in. futiire. subri-ifit-fls of fhe 1--voic cl:,11ose issues includc; Correct all site ma -)s to show Wcflq.nd.- I and 2 as 9 single -09 oi-y III weflnnd Adth--t. 504boi: buffer, A ju4"-P, A. Z- 0 �L 0 0 3 0 ) ff-cew 0 0 S70 60 2- � ve) I - / WPAy t 06 7 - eA f p4 & u,.o "%'L�J �O'A-N 0�/19/2007 04:53 2539272236 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 05/06 amity. of l?f;der.. Wag, page 1�°rs:iX���..fir.�r-.,!I-r-rrrcc��'�1,�f1•.I�rr�'r:7iy.��r"1�' .Jrr���vr�y.3,, 2O(I:' C;orrcct: a.11 site turps to desigt:tat:c the ditch at; the laortl.,eaa,t: C(..te.r, of the htolicri:y tts a sl.rca,im, ata,d show dae apptopttate huffcr. for either- a major: (100--Feea) oat: rnino.r. (50-feel) strca.m...Provicic; itnforin-ti.on to detetminc whothcr the off site stream that this ditch flows into is rated as a .tnstjor (it miln.nr st.rcam accotding to TWC;C: 22-1. • avide complete Process IV apTslicahoti as specified17clow in Section Be � �O K;,) �¢� �A%Q �'�rfLOO Plef, 'ek � p.,0V� �, l,� I . Results of the Background Review jjt , � A i'lle Picrson propct:t�s is located near Nofth 1. e, ]aetwecin S. 334°I' Strect. and S. 336i' Street. 'Ibis ( ) 3.5C-a rc prnpc;rty is divided it�i o four lots .A tl,rovo D). Lorc.A and 13 cnt,st4ts of a C;l,risl;lnsi4 I:rec C , y sIjp1' firm„�it.plat�ci mixed inresl; and digtttrbcd axcs.s c3camirsated by rsnn-nsitive invasive spEcics. Y.c7t; G contains tipland mixed Col. east, thtec wetlands,;tnrl a strea.tn. I.r}t. D contains the Pierson house, a sel'.1 c drain field, seve•ml sheer, aand iandscaping. Proposed dcvc1c prom.-. of finis property .involvcs consta,�.ctint, I. dtivcuTay frotrt S. 334'I' Street in c,rdcr to prov.icic -access to Tots .A atad B. '.I'his 15-foot-Mride drivcnvay would axtend sough. frorn 9- 33 F'I' S1:rcct aIotz� i:1,c wcstcr.h. hoult.da,ry of i.. of C -,ad t:h.en tu.rt�, Southwest: into T.ot ,/t. "I' ltis driveway would follow,) 20-Foot, wi.C.1e casctnet,t nlotnt; the west: cdgc z'..)f I-A)t C, wl,ilc .uaa.itat:aiuinl; a 5-foot sciback ftrn,a the a.cliacet,t: property. In addition, the souThwest: cornar of Lot C may lac developed �ui.ela dri.v curay access fi oaa, S. 33tV" StLect. ae �e.v i�x � r t 5�`;s t rl'�� A� � �'r••` r � � Ye +� r_ s� 1'J 2005, 'I ?cological 1dc;nl t cart wetlands (de Ogn.atecl as Wcl:la,tad:, 1. tiv:ough 3) and a d �� st'rer�,aloi,g f:lne stele nFlie-,:, '�nese ct7fical aieas wct:e dcscGi.hed it, tl,r.. ,I'i�rr�arr ��/r�Ir/ L7ifrl�r.��on, l {� t i1f�r�Y), !l`:rrlrin4Vnrr PI.Cpa.recl uy .i3cological Solutiot,s- All t:htcc o F t:hcsc wct.l.ancls C P��P� ext:c:t,c1 aff.-sii:e to flipcast:, -.rtc1 tl:tc c�{'f sil:c porl.iosls Weredr.:lillr`-.t:cd by 7',il.;isaca. (.�atnsultatnl:s as OF th.c Chtaclrant: Fr<st: Campus ,ro cct:..Accoid.irig to the Xis ,� County critical area orchnat,.cc: r P l 1 y t:el;uladotis to effect at: dlc: tirne., thole tvcdanc:ls v7crc classified as C at:cgory 2 and the: stn.;I.m ns n Class 3 st:i•umrt_"l'lie Uoundarics R-nd classification f f the wcdatids and stsma n were verifiod by Kin-9 ' %C,ntttt y,fsiFFit? 2+()f14. ,: ) AkA. [ik�t�►�]��t+� i��a AAe a?bPY-1 jeJ "0 LA A%cl e- 6�%,6630 � ( •+� )K t .� 1�7 NC I8r�s4� 6 laJq l0.',..C�S �0.k� aK 2 � 'llCp� S[.Xo 1kL 141� 11La ALe 0*. f d ie..6.Tk �C 77 tY n� l�lO�+ i 1°j �I-.2iH, 6, aft°e.,ml,isxt. az; ;L==cd by the City of 1�cdctal W:cy, r:coingical . s JR-cpared tli� �� (7) r�r���r��rfn �' �P�%r�l�rfar rJ nor Ili 21.rc-Glg-saifted I. -Inc three wetlands and stream N acd.. on Sti go. a*� p c, F�-WC:C. Recording I-.o T�.cological Ste, ut,.cler- FWCC 22-1357(a), Wet.laa16 1 s11o%1Id 11c cIagsi ed C �� as a- C:atz.gnry M wetland with a 5O••foot huffier (hecguse .it 'ts 1artascr than 10,000 square Foot:), wii,i.lc C� Q4*-6•-$ 0- Wetlands 2 a.n�u.id 1 c classified ati Category TU wetlands requiring 25-font bt,.ffct:s crnrrlit,g r� F �Fl>Re+'* to T?cologi N' s,`t tc Ditch at the north end of the prope", which wa.,s .rated as a Class 3 atrearta by ICi.n4 C:ounry, Sloes not meek t:11e dofibiuoti of a strc ntrt in fr17C1(`(: 22-1, , fr�r1 S + AftrMidan rri��,l� e_� rg do H n 4 'Fc� c a vc �]z r,n 24r 500 w PYi< a f 4Y 4%r GiK � �r 1RC C s� �N ."o �� 4f /dl oan . Q Pµ�7v"P�' -3).re5 frj&t11) LC;\hiY,�acY\311fi110\3IIN7SIi'\ Rrlv,rl,,\Pi(%i-pnn1)7_tlt 01M.doa ,01/19/2007 04:53 2539272236 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 04/06 Ciq- at-Tedetal Way 2. Results of the Site Visit page 3 ,2 17, 2006, Dove', G-i-eshmn (.)F 0t.31< collcluctcd "I prot.)CIly t0assess wetlarid and streatri conditiorm Out fisi.dil)gs ft:oin the backgtound .1mviewand site; v1sIt discussed below. ?-.a Wetlands DIII.-ing 0111. site visit, We Ic)c,,1.1-.cd most of tl-j.e wettind flags 1)1.-,i,ced by'.1.1cologi.csl Services. A ,; req ' uivcd by FWCC, 22-1 (Wel'.1m.id De(i.n.ftion), they followed. metbodol.og .7 specified in. t1i.c Uix.(Ji 1997 of1kology pub.ficltioi-1 0, 96-94) to identify Wc(iancls 1. 0a.l.-Ough. 3. We go.l.,mrilly ")gf,c,.e wi..11.1 rhc,1-7.col.ogfcal S, �N)oun air cia 7i.v7 of Wei-alads 1 throue, 5 .1 113. (16 wel.l.alad 1. is located oil Lot yi.n the sok.1thcasc. cor nei. nfthc properly, arl.cl 1.1: extends 01T-sil-c to the 9 - -o a off-git - i ' sue thu is, 0Tj-'jte I .-.)Ortion of this forested wetland is cou.i.i.ected t. C.I.I.UtTafton suc pi.c.domin-Ludy emo.-gr.nr- The combined area. of oil- and off'-s'i'to is 0.5- I'l-ic clorni.rumt: vo.Aw.t-,itioti jncludcs red westorrt and ccdai: rna.ptc 9,almoribetty aiad 910I.T.,gh qcd.,gc. We agree with the 14.cologic-0 I Services claqqiflcifl on a (,.'Wc tland 1 as Cal)V)ry TIT accordii-ig to 1WX 22- 1.357(s) with a buffer width of 50 fect. according to MCC 22-13.57(b)p). () 1 1-7 Wetland 2 is located ork Lot �jrl the S01101 cmtxal povti-o.1.1- of the pr0perty,--,1.ti.c1 it extends off site to the combined -1.1-c"i. C)Fbotli on- "mic.1 C,9tj1m-,.1.tcd at. 8,242 squ,,ix,(: Cccl�- I. he dominant: red m1cler, westarri red cedar, vinciT.1.1ple, mid. slough sedge. Wedand. 2 is directly hydrologically conlic-cl,cd to Wcdai.-Ld I a gi-riall ditch. As aimsult, Wetlands 1, anal 2 com(itutc -,.I singl e wetland. Although dw. bound;.Lry lijac adjusti-ncii I: vmap combined Wet.l.mids, 1 and 2, 1+ic..,--jAWhW11e /* ;11MM7 continvics to identify t1i.cin as two icpo.ratc Wei "I.,grec With. flic Ecological Services cla,;sificadon oCWct:ti.j1c1 2 as Catcgoty ITT ,iccording to FWCC 22-1357(�i). Flowcver, we disagwe vTii-.h a bu ffcj- wid.1-h of 25 feet. assi 'Z I ggn.cd by kco.lopcil Services. Bec-.Lu%c Wcthands 1 and a single C.:,ate.gory TU vved-Ind f. �M7jtl.] a COMbincd arcA �V.wtcv thmi T0,M0 qquarc fixi, the cornbifw-d wetland has q, 1.)uFfer xvidth of 50.f.-cot according I;c).FIWCC 224357(b)(3). - $1 Se�si4m- A,.e, Tvw-� pet. -10 3111, Wottarid 31s on 1L44--'-1'ti tl.,.ke wi�t central portion of 1:11.c. and il: exivi.ds off-sitc to riw cast-,.rhe coimbitied area oFborla on- -mid off site wetland is 5,975 sgij-,Ire foct. Mtho,Ligh this wetland is ringed by trees it is domimited by shrubs anal. ti-mr.efore is prcdoii-.iii�ntely a scrulludes i- cl I der, )6. I. . c cottonwood -VArub wetlanAThe darnin,anij 0 1.,, salmori.lDcrty, hardhack slough sedgo, qnd soft rush VII'm-Ireilow), ,h thmm is q man. -made ditch located. betwee (Is and kv,TKICT�,�Vni 1 4 ., **) otl& -)Y -.r.11ogical, we agree Nvillh t,la.c EcoIckgic.,11 sci-vices classification of Wetland 3 as Catcgoi.T TTTaccordjj),r.r to l-,'W(X.: 22-1357(n),mitli n buffer widt.b of 25 feet. acco.rdin.g ., tof-MU" 22-1.357(b)(3). 11vpmrtq\11icvson07—.1) I aMdcic: O /19/2007 04:53 2539272236 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 06/06 Cav"U--�K City of Fcderal Way �'ensr./r%�.r9ixrcr,/.t'rr�rr�c�'/r�r- PrFi,ro�' 1'rr�r�r/�, P,.t4,C 4. 2.a, I Provide cc,l-rectic» is 01, all site maps to show WetlanCls 1, and. 2, ay .�. slnhlc c rnmUincd u�cl:1A -1 with a 50-foot buffer.. 2_b Stro2,nn f c n dixch ,is lc�eated .in the nort:h.east corner. the property that drains t,nrth to S. 33.�Ftla SttecC.1711rifas? our site visa:, we located host' of the ordi"111 hitil, � '��� ��ags that lead lee» placed nlong Oric banks, of tbis ditcl, by F_�,cologicnl Sem is clt 1s alairnxtrizaeely 17+1 feet long, vs�ties i1:a>n tl,1c e rn cigl,.t feet wide, anal avemgc:s r:?ne font deal.)-'Tlac bankq of the ditch are lined by red alder., 3 ,a,lmnt7l,C.t'cy, llardl,acic, .l iimalayan bla.cl berry (R//AIrrrI1YmmwI nr../�, txailing Mack beA-y .477rilh,}, atacl sword fcl:kt (./'ark%rlrcbs%aIIIIit: appears this dkt i was cxslvated to cilAi>r t;hc ncfxthcrlt etxcl nl' i�+%ve 2) tl,c l�rc5jaerty, bul:.ii: does not". to be hyclrol,ogically car lzcctcd to Wetl2nr] 3. ,c nnsirc ditch is rC d7 is located is, a natural li[umv depression. 1t conveys water season ally througla a Culvert uladesl S. 334`I' Stye L tam r, l-vyate? oursc off -sire Lo tliC 11(vpth that: di-Air,s to Norda Uglte_ This watercotlme is /�c�aY� � eonsWc.red to he a stream. Althouj ii the C)nsit;e depres:uon was cYG'A- ted in t1,e PR- there. 1fi 3 fj►IGS ++ insu.fFiGimt evidence to CoMclude that it',v:1s not a natural dtgan'Agc COU':se before la,<rma+, wti �r1 -toy, modibca.tions. This (Bach was t-ntcci as a. Class 3 itrca.m by i�ingy C.;ourity Senior f='.col.ogtst Greg 1'neL; ��� ! ir, 17rccxaabcr 2[]I�. The l<i-ng Gnunty. Scnyitivc fU:e1v Code c:ffeci:ivc: at: Cl,zt: iimc (KC C 21.A.06.124.0) defined a stxram. as `rJrYrmrlr.•Airr•'.a'wrrli %vii�� C.orun� r�'.G"Yl�.rl/lf".ur,� zu�/rfY'fJln�Isr. or5�1rhWd'E%l0llAclnr/r•// irl/rnr./rAlej �a Irr&w,, v elrlrk4,r•r, rssr�air, .rdirll�nr.rvlfar I,�vl�rrlri�rr%fdcr er.,roro//rrPr•�•i �j�drx' rr�/ ��rznrr.�ar, rvlll�r:r,rl�+r�ixrrrr�Ir�•.ra.�iiarira.'ro�vrr, irkrl�omtl��°�rl�rlerr•�r./m�//���ziiivrn�fir�nl•�oti�irr.4r.�,cunr�rr> We disagrcc with L+cologicnl netv'M' conclusion tli-at 1;1-iis ditcha does nor, rneet: tl,.c de:6ta.itiota, of a stream according to .I "WCC 224, whicl, dcftnes n st:tea.1. M. 'ds "Jri�rm iJJP.i�Ar it �nrrrrr �r rnrr/r•, fir />y.cro11^ ilr�iIA'r IAd,Al"Inr /rr..r'wwmlI /m r�Il ,�clrcFW* �00,17 rn��fri�r,Gr���rI �G r✓ /�°r� �r.�,1Hr ��.,it/rrI/m Fxrii�.ru/>.rtnillrrrf rr/✓i rd�,{r��, rr�n.��o �r�xr,G.rI��irI.a�.r�irrJrl.rr.Ir���marlrrot.�I.I,�_/lbwxIr �arrrr.rr.��C• jrnv�.G.�.Gc.-fi� /rru�n�xlcl�r�rinr .,.:� ,rtrrr�Ill nr�dA�>•rnll/ter,. ,urrl,�;t�i�i•>nriir�' !� �r a�Iafiin,� ,�/�r�� .r�ir.,orrfr��� Irlri irr all�r�'r r�r•I�iap /� r./rJ/11h:'Irl�lJlr�'�7!/ryrlc ski.:C:'/Ir'O/Ilrr'r7"��rrl�b�Iryrr,�rrrn�.7%rr-dr�Irlrsrl,r;r•rla�'nr�°r�Ir��i�.�fr�r'Nr�r rrrr rltinn r�rrrfii r, ,rinsrir /��r' vlr/r r oI ri//�I rliY��ia�.I�r�re.xblm. rrrlr/ rr r/ �irr I/-ir gv or.,rrWnJ al r!J/Pr�1/Jr7Jrr.ra%lltallir%�r,%J, OPl�'f��,GOIr• rryi, I•tllirf/Jbas'rrfrlrnn�Irrrrl/IYJ�,Yr7°rAP!>.rl��>i.� PnyrXrr�IkiJ1 /iJ MII,rrl!/�it/d/r �9��I1,C7�fr'JMr�YJ1i>.ra: » 1.0h,as fa.ot bean dct:cl-mita.cd w11c0.1e1, the ditch is 1. tted as a. ma.jol: or init7or strCam (1-7 WCC 22-1), AJlbo►:i& we agree ihat: this ditch i5 tiot ui:ilimd by atlad.rc?lnous flsh, tl, a1-cl.e.): to cl-L a fy ,is a t-n in�t slxcam, it rnL)st l?e CiC1:C:1:tY1i.?,ed I:hat: a ftSLLUra1.1.17i.grlti,on l?a1°Tier occurs dowastcesuaa o£ tl,c 1?l c.�perty- 7--b-1---�11rovid.e infcirinadon to deter?i'►ille whether the of&sitc stream. that this di,tcia flows into :is r-aivc1 as a m.a.jot or rnirior Gt1:C'-1M according 22-1. Correct. all siCc na:lps to des.is,lla:te elte K:\Pmjrci\31)£it)fl\3tiR77P11t<qu�cl:R\PIL`TR011O�_01 U:�M,r.lnr. Pierson Wetland Delineation King County, Washington Prepared for Mr. Dick Pierson King County, Washington March 11, 2005 2005-001 Prepared by cio ECOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4013 32°d Ave. W, Seattle, WA 98199 ecologicalsolutions@seanet.com (206) 285-3015 Azt lm'tk�� Scott Luchessa Certified Ecologist, M.S. CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 2 Site Conditions 4 METHODS 5 RESULTS 6 Broad-leaved Deciduous Forest 6 Broad-leaved Deciduous Shrub 9 Evergreen Forest 12 Wetland and Stream Functions 12 Potential Impacts of Proposed BLA 13 CONCLUSIONS 14 Limitations 14 REFERENCES 15 FIGURES 1 Site vicinity map 3 2 Surveyed wetland boundaries 9 TABLES 1 Summary of wetland determination data and classifications 11 APPENDIX A METHODS APPENDIX B DATA FORMS APPENDIX C SITE PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX D OFFSITE WETLANDS Ecological Solutions March 11, 2005 2005-001 INTRODUCTION At your request, Ecological Solutions has completed a jurisdictional wetland determination of your property located in unincorporated King County, Washington (Figure 1). This property is located in the SW 1/4 of the SW'/4 of Section 15, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. The property consists of four tax parcels (614360-0650; 614360-0657; 614360-0450; and 614360-0451). Your existing house and septic drainfield are located on lot 614360-0650, which is 0.76 acre. As you are aware, a wetland reconnaissance was conducted by me on this site in February 1996. My preliminary wetland determination at that. time was that there were two forested wetlands, one on parcel 614360-0657 and another on the two, smaller, northerly parcels (614360-0450 & 614360- 0451). These conclusions were drawn primarily on observations of only one of the required three jurisdictional parameters, hydrophytic vegetation. The purpose of this current investigation was to delineate the boundaries of any jurisdictional wetlands to assist with your boundary line adjustment (Application No. L041,0030), which was submitted to King County in 2004 before the revisions to the Critical Ateas Ordinance were adopted. As part of this study, Ecological Solutions examined the proposed boundary line adjustment (BLA) and correspondence, from King County to help determine what BLA would be likely to result in the least impact to existing sensitive areas (wetlands and streams). A copy of Mr. Greg Poels' response to your initial proposed boundary line adjustment (BLA) dated May 19, 2004 was provided and reviewed. Mr. Poels' letter dated December 28, 2004 and addressed to you notes that there are no wetlands on the parcel upon which your existing house is located. He also indicated there were two Class 3 streams and a forested wetland complex associated with a stream. - These sensitive areas are found within the eastern third of the site (i.e., on parcels 614360- 0657; 614360-0450; and 614360-0451). Mr. Poels indicated that the ditch on the "panhandle" (parcels 614360-0450; and 614360-0451), which conveys intermittent flows through a concrete pipe beneath South 334th Street, was a Class 3 stream and estimated about 75% of the remainder of the panhandle area was forested wetland. He also noted that an assessment on the potential BLA can only be made after the wetland boundaries have been delineated and verified. Ecological Solutions agrees with Mr. Poels' assessment that sensitive areas are confined to the eastern third of the site. Sampling completed for this investigation focused on these areas. Although no sample plots were established in more westerly portions of parcel 614360-0657, hand auger borings completed in this area confirmed Alderwood gravelly sandy loam soils (a nonhydric soil) were present and these areas were upland forest. In addition, there were no positive -indicators of wetland hydrology observed in more westerly areas. Ecological Solutions 2 2005-001 March 11, 2005 Site Conditions It is clear that there have been some hydrological, soil, and vegetation alterations to the site from historic and existing land use, particularly logging and more recent development. These have contributed to more rapid delivery of water from developed areas to the west and east to the series of shallow depressions on the site. The unusual and irregular topographic shape of the depressions that have developed wetland vegetation (see surveyed wetland boundaries and Appendix B soil horizon data) suggest that existing wetlands may have developed at least in part from historic logging activities. Topographic alterations, including apparently excavated drainages and alteration to soil structure appear to have altered the hydrology, including the frequency, duration, and timing of inundation. A ditch excavated in the deciduous forest in the northern panhandle portion carries surface water north through a concrete pipe. This has been identified as an intermittent stream by the county as noted above. After several days of heavy precipitation, water levels in portions of the ditch changed noticeably. On January 18, following more than 2.4 inches of rain over the previous 24 hours. (as recorded at Sea-Tac International Airport), there was some surface water towards the north end of the ditch and a trickle of water flowing through the concrete culvert beneath S 334t' Street. Though there was saturation to the surface and water at a depth of about 2 to 3 inches below the ground surface in the ditch, there was no surface water in the southern two-thirds of this feature. After approximately another 0.9 inch of rain on January 18 (as recorded at Sea-Tac), approximately 2 to 3 inches of water was observed in the southern portion of the ditch and the flow through the culvert was similar to the day before. Higher flow rates, at least at observed water levels, appear to be prevented by the irregular topography in the ditch, which causes any surface water to have to filter through accumulated leaf and fine woody debris. Based on observations made in 1996 as well as Mr. Fels' more recent observations, it is clear that surface water flows from this drainage north into Lake are intermittent. KpAt.of the site appears to drain south towards Lake Killarney (see Figure 1) through a series of shallow depressions some of which are connected by narrow channels and swale-like drainages. Some turbid water was observed in offsite depressions near the eastern boundary of the site and delineated wetlands possibly from recently clearing on Quadrant's East Campus South Residential development to the east. Approximately half to more than a foot of inundation was observed in the most northerly depression. A narrow (<1 foot), ditch -like channel appears to have been excavated in uplands in between two wetlands (Wetlands 2 and 3) on the eastern portion of the site in an attempt to help drain these features. However, there is no apparent connection to the northern wetland or evidence of surface water flow between this wetland and the wetland/stream complex that conveys surface water off this site to the south. Other drainage alterations likewise are apparent in the two more southerly wetlands. There are a couple of cuts (channels) in the central wetland (Wetland 2). One is a linear feature about four feet wide in approximately level ground that may have connected two separate depressional 4reas and been an attempt to drain these areas. A small channel near the south end of this wetland was observed to carry flows into a small grass -lined, sw#ltlike drainage near the southeast corner of the site. On January 18 the wetted width of this channel',_ Which connects the more central wetland h Ecological Solutions 4 2005-001 March 11, 2005 (Wetland 2) to the wetland that is predominantly offsite to the south (Wetland 1), were flagged. Flow through this cutlswale-like channel was estimated to be about 0.25 cubic feet per second on January 19. This was about half the flow observed on January 18. There was no flow more recently on March 10. In addition, there is a ditch that joins Wetland 1. This ditch reportedly picks up stormwater runoff from recent residential development to the west of the site. At the'time of this investigation water was observed flowing from the concrete pipe beneath the existing driveway (near Photograph 1 in Appendix C). This water was conveyed directly to the wetland in the southeast corner of the site. Most of this wetland is off site on the adjacent properties to the south and east. Offsite portions of this and the other two wetlands on the site were delineated by Talasaea Consultants (Talasaea) as part of Quadrant's East Campus project. Talasaea identified five separate lobes of Wetland B and likewise concluded that these wetlands were hydrologically connected by ditches. Drainage from Wetland B reportedly travels through a ditch lacking contiguous hydric soils to a larger forested wetland offsite that was identified by Talasaea as Wetland C (Appendix D). Neither the King County Wetland Inventory or the National Wetland Inventory (Poverty Bay QuA1ge 1987) maps covering this area identify any wetlands on the site. METHODS Ecological Solutions' used the Routine Determination method described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) to determine whether any wetlands exist on the eastern third of the site. Sample plots were established in representative vegetation types in -topographic depressions and adjacent areas that were slightly higher. A more detailed discussion on the methods used to determine the presence or absence of each wetland criterion is presented in Appendix A. A total of eight sample plots (SP-1, SP-2, SP-3 through SP-8) were established by Ecological Solutions in the various vegetation cover types observed on the site. The predominant vegetation cover type consists of early successional broad-leaved deciduous forest associations d(bininated by red alder (Alnus rubra) or a combination of red alder and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. Trichocarpa). Six sample plots (SP-1 through SP-6) were established in variants of this broad-leaved deciduous forest type or red alder association. One sample plot (SP-8) was established in a small stand of mature western red cedar (Thuja plicata). The last sample plot (SP-7) was established in one of the topographic depressions, which is covered by a deciduous shrub - dominated vegetation types or shrub association. All sample plots were marked with white flagging labeled SP-1, SP-2, SP-3 and so on. In addition to test pits, soils were examined with hand auger borings, particularly in areas with gradual elevation gradients where wetland boundaries were determined by presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology rather than hydrophytic vegetation, which is present throughout most of the study area. All sample plot data were recorded on Routine Determination forms (Attachment B). Photographs of wetland and upland vegetation types are included in Appendix C. The aerial photo shown on the cover of this report taken in 2002 and downloaded from the King County iMap website Ecological Solutions 5 2005-001 March 11, 2005 (http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/iMAP—main.htin) also shows the vegetation cover types on the four parcels. RESULTS The vegetation, hydrology, and soils observed in each of the vegetation. cover types are described in this section. For the deciduous forest -cover type (red alder association), these are subdivided into wetland and upland. As noted above, most of the study area along the eastern third of the. site is characterized by the various broad-leaved deciduous forest cover types composed predominantly of red alder or a mixture of red alder and black cottonwood. Stand age and cover is variable but primarily even aged. Canopy cover ranges from more or less closed with relatively well developed understory associations of native plants to more open will lawn -like or more poorly developed understory associations consisting of a mixture of native and non-native plants. As shown in the site photographs, much of the red alder is mature with the exception being the younger -aged stand in the panhandle portion of the site. The other, more minor cover types sampled included a mature western red cedar type in the panhandle and a deciduous shrub -dominated association found in the depressional areas. Broad-leaved Deciduous Forest Of the:six sample plots established in the red alder associations, one sample plot (SP-1) met all three jurisdictional wetland parameters and the five others met one or fewer of the required parameters. While most of the red alder associations sampled met the hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation criterion), most did not meet the wetland hydrology or hydric soils criteria. As described in the following sections, -there were clear patterns in the hydrology and soils between the wetland and upland deciduous forest types in this cover type. Wetland Type Only the sample plot (SP-1) established near the southeast corner of the site is a wetland cover type. Red alder, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum) were the dominant species. Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana), western red cedar, and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) also were present. Because more than 50% of the dominant plants had facultative (FAC) wetland indicator statuse.!& the hydrophytic vegetation criterion was met. Off site to the south, there appears to have bew,recent restoration or possibly compensatory mitigation done within this wetland. Slough sedge (Carex obnupta) was observed in areas containing more and deeper surface water. The sample plot is located near the head of a shallow depression close to the S 336th Street right-of- way. At the time of this investigation there was approximately 0.5 inch of standing water where the soils were examined. More than a foot of standing water was observed in deeper portions of the depression to the south near the property corner. Wetland drainage patterns, water marks, drift lines, Ecological Solutions 6 2005-001 March 11, 2005 sediment deposits, and water -stained leaves also were observed in this location. Saturation to the surface, inundation, and several other positive indicators of wetland hydrology were present. Soils, though technically hydric, were transitional and exhibited characteristics of more upland areas. Because of the inundation and saturation, soils were sampled with a hand auger. The surface horizon consisted of approximately 12 inches of very dark gray (10YR 3/1) gravelly sandy loam. Beneath this, the B horizon from 12 to more than 16 inches was a dark grayish brown (IOYR 4/2) to grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) sandy loam. Because the low chroma in the surface horizon extended to a depth of more than 10 inches, the hydric soil criterion was met. The apparent absence of redoximorphic features in the subsurface horizon suggests that there is not prolonged saturation or inundation and thus soils are more upland like in this regard. This is not unexpected considering that the surface topography is approximately a foot higher than lower -lying portions of the depression and the upland boundary is nearby (Figure 2). This association is part of Wetland 1, most of which is offsite to the south. The on site portion of the delineated wetland includes the lower end of the ditch that begins at the outlet of the pipe beneath the Pierson's existing driveway. The total area of all of the wetlands, including the offsite portion delineated by Talasaea is estimated to be no more than perhaps 22,000 square feet (-0.5 acre). Per King County's old sensitive areas code (KCC 21A.24), forested wetlands would be considered Class 2 systems, which typically require a 50-foot buffer. Buffer averaging also may be allowed subject to applicable provisions, which include having the same total amount of wetland buffer on the site compared to pre-BLA conditions. Upland Type Five sample plots (SP-2 through SP-6) were considered upland red alder or broad-leaved deciduous cover types. Two variants of this cover type were observed and distinguished based on canopy cover: more or less open and more closed. This cover type tends to be located on ground that is afoot or more above the ground surface in the adjacent topographic depressions where wetlands are located. Red alder and black cottonwood are the dominant trees, but there is also scattered western red cedar present. Although there are a few mature specimens of western red cedar, most are sapling or pole - sized specimens. SP-2 and SP-3 are examples of a more open canopy type beneath which are managed understory associations that are lawn like. Trees are rooted on adjacent hummocks and the dominant species in these areas included red alder, black cottonwood, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris). The more closed canopy association (SP-4, SP-5, and SP-6) had similar understory dominants. Other dominants sometimes observed beneath the more closed canopy included vine maple (Acer circinatum), sword fern, and Robert's geranium (Geranium robertianum). Except for SP-5, more than 50% of the dominant plants in this association contained species with FAC or FAC+ wetland indicator statuses and the vegetation was considered hydrophytic. Species with FACU and UPL indicator statuses are common suggesting that the soils are relatively well drained. Not surprisingly considering the higher topographic position where this upland type is found, strong indicators of wetland hydrology are absent. Despite more than 2.5 to 3.5 inches of precipitation over Ecological Solutions 7 2005-001 March 11, 2005 the three days immediately preceding the site investigation, depth to standing water in the test pits was six or more inches below the surface after more than five minutes. In addition, the many other indicators of wetland hydrology present in the wetland type; including water marks, drift lines, drainage patterns, and water stained leaves were absent. Except for SP-2 and SP-3, which were located in lower -lying areas near the channel connecting Wetland 1 and Wetland 2, depth to saturated soils also was more than six inches. Although saturation to the surface was observed to the surface in SP-1 and SP-3, this was a reflection of the recent heavy precipitation and proximity to the intermittent channel, topographic position, and very porous nature of the gravelly sandy loam soils. Although saturation to the surface was observed in SP-2 and SP-3, the structure, texture, and color of soils and lack of other positive indicators the conclusion was that it is very unlikely wetland hydrology is present for sufficient duration (at least 30 consecutive days) to meet the wetland hydrology criterion in any of these areas. As noted above, soil structure, texture, and color are indicative of nonhydric soils. Except for SP-6, the soils in both the more open and more closed variants of this cover type closely resembled an Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, which is the map unit identified for the site (Snyder et al., 1973). The soils in SP-6 also resembled the mapped Alderwood gravelly sandy loam type but were slightly different than the others containing a loam texture and a different B horizon. The thickness of the surface horizon was somewhat variable consisting of five to eight inches of very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) gravelly sandy loam. Beneath this was a subsurface horizon of brown (1 OYR 4/3) to dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) very gravelly,. gravelly, or sandy loam to a depth of more than 16 inches. There were no redoximorphic features (e.g., mottles, soft masses, or concretions). Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is a nonhydric soil. The profile of SP-6 included a B 1 and B3 horizon. The B 1 horizon consisted of a very dark brown (1OYR 2/2) loam from about 6 to 12 inches. A B3 horizon of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) to olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) subtended this from 12 to more than 16 inches. Medium-sized, distinct, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) mottles were common in this lowermost horizon in SP-6. Mottles in the B3 horizon were below 12 inches. In addition, soils appear to be effectively drained by the nearby ditch and the mottles may be relicts. At any rate, mottles below a depth of 12 inches in the third horizon do not meet the hydric soil criterion. Although the hydrophytic vegetation criterion was met in some of the sample plots, none had clear positive indicators of wetland hydrology or hydric soils. Because all three parameters were not met, all of the sampled open and more closed canopy variants of this red alder association were considered upland. Broad-leaved Deciduous Shrub Broad-leaved deciduous shrub associations are found in Wetland 2 and Wetland 3. SP-7 is representative of this cover type in Wetland 3. Although trees cover about 50% of the sample plot, these are typically rooted at or upslope of the wetland boundary. However, the canopy extends out over the small depression where the shrub association is found. Except in the deepest seasonally inundated areas, shrub cover is relatively dense -and composed almost entirely of spiraea (Spiraea douglasii) and salmonberry. All of the dominant plants have FAC or wetter indicator statuses and the vegetation is hydrophytic. Ecological Solutions 8 2005=001 March 11, 2005 3 S:5 TH AVE. S•. 's STONE MON j S SHORT PLAT D. PER ED NEW LOT BOUNDARIES •'�� UNDER A.F.7408280525 Imp & REPLACED BY CONC. z MON PER ROS RECORDED I UNDER A.F.9705229011. 30, — 272.78' 200.03' �^ N 01"04'32" E N 01'04'32" E Q. Fqi c5o DRAINFIEL 3 = W 70 0 CMOi V 3 LOT 'A' � r---� � p LOT D L j ; ; 35846 S.F.+ — — 19419 BY.+/— �. � 2 � 0.02 x i I Z 0.45 ACR83 1 I " z Lj I 15 �, / 15.08 200.03, rn• p�� 230.70' J N 01'04'29- E N 01'04'32' E V 11 cmv---------------r-------J W) �i i N INGRESS/EGRESS & UTILITY EASEMENT TO BENEFIT L'1T_ 3 N , � I LOT C V' 270.52' N 01'04'29' E t LOT ' B' a y 0. ►® 304140 S.F.+/— PHbTD P�11� f� 1 � 0.05 AM WETLAND BUFFER LINE 200.00' So.I iiAf p AA! A19 3 N 02'02'59" E I� P2'�f A�, _ RA AA o o e���� AA17 ID�ANo $SENSITIVE AREAS a N b5 Ao AA3 Aj H 38� AA20 Z5 1 wSPB 6 W 0 VE MERIDIAN USED FOR THI5 SURVEY IS BASED ON THE I. KING COUNTY CPS CONTROL - SURVEY VALUES AS VERIFIED rn p; BETWEEN THE HAWN & ASSOCIATES BASE STATION HA1 & m THE KING COUNTY REFERENCE STATION 5981. HAT. WAS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED INDEPENDENTLY FROM NGS AND WSDOT STATE GPS CONTROL STATIONS. THE RESULTNVG MERIDIAN IS NAD 83-91. LEGEND *'SET 1/2' X 24' REBAR ATH PLASTIC IDENTIFICATION W CAP UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. o � 05 ao N 30' I 30' 210.00' GU LYZAT I • N 02'02'59' E rE� CT sfe _ D5 i AA4 AA 5 I,BS AA11 AA12 I I 1� m rn Z$ Z9 ZI 1oa Y � D A4 1 } AA15 AA16 z Z6 WETLAND 3"07 S.F.+ — 1 A3 W E)-L141� / 1 A14 WESTERN EDGE AA2i S 4 Z3 Z23 ZZ2 S Zi 0.91 JCR S 6 :r1 I !3 oI� N'r nlm m IZ 1 I AA13 267.89'.• . OF WETLAND 2 AA22 Z4 Z2 Z Z 5���LP,Nr3 S 01'04'25" W AA23 2025" gd Z1 S 01'04'25• w zZa, Z14 Bax1N€>AIZIES 8.17' 87'57'01" W ST2ERM BUFFER ry <fq- to D4 3 D2 DB D9 D10 T nil g s-rREAM BUFFER _ 210.00' S 02'02'59" W ESM FD. MON' PER ROS RECORDED UNDER A.F.9705229011, ALSO FD. ESM FD. MON PER ROS RECORDED PER SADLER BERNARD SHORT PLAT ESM CALCULATED PER ROS RECORDED UNDER XF,9705229011, ALSO FD. RECORDED UNDER A.F.7408280525 UNDER A.F.9705229011, ALSO CALC'D. AND LOCATED BY KING COUNTY AND LOCATED BY KING COUNTY BY K.C.CONTRO . SURVEY 1995. HAWN & CONTROL SURVEY 1995. HAWN & CONTROL SURVEY 1995. HALUN & ASSOCIATES HELD THE COUNTY ASSOCIATES HELD THE COUNTY ASSOCIATES HELD THE COUNTY NAD 83-91 POSITION FOR THIS NAD 83-91 POSITION FOR THIS NAD 83-91 POSITION FOR THIS SURVEY. SURVEY. SURVEY. --N,4 2628.65:—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—. 2637.45'—..—..—..—... ..—,. N 01'05'11" E S 01'05'11" W — — REFERENCE c 30' 1 30' NOTES EASEMENTS COVENANTS SURV YS &PZ�AT� 1. LOTS C & D SHALL NOT HAVE ACCESS FROM SOUTH 1. THE UNRECORDED PLAT OF NORTH LAKE SHORELANDS. AND RESTRICTIONS 334TH STREET. 2. THE PLAT OF HENSELL'S FIRST A00N., VOL. 79, PG, 33. .- 2. LOTS A, B, C AND D SHALL BE PROVIDED ACCESS TO 3. KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NC.674070, AS RECORDED UNDER A.F.7408280525 1. NOTICE OF TAP OR CONNECTION CHARGES BY FEDERAL WAY WATER & SE' 4. SADLER BARNARD RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER A.F.901108900a AS RECORDED UNDER A.F.8905120210. SOUTH 338TH STREET.. 5. CENTRE POINT SURVEYING RECORD OF SURVEY' RECORDED UNDER A.F.20030311900024. 2. EXCEPTIONS AND RESERVATIONS REGARDING OIL, GAS, COAL,ETC. AS RECI 3. THE SURVEY INSTUMENTATION USED TO CONDUCT THIS B. PATRICK LEIGH RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER A.F,9508099003. UNDER A.F,211C,822. SURVEY WAS A LEICA TCRA PLUS ROBOTIC TOTAL STA. 7. ESM RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER A.F.9007259006. 3. ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND EASEMED & ASHTEC SINGLE FREQUENCY CPS RECEIVERS. THE 8. SADLER BARNARD. RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER A.F.8807139003. DISCLOSED BY; SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER A.F.7408280525. RESULTING POSITIONS MEET OR EXCEED THE REQUIRE RENTS 9. SADLER BARNARD RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER A,F.9209049007. 4, EXTENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH WATER DISTRICT #124 AS RECORDED OF WAC-332-130-090. CONTROWNG MOMS WERE VISITED 10.SADLER BARNARD RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER A.F.8704C99024. UNDER A.F.74.11060364, MAY, 2004 & FEBRUARY, 2005. 11.ESM RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER A.F.9705229011. Table 1. Summary of wetland determination data and wetland classifications. Sample Plot Vegetation Hydrology Soils Wetland Determination/ Classificationl King County Buffer 1 Hydrophytic Yes Hydric PF01C (Wetland 1) 50 feet mineral Class 2 2 Hydrophytic No Nonhydric Upland Deciduous mineral Forest - 3 Hydrophytic No Nonhydric Upland Deciduous mineral Forest 4 Hydrophytic No Nonhydric Upland Deciduous mineral Forest 5 Non- No Nonhydric Upland Deciduous hydrophytic mineral Forest 6 Hydrophytic No Nonhydric Upland Deciduous mineral Forest 7 Hydrophytic Yes Hydric PSS/FO1C (Wetland 3) 2 50 feet mineral Class 2 8 Non- Yes Nonhydric Upland Evergreen hydrophytic mineral Forest ' Wetland classification follows Cowardin et al. 1979. King County rating per KCC 21A.24 2 Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 are very similar in vegetation structure consisting primarily of scrub -shrub vegetation. Most trees are located on the margins and appear to be rooted outside of the wetlands; it seems unlikely that there is 30% cover of trees rooted in these wetlands. Multiple positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed in the depression where the sample plot was established. In addition to inundation, there are water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and water stained leaves. Therefore, the wetland hydrology criterion was met. Soils could not be precisely catalogued because of the amount of inundation, which caused caving of the test pit. Instead a hand auger was used. The surface horizon to a depth of approximately 10 inches consisted of a very dark gray (10YR 3/1) silt loam with common, medium to coarse, and distinct yellow (1 OYR 7/6) and dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 3/4) mottles. Below this was a very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) sandy loam. Common, medium to coarse, and distinct yellow and dark yellowish brown mottles also were present in the subsurface horizon. The thickness of this layer is uncertain. It appears that these depressions may have been created by excavation of the surface soils. Nonetheless, sub, soils with a chroma of 2 and mottles are considered hydric. Since all three parameters were met, this is a scrub -shrub wetland vegetation class. Although it is appears unlikely that deciduous trees rooted in the wetland form at least 30% areal cover, this wetland (Wetland 3) as well as Wetland 3 were classified as PSS/FO1C using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's classification system. The shrub association in Wetland 2 includes arborescent specimens of vine maple (Acer circinatum). Ecological Solutions 10 2005-001 March 11, 2005 Evergreen Forest The last sample plot (SP-8) was established in a low-lying area within a small stand of mature western red cedar to the north of the ditch on the north part of the site. This association contained a mixture of native and non-native and invasive plants. Dominant plants were western red cedar, a tree tentatively identified as some sort of plum (Prunus sp.), salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, Robert's geranium, and common periwinkle (Vinca minor). Because only 33% of the dominants had FAC or FAC+ wetland indicator statuses, the vegetation is non-hydrophytic, Because of the recent heavy rainfall, the soil was saturated at a depth of 8 inches, and there was standing water in the test pit at 10 inches. Other that the saturation, there were no other positive indicators of wetland hydrology. The surface topography is at least a foot higher than the bottom of the adjacent ditch. It is assumed that observed saturation does not persist to the surface for sufficient duration (30 consecutive days) to meet the wetland hydrology criterion. The predominantly FACU and UPL plants supports this assumption. Soils beneath the mature trees contain a surface horizon of black (I OYR 2/1) loam. This layer is approximately twelve inches thick and appears to contain a lot of organic matter. The B horizon consists of more than 4 inches of dark grayish brown (1 OYR 4/2) to olive brown (I OYR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam. There are few to common, fine to medium, and distinct yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) mottles in the subsurface horizon. A matrix with a chroma of 1 immediately below the A horizon or at 10 inches, whichever is less, is a positive indicator of hydric soil. Because only one of the three parameters was met, this cover type is upland forest. Hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology are lacking. Stream Classification As noted by Senior Ecologist Greg Poels, there appear to be two streams on the site. A ditch that appears to have been excavated on the northern -most portion of the site carries intermittent flow northward to North Lake. A second, intermittent drainage connects Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 and carries seasonal flows southward towards Lake Killarney. This Swale -like drainage, which is covered by grasses, is demarcated in Figure 2 by flags AA7 through AA11 and B1 through B5. There is no contiguous hydric soil connecting the two wetlands. Although it is unclear whether the ditch and. swale-like drainage meet the county's definition of Class 3 streams, Ecological Solutions concurs with Mr. Poels that these intermittent drainages do not provide fish habitat. Because they are intermittent and do not support salmonids, they have been considered Class 3 streams. As noted in Mr. Poels' letter, Class 3 streams typically require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland and Stream Functions Wetlands on the site appear to provide low to moderate levels of all functions. Although adjacent upland forests are becoming increasing fragmented because of increasing development, the mature Ecological Solutions 11 2005-001 March 11, 2005 upland forest vegetation east of the site together with the structure of wetland vegetation and proximity of the wetlands to one another appear to provide moderate habitat for small mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Hydrologic and water quality functions appear to be relatively low considering landscape position, small size of the wetlands, isolation (Wetland 3 only), and limited opportunity to remove pollutants. As the uplands areas around these wetlands continue to be developed, it appears that the hydrologic support functions of these interconnected wetlands and streams are being diminished. Potential Impacts of Proposed BLA The BLA will not have any direct impacts to any sensitive areas, but could potentially contribute to indirect impacts in the future, depending on where an easement is located. Indirect impacts may arise from removal of adjacent buffers. Although there does not appear to be any surface water runoff through existing buffers to the wetlands, selection of an access route (north vs. south) could encroach on existing buffers of both wetlands and the intermittent stream on the northern part of the site. The existing buffer along the west side of existing Lots A and B is a mixture of non-native, invasive, and native plants. Much of the vegetation consists of an early seral pioneer, deciduous red alder association. Immature red alder generally forms the canopy beneath which is salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and hedge bindweed (Convolvulus sepium) [see the right side of Photograph 9 in Appendix C]. The southern part of a northern access road alignment includes a small stand of mature western red cedar. As shown on Figure 2, the width between the stream buffer and northern property boundary is less than 20 feet in a couple of places. Thus some buffer encroachment would be likely. In addition, it is likely that at least a couple of the five mature red cedar be removed to construct an access road from S 334t' St. Assuming a southerly access could be located between the existing raised beds and mixed deciduous and coniferous forest (see Photograph 2 in Appendix C), there may be fewer habitat impacts and no buffer encroachment. Depending on the location and configuration of a south access road, it is likely that the mature black cottonwood trees and some pole -sized conifers would be removed to construct the new road (see Photographs 3 and 5 in Appendix Q. In addition, a south access would reduce the value of the existing residence by reducing privacy. Although the south access may not encroach on sensitive area buffers, neither a north or a south access appears likely to have adverse affects on existing sensitive area functions. There is a similar level of habitat fragmentation adjacent to both the wetlands and the northern stream (ditch). So, even with some potential minor encroachment on the stream buffer with a north access route, it seems unlikely that the apparently low level of function would be changed. By contrast, the existing lot layout, if developed would likely have both direct and indirect impacts on both Wetland 3 and the Class 3 stream. This assumes that some sort of single family residence could be permitted through a reasonable use exception process because the two northerly lots are legal lots. Ecological Solutions 12 2005-001 March 11, 2005 CONCLUSIONS There are portions of three wetlands on the site. All of the wetlands appear to be Category 2, which typically require a 50-foot buffer. A drainage Swale joins Wetland 1 in the southeast corner with Wetland 2. Intermittent flows from these appear to provide hydrologic support to a series of wetlands to the south (see Appendix D). Wetland 3 is an isolated wetland, which is just south of proposed Lot C. The buffer of the Class 3 stream (ditch) on the north portion of the site overlaps a portion of the buffer of Wetland 3. The unvegetated ditch carries intermittent flows to North Lake. The proposed BLA would result in a lot configuration that would likely reduce potential future development impacts on sensitive areas and their buffers. Limitations Work for this project was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Mr. Dick Pierson as it pertains to the referenced property. All findings with respect to sensitive areas determinations, classifications, and buffer requirements are preliminary and subject to verification by all appropriate regulatory agencies, including King County. Wetland and stream classifications are interpretations of existing codes based on review of those codes and past experience. King County DDES makes the final decisions and are the ultimate authority on all code interpretations within their jurisdiction. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Ecological Solutions 13 March 11, 2005 2005-001 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Publication FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, DC Ecology (see Washington State Department of Ecology) Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and RX. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey: King County Area, Washington. U.S.. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94, Olympia. Available online at b=://www.egy.wa.govlbiblio/9694.htm1. Ecological Solutions 14 2005-001 March 11, 2005 METHODS OF DETERMINING WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS. AND CLASSIFICATION WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS Unless an area is a problem area or atypical situation, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1997) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps 1987) require that the following three characteristics be present for an area to be identified as a wetland: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soil, and (3) wetland hydrology. The following subsections detail the methods used to determine whether these characteristics are present on site. Hydrophytic Vegetation To detennine whether an area has hydrophytic vegetation, the dominant plant species in each representative plant community are identified. Ecological Solutions uses the method described in the 1989 Federal Manual for Wetland Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (FICWD 1989) to determine the dominant plants in each stratum (tree, shrub, herb). Dominant plants are those species with percent cover values that, when ranked in descending order of abundance and cumulatively totaled, immediately exceed 50 percent of the dominance threshold number, plus any additional species with cover values comprising 20 percent or more of the sum of the midpoints for a given stratum. The dominance threshold number is equal to 50 percent of the sum of the midpoints for a given stratum. Cover classes (and midpoints) are as follows: T = <1 percent (none), 1 to 5 percent (3), 6 to 15 percent (10.5), 16 to 25 percent (20.5), 26 to 50 percent (38), 51 to 75 percent (63), 76 to 95 percent (85.5), and 95 to 100 percent (98). Reed (1988) and Reed et al. (1993) have evaluated many plant species common in western Washington, and have assigned a wetland indicator status to each based on the species' probability of occurring in wetlands (Table 1). A plant community dominated by species commonly found in wetlands (OBL, FACW, and FAC) meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. Table .1 Key to wetland indicator status. Code Wetland Indicator Status Probability of Occurrence in Wetland OBL Obligate wetland species >99 percent FACW Facultative wet 67 to 99 percent FAC Facultative 34 to 66 percent FACU Facultative upland 1 to 33 percent UPL Obligate upland <1 percent A plus (+) sign or minus (-) sign is used with the facultative indicator categories to more specifically define the regional frequency of occurrence in wetlands. The + indicates a more frequent occurrence. Ecological Solutions A-1 2005-001 March 11, 2005 Hydric Soil To determine whether an area has hydric soil, test pits are dug and the soil color and other characteristics are examined. Soil in which any of the following indicators is present meets the criteria for hydric soil: • Low-chroma matrix. Soil with a low-chroma matrix typically develops when mineral soil is saturated or inundated for sufficient periods of.time to result in anaerobic (oxygen -less) conditions. Anaerobic conditions cause elements common in soil, particularly iron compounds, to exist in : - reduced forms that -are usually bluish, greenish, or grayish in color. Soil colors are determined using a Munsell color chart (Kollmorgen 1995), which uses abbreviations to describe colors; e.g., 10YR 2/1. In the abbreviation, the last number indicates the chroma; a chroma of 1 (without mottles) or 2 (with mottles) in the subsurface horizon are positive indicators of hydric soils. Soils with a matrix chroma of 2 without mottles or-redoximorphic-features are usually not considered hydric. • Mottles or redoximorphic features. In seasonally saturated wetlands, fluctuating water levels can trap air bubbles in the soil. The air pockets allow magnesium and iron compounds in the soil to oxidize, forming rust -colored mottles (spots or blotches). Mottles found in soil with a matrix chroma of 2 or less often indicate the soil is hydric. • Accumulation of organic matter. Organic soils form under anaerobic conditions that contribute to .low decomposition rates. These low decomposition rates result in the accumulation of organic matter. Organic content is considered high if the soil is composed of more than 20 to 30 percent (range fluctuates depending upon other soil characters) organic material by weight in the upper 32 inches of the soil profile. • Other hydric indicators. Other positive indicators of hydric soils include histic epipedons, sulfide or "rotten egg" odor, aquic or peraquic moisture regimes, presence of soils listed as hydric soils, and presence of iron or manganese concretions. Other indicators as specified by Ecology (1997) also are used to determine the presence or absence of hydric soils. Wetland Hydrology To determine whether an area has wetland hydrology, the area is examined for inundation, soil saturation, or shallow groundwater tables, and other hydrologic indicators. In the Puget Sound region of western Washington, an area in which soils are saturated to the surface for at least 12.5 percent of the growing season (30 days) meets the criterion for wetland hydrology. However, seasonal changes in water levels and antecedent conditions must be considered when an area's hydrology is evaluated. When wetland hydrology is not present at the time of the site visit, it can be inferred from the presence of any of the following hydrologic indicators: watermarks on vegetation, drift lines, sediment deposits, water -stained leaves, surface -scoured areas, wetland drainage patterns, or oxidized Ecological Solutions A-2 2005-001 March 11, 2005 - root channels. However, as noted in the Washington Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997), not all indicators are given the same weight and some are more reliable indicators than others. Presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils also are strong indicators that wetland hydrology. is likely present. Classification Wetlands are classified according to Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). Under the Cowardin classification scheme, wetlands and.deepwater habitats are grouped into systems -based on shared hydrologic factors. The systems described in Cowardin et al. (1979) are palustrine, marine, estuarine, riverine, and lacustrine. The palustrine system includes all non -tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, mosses and lichens, and all such -wetlands that occur in tidal areas where the salinity due to ocean -derived salts is below 5 parts per thousand. Wetlands included in the palustrine system are those commonly referred to as marshes, swamps, bogs, fens, prairies, seeps, and intermittent ponds. Palustrine wetlands are divided into classes by the dominant vegetation: Forested wetlands are dominated by trees greater than approximately 20 feet tall .with 30 percent cover, scrub -shrub wetlands are dominated by woody shrubs, and emergent wetlands are dominated by non -woody plants. Other common palustrine wetland classes include unconsolidated bottom (<30 percent plant cover):and aquatic bed. These latter two classes are usually permanently inundated areas and sometimes referred to as open water. Ecological Solutions A-3 2005-001 March 11, 2005 REFERENCES Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Etigiiieers), 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Malwal. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats ofthe- United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Publication FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, DC. Ecology (Washing m State Department of Ecology), 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology., Publication No. 96-94, Olympia. FICWD (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation), 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, cooperative technical publication, Washington, DC. Kollmorgen Corporation; 1995:. Munsell Soil.Color Charts: Kollmorgen Corporation; Baltimore; Maryland. Reed, P.B., Jr, 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(26.9), Washington, DC. Reed, P.B., Jr., D. Peters, J. Goudzwaard, I. Lines, and F. Weininann, 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Supplement to Biological Report 88(26.9), Washington, DC. Ecological Solutions A-4 2005-001 March 11, 2005 APPENDIX B DATA FORMS RuLlitine Wetland Determination (Adapted from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Pierson Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 1/18/05 Applicant/owner: Dick Pierson County: King Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SW % 151T21 N/R4E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Red alder association Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No (±'closed canopy) Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Explanation of atypical or problem area: . Plot ID: SP-1 VEGETATION * = dominant plant species using the 50/20 rule: midpoints are shown in parentheses following % cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Alnus rubra* T 55 (63) FAC Rhamnus purshiana T 10 .(10.5) FAC- Thuja plicata (sapling) T 10 (10.5) FAC Rubus spectabilis* SH 75 (63) FAC+ Rubus discolor SH 15 (10.5) FACU Polystichum munitum* �- H 10 (10.5) FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 67% (2 of 3) Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ® Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: 67% of the dominants had FAC or wetter wetland indicator statuses. HYDROLOGY Sediment Deposits: ® Yes ❑ No Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes M No Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No Drift Lines: ® Yes ❑ No ® Other (explain) date _ Depth of inundation: 0.5 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12in.: ❑Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: At surface FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ® Yes [] No Depth to saturated soil: At surface Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain). ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes Rationale for decision/remarks: There are numerous clear indicators of wetland hydrology. it Name (Series and Phase) : Alderwood gravelly Drainage Class ram, 0-6% slopes Field observations confirm mapped type? Q Yes ® No n (subgroup) iescription Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile Horizon Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) size and contrast structure, etc. (match description) A 10YR 3/1 Gravelly sandy loam B 10YR 4/2-5/2 Sandy loam oil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List n Low-Chroma (=-i) matrix at 12" ❑ Other (explain in remarks) oils present? ® Yes ❑ No for decision/Remarks: Soil with a chroma of 1 immediately below the A horizon or 10 inches, whichever is less (per manual). Determination rtic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Pils present? ® Yes ❑ No hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No npling point within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No a/Remarks: All three parameters are present. So, the sample plot and community are wetland. L L L L L L L l_ i i_ Sample plot is located approximately 20 ft north of wetland flag A73 in a transitional area near the wetland boundary. This is LI evident based on the marginally hydric soils (no redoximorphic features in the subsurface horizon). Routine Wetland Determination (Adapted from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Pierson Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 1/18105 Applicant/owner: Dick Pierson County. King Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SW % 15/T21 N/R4E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Red alder association Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No (open canopy) Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Explanation of atypical or Rroblern area: Plot ID: SP-2 VEGETATION = dominant plant species using the 50/20 rule; midpoints are shown in parentheses fo€€owin % cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Thuja plicata* T 10 (10.5) FAC Agrostis capillaris* H 45 (38) FAC Alnus rubra* T 5 (3) FAC Populus balsarnifera* T 5 (3) FAC Rubus spectabilis* SH 20 (20.5) FAC+ Rubus discolor* SH 10 (10.5) FACU Ranunculus repens* H 60 (63) FACW HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 86% (6 of 7) Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: 86% of the dominant plants have FAC, FAC+, or FACW indicator statuses. HYDROLOGY Sediment Deposits:' ❑ Yes ® No Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ® No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ® Other ex lain) date Depth of inundation: None Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 h.: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: 6 inches FAC Neutral: ® Yes ❑ No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: At surface _- Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: Surface saturation and depth to free water in the test pit appear to be the result of recent heavy rainfall. Given the absence of other strong positive indicators, hydrology is likely absent for sufficient duration during the growing season. A Name (Series and Phase) : Alderwood gravelly Drainage Class )am, 0-6% slopes Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes 0 No )escription Horizon Matrix color Munsell moist Mottle colors Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) A 10YR 3/2 None Gravelly sandy loam B 10YR 4/3-4/4 None Very gravelly sandy loam ion inalcators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix _ ❑ Other (explain in remarks oils present? ❑ Yes ® No for decision/Remarks: Soil is similar to Alderwood series, a nonhydric soil. Determination /tic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No ails present? ❑ Yes ® No hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No iipling point within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No e/Remarks: Only one indicator is clearly present. Therefore, the sample plot and community are upland. The sample plot is located near the center of a Swale -like depression between two forested areas. Trees are rooted on higher ground to the north and south of the swale-like depression, which appears to be mowed regularly. L L L L I L I L .f I L I I t Routine Wetland Determination J J 11 tAdantpri from the Washinaton State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Pierson Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 1/18/05 Applicant/owner: Dick Pierson County: King Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SW % 15/T21 N/R4E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? 0 Yes ❑ No Community ID: Red alder association Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No (± closed canopy) Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Explanation of atypical or problem area: Plot ID: SP-3 VEGETATION " = dominant plant species using the 50/20 rule; midpoints are shown in parentheses following to cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Alnus rubra* T 40 (38) FAC Populus balsamifera* T 10 (10.5) FAC Rubus spectabilis* SH 10 (10.5) FAC+ Gaultheria shallon SH T (0) FACU Agrostis capillaris` H 90 (85.5) FAC Unidentified weed H 10 (10.5) FAC** HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 100% (4 of 4) Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: All of the dominant plants had a FAC or FAC+ wetland indicator status. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ® No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No [R] Other (explain) date Depth of inundation- None Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12in.: ❑ Yes ® No _ Depth to free water in pit: 10 inches FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: At surface Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: Surface saturation and depth to free water in the test pit appear to be the result of recent heavy rainfall. Given the absence of other strong positive indicators, hydrology is likely absent for sufficient duration during the growing season. it Name (Series and Phase) : Alderwood gravelly Drainage Class yams, 0-6%slopes Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No m (subgroup) ]escription . Horizon Matrix color Munsell moist Mottle colors Munsell moist Mottle abundance siie and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, .etc. A 10YR 3/2 None Gravelly sandy loam B 10YR 4/34/4 None Gravelly sandy loam ;oil Indicators: (check all that apply) Drawing of soil profile match descri tion ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma 5 2 With mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks oils present? ❑ Yes ® No Determination /tic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No )ils present? ❑ Yes ® No hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No 'npl�point within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No e/Remarks: Only one parameter was met. Therefore, the sample plot and community are upland: Sample plot is located near the edge of a swale-like drainage approximately 8 ft west of wetland flag AA-8 I L L L i L i L L L f L i L L Routine Wetland Determination (Adaoted from the Washinuton State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Pierson Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 1/18/05 Applicant/owner: Dick Pierson County: King Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SW % 15fT21 N/R4E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Red alder association Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No (± closed canopy) Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Explanation of atypical or problem area: Plot ID: SP-4 VEGETATION (" = dominant plant species using the 50/20 rule: midpoints are shown in parentheses following % cover) Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Alnus rubra* T 55 (63) FAC Agrostis capillaris* H 25 (20.5) FAC Acercircinatum* SH 20 (20.5) FAC- Polystichum munitum H 5 (3) FACU Rubus spectabilis* SH 20 (20.5) FAC+ Tolmeia menziesii H 5 (3) FAC Rubus discolor SH 10 (10.5) FACU Juncus effusus H T (0) FACW Rubus ursinus SH T (0) FACU Carex deweyana H T (0) FACU Gaultheria shallon SH T (0) FACU Taraxacum officinale H T (0) 1 FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 75% (3 of 4) Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: 75% of the dominant plants had FAC or FAC+ indicator statuses. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ® No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ® Other (explain) date Depth of inundation: None Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12n.: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: 8 inches FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: 6 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: Saturation and water seeping into the hole at 6 inches appears to be the result of the recent heavy rainfall. It appears unlikely that saturation is present to the surface for sufficient duration to meet the hydrology criterion. it Name (Series and Phase) : Alderwood gravelly Drainage Class L am, 0-6% slopes Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No escrintion Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. A 10YR 3/2 None Gravelly sandy loam B 10YR 413 None Sandy loam oil Indicators: (check all that apply) Drawing of soil profile (match description ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ] Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other {_e_mlain in remarks) Als present? ❑ Yes ® No for decision/Remarks: Similar to Alderwood series, a nonhydric soil. Determination tic vegetation present? Yes ❑ No its present? ❑ Yes ® No iydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No n ding ing point within a wetland? ❑ Yes [xj No /Remarks: Only one parameter clearly met. Therefore, the sample and community are 1_ L Sample plot is located between wetland flags AA-21 and AA-22 approximately 15 ft NW of the wetland boundary in a slight t depression between the wetland edge and forested uplands on higher ground to the west. There was some 2.5Y 5/3 clay loam with 2.5Y 616 mottles on the east side of the hole in the B horizon. This material may have been part of sidecast materials from the apparently excavated channel within the wetland to the east. It was atypical of the soil horizons in the vicinity based on numerous auger borings and was therefore excluded as an anomaly from the test pit horizons. L L. L L L L Routine Wetland Determination (AdAnted from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Pierson Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 1/18/05 Applicant/owner: Dick Pierson County. King. Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SW % 15/T21 N/R4E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? 0 Yes ❑ No Community ID: Red alder association Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No (± closed canopy) Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Explanation of atypical or problem area: Plot ID: SP-5 VEGETATION (* = dominant plantspecies using the 50/20 rule; midpoints are shown in parentheses followin % cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Alnus rubra* T 65 (63) FAC 'Rubus spectabilis* SH 65 (63) FAC+ Rubus discolor* SH 20 (20.5) FACU Polystichum munitum* H 20 (20.5) FACU Geranium robertianum* H 5 (3) UPL HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 40% (2 of 5) Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: <50% of the dominant plants have FAC or wetter indicator statuses HYDROLOGY _ Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ® No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ®No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ® Other (explain) date Depth of inundation: None Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12n.: F,1 Yes ❑ No Depth to free water in pit: 16 inches FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: 14 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Notes: Many fine oxidized rhizospheres from 14-16+. Difficult to tell ❑ Stream, lake or gage data whether oxidation was around living rootlets. Many appear to be decomposed. ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other + Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: Lack of strong indicators. Unlikely there is saturation to the surface for sufficient duration during the growing season. i i iit Name ,(Series and Phase) : Alderwood gravelly: Drainage Class L yam, 0-6% slopes Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No )escription Horizon Matrix color Munsell moist Mottle colors (Munsell moist Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile match description} A 1 OYR 3/2 None Gravelly sandy loam NA charcoal B ]OYR 4/2-4/3 None Gravelly sandy loam iou Indicators: (check all that apply) 0 Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma _< 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on'National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix _ ❑ Other (ex lain in remarks) oils present? ❑ Yes ® No for decision/Remarks: Soil is similar to the map unit, a nonhydric soil. There are no positive indicators of hydric soils. Determination /tic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No )ils present? ❑ Yes ® No hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No npling point within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No e/Remarks: None of the parameters were met. Therefore, the sample plot and community are upland, Sample plot is located —8 ft north of wetland flag Z-11 on slightly higher ground. L L I L L L l_ t!� L L L L L L L k Routine Wetland Determination (Adapted from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Pierson Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 1/19/05 Applicant/owner: Dick Pierson County: King Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SW % 15/T21 N/R4E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? 0 Yes ❑ No Community ID: Red alder association Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No (± closed canopy) Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Explanation of atypical or Eroblem area: Plot ID: SP-6 VEGETATION ` = dominant plant species using the 50/20 rule; midpoints are shown in parentheses following % cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Alnus rubra* T 60 (63) FAC Thuja plicata T 10 (10.5) FAC Ilex aquifolium T 5 (3) UPL Rubus spectabi/is* SH 65 (63) FAC+ 1 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 100% (2 of 2) Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: All of the dominant plants have FAC or FAC+ indicator statuses. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ® No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No on _ Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ® Other (explain) date Depth of inundation: None Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12in.: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: 10 inches FAC Neutral: ® Yes ❑ No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: 8 inches Check all that apply & explain below. Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: Even after more than 3.2 inches of rain in the past 48 hours (see notes at the bottom of the next page), there is no saturation to the surface. It is unlikely that there is saturation to the surface for sufficient duration to meet the criterion. In addition, there is a lack of any strong indicators of wetland hydrology. it Name (Series and Phase) : Alderwood gravelly Drainage Class )am, 0-6% slopes Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No n sub rou lescription Horizon Matrix color Munsell moist Mottle colors Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile match description A 10YR 3/2 None loam 131 10YR 2/2 None loam B3 2.5Y 4/2-4/3 10YR 5/6 Common, medium, distinct Gravelly sandy loam oil Inaicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma S 2 with mottles ❑'Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ] Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ] Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ] Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ] Gieyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix El Other (explain in remarks} _ As present? ❑ Yes ® No for decision/Remarks: Redoximorphic features are below the root zone and may be relicts. Soils appear to be effectively Determination tic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No ils present? ❑ Yes ® No iydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No ipling point within a wetland? ❑ Yes CE No /Remarks: Clear indicators of only one parameter (hydrophytic vegetation). Therefore, the sample plot and community are Sample plot was established in the lowest lying area adjacent to the ditchAntermittent stream on the most northerly parcel. The ground surface is approximately 1 ft higher than the bottom of the ditch. There was no water in the ditch yesterday at this location despite more than 2.3 inches of rain over the previous 24 hrs (as recorded at. Sea-Tac International Airport). Following approximately an additional 0.9 inches of rain yesterday bringing the 48-hour total to more than 3.2 inches of rain (as recorded at Sea-Tac), there is approximately 2 to 3 inches of surface water in the ditch. J� Routine Wetland Determination (Adanted from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Pierson Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 1/19/05 Applicant/owner: Dick Pierson County: King Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SW % 15/T21 N/R4E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Shrub association (± Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No open canopy) Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No nsect ID: Explanation of atypical or problem area: Plot ID: SP-7 Plot VEGETATION (* = dominant plantspecies using the 50/20 rule; midpoints are shown in parentheses followin % cover) Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Populus balsamifera* T 25 (20.5) FAC Alnus rubra* T 20 (20.5) FAC Thuja plicata T 5 (3) FAC Spiraea douglasii* SH 55 (63) FACW Rubus spectabilis* Sh 20 (20.5) FAC+ HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 100% (4 of 4) Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Z Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: All of the dominant plants had FAC or wetter indicator statuses. HYDROLOGY Water Marks: ® Yes ❑ No Sediment Deposits: ® Yes ❑ No Is it the growing season?. ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp. (record temp) Drift Lines: ® Yes ❑ No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No ® Other (explain) date Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Depth of inundation: 8 inches Channels <12in.: ❑ Yes ® No _ Depth to free water in pit: At surface FAC Neutral: ® Yes ❑ No Water -stained Leaves: ® Yes ❑ No Depth to saturated soil: At surface Check all that apply & explain below: , Other (explain). ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: There are many positive indicators of wetland hydrology. it Name (Series and,Phase).: Alderwood gravelly . Drainage Class L )am, 0-6% slopes Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes ® No lescrintion Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile match descri tion A 10YR 3/1 10YR 3/4 and 10YR 716 Common, medium to coarse, distinct Texture varies from silt loam B 10YR 212 10YR 3/4 and 10YR 7/6 Common, medium to coarse, distinct Sandy loam oil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ® Matrix chroma s 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List © Gieyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other (explain in remarks AS present? ® Yes ❑ No for decision/Remarks: Unable to accurately catalog soils below 10 because of inundation. Low chroma matrix & mottling in subsurface horizons. Determination 4 rtic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No ils present? Yes ❑ No iydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No gling point within a wetland? ® Yes ❑ No :/Remarks: All three parameters were met. Therefore, the sample plot and community are wetland. Trees are generally rooted on higher in the adjacent uplands with few exceptions. Although there likely is less than 30% areal coverage provided by trees in the wetland, the area has nonetheless been classified as a forested wetland. l I L L L L L i L L_I L. L L L L L- L_ L_ Routine Wetland Determination lAdanted from the Washinaton State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Pierson Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 1/19/05 Applicant/owner: Dick Pierson County: King Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa State: WA SMR: SW % l6fT21 N/R4E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Western red cedar Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No association (± closed Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No canopy) Transect ID: Explanation of atypical or problem area: Plot ID: SP-8 VEGETATION (* = dominant plant species using the 50/20 rule; midpoints are shown in parentheses following % cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Thuja plicata* T 65 (63) FAC Geranium robertianum* H 40 (38) UPL Prunus sp. (tent id)* T 20 (20.5) FACU** Polystichum munitum* H 10 (10:5) FACU Ilex aquifolium T 5(3), UPL Rubus spectabilis* SH 15 (10.5) FAC+ Rubus ursinus* SH 5 (3) FACU Rubus discolor* SH 5 (3) FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 33% (2 of 6 w/assigned FACU**); 50% (3 of 6 if assigned is FAC or wetter) Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Majority of the dominant plants are not adapted for life in saturated soils. 1 HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ® No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ® Other (explain) date Depth of inundation: None Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12 in.: ❑ Yes ® No _ Depth to free water in pit: 10 inches FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ❑ No Depth to saturated soil: 8 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Unlikely there is saturation to the surface for at least 30 ❑ Stream, lake or gage data consecutive days during the growing season. Observed saturation at 8 inches follows about 3.5 inches of rain over the past four days. Ground ❑ Aerial photographs surface is about a foot higher than the adjacent ditch bottom ❑ Other _ Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: There is a lack of positive indicators of wetland hydrology. it Name (Series and Phase) : AlderwQod gravelly Drainage Class ram, 0=6°Io slopes Field observations confirm .mapped type? ❑ Yes Z No rescfttion Horizon Matrix color Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size and contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) A 10YR 2/1 None loam B 2.5Y 4/2-4/3 10YR 5/6 Few -common, fine- medium, distinct Gravelly sandy loam oil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List. ® Low-Chroma (=1) matrix at 12" ❑ Other (explain in remarks] ails present? ® Yes ❑ No for decision/Remarks: Soils are marginally hydric. Matrix with chroma of 1 immediately below A horizon or at 10 inches f 3r is less). Determination tic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No ils present? ® Yes ❑ No iydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No npling point within a wetland? ❑ Yes C1 No :!Remarks: Only one parameter (hydric soil) was met and indicators were not strong. Positive indicators of both hydrophytic n and wetland. hydrology were lacking. Therefore, the sample plot and community are upland. Suckering tree species with some lenticels and serrulate, deciduous leaves was tentatively identified as a plum (Prunus sp.). It was concentrated in a clump and likely represents a clone. This species was not observed elsewhere on the site and was tentatively assigned an indicator status of FACU (as denoted by FACU"'). L L L_ L L L L L l.. t_. t, E t I_ Ir_ Routine Wetland Determination (Adapted from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Pierson Boundary Line Adjustment Date: 1/19/05 Applicant/owner: Dick Pierson County: King Investigator(s): Scott Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SW % 15/T21 N/R4E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID:Western red cedar Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No association (± closed Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Explanation of atypical or problem area: Tracanopy) ct ID: Plot D: SP-8 Plot ID VEGETATION (* = dominant plant species using the 50/20 rule; midpoints are shown in parentheses following % cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Thuja plicata* T 65 (63) FAC Geranium robertianum* H 40 (38) UPL Prunus sp. (tent id)* T 20 (20.5) FACU** Vinca minor H 15 (10.5) UPL Ilex aquifolium T 5 (3) UPL Polystichum munitum H 10 (10.5) FACU Rubus spectabilis* SH 15 (10.5) FAC+ Rubus ursinus* S.H 5 (3) FACU Rubus discolor* SH 5 (3) FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 33% (2 of 6 w/assigned FACU**) Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Majority of the dominant plants are not adapted for life in saturated soils - HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ® No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ❑ Yes ® No ® Other (explain) date Depth of inundation: None Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels <12in.: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to free water in pit: 10 inches FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ❑ No Depth to saturated soil: 8 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Unlikely there is saturation to the surface for at least 30 ❑ Stream, lake or gage data consecutive days during the growing season. Observed saturation at 8 inches follows about 3.5 inches of rain over the past four days. Ground ❑ Aerial photographs surface is about a foot higher than the adjacent ditch bottom J ❑ Other 1 Wetland hydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No Rationale for decision/remarks: There is a lack of positive indicators of wetland hydrology. t Name (Series and Phase) : Alderwood gravelly Drainage Class am, 0-6% slopes Field observations confirm mapped ty pe? yp e? El Yes ®No 1 (subgroup)_ ascription Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile Horizon Munsell moist Munsell moist) size and contrast structure, etc. {match description) A 10YR 2/1 None loam B 2.5Y 4/2-4/3 10YR 5/6 Few -common, fine- Gravelly sandy loam medium, distinct Al Indicators: (check all that apply) ] Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles ] Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ] Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ] Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ] Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Low-Chroma (=1) matrix at 12" ❑ Other (explain in remarks ails present? ® Yes ❑ No for decision/Remarks: Soils are marginally hydric. Matrix with chrome of 1 immediately below A horizon or at 10 inches .r is less). Determination tic vegetation present? ❑ Yes ® No ils present? ® Yes ❑ No iydrology present? ❑ Yes ® No ipling point within a wetland? ❑ Yes ® No a/Remarks: Only one parameter (hydric soil) was met and indicators were not strong. Positive indicators of both hydrophytic i and wetland hydrology were lackin . Therefore, the sample plot and community are upland. L L L L L L L L t L L Suckering tree species with some lenticels and serrulate, deciduous leaves was tentatively identified as a plum (Prunus sp.). It was concentrated in a clump and likely represents a clone. This species was not observed elsewhere on the site and was t tentatively assigned an indicator status of FACU (as denoted by FACU**). L.. APPENDIX C SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 0 0 L .1 -0 c c o r 6- n6- CL Dom. C N O m 7 N O� C N � C Q m y+ e- U) m L :3 O 0 &3 CM EM 0 0 O U O a X O -6 .- J O E N 0 C C m W'^ c o 0 N L V (D � C. ca-0 0 zm � c u°�o E'' � p (D C N U N 0OL'i o� 3� aZ• _rn �m =0• L C — A � O x O ") N N p10lw �t C C +r 0 y 0 J co O C I M O) w t� 3� a0� > o m U p�Mco X: U O O iL ca 0 I« N 0 0 a x V) N O L m �0°- O N CO c 3 a) 0-0 o m E 0 r � � c 7 0 CD C N b...7 J E U E J t/l s-0 a 0 a Coo-C m L 0 0 s 0 o�a� E 75 O cVC3c>a 0-0 M t , �c-000 �- �ct 0 0m 0 C J L O O C � J ccC C4� ca e�:3•Ecc .0 O 0— += aM0o3 mg�0-0 om�c> ow E E a3.E0� 0 O O 0 N 0 0 L CL U x Cn v c c o 0. L CLAD 2". O movi O N U a N �° �r o rn� c0 co o c� 0 o'o c � E Y. o E� J E I r Y 40 0 t CL C.) 3 o � t O L IL c 3 a� Z o � � Y 0 M 4, O O s 3 N 3 N c (1)0o > o cn O 0 U N 3. M Uo V 0 Lo U0U N o .0vm O 0 0 O E -J a E O • tir r� wf �• tee♦!_ _ .3.: fir, . � i .. �;� _ .' �• I . .'.,..� 1 -r Jrcr ha ]1 -�rrw•� - t MR L, wzx s- S 146 d t • •'1 a ►[` •� S r. V- 0 0 0 0 0 N A 2". c O m >' C N Oa O vl p U oa m a tm c' o c J M m Q I 0 3 M O O L L a Q�O O m�a -lid L O � m L t O O N a I� Appendix C Pierson Site Photos Photograph 11 — Looking north northwest at typical red alder association (riparian forest) near SP-4 with open and depauperate understory. 2005-001 APPENDIX D OFFSITE WETLAND BOUNDARIES NL A PORT)ON OF • `{sa ;JE \45 \q4 'jy� ,�i � d7 ,' •�1 - 0 \6DV[iJ8' i > � }r URBAN MSV 4-12 DJ/A6 � L . M4,97• fcax zy �a.xo vw,ne r�e►q` l pvPbs G RWrrb leailf "'x"" Flame x C r -807 CODRD R-B t Iro ee neslo er / / rw�N r. woar� TCDwrr �, N{ATNM W M •� tCRY A]p COfNrTr slur) $76 sr, S 94 1 � k• H 6756'Ytl• x wAMVI l.wl AlOeei eNA I.B1wN w, 11 ].Va] ]IM ME S a� =,a `•:�ww � \ " .s-•.•��.+$a.4eFN URBMI FEB.E.17 ,gr'-•.r�1� �'? : " `..... f , N a `7If 1 (cwlrr il.N'Q - ".j)L -?;_}�:. .�lx f,-rr•. �. ..�.. � �� �- j j ��ff Y -4 ;��: � • /Z ���rp C9. �/ -r201a/G �I _ �5•a'• �• M �' IVHPS (TM). PC1ML LDCXF f f ] LLC ILo^U"PRSI NIpNF:•:r^•vw. '1 / 'f '- . }. - _ r"ror-.' T8 BE DEFERMNED AT Fvftr•- .11pN,LL • i SL' •L • .4 111Ir i w N• 8 E7M'I, NEEI7NlG.-' r . WETLANDS ,�: � P.,Fii, r I _ f � ��..�� � . � 31 --� •� . 1NAT£RL iE• Rw _ 'I� � 5 ..: '::�• •...:� i.••y-y- -: :G BE RELOCATEL.' w�[Y�-• - ' � mid••' ..1• • [TD eE YACATEDi Fr SNULE FAMLY - "GH DENWrYr usc++.s (dry rtw) I _ a _ f: :dP• .. - Lr'la+ YIC[ -- - 4err 1aeNe} i s;. �� !.. - � tix' �� 4,•' Gu SLAYJC .% , nu _ , r •, . .1:_•'y, - `js ••'• '.''. as •� i ` a.Yc co9nTil rmon.c r, it feom r Z1)! `• - 1• �� ,. 1 i•.' / stow FhPLCI: NEST / 11:fM1t �. „{4b (_ 1 42�: CCIT7DNWQDO -� r /' 4+.tr r+wc _ � ?•: "• A,r� rALa)r� Mite r �'�� fir• � r -f •-` � � _ 'Yrw•rVium• : �:�80FFLR� •••,' el r `���4�� r r : " ':� ' •r' l• �'�_• ••tip :'� �+7 r' EAST CAJ F� 'US: C O RPO RATS PARK : _ C �.- `.. •1�,• �• • `Z: ' R S 5' SIDE YARD PAC ; /',� f•_ YARD (10' ON CORNER LOT, STREET SIDE) OfFICE.. ��� •(o�_1cr'wKJ' I', -'f� , A � y y`�frl.,`' �, !� � SD YARo TYPICAL SETBACKS N'�A'APR.ANh;AA'i,N. ;^�Altll,nr'R'A4uRlti, ARIA;., •I 2,6-2H6 30-1!, I 200-282 02,22 C 2o0-141• 1809 4013 32nd nvr:noe Wenr sonitin, Wn')H199 ewolorlirnlsolutions(h)so;l1101 r.nin April 19, 2006 Dick Pierson 3516 South 33611-1 Street Federal Way, WA 98001 Re. Addendum to .Mareli 11, 2005 Wetland Delineation Report Lear Mr. Pierson: This letter is an a.ddenduixl to the wetland delineation report prepared by Ecological. Solutions, Inc. dated March 11, 2005. As you know, that report: was prepared in support of your boundary line a.diustlnent (BLA) submitted to King County. It is my understanding that Greg Poels, Senior Ecologist: with King County Department of Development and Environmental Services confirmed the delineated wetland boundaries and the Wetland and stream classificaiions Identil:Ied in the report:. Furthermore, I understand that the BLA was approved by the county. Since that time, the parcels that. were the subject of the 13,1-,A have been incorporated into the City of Federal Way (City) via annexation. The purpose of this addendum is to update the previous wetland delineation report wetland and stma.m classifications to clearly identify the City's classification. 1 have reviewed the wetland definitions and categories identified in the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). These were downloaded (March 4, 2006) or viewed online (April 3, 2006)- According to FWCC 22-1357, there are three categories of wetlands (1, 11, and 111). As identified in Figure 2 of Ecological Soltitions' 2005 report, there are portions of three small wetlands on your properties. Wetland I contains rune wetland vegetation class and is approximately 22,000 square feet: [sfI (--•0.5 acre). Most of this wetland is offsite to the soutJ-i of your properties. Wetlands 2 and 3 are smaller and primarily on your properties. Including the estimated offsite areas, the total surveyed plus estimated offsite areas of Wetlands 2 and 3 are 8,242 and 5,978 square feet, respectively. Note that on the recorded boundary lime a.diustment (BLA) Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 are lumped together as Wetland 1. On khe recorded BLA, line segments L14 to 1,19 are a narrow swale-like drainage that connects what are identified in Ecological Solutions' 2005 report: as Wetlands 1 and 2. The area shown on the recorded BLA for Wetland 1 is 1 l,680 sf, which includes an uplalyd area that extends soui:h of Iilre seglnent:s 1.,14 to L 19 to the eastern property boundary. None of these wetlands contain threatened or endangered species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies for these species. None contain plant: associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological 'functions, are considered of exceptional location significance, or have three or more wetland classes. So, node of the wetlands meet the Category 1 criteria. almh rnirnininrl W�tr.r fhrdiry .`;uilnrr.. Wnlur� WrllruuL; Wildlile I•In6ilnt Mr. Dick Pierson pa{,c 2 April 19, 2006 King CO. Seninr Ecologist (ireF; I'acls indicated that the portions of the ditches that the county considered intermittent streams on the ninth parcel and offske to the south clo not support: fish populations. I concurred with this assessrnent.. As such, none of the wetlands are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries that: under normal circumstances contain or support: fish. None are greater than an acre,. and all possess only one wetland vegetation cla.ss. So, none of the wetlands meet: the Category 11 wetland criteria. All of the wetlands appear to be Category III wetlands, according to I� WC C 22-1357(a). Of the three, only Wetland l is greater- than 10,000 square feet. Category IIl wetlands %10,000 sq. -ft. require a standard buffer of 50 fezf (FWCiC;22--i357(b)(3)). Wetlands 2 (that portion of Wetland 'I from line segment 120 to 1.29 in the recxnrded BL.A) and Wetland 3 (identified as Wetland 2 in the recorded 131,A) are both between 2,500 and 10,000 sq. ft. and require a standard buffer of 25 feet. In addition to the wetlands, King County considered two ditch segment-% streams. One of these is on yarn' property and the other is of -site to the soudn. In my opinion, the ditches are._jusi: that and were excavated Features dug in an attempt to drain the wetlands. The ditches der not: appear to have been stare mis that were altered and placed in ditches. Both of the ditches do apparently convey water seasonally primarily during the winter to nat:niml watercourses farllier off::ite to the north and to the south that would be considered streams. According to the definition of stream in the FWCC 22••l : "`Stream means a c mrse or route, -formed by nature, including those which have been modified by humans, and generally con%ist:itng of a channel with a bed, banks or sides throughout: substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining From higher to lower elevations. A strearnl need not: contain water year round. In a. developing setting,, streams may run in culverts or may be chainneled in a. concrete, rock or other- artificial conveyance system. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, storrmwater facilities or other artificial watercourses unless they are used by resident. or anadromous salmonid fish, or the feature was constructed to convey natural streams which existed prior to construction of tine watercourse" Furthermore, 1jWC:C'. 2.2--1306 identifies setbacks for mirror and major streams, Accordirng to the definitions, a major stream "ameans any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under nnormal circumstances contains or supports, resident or migratory fish. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major strearn." According to the definitions, "a minor stream is any strearn that does not meet the definition of a major- stream." Neither dit:cln segment on the site or immediately south of the site supports any species of fish as Mr. Peels' agreed. Thus, neither" ditch appears to mcet the definition cif stream identified in the: VWCC - Please note deal all wetland and stream classifications and buffer requirements identified herein are preliminary and subject to verification by the City. Sincerely, rk d `` Sco'n,1C.Li(Hri SSA Certified Ecologist, M.S. cc: Bryan Nylin, Horan Real Estate Investments 114M A+'a:rtnd,9rn n4'A9 f^rtDp,q!'A'r<nrd;-;, if(N i.. )8!,:t(11!i I I %Ilfi•'l.; i:;-(I;i'l:; c 2(1(; f14 1•:1;101 E PROPOSAL _-- -- EDATE R.H. Landscape Supply CO. 3908 So. 384th Auburn, WA 96001 a�0 ( as'.3 `rz-7- E719- WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT: PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: ADDRI~SS NAME ADDRESS ~- 3•fr4r •, DAVE of PLANS ARCHITECT PHONE NO. We hereby propose to furnish the maker Is and perform tfie tabor �necessary Jo�s�he °m�� kid of • � 13�n,o� C od w �r o ,� d � � Rj1,�o . o w f?ye+,�rf/ of rs, ee.r .s9: ,�� ��p • na specifiedand the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications All materialis guaranteed to be as spec , submitted for abovework,, and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the suDollars 4$ } with payments to be made as follows: Respectfully submittedAny alteration or davlation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written order, and will became an exits charge Per over and above the estimate. All agreemants contEngent upon strikes, ac- cidents, or delays beyond cur control. Note - This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not aop�pted within c�jys ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specificafions and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made as outlined. above. Signature Signature ,,.. Da118 PROPOSAL .dame MADE IN USA APPROVAL NC---gfE - rFns REQj1-S1 (A)ALfrIC5 FC)R I.xrlir=TIaN ONDFR KCC 19 A,?b I'f D(4 `� Nf7T CsJARANTi:I_ :HA I THE i-47TS Wild, f,ii SOITABLI f't)i7 pF:V(-.l.0r'MFNT NOW OR IN I HI: FU TI lRl:. THE .5,GAI . -RAN ',I I-- � 0.1 -)=F PPI UPERT'� ?I's FIrIV111 ARFYI.1NliL•'RIi�lir SAME w,IiSNP LESS Ik41_ �. ..... VOL. I -'A RI..:CORDIN{% NO, ...,GAL f : 1 1NC13 p .�"1'• ��,n rx: P{.)f:110N 01- SW 1/4 of SW •I/�. 5...:I,i. L._2'.. N., I'2.�!a::.,NIM. NEW Cara BOUND NRLEA AT oN5 AND CRITICAL AREAS D (NOTICE ON TITIX) u1n.D1 inns»' N 01'04'37" r yu�- L {' liarNi 0,44' &= ri sm s Di'a4' S7." w {r1iq:'C: am q� 0 M1 LOT A GM ACM ACM 3: 11TII,YTY �ha"cl1ENT t•'-• } _ _ _ TO FW-N>iFrrALor 1-I n w .RaT�i I .. rrAri FL���^ u' • Tick p[EWAN U51:A FOR -rl. 5 �Y VRI.U�s �4 V�L•:11FICf1 RIHG ppUN'rf � AV5'i A'IION I(n: & flF;SW{--kH tilt" IIN.LIN R A"+.�' }p1A7LS flI+S[ 'U1L•' 4pNC CpUNTY RFFI'.I+FIICE STnTI[kt K9H,. 4+A1 WAS VRFNfgF:iLY £S"AFILISFIER 1NOEPfNU1'NT[ Y FROM NGS AND MFWrIAi$1�[I ff. Bk[A SFA'I10NS llit 1iF.Sll11l;[; ms_ELEND • �.7 t�j" R X4" I*)lAH WITH PLASTIC IDFMFIFICA11011 CAl' Lf}1LL�'S i?'11'IFk M5E NO'ITt1. / 210,00' N 02'07.'59" L: - 1- fly ';ztr Ilii iL'S5/ww' , & un.rrY CAscmmr 1[1 t3 wm- LOTS 4TLL[Il gYr;![IT 11P[1N Pr SiEfYltlir11�7r Ulriijls Ol7CtfA1fw1..... - /P / p �41z1B v p g �_ L 0 - 8 ^'�R 46 L I -As 1Lk ~ r.n it rnr•,�•.��Q•` p V� - ill AM «' BBB 0.7.+ 43� 01S [X.hS.. 4r~92A {+NETI.nNI) ONI Y] r .I�.R3' 0.02 A� {STRI AA1 ARrA ONLY) to' 1;i7.4J, 211.Do, S 02is'J, . W _ 467.91' PLAI) -tAS1 IME 0r "'rw WEST i TRACI 117 Ur • •N 197"5%'01" W 15, '57' NL11t1k t%4 C01+. FKm r� iTf. MON I'E1( R()5 TiCCCIkIYk]I UNIt'Tt A F nY[Lhkf.SOs1. AI-V, IV. V1 Vj OEl4T1:rt [IF !;k[: 111:N l:r. AN11 I.tf[:A7LA ON wN(i C(RIN1'Y 1 I F:5lA (LKUtJLAiED PER R[ri RE000 comlia. g4IHL11:Y 141)5- IfALL1N A: A.r.970.;R><.1UI1. AL5:1 Uµ.[: tl. ASti[1CIA1E:5 iIk1J) TUC• I,;EI Rly-�•.- 1;r. L[,C.t:ON'f1el M_ SLYRYi'.Y 5UsJ5. IIALIJN & A5:';titVA[ES I+Et!] Tl+i: (:C 01Y NAO 6:i-91 rrUa`lilON FUS Trl`3 1 I NAll.93�-pi POP11ON FOR '11+I5 SURVEY. :,TJiNEY. .t 2637.45' iEFEI.'E�B - L] 'MENTS, COVENANTS S L. PLA AND RESTRZCTI0Ty5 utptil:[: XrJEO PLAT i NORTt4 IJ11p;•.SNORELANR[; E PI.AT aF FR l5E l:S,'FIRSY µ,r1N.,.77pL, 78, 1 133. qG COUN)Y SiO{rTIAT Nd.674f1M; AS I;1:VA4k11 UNDER••�.F.740UPDI925._'(- 1 RjPU- OF TAP rs, .'.0`'�= nN CI;1,F;�_; =FOFkAI WAY- ,DLER BARNARD RECORD OF SURVEY 14kr;ORlk;7f UNDER AF$Oi10Nf)ow- .= i45 Rf~CARi]f[7 N`E.".-�F = .3siSi'202''C IJ'[Rl-. POINT FIIR\TYINC RFF:(}RIY_W SINVFY.'f(1:CORPk7i.EiNOCR Ar.R6p3031iFI000a4, -'y; i;[C- .T1rkVS ANC .�c 4Y::::OhE ltl'!:¢r"•: :.. (,AS, COAI_,i:I C. (RICK 1.17011 RECORD 01- SUW-.Y Rr,QORrWn TINDER AyXI513immiltila - U1f0 R A.F.21700?• RFCuOo ff.'' STR+N:Y I+Cf:OiiUi-U Ifi+O£{i-A.f�O111Y4IIRINi, '3:;(JI CnVWA[3TS:-'CONn:Ry:.:, RCSM T,0N%'RESCRVATIUNS AND EASLME'� �M Hri.Ert Dm ARU rRECM4 Or SURWY RECORDED thWER A.F,Aep7739pp3;_ F]15CLO5rr.17 HY.1i3t'-, RFmgkiF1')' UNr*R k '+4¢!I 8029. OF tR FIARNArtn RFC=n OF SURVEY RECORDED UNUE$% Ar'.27df104 SEW: 4. EXTCNLRq .Wi .'Z.-.YLM `,f WITII WA E V124 AS ULER PARNARD RECORD OF SORW---Y i?rCORUFD UNDER A:F,$7I74099O24: :-UNDER M RECORD OF 'SURVEY RECORDED UNDER A.F.97057.2.9011. - Hallrn �C �SS�7CIr Lrs: ` 1ERcS`❑N .-BOUNDARY Land Surveying LIN , ADJ U EN" Hatmdazies — Mapping -- Subdivisions r 402 S. 333rd St Suite 118 JITT3 N i;. « ' •:� J Federal )Fey. Na. 98003 Dr .; +, t6-•[w [s+ ii4 a., f YfNFa �- ir, :•� ,?.r�%e�—'�iCf�".leili�% i ;: i {,: .-! I' Ssiiil.� ,,, , 01/15/2007 20:39 2539272236 o PA'o Pvw-, ' 1r-1Soh/ F" K, RICHARD PIERSON P aq lela 2 5-3 -97-7- ;7`16 Decernber 6, 2006 M Y ��.yy r> .p,15 ("S Mr. Greg Fewins � cz l l � r t Ya City of Federal Way Deputy Director of Community Dvvelopmeut Services 33325 8"' Ave. South Federal Way WA 98063-9718 Dear Mr. Fewins: PAGE 01/06 �OLU e I •a j,Y' �.s FL ^•4-k S e `-1 ID response to your letter of September 22, 2006 stating requirement for the city's wetlands consu ttant review of my wetland report pursuant to the road clearing and residential lot development of my property, Otak Wetland Review proposal of Nove)x)ber 12, 2006, and our conversations last week; I would like to clarify my understat4i.ig of what should, be a.cco.i?aplished in such a review as you suggested. First I need to have fullunderstandin that the review is focused. on the King Coun _ jec 00 090 2 that was reference a.u. sent to you in my Sept. � v �� 12, 2006 letter. Although the wetland analysis remains the same as the documents I sent _ ;J50 5,1- you, the lot orientation and Ingress/Egress &Utility easement has changed to that of the +o above -recorded document upon, review with King County. What I expect to be. accomplished by this review is a verification of the following: 1. That the. proposed easement referenced above to install a private driveway is in compliance with Federal Way City Code or what modifications of the easement are needed to bring them within compliance. 2. That Lots A, B. and C referenced in the above KC recorded document are suitable for residential construction from a Federal Way City Code wetlands perspective. Enclosed is check Number 27-12 for $2,236.00 .for the above work, which I understand will not be exceeded and maybe less. If there is any misunderstanding about my expectations state above relative what will be accomplished by this project, please bring them to my attention before any funds are expended.. I understand that the project should reasonably be completed by the end of January 2007. If I can be of any assistance with orientation to the property, please let me know. Sincerely, Richard N_ Pierson. 3516 South 336"' St. Federal Way, WA 98001 01/15/2007 20:39 2539272236 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 02/06 Technical Memorandum EM3 To: f0?x.XZ-T From; ,iiiiJr 4/J/J �i�1('.lAh X�'l .9M-;FY Copies: Date: Subject-, Project No,: CT.cEg :l fewins, Deputy Director, Co1.ar.rnunity Development: Services Plaiztlitig Division, (;i,ty of Federal Way Doug Gresham, Wctlati.cl Rcok�gist, 01:a.k, 1.11c. .January 3, 2007 Pi.ersoji Pr.operry Sct-isitive AxF;a.s Peer. Review 3OB79P As tcqueal:cd bar th.c C.iijr of IXedetal Way, Oi:,t.1.c of th.c Pierson prope.t°t:y l.ocm:o(l ,a. 351.6 S 336"' Strect, 1--eder-11 Way, Washilzl tort (file #06-105384-00-.A.D). The purpose of our: site. visit: wa.s to 'verify wctlatid a.nd strmarn, boun.clarics, deturimir,c wetland and Stream cllssifications, ar d assess ir„pacl:s from} t:hc proposed action,. k 2004,1:1c applicant (Dick T.'Jcrson) undertook a boutidaty line ndjustl:nent: to divide this ptoperty into Forur logs v� heti it vas -'within ur.d.umr.I�oY.at'Cd )�i11 Coutzty. Mr- Nerson proposes to sc11 tlar ec of these Four lots, whir..la ret7t:t.ires pl:o�riding dtivcway access t:hrougb ctiti.cal sLt•ea. 17ilffer:s.A previous wet:la.nd dc-l.ulcation perF6r,..11.- d lay lEcological Services .identified daree wedala.ds ar,d a. stream on tllc. property based on King CoLuaty ,rcgu.lations, Once this atca eras annexed by ffic City of Pedera.l W1y, protecdoti of these critical -ixeas requited corn.}?Ha.nce with hcdcrstl. Wa.y City Code (F*,'WC(.). We reviewed the following docur.n.ents for consistctacy with ,l;'edeml Way City. Code (FwCC). • Pi�rra» 1,�'i��/v ]7�/�rAt��» I+`iff rir�rr�i�; 1 'NrG� ��apl:ep2.rer1 by UkoloL! ical S<-. iccs (dated Mni:ch. 1.1, 2005); • !".rrx rrrr �a�Pi�s�rviilhar���rdrij.GiPrJ�1/.P%A/RilJlJrepaved I-)yI'Tal.ki &.A.9.9ocintens I.And 7ulvey.1]a 1 (dared jvne 20, 20i15)->r ll ze-o"rA ra i +�� * i �1 �,t��. s,,l�� i,a+.� cLp bou •-'c11'k `/ �l r��nr/rirr&,/YMv�fircparcd Uy l'?colok�i.c.al 5c..mices (cinx.e. l./ p.r..l. 19, 2006). Summary +lvs .m.cmot:a.tadum is divided .iiato tlarce sccdotas: (1) bacicc;rxn,.n.d. teview; (2) results, o:f'thc site visit; atad (3) proposed buffer .i.mpa.ct:s nsid mitigatioti. Secdota8 2 wi.d 3 include .ts9uC$ that must: be addressed in future subr�itt-'119 of the project, Those i9sueS .i.nrlude; cori ect. aJ1 si.tc I.-1aps to show Wetlands 1 and 2 as a. single Ga.tegoly .UT wetl.azad t'ui.th.. a 50-fool: buffer.. tZ L(,,\t` A&i"zNYVI-eY,�k IVOI Z—0�! ,003Q) No. 26o S''a 4 3450o 12-j Uv lLk:Me- le6Vp4r- o(o ii��,� G,�w�-fit A��,,,Y �rnc•1�. � � L'i^U,���.�--,.�...�Rl K:\prnlcrt\-TWX1\3 977PI-Insrh\131rvi4i07_[11t)iMArw �' /— 01/15/2007 20:39 2539272235 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 03/06 Citj, o. f f-,e d,- rA I Way )().7 ("orrecl: all site. traps to dcsipatc tho ditch "I't the nordic."Ist; corlicl. of Clio property as A, Stre-,.u.n., ".ild show the "ppropi1r.tte buffer fot either: a 119jot (1.00-feet) ol. rri-or (50-fLct) stream.. m.. Provide information to (Ictel-mine Whetbcl: thc off -site stru.l.1.11 that this ditch flows, into .is rated as a i-nljor, or j.-ninor siicam according tc) 1,W(:C 22-1. CLV provide a completc Process TV ;Ipplicatiorl. as specified below .in Scctioii* 3, 1 13.. - �a. 1, per I. Results of the Background Review .1.1.1c Pierson propetty is located .near North -i S. 334" Street: and S. 330"' Sttee.t.'This I T C, D'I)II-WIC, - 3. 5 6 divided into four lots h tilrougi, 1)). Lots A and B cortsiqts of a, Cbjistmai (:17CC f:'axM,pp1ahb MiNedfowst, and disturl.)cd atc-as clorninatcd by non-native il:lvasive species- Lol. (I con.ua= upland mixcU forest, ffitcc wc1:1,-Lnds, and ristream. Lot 1) cotitaifis t1le Viel-goilbouse, a %cp6c &aitl fi..chie�Al %hedi,-and laildscnpitig. Ptoposed clenrelol:)mont of this property i.T1V0JV'CS COMSI:Mdiftf, -2, d.1.iVUW,1Y FK01TZ S. 334" Street in ord.c.i.- to pr-ovide access to ' Locs.A and 13_ This 15-foot-Wicic driveway would cat.c.lid 501.101 &01171 S. 334" $ti:cctalori.g the Nvestcrn bourj.d-ary of 1A)t C' -,irid then tuna souflawe%t into Lot A. '111is driveway would follow a 204ont-wicle. c.q'solmel-ki: '11ong d, .1 ic west cdge of Lot w4ile.maintair.linly a 5-foot c thack frorn dac adjacel-li: property. 311. Addilion, the soutbwcst corner of Tor C' may be, &V6 T'd vritl-i driveway access From S. MW" Strect 'F Vj irled t cc Weiland-, (des*n-ted as Wetlands I tlitnv 3) an.d ;i .jG(jj()MV.qj 5er CCq .�aIo.l). the eo"FIFIt(PPE Sick of ]-,c S. ".1.1c8c critical ate -,is were described, in dic Bvxpw rlp'llaml by Ekological soludoll'a. -AU tlircc of these wettan cli cx(:cnd off,sftc to 1:1-10 cast, al-Ld the off site portiolls wore delineated by'falas,,ica Consultants as 1-mirl, OF 1.11c Q1,1"idl-iij.(: 11,iagi: (__'arnpus project - According to thc Kin.g, (.ounty critical. arc -a ardiria.l.-icc tegulations Ill effect ol. - the. title, thesc woflancls were claggificcl as (1,ategol.1i 2 and fliestroim. as a. 4. Class 3 strcam. ;- ilic'bound,"Ldcs and pf the wctlands and stream werr. veti fied by King 4ckl N 4/.w et-vi �el is iA 4c 0 /-A Ale L. L a %t, .:YS . �— cv,Ap- d 1� .4.2006, aft alexed by thc City of Fed evil Woy, Ecokgical Sevicc, prcpamili7) 1411-IMA01 M Char, rc-c)Assj Ficd the three we-0 f(rid s and n based on FW,(:C. According toltLalogical services, tinder MVCC 22-13.57(h), Wctlancl 1 should be Ciassirted as $1 C:91�:8()ry M WCtjAjjCj Wjjjj A 50-foot buffor (bemtisc it i.,i largcr. tball 1. 0,000 squaro (e'ct), Whflc. Wctjflnc1,s 2 and 3 should be classified As Catcgoiry TTT. wedands: 1-ccluinng 25-foot buffexs4x�cc�orting 4 to 17. co Service , fli c clitch at the north cod of the property, w11i c•h WAs rated -A a UtsN. 3 ttc4l M by Icing Cou t ty, docs n o t raect the c1c, F1 ni d on or a slxc Ain j t3 FWC C 22- 4 1 , m4d-Omm-For e Q-e- 'trem 4e. V%- oeA 1 -;:p4p .1 ti 0 .7,5 Weyt A-� -c Z1 &490 (P /01 01/15/2007 20:39 2539272236 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 04/06 City ofFeder J It %y fClx , -:*rr:,•.,"1rr'irrhwllrlr f..pkl.v�7».I>>ro�.CsxT 2. Results of the Site visit Pa.l>•c :� ()n 1)ecenll�c.t 17, 2006, Doug, Gmsl,,arn. of C)tal< C01A(11JC1'c:C'l a rCC-CC-lissancc of Ia,e Pierson p.roy)erty to %lssess wctl;lxl.d aald St:rea.tr Colldit:ions. Our. Etndim ). fi:c).ui the backgromtd .review grad. silx visit. arc di.sci,)ssccl below. 2.a Wetlands l:)t.).ring our si_tc v.iSi,l:, we located 1:noac of the wetland Flags placed 1)y Pcologlca.l Sclvices..ns regmil: d by FWCC 22-1 (INedand Defini.ric)n), Clary followed mmttiodolop specified in the.march 1997 II'�r'firlrF»,.f/r�� I�f�i>rc+]>i.i>/���i��/>�P%1!/fr..vl�rlrallllol�i�ep�rtt�a.et�.t of :f:;colol:;y y)tIb]icaeion No. 96-94) to identify Wetlands 1 rluough 3, We g ner:ally xp-cc wiili the-.Fkolof,>iml Services, boUrdides of Wedaiads 1 t12t01.tg17 3. ou 3111114 rt� 1_'+� k�rr 2 j Wetland 1 is located on T ,ot y. 113 thL snuthU';k 11-11c1 it: eXt en.cls off site to the "hlae on -site portion, of t:his Forested we:l:laud is corn.11ected i:o a off -site t.mlagati.on ".11v 1:1 . t is; ltrcdol??ina,l:el.y camcr.gct1t.'.l'l,e con,bi ed area of: both on- at,d cuff -site wedns),d is a,lthrox.inZ;.i.t:c;ly 0.5„ arse_ 7'b.c do.t,ritaat,t: vcgcn:at:ic>„ inclucics .red a.ldcr wcstx:rtl 1-cd cccla.r. 14, vine tna,ple clad slough scdpc We agrcc wi1:1, the Ecological Setvtccs classification ofWerland 1 2a C a'rerrry ITT A.ccordir)g to TAW(.'(: 22- 1.357(a) with a btiffcrwidth of .50 feet accotdii', g to F WC(, 22-1.357(l�} } Ik' 7 r � • l'f 44 C 3 ��V Wet:l and 2 is locawd on Loty`:in thef sowb c numl portion. of t:hc property, and it extends off site co the east. '14h.e combitaed area of both on- and off -site weiian.d is cstir aged. at 8,24.2 square F-ect.'l:'he docninat,t: vegetal nn in.clxtdes rcd alder, westcrta .red cedar, vine rnapl.e, salrztanbctry, ai,d slougli sad c. VCWetlaud 2 is directly hydrol.ogica.11y cor„aected t:o Wed',vi,d 1 through a. str)ah trl;rr:r-t�,ade ditch. (` 1 a .1:csult,'\`Vetlancls 9 a)>d 2,.Ic; wetland. Al.thot.igia th.e bou.ndaty line adjustraml: raaa.p combil,ecl Wetlands 1 and 2, the to iclr:.ti,i1C d-.1cnz as lwo scjaarate we lands. We agree with_ the Ecological. Services classification. of Wetland 2 as Caecgory ITT according to T'WCC 22-1357(a), However, we d.isaf a:ec with a buffer width of 25 .Feet a.ss.igtled by .l.?eologcal Services, Bec,, use Wetla1ds 'l and 2 corlat:itutc a single: Ca,terpty TIT wel:la.nd ZzriCl:i a, cornbinccl area grcarcr. i;hati 1.0,000 srjuar-r feet:, 1-he combir"ted wetland ha. a blt. erwidth of ti 50 Feet: acco.rd.ing, to 37WC.C; 22-1.357(b)(3).. t (� co L `j �7�vui, Y a` Y'"r ►� 11` el,--41 #111b Wctlarid 3 i; located on La-(} in the cast: central portion, n� tlac property, a.tu:l it r„ei:Chrli nFF-fiit:C i:t� the east_ 11h1e ox.).mbiiaed area of bol:h or)- a,nd crff site wetland is estitna,ted at 5,978 squl_te feet. Although thcis wo.-lal,d is ii.nged by trees it: is dominated 1)y shrUbs an.d therefore is p.red.ominai:cly 1 scrtii.b/shiub '171,e domina,.at v(.'get.�t:ion itacl.u.dcs red alcle-, black cottonwood. salmonbcrry, hardl,acle (, r �r1,/o���%rrrt�, slough sedge, 'mid soft 1z3sh �/I/y47/.r'Cffi✓.ri✓r). lAl.t1loLi gl, there is a eman-t.mdc ditch located bct:wecn Wetlands 2 and 3, 1-1-1cre wq.; 1.10 hydto10gic7. Coilr)i�C.tj.c�r, dur-ia.tg either- 1'11C Fihc. v..ki.t 113r, cological Sc rvi,tcF ()r (:)tale. We Agl . with tbC'F.."C010 icsr.l Scrviccs classificari.on. <.�f Wetland 3 as (.".sx gory .T.TT a,cco.rding to FWC;C 22••1357(a) wit:lt a buffer, ,v-t , of 25 feet according ro FWC.,, 22-13370))(3), IC:\rrr jcci\3fltif)r)\30R7r�I'\Rl:)�rxha\1'ict'xbnQ7 ,I)II)3M.rlrrr; 01/15/2007 20:39 2539272236 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 05/06 City of Fcderal IT,'ay fcIAIMIr. -91n-11f -AxIf"fr4w01W I*Irrall B/4" 2-2-1 —Provide. carrectioris, oil 'all sit-ona'.1pq to show. Wetlands I and 2 as a Sb-kgjC Cornbined wed'ind vA.0a a 50-foot buffer:. 2-b Stream .A ditch is located in the iiorthcast cornerh of I:he propeny. tb.,af dralnqn.orili to S- 334th-St.:T cet Dui-,J.0yr our site visiit, we located ):nosl, Of tl-l-c Ol-d1l"I-17 h'-91--1 W,itet 1-nni-k flags thai: had been cl-m of 1:1-1i's ditch byl,"Cologirn] cc-,'Vh it, ditch is 00 Feet long, varies to oi-ght fect: widc,aiad averages oti.c foot deep.Ttic of thc ditch are lined by red q.1der, -)c.l I a ]?,,h Ir ,.;n.J1.-.nonbe.rq, jTi.n.-.i�dAyau -.1-y Lm ng blackberry ( / / this ditch was excavated to drain the. end oT 21 and sivoi-d fernIt "Ll tl the property, but .it does not appear to be hydrologicq1tyconriceted toWctLi-ndM,: �Icon�sitcfitc srd Jocam.d. iagnarund 11car, ftircqqion. k,.cot�fj s W.a,= XaqOnAlly through ;a culvert uoder S. 334"' V-s am� Streer,"to q. 11"LrL!NqA W01"CrCourse nQ-1atc tovc Yorth that drains to North Lakc.'Ihis .val-ni-cotirw if, considered to be a strearn-A.I.O.,iougli the 01.asitc depression waq excavawd in the past, there is J.1-IsLif'ficient evidencc to coi-icludc that: it was not i nqruml di-Air)nge course befoxe fwi-ftatl .qL0Cjjf7 'l .LC9 tjo-I-, 1,11i's ditch W"Is rated as n Cliqs 3 sixnarn oby.King Coutity Senior T.-.1,cologist Greg Pod: in,l)eccinbox 2004.The Kite County Sensitive Atens (."Ode effective al, that til-Re (<Cc 21 A.06,1240) defirw(I ,.i sixcary), as T, x,#e dig-.1grec V1,11-1 satviccq, Conclusion th"i't 111.is dkch does not tnect 11-ic deflnitiori of sli.-carn -tecoxcling to 22-1, del in.cs R stre"IM "I'S - rowome It!hr,.is, nol: I-,)cen dctcri-niiied Whether thc ditch is .rated as A. I.-najor ol, minorstreatT.1 j-'1W(',C 22-1), AJ thougli wc. aj:.,Frcc tligi: this dj(-cb, is not utfl-i�wd by anadrcm-sous Fish, in order. to qu;,4.lY)r'-as i i-nipor si±carri-ir rniisl, be dctctrnined dial: an-LI-Lix,11 rnigrat(011. barrier occurs downstteqrn of 11'.1c properly. I —Provide incorm.ndu17 to cicterimirie whether: the off sits strcirn thn.1: this ditcla flows in.u.) is- ral:Qd -1-, -1 major or minor su.-C."Irn "I.Ccol,dirig to T-,W(:(: 22-1, Correct all site maps to dcsigmitc 1:110. 01/15/2007 20:35 2539272236 RICHARD PIERSON PAGE 06/06 0tv of Federal Way Page 5 g Af �7 dilrh as a.0 am Rccorchrig to fWC:(' 22-1., aad show 1:110 ftPj-)170j')lAAte blllftl: fat- either I- 1.71-flior (I()()- Feel) or ti-.1inol: (50-fed) strut (.I-'--WCC 22-1300). 3. Proposed Buffer Impacts and Mitigation The proposed cica,rilag F61-1. di7i.vew,,iy from S. 334"' Strect v-) providcaccess to lots A atldliwould impact -aPj.-.)j:oxj.M..ateJy 4,250 square of the imcani buffer. Clearing for this driveway would rquil-C.l.-emov.-al. of we westerl.i ted cedar Itees, two black cottotnvood'trccs, ancl. -er -.r - el-incl ides in "evex"11.1-orl Alder. Trees- other vegetation tbatwol-lldbL i. novedforatticbuff.. 1: maple, .9-ahn.o.riberry, 11h.m.dayi.1.1 blackberry, h.01-ly (//nvq///0 ITA14-19 bl',lc)K-lX.Tl7-, -,Llld swol-rl The proposed irnpict. I-cy tbe sn-carn bufflex con-stitutes ,L Stvuw-n buff6r tnodl ficatiotis, requite app.rova.l fl-irough. ProcEss TV evaluation. and 1.1-lust sq.tisfy gj:x ctitutin [1* :',WC(' 22-1312(c)]. 'In addition, buffettnodiFicafloia mqy.tcquirc -approv,,11 of aI-xiffel: ctilinvicr-I.I.-ICIlt as parr of 010 1-1170CC.Ss 'IV OW-113fliJ011 [Fi'W(:C 22-4-34(b)(6) and 22-1 243J.-Thc buffer cial-t-aiicernerit shnilld b.-.013C.1c 07adori sequencing iji Rri.r.adon, ul� is limii;ed to): i.-nitig goals .1nd objcclivcs; olvinew"I.C(l site ph,11,1S, gracling P1.11-1, plaildlig I-A'airl, plA.1-11: "elledule., install-,ldon -wid culasixticliorl sper-i.E.Cal-lorls-, I-nairLin.1-1-ancin plan; rwe-yc"It Inowtodrig repott. aiad annual rn.onitoringreports; RIA1,13,6,11 and coll.l;i.riger.kcy plans, '1'hc buffer erfl-miacemcr.i.i: should ge-tact-i-fly be C013sistell.l: wl 1-:b s.pe-66c".16om.; 12rvvlole-Ml�,�,,711�w P1,11A, Version 1, March 2006, g colo I-'.l.-ication. 06-06-011b F-,WCC 22-1.24.3 al...1d 22-12791. ,. y Flub We (.)b,;(-i-vc-.d that: porti.01AS Of d1c. stream buffer w-c duT.I.-Old.cd -,itid thcreFore provide Col. burrol. 01:1111MCCT.nClIt tlll:0Ug1-L 17M.110W.I. oFin.wsivc sl )ccics, and supplallentAl phxladi-IF of nadve s 'S that VAN] clevelop.i.111. ) -1 colliramus forest Corl.I.I.T.1unity• pcck f.. X 3.a. I—Tltnviclea completc T'vocc-'s Wspplicq1lion. ns spc6fied J.t.i FWCC 22-4,34 incluclir�g- buffer j.-ru-AiFicadon Cl-itc-ti-a' a b116:61. anhallccment phln;and other requixed informad.on. ,T.f7yo%i have. any questions regarding to.cl-nol",11-idut-ri, please Doug Gresham 'it 4.25-739- 7937 of nt. ItconriAl7ici-m1n07. .01 olm.doc CITY OFF Federal Way WETLANDS CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: October 20, 2006 City: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Consultant: Otak, Inc. Attn: Dyanne Sheldon/Suzanne Bagshaw 10230 NE Points Drive, #400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Project: Pierson; vicinity of 3600 block between South 336th and 334"' Street (Parcels # 614360-0650; 614360-0657; 614360-0450; & 614360-0451) File No.: 06-105384-00-AD Project Proponent: Mr. Richard Pierson 3516 South 336th Street Auburn, WA 98001-9655 253-927-7465 Project Planner: Greg Fewins, Deputy Director, 253-835-2611 Documents Provided: Wetland Delineation Prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc., March 11, 2005, and addendum dated April 19, 2006 Task Scope: Background: According to the Federal Way Critical Areas Map, only one of the above -referenced sites contains a small portion of a category III wetland and major stream. The delineation and classification of wetlands is in question, per the enclosed wetland delineation submitted by the applicant. This report has been submitted to determine whether or not the lot is developable prior to any formal land use application being submitted. Otak, Inc., is requested to review information noted above and perform the following tasks: 1) Review the wetland delineation, with addendum, and associated data for consistency with requirements of Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article XIV, "Critical Areas," especially Division 7, "Regulated Wetlands" (i.e., FWCC Section 22-1356). File #06-105384-00-AD Doc. LD- 38506 2) Provide written response that determines if the conclusions and recommendations of the wetland determination report prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc. are accurate, especially in regards to potential future development of the four above -referenced lots in accordance with 4 city code. F'/E1 (yf (e�p(° C.C�a►ztFl�/+�tei�1 C.GT1 Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by November 6, 2006. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ Zi VX . 90 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. (The total task amount is to be filled in by the Project Planner after the consultant returns this form with all items filled out, including the total work estimate, and said estimate has been approved by the Project Planner.) Acceptance: of Federal Way (Planner) (Consul ject Proponent) Date 0 File N06-105384-00-AD Doc 1 D 38506 tq?-olo wluzv � f,Yc., qF City of Federal Way Pierson Wetland Review Otak Project No. 30879P Proposal for Professional Services November 12, 2006 Scope of Work Scope of Work The following scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Otak, Inc. (Otak) for conducting a review of the Wetland Delineation and Addendum (2005, 2006 respectively) submitted by Ecological Solutions for D. Pierson, on behalf of the City of Federal Way, Washington. This scope of work includes: • reviewing the submitted wetland delineation and addendum reports prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc. on March 11, 2005 and April 19, 2006; • a site visit to confirm conditions; • confirm compliance with City Code relative to wetland and stream classifications • preparing a letter of findings and recommendations; and • project management. This is a not -to -exceed cost estimate and the client will be .billed as hours are accrued. All in-house reimbursable costs (such as copies, reproductions, facsimiles, etc.), and any out -of -house direct costs (such as mileage), will be in addition to the labor fee and will be invoiced at cost plus ten (10) percent. Task I —Background Review Otak will review background materials and various documents provided by the City, including: • Wetland Delineation Report (March 11, 2005) and Addendum (April 19, 2006) prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc. for D. Pierson • City of Federal Way Code The reports list above will be reviewed for consistency with applicable portions of Federal Way City Code. Task 2—Site Visit A wetland ecologist from Otak will conduct a site visit to confirm wetland delineations, wetland characterizations and ratings, and stream classifications relative to provisions of Federal Way City Code. If new areas are identified on the site, they will be noted in the memorandum of findings. Pierson IVetIand Review otak K:\project\30800\30879P\Contract\Scope Pierson1l'12'06.doc R Scope of Work Continued Task 3— Prepare Memorandum of Findings Otak will prepare a memorandum summarizing our review of the wetland delineations, and wetland and stream classifications relative to provisions of Federal Way City Code. Task 4—Project Management and Coordination This will include general project management, team coordination and coordination with City staff. Fees Our proposed fee summary is as follows: Task I —Background Review $ 240.00 Task 2—Site Visit $ 720.00 Task 3—Prepare Memorandum of Findings $ 753.00 Task 4—Project Management and Coordination $ 377.00 Project Reimbursables 1$ 46.00 Proposed Fee Total $2,236.00 Schedule and Budget We estimate that we can complete the above scope of work on a time and materials basis for a budget not to exceed $2,236.00. The staff person will not exceed this budget without prior approval from the City of Federal Way. If conditions are found different from those described to us and as observed at the site visit, Otak will notify City of Federal Way immediately and discuss any impacts to the scope of work and budget. Pierson IVetiand Review K\project\3080U\30879P\Contract\Scope Piersonll'12'06.doc 2 otak Page 1 of 1 Greg Fewins - Pierson revised scope From: "Dyanne Sheldon" <dyanne.sheldon@otak.com> To: "Greg Fewins" <Greg.Fewins@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 11/16/2006 12:31 PM Subject: Pierson revised scope CC: "Doug Gresham" <doug.gresham@otak.com> Greg; I've revised this scope to reflect a single staff person going out on site and confirming the WL edges, per our conversation of last week. dyanne Dyanne Sheldon I Natural Resources Manager 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 1 Kirkland, WA 98033 v: 425.739.79721 f: 425.827.9577 w-wu,.otak.com The information transmitted in this a -ma il message and attachments, if any, may ccn[ain confidential material, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review by, unauthorized persons its prohibited. In the event of the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak not the sender shall have any WWI and the recipient shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the sender, Otak and its principals, agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages. The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this dlsdaimer, It you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments, if any. f e c e e g of c e g . � 1 I'�4'4P fl.4P4d A4l i�N, ^^94P II�IIt'ry`94A I�IH, AN4'„ -I 21 6-28h 30.1 2o(3-'J R:; 0:i23 C 2.06-H4 I.8MOI 40113 :3)..nd Montle Won Soul Llc, Wn MR 199 ocolollicilinohllinnohl:n;II)nl. mil April 19, 2006 Dick Pierson 3516 South 336th Street Federal Way, WA 98001 Re- Addendium to March 11, 2005 Wetland Delineation Report Dear Mr. Pierson: This letter is an a.ddendunrA to the wetland delineation report prepared by F,cological Solutions, Inc. dated March 11, 2005. As you know, that report: was prepared in support of your boundary line adjustment (BLA) submitted to icing County_ It is my understanding that Greg Poets, Senior iscvlUglst with Kind; County Department of Development and Environmental Services confirmed the delineated wetland boundaries and the wetland and stream classifications identified in the report. Furthermore, I understand that the BLA was approved by the country. Since that time, the parcels that were the su4ject of the BLA have been incorporated into the (City of Federal Way (City) via annexation. 17he purpose of this addendum is to update the previous wetland delineation reportt wetland and stream classifications to clearly identify the City's classification. I have reviewed the wetland definitions and categories identified ill the V-ederaI Way City Code (I'VC.Q. '11lese were downloaded (March 4, 20(Ko) or viewed online (April 3, 2006). According to FWCC 22-1357, there are three categories of wetlands 0, 11, and 111). As identified in Figure 2 of Ecological Solutions' 2005 report:, there are portions of three small wetlands on your properties. Wetland I contains one wetland vegetation class and is approximately 22,000 square Feet 1'.01 (-0.5 acre). Most of this wetland is offsite to the south of your properties. Wetlands 2 and 3 are smaller and primarily on your properties. Including the Estimated offsite areas, the total surveyed plus- estimated ofF.sitc areas of Wetlands 2 and 3 are 8,242 and 5,979 square feet, respectively. Note that on the recorded boundary line adjustment (BLA) Wetland i and Wetland 2 are lumped together as Wetland I . On the recorded BI A, line segments i-.14 to 1,19 am a narrow swale-like drainage that connects what are identified in 1,:cological Solutions' 2005 report. as Wetlands I and 2. Tile area. shown on the recorded 131,A for Wetland i is 1 1,680 sf, which includes an upland area that extends sough of line segments 1..14 to 1,19 t:o the eastern property boundary. None of these wetlands contain threatened or endangered species or documented habitat recognized h:Y state or federal agencies for these species. None contain plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological functions, are considered of Exceptional location significance, or have I.hreA' "Or more wetland classes. So, none of the wetlands meet the Categorgr I criteria. Pmnlillin0 Warm fhrdily ; Sullnce W:IWI I Wn.11omh; I Wildlilr. I alilnl Y�• Mr. Dick Pierso❑ April 19, 2006 Page, 2 Kind; Co. Senior pycrlOg'st Greg poets indicated that the portions of the ditches that the countyW11% deTiel intermittent streams on the north parcel and offsite to the south do not support -fish population concurred will: this asse.%s neat_ As such, none of the wetlands are contiguous with water booties or tributaries that under normal circumstances contain or support fish. None are greater than an ac re, and all possess only one. wetland vegetation class. So, none of the wetlands meet the Cateegory 11 wetland criteria, All of tine wetlands appear to be Category Ill wetlands, according to FWCC 22-1357(a)• of the three:, feet. Category III wetlands > 10,000 sq_ fit. require a only Wetland 1 is greater than 10,000 square Standard buffer of 50 feet (FWCC22-t357(1b)(3)). Wetlands 2 (that portion of Wetland I [Torn lime segment 1.20 to 1_,29 in the: recorded 1' LA) and Wetland 3 (identified as Wetland 2 in the recc)rdcd I11.A) are Korth between 2,500 and 10;000 sq. ft. and require a standard buffer of 25 feet.. In addition to the wetlands, King Couauty considered two ditch segments streams_ ()no of these is can your property and lire ether is offsite: to tlae South_ In fray opinion, the ditches are _just that and were excavaiOd features dug in an attempt to drain the wetlands. The ditches do not appear lea have been streams that were altered and placed in Glitches. Both of the ditches do apparently convey water seasonally primarily during the winter to natural watercourses farther off -site to the north and to the south that would he considered streams. According to the definition of Stream in the FWCC 22-1= "Stream means a. cout or route, formed by nature, including those which have been modified by humans, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks or sides throughout substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining from higher to lower elevations. A stream need not contain water year round. In a. developing settia�t;, streams ma.y run in culverts or may be channeled in a cm:cretc, rock or other artificial conveyance sysictn. This definition is not meant to include irrigation (litel;V,, stormwater facilities or other artificial watercourses unless they are used by resident. or anadlonlous salmonid fish, or the feature was constructed to convey natural streams which existed Prior i:o construction of the watercourse." Furthermore, FWCC 22-1306 identities setbacks for minor and major st:reanas. According to the definitions, a major strearn "means any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports, resident or migratory fish. if there exists a natural pennanent blockage can the stream course wilich precludes the: upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream cif' the: natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream." According to the definitions, "a minor stream is any q.rcam that does not meet the definition of a maJor stream." Neither ditch scgarrent an the sits-, or immediately south of the site supports any species of fish as Mr. Poets' agreed. Thus, neither ditch appeaa:s to meel the, defanituolz ol- stycalit identifio d in Ow F WC (-'. Picasc note th.i1 all wetland ;utol stream classifications and buffer requirements identified herein are preliminary and sut�lect. to verification by t:hc City_ Sincerely, LUCRIESSA Certified Ecologist, M.S. cc: Bryan Nylin, Horan Real ➢ st:ate Investrnent:s 4M N 4' A 11 . (,; 4 h p, it it, p d n 1,I I 7llf 7.;h•;:(11!; 1 1 :)ori %'r l:: 11:;?:7 1: ;,o(i ti4 I :W01 CITY OF Federal December 11, 2006 Ms. Dyanne Sheldon Otak 10230 NE Points Drive, #400 Kirkland, WA 98033 CITY HALL �� 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Re: File #06-105384-00-AD; AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Pierson Wetland Status Verification, No Site Address, Federal Way Dear Ms. Sheldon. The purpose of this letter is to authorize services of Otak on the Pierson property as outlined in your November 12, 2006, scope of work #30879P. Authorization to Proceed In an October 20, 2006, Wetland Consultant Authorization Form, the City requested an estimate for verification of wetland conditions at the Pierson property. Your scope of work indicated that a budget of $2,236.00 would be appropriate for the identified tasks. At this time, funds in the amount of $2,236.00 have been received by the City. In addition, the application has since submitted a December 6, 2006, letter clarifying specific elements of his request. Please consider this letter as an authorization to proceed with your review pursuant to your scope of work #30879, as detailed in the City's October 20, 2006, Authorization Form, and as further clarified in the applicant's December 6, 2006, letter. Please sign and return a copy of the enclosed wetland consultant task authorization. A final copy signed by the applicant will be forwarded to your attention. I can be reached at 253-835-2611 if you have any questions about this project request. Sincerely, Greg Fewins Deputy Director of Community Development Services enc: December 6, 2006, Letter from Richard Pierson October 20, 2006, Wetland Consultant Authorization Form Doc. I. D. 39078 0(0 - /OS 36^ f —14.0 )!Mp tIN]TYDEVFLOME BDEPARTMPNT 0 9 2006 December 6, 2006 Mr. Greg Fewins City of Federal Way Deputy Director of Community Development Services 33325 8ch Ave. South Federal Way WA 98063-9718 Dear Mr. Fewins: In response to your letter of September 22, 2006 stating requirement for the city's wetlands consultant review of my wetland report pursuant to the road clearing and residential lot development of my property, Otak Wetland Review proposal of November 12, 2006, and our conversations last week; I would like to clarify my understanding of what should be accomplished in such a review as you suggested. First I need to have full understanding that the review is focused on the King County Recorded Document 20050630900012 that was referenced and sent to you in my Sept. 12, 2006 letter. Although the wetland analysis remains the same as the documents I sent you, the lot orientation and Ingress/Egress &Utility easement has changed to that of the above -recorded document upon review with King County. What I expect to be accomplished by this review is a verification of the following: 1. That the proposed easement referenced above to install a private driveway is in compliance with Federal Way City Code or what modifications of the easement are needed to bring them within compliance. 2. That Lots A, B, and C referenced in the above KC recorded document are suitable for residential construction from a Federal Way City Code wetlands perspective. Enclosed is check Number 2732 for $2,236.00 for the above work, which I understand will not be exceeded and maybe less. If there is any misunderstanding about my expectations state above relative what will be accomplished by this project, please bring them to my attention before any funds are expended. I understand that the project should reasonably be completed by the end of January 2007. If I can be of any assistance with orientation to the property, please let me know. Sincerely, Richard . Pierson 3516 South 336' St. Federal Way, WA 98001 INVOICE City of Federal Way CITY OF Invoice Date: December 8, 2006 P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way Bill #: 116474 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Ph: (253) 835-7000 Permit #: 06-105384-00 Project Name: PIERSON Site Address: Applicant Name: RICHARD PIERSON FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CD - DEP ENV PASS TH(8045)................................................ $2,236.00 001-0000-000-239-10-004 TOTAL DUE: $2,236.00 (i) DDES King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 9805.5-1219 December 28, 2004 Mr. Richard Pierson 3516 S336th Street Auburn, Washington 98001 RE: Permit Application No. L04L0030 — Pierson BLA Dear Mr. Pierson, You have requested a boundary line adjustment (BLA) for four, contiguous King County Parcels, parcel Nos. 6143600450, 6143600451, 6143600650, and 6143600657. Previously, the County performed a sensitive areas site review of the four properties in July and August, 2004. This letter is to inform you of the findings of that review and also to list and describe the study requirements that will need to be accomplished and submitted to the County for review, prior to issuing final recommendations for your proposed BLA. Findin s A sensitive area review of King County parcel Nos. 6143600450, 6143600451, 6143600650, and 6143600.657, was performed to provide sensitive areas information to the feasibility of a proposed boundary line adjustment to the four, contiguous lots. The KC sensitive areas database was reviewed and a field assessment of on -site conditions was conducted to see which lot lines (existing or proposed), would cause the least impact to the on -site sensitive areas features while providing building sites on the four resulting lots. Regulation of the sensitive areas is subject to the provisions of King County Code 21A.24 (Sensitive Areas Code). This code protects property owners, the general public and the environment from damage resulting from improper development of environmentally sensitive land. The (four -parcel) site was visited July 6, 2004, and other relevant materials from the County database were reviewed to determine the approximate extent and classification of streams and wetlands near or within the subject properties (Site). Based on this review it has been determined that the Site contains two Class 3 streams and a forested, Class 2,,stream-associated wetland complex, which runs north to south, predominantly through the eastern one-third of the Site. The Site lies on the divide of two drainage basin boundaries and contains a forested, Class 2 wetland, which is the headwater area for two streams that leave the Site. The wetland discharges Mr. Richard Pierson December 28, 2004 Page 2 via Class 3 intermittent streams to the north and to the south. The unnamed stream that discharges north is culverted under South 334"' Street and flows for approximately 0.3 miles before discharging into North Lake. The unnamed stream that discharges south is an intermittent tributary that flows approximately 1.0 mile before discharging into Lake Killarney. Both lakes discharge into tributaries which feed Hylebos Creek (WRIA 10.006), a Class 2S salmonid-bearing stream. Due to stream channel and habitat conditions, and lack of fish habitat at the Site, the County has designated both streams as Class 3 (intermittent with no salmonid use) at the Site. The riparian habitat is made up of wetland and upland areas that contain a diverse, mixed habitat of young -to - mature forest, which includes some snags, perch trees, in -stream wood, and moderate cover habitat among its components. Parcel Nos. 6143600450 and 6143600451 Parcel Nos. 6143600450 and 6143600451 comprise the northern panhandle of the Site. The unnamed stream that flows north lies in a channel which crosses a strip of the western quarter of both parcels. Based on the field investigation, approximately 75% of the remaining area of the two lots contains Class 2 wetland. If the panhandle area was considered as one parcel, a small, moderately narrow strip in the northeast corner of this `panhandle' area contains upland habitat that maybe large enough to place a,.smaJl sizlgl��!y_ residence SFR) without impacting the stream or wefland sensitive areas, but would likely require a Variance or Reasonable Use approval by the County with the existing lot configuration. Access for such a lot would come from South 334 h Street. The County does not approve BLA's for projects that would allow increased alterations to sensitive areas, however, that assessment can only be made after the site has been delineated and verified, and would require that the SFR be on city sewer and city water lines due to on -site space constraints. Parcel No. 6143600650 Parcel No. 6143600650 comprises the southwestern portion of the Site. There are no stream, wetland, or buffer sensitive areas located on this parcel, which lies entirely within upland area and contains an existing SFR. Parcel No. 6143600657 Parcel No. 6143600657 comprises the majority of the site and covers the central and southeastern portions of the Site. The unnamed stream that flows south from the Class 2 wetland, lies in a channel which flows through the eastern half of the parcel. Based on the field investigation, approximately 20% of the parcel contains Class 2 wetland. The western side of the parcel contains upland habitat that might accommodate one to three small SFRs without impacting stream or wetland sensitive areas. Access for this scenario, however, would need to be from South. 330h Street, and possibly, through the existing driveway access on Parcel No. 6143600650. This assessment would also require that the SFR(s) be on city sewer and city water lines due to on -site space constraints. 2 Mr. Richard Pierson December 28, 2004 Page 3 Discussion Based on my site visit, database review, it would appear that: • the eastern and northern portions of the Site are covered with a significant area of sensitive areas and a building site may be difficult to find or permit without a Variance or Reasonable Use permit; As proposed on the Hallin & Associates Land Surveying site plan dated 5-19-04 (Proposed BLA), the Proposed BLA would appear to impact a large portion of the stream/wetland complex due to site access requirements for Proposed Lot 3 and Proposed Lot 4; a sensitive areas study would be required to ascertain the amount of impact to sensitive areas based on the proposed BLA. Stream and wetland crossings are allowed alterations to sensitive areas (KCC21A.24.330, KCC21A.24.370), but not when impacts can be avoided. Y rasa + Parcel No. 6143600650 already contains an existing SFR and driveway access road and a buildable area that is not encumbered by sensitive areas or associated buffers. • The combined area of Parcel Nos. 6143600650 and 6143600657 appear to contain enough upland area for 3-4 SFRs without impacting stream or wetland sensitive areas, provided access was from South 336th Street and possibly through the existing driveway in Parcel No. 6143600650. King County Recommendations Based on discussions with the County, it appears that "avoidance" of sensitive areas impacts could more reasonably occur with the following revisions to the Proposed BLA: Proposed Lots 1 and 2 would remain as shown on the Proposed Plan with the exception of a driveway easement located along their joint property -line that allows access to Lots 3 and 4 from South 336th Street; + Adjust the lot line between Lot 3 and Lot 4 by ninety degrees, to a north -south configuration, from the proposed east -west configuration. Lots 3 and 4 would then be approximately 200' long on their eastern and western property edges, and approximately 97' wide on their northern and southern property edges. Access to Lots 3 and 4 would be from South 336th Street, via an easement between Proposed Lot 1 and Proposed Lot 2; • Place the sensitive areas (located in the panhandle) in aj�ep, ' iy Areas Tract approximately 100 wide where it abuts South 334 Street, and extending for approximately 410' south of South 334"' Street. KCC 21A.24 requires that a sensitive areas buffer of native vegetation shall be provided for all wetland and stream areas. The buffer setback required for Class 3 streams is 25 feet & 1 ! 0 f (KCC21A.24.360); 50-foot buffers are required for Class 2 wetlands (KCC21A.24.320). A 15- Mr. Richard Pierson December 28, 2004 Page 4 foot building setback line (BSBL) is required beyond the buffer boundary of the stream and wetland sensitive areas (KCC21A.24.200). Sensitive area buffers are mandated for the purpose of protecting wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat. Buffers of native vegetation help wetlands to maintain both hydrological and biological functions and values. These include storm water conveyance and food chain support, as well as flood prevention and salmon production. In order for buffers to perform these duties they must remain in an undisturbed condition as a "setback area" in which native plants are allowed to grow: non-native species are not allowed to be introduced into this area (KCC21A.24.330). Except for some specific exemptions, the Sensitive Areas Code does not allow alteration of sen- sitive areas or their buffers without express permission from the King County Department of De- velopment and Environmental Services. "Alteration" means, among other things, the removal of any vegetation or the grading of any soil. Using the King County recommendations, it appears that alterations to sensitive areas could be substantially diminished while still allowing a BLA that would also provide four buildable lots � - .r.--.--.---•.-_..... on the subject properties, as requested. However, more sensitive areas information is required 4 - and to location of the sensitive area s as features and -their respective F�►iffe with regard an BSBL's. Therefore, before proceeding with the boundary line adjustment (BLA), the following study reports are required to_faclitate, f rther review for these properties: Study Report Requirements Wetland Delineation/Stream/Wildlife Report. Provide a wetland delineation /stream /wildlife report and survey map showing the location of the wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat features (e.g., snags, downed logs, raptor nests, dens, etc.), buffer setbacks, and the 15-foot BSBL in relationship to all of the proposed development. I will perform a field verification of the wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat features, once I once I have received the report and map; and Revised Site Plan. Provide a revised site plan that shows the proposed BLA's (Lots 1- 4) as they are located in relationship to the wetland, its 50-foot buffer, the streams, their 25-foot stream buffers, appropriate wildlife habitat buffers, and the buffer's respective 15-foot BSBL's. If applicable, aIjo show proposed clearing limits on the revised site plan; and • Sensitive Areas Notice -on -Title. Once I have approved the plan, you will be required to file a Sensitive Areas Notice on Title (SANT) for the sensitive areas on site. I will prepare the paperwork once I have approved your plan. Cl Mr. Richard Pierson December 28, 2004 Page 5 In addition, and only if you are also planning to develop the proposed lots, you will also need to provide the following: ■ Mitigation Plan. If development occurs under the proposed BLA that requires sensitive areas alterations, provide mitigation for all of the impacts that would be proposed to sensitive areas and their associated buffers. The mitigation plan that is submitted must be consistent with the 1998 King County Sensitive Areas Mitigation Handbook Guidelines and King County Code; A Monitoring Plan. If development occurs under the proposed BLA that requires sensitive areas alterations, you will need to provide a monitoring program for any mitigation that is requested. The site must be monitored for at least three years, and the monitoring program must include the monitoring schedule and a description of the each effort, as described in the 1998 King County Sensitive Areas Mitigation Handbook. Each performance standard should have a specific monitoring component that is designed to evaluate whether the performance standard has been met; Bond Quantity Worksheet. If development occurs under the proposed BLA that requires sensitive areas alterations and mitigation is required, you will need to complete a Bond Quantity Worksheet and submit that with the revised plan. King County requires that a bond be posted to cover plant procurement, installation, and three years of monitoring; In order to assist you in providing the requested information, the following information has been included: • Preferred Wetland Consultant List, • Selecting a Wetlands/Stream Consultant, ■ Wetland Delineation Guidelines, • Sensitive Areas Mitigation Guidelines, • Bond Quantity Worksheet, and • Basic Restoration and Enhancement Guideline. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding this memo. Sincerely, G gory Poels, Senior Ecologist Critical Areas Section 5 Mr. Richard Pierson December 28, 2004 Page 6 Enclosures: Preferred Wetland Consultant List Selecting a Wetlands/Stream Consultant Wetland Delineation Guidelines Sensitive Areas Mitigation Guidelines Bond Quantity Worksheet Cc: Steve Bottheim; Supervisor, Critical Areas Section/ Land Use Services Division [GMPI: L04L0030-study.doc R 10/20/200G 10:58 FAX 2186314282 GREINAN'S * ��. ' �«�� ��VV1/OV1 ��)~ /-`�=°~- �� - 0� 4 2 o 2 00 ^, Yn.------- ~ -------- -^-' 75 000, r - � _--.~�-----_-__ -,~._---_----_'--_ - --- ___�- . _-�----_' ~-_�^~--_-_ _ ' -----------_-�--'----------_--- -__ '- -_-----_'-`--�--' CITY of CITY HALL �. 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Mr. Richard Pierson September 22, 2006 3516 South 336 h Street Auburn, WA 98001-9655 Re: Inquiry #06-104675-00-AD; PIERSON Vicinity of 3600 Block Between South 3361h and 3341h Streets Dear Mr. Pierson: The following is in response to your September 13, 2006, letter requesting approval to install a private driveway access to two vacant residential lots. The driveway is intended to provide access and visibility of the lots for sale purposes. There is no outright exemption from the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) for this particular type of project. Construction of driveway access on private residential property is only exempt from separate permitting requirements when it occurs in conjunction with otherwise permitted home construction (refer to FWCC Section 22-1093). However, FWCC Section 22-1094 establishes a process to request special approval to cleat land and construct a driveway in advance of permitted building construction. The request must be filed as a land use application under the city's process III procedures, and must meet decisional criteria of FWCC Section 22-1094(c). I have also reviewed the March 11, 2005, wetland delineation report and April 19, 2006, addendum prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc. The report and addendum have been prepared to address onsite wetland and stream areas per city code. In conjunction with any proposal to clear or develop the property, the city will need to have the report and addendum reviewed by the city's wetland consultant. Costs for this review are paid by the applicant based on a prearranged scope of work and cost estimate provided by the city's consultant. The city's consultant review of the report and addendum can be arranged at any time. Considering these factors, it may be advisable to delay installation of the driveway until someone is ready to construct a permitted home on the property. However, city staff stands ready to assist if you wish to move forward at this time. If you have any further questions, please contact me at L,�Teg.fewins idcityoffederalway.com, or 253-835-2611. Sincerely, Greg Fewins, Deputy Director Community Development Services Doc. I.D. 39132 September 13, 2006 Mr. Greg Fewins Deputy Director of Community Development Services 3335 81h Ave. South Federal Way WA Dear Mr. Fewins: Late last month I visited with Kari Cimmer and Betty Cruz at the Federal Way Land Use and Permit Counter about the permitting requirements necessary to remove trees, grade and rock an access from a city road to two residential lots that I own for the purpose of offering them for sale. They suggested that I write you regarding an administrative determination of an exemption to the land surface modification I am proposing or direction on what process I need to pursue. Ms. Cimmer and Cruuz recommended that I include the following in my request: -Copy of KC boundary line adjustment with recording number 20050630900012 enclosed with INGRESS/EGRESS easement noted. -Delineation of significant trees enclosed. In addition there is a 35-inch diameter western red cedar approximately 30 feet south of the south edge of the easement and 170 feet south of S.334th St., and on the lots to be accessed at least two significant western red cedars along with approximately six western red cedars about 7-inches in diameter and a similar number of Noble firs, 6-8 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet. Also the a joining property owner to the West of the easement (Parcel Number 614360-0445) has two western red cedars along the easement property line similar in size to those in the easement. The trees in the existing easement are flagged and numbered with orange ribbon. -Wetlands report. Enclosed is "Pierson Wetland Delineation" report, March 11, 2005 prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc. for King County considerations in the boundary line adjustment. Also enclosed is an Addendum to the above report date April 19, 2006 updating the wetland delineations from King County to Federal Way City code. Please note the last paragraph of this Addendum indicating that the "Class III Stream" labeled in the Boundary Line Adjustment recorded document for King County does not meet the definition of a stream identified in FWCC. Finally I have had some communications with Ann Dower in the Public Works Department suggesting that a five-foot set back from the property is required by FWCC for this project. In that I am the owner of lot 614360-0657 and I would not have any problem in increasing the easement width which would allow the retention of two significant trees numbers (1) and (2). Also I have applied to the city for a Right of Way Permit on August 30, 2006, which would have to be modified accordingly. 2 Also enclosed is a copy of a bid proposal for the grading and rock from R.H. Landscape Supply Co., June 24, 2006. I appreciate you consideration. If you would like to discuss any of the details related to this request, I will be out of the state from September 22-November 15, but am available during that time via the phone, voice mail and e-mail contacts below. Sincerely, g A V14 r . chard N. Pierson 3516 South 336th Street Federal Way, WA 98001 253-927-7465 EconoForester@MSN.com