The URL can be used to link to this page

24-100901-Critical Areas Report-3.13.24HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife – mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 253-845-5119 contact@habitattechnologies.net A VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS COOPERATIVE August 2, 2023 REVISED SEPTEMBER 7, 2023 Ms. Ivana Halvorsen, Senior Planner @ Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc e-mail ihalvorsen@barghausen.com Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment and Compensatory Mitigation Program for the Development of a New Single-Family Homesite Parcel 1196003800, City of Federal Way, King County Dear Ms. Halvorsen, Following your request Habitat Technologies has completed an onsite assessment of environmentally critical areas within and immediately adjacent to Parcel 1196003800 (project site) located along 2nd Avenue SW within the northwestern portion of the City of Federal Way, King County, Washington (Figure 1). This assessment focused on specific environmentally critical areas (wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas) and was completed following the methods and procedures defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010); the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Publication #14-06-029 (Hruby, 2014); the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-16-030); and the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.145. The project site consisted of a single parcel of record, was approximately 0.93-acres in total size, and was rectangular in shape. The project site exhibited a moderate slope generally from the southwest to the northeast into a well-defined surface water drainage corridor that originated offsite to the south of the southeastern corner of the project site and continued northward through the eastern portion of the project site. The project site was vacant and dominated by a mixed forest plant community. The project site was also located within a well urbanized portion of the City of Federal Way dominated by existing single-family homesites. Directions to Project Site: From Pacific Highway South turn west onto South 312 th Street. Continue westerly on South 312th Street to 1st Avenue S. Turn north onto 1st Avenue S and continue northerly to SW 292nd Street. Turn west onto SW 292nd Street 2 22141 and continue to 2nd Avenue SW. Turn south onto 2nd Avenue SW and continue generally southwesterly to the project site. BACKGROUND INFORMATION NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAPPING The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 2). This mapping resource identifies a riverine corridor along the eastern boundary of the project site. This riverine corridor led northerly to eventually enter Puget Sound to the north of the project site. STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 3). This mapping resource identified a surface water drainage corridor along the eastern boundary of the project site that continued offsite generally northward eventually entering Puget Sound. This mapping resource identified the potential presence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) within the lower reaches of this surface water drainage. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 4). This mapping resource identified a surface water drainage corridor along the eastern boundary of the project site that continued offsite generally northward eventually entering Puget Sound. This mapping resource further identified the documented presence of coho salmon within the area of the project site. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Water Type Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 5). This mapping resource identified a surface water drainage corridor along the eastern boundary of the project site that continued offsite generally northward eventually entering Puget Sound. This mapping resource further identified this drainage as a Type N Water (non-fish bearing). FEDERAL WAY MAPPING The City of Federal Way Inventory Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 6). This mapping resource identified a surface water drainage corridor along the eastern boundary of the project site that continued offsite generally northward eventually entering Puget Sound. This mapping also identified a potential erosion hazard area within the western portion of the project site that continued offsite to the north, west, and south. 3 22141 SOILS MAPPING The soil mapping inventory completed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 7). This mapping resource identified four (4) soil types within the project site. The very northeastern corner of the project site was mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC). The north central portion of the project site was mapped as Alderwood and Kitsap soils (AkF) and the northwestern corner of the project site was mapped as Kitsap silt loam (KpC). The southern approximately one-half of the project site was mapped as Indianola loamy sand (InC/InD). These soils are generally formed in glacial outwash and not defined as meeting the “hydric” criteria. However, Alderwood soil is defined to potentially exhibit inclusions of “hydric” soils. PRIOR ASSESSMENTS Habitat Technologies had completed a similar assessment of environmentally critical areas within the parcel directly to the south of the eastern portion of the project site. This prior assessment identified a City of Federal Way Type N Stream (non-fish bearing) within the very eastern portion of this offsite parcel that continued northward via a culvert within 2nd Street SW and then northward through the present project site. This offsite stream also exhibited a contiguous slope wetland to the south of 2nd Street SW. ONSITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFICATION Specific environmentally critical areas assessment and characterization included potential wetlands, streams, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas which may be located within or immediately adjacent to the project site. This assessment did not include an assessment of potential seismic hazard areas, potential landslide hazard areas, potential volcanic hazard areas, potential septic suitability, potential erosion hazard areas, or potential aquifer recharge areas. WETLANDS: Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terms, wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands are generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1987). 4 22141 Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 and United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: The assemblage of macrophytes that occurs in areas where inundation or soil saturation is either permanent or of sufficient frequency and duration to influence plant occurrence. Hydrophytic vegetation is present when the plant community is dominated by species that require or can tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during the growing season. 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper parts. Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repented periods of saturation or inundation. These processes result in distinctive characteristics that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods. 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or surface soil saturation, at least seasonally. Wetland hydrology indicators are used in combination with indicators of hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation to define the area. Wetland hydrology indications provide evidence that the site has a continuing wetland hydrology regime. Where hydrology has not been altered vegetation and soils provide strong evidence that wetland hydrology is present. The City of Federal Way defines “wetlands” as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass- lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands. STREAMS: A “stream” is defined to include those areas where surface water has produced a defined channel or bed and includes bedrock, gravel beds, and sand or silt beds. Streams may also include swales which lack a channel of bed if such areas are connected to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. A channel need not contain water year-round to be considered a natural water. Streams generally include man-made drainage channels that result from the modification of a natural watercourse or wetland and excludes only artificial channels. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS: The City of Federal Way defines “fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas” as those areas necessary for 5 22141 maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are not created as designated by WAC 365-190-130. These areas include: 1. Areas where endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have primary association; 2. Habitats and species of local importance, as determined locally; 3. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas; 4. Kelp and eelgrass beds, herring, smelt, and other forage fish spawning areas; 5. Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; 6. Waters of the state; 7. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; and 8. State natural area preserves, natural resource conservation areas, and state wildlife areas. STUDY METHODS Habitat Technologies completed a series of onsite assessments between July and October 2022. In addition, Habitat Technologies has completed previous similar assessments for a variety of parcels located within the general area of the project site. The objective of this onsite assessment was to define, delineate, and characterize potential specific environmentally critical areas (wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas) that may be present within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Onsite activities were completed in accordance with criteria and procedures established in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010); the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Publication #14-06-029 (Hruby, 2014); the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-16-030); and the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.145. FIELD OBSERVATION The project site was accessed via 2nd Avenue SW that passed through the eastern and southern portions of the project site. The project site exhibited a moderate to somewhat steep slope generally from the southwestern corner northward into the ravine the 6 22141 continued a seasonal surface water drainage entering the project site near the southeastern corner and continuing generally northward through the project site. The very eastern portion of the project site sloped somewhat steeply westerly into this ravine area. The project site was generally dominated by a deciduous forest plant community and an often dense understory composed of blackberry (Rubus spp.) thickets. The project site appeared to have historically undergone prior forest harvest actions, clearing and grading, and to have subsequently become dominated by a deciduous forest plant community and dense shrub understory.  Vegetation ONSITE: The entire project site was dominated by an existing deciduous forest plant community. The onsite areas generally along the identified ravine and damp hillslope to the west of the ravine (noted as Wetland A below) within the eastern portion of the project site was dominated by species typically associated with seasonally saturated to seasonally damp soils. Observed trees within this plant community included the dominant species red alder (Alnus rubra), along with a scattering of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and Western red cedar (Thuja plicata). The understory included salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Western crabapple (Pyrus fusca), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), horsetail (Equisetum arvense), reed mannagrass (Glyceria grandis), and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). This plant community was identified as hydrophytic in character (typical of wetlands). The plant community within the western and very eastern portions of the project site was composed of species more commonly associated with moderately well to well drained soils. Observed trees within this plant community included red alder, big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Western red cedar, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and cherry (Prunus spp.). The understory included Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), salal (Gaultheria shallon), holly (Ilex aquifolium), rose (Rosa spp.), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), Pacific red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), salmonberry, Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), vine maple (Acer circinatum), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), nettle (Urtica dioica), English ivy (Hedera helix), daisy (Bellis perennis), clover (Trifolium spp.), and buttercup (Ranunculus repens). This plant community was identified as non-hydrophytic in character (typical of uplands). This plant community appeared to extend somewhat offsite to the north and south.  Soils ONSITE: As documented at representative sample plots throughout the western and very easter portions of the project site the soil was generally dominated by a gravelly loam to gravelly sandy loam that appeared to drain moderately well to well. The surface soil 7 22141 generally to a depth of approximately six (6) to nine (9) inches exhibited a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) to very dark brown (10YR 2/2) color. The subsoil to a depth of approximately 24 inches was dark brown (10YR 3/3) to brown (10YR 4/3) and did not exhibit prominent redoximorphic features. The soil within these areas was identified as non-hydric in character. The soil along the identified ravine and damp hillslope to the west of the ravine (noted as Wetland A below) within the eastern portion of the project site was also dominated by a gravelly loam to gravelly sandy loam. However, these soils appeared to drain poorly and were often noted as saturated to surface during the late summer site assessments. The surface soil to a depth of approximately six (6) to eleven (11) inches, and sometimes to a depth of 24 inches exhibited a black (10YR 2/1) to very dark gray (10YR 3/1) color. The surface soil often included a somewhat high content of decomposing organic materials. The subsoil to a depth of approximately 24 inches ranged from black (10YR 2/1) to gray (10YR 5/1) to dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2). The subsoil also exhibited prominent redoximorphic features and oxidized root channels. The soil within these areas was identified as hydric in character.  Hydrology Onsite hydrology patterns appeared to be the result of seasonal stormwater runoff from onsite, seasonal stormwater runoff from adjacent parcels, surface water flow within a defined channel within the eastern portion of the project site, and a series of seeps along a somewhat well-defined topographic line. The western and very eastern portions of the project site appeared to drain moderately well to well and did not exhibit field indicators typically associated with wetland hydrology or the concentrated movement of surface water. The identified ravine within the eastern portion of the project site originated offsite to the south of the southwestern corner of the project site and continued generally northerly through the eastern portion of the project site. The ravine was well-incised and conveyed seasonal (and potentially permanent) surface water from the hillslopes to the south of the project site northward to eventually enter Puget South well offsite to the north. Wetted channel width varied from approximately three (3) feet in width to 10 feet in width depending upon instream debris and channel meander. The channel was generally dominated by exposed bedrock intermixed with small pockets of small gravels and fines associated with channel form and instream debris. This channel was identified to exhibit seasonal flow patterns during prior assessments but to also exhibit flow during September and early October of 2022. Hydrology patterns within the hillslope to the west of the ravine (noted as Wetland A below) within the eastern portion of the project site was identified as dominated by a series of seeps generally following a similar contour. These seeps formed short define small channels and then the surface water spread out which moving downslope. This area was generally sloped such the surface water did not regularly pool. However, within a few areas that appeared formed by tree falls and debris piles a number of small depressions 8 22141 (generally not larger than five to ten square feet) had formed and had retained a few inches of surface water.  Wildlife and Fish Species The project site was located within a well-developed area of existing single-family residential development and a few remnant vacant parcels. Species observed, those that would be reasonably expected onsite, or those that would be reasonably expected within the immediate vicinity of the project site based on habitat types would include American crow (Corvus brachynchos), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), Western screech owl (Otus kennicotti), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), dark eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American robin (Turdus migratorius), golden crown kinglet (Regulus satrapa), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), house finch (Passer domesticus), black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), brown creeper (Certhia americana), rufous sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertina), black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), shrew (Sorex spp.), bats (Myotis spp.), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), mole (Scapanus spp.), Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). The surface water drainage within the ravine dominating the eastern portion of the project site was not identified during prior assessments to provide suitable habitats for fish species. The stream downslope of the project site (northerly) passes through a series of stormwater ditches and culverts associated with public/private roadways and developed homesites. In addition, previous assessments of the Puget Sound shoreline in the area of the confluence of this drainage had identified that fish passage into this drainage was greatly restricted to somewhat impossible by the prior construction of shoreline bulkheads.  State Priority Species A few species identified by the State of Washington as “Priority Species” were observed onsite or potentially may utilize the project site. Priority species require protective measures for their survival because of their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Game Species: “Game species” are regulated by the State of Washington through recreational hunting bag limits, harvest seasons, and harvest area restrictions. Observed or documented “game species” within and adjacent to the project site included black-tailed deer and common mallard. 9 22141 State Candidate: State Candidate species are presently under review by the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. While not observed, a single State Candidate species - pileated woodpecker – may use the habitats onsite or within the local area. State Sensitive: State Sensitive species are native to Washington, are vulnerable to decline, and are likely to become endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range without cooperative management or removal of threats. The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide critical habitats for State Sensitive species. State Threatened: State Threatened species are species native to the state of Washington and are likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide critical habitats for State Threatened species. State Endangered: State endangered species are species native to the state of Washington and are seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state. The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide critical habitats for State Endangered species.  Federal Priority Species The project site has not been documented to provide critical habitats for federally listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. A single federally listed species of concern – bald eagle – has also been documented to use habitats associated with the shoreline of Puget Sound and area lakes and may occasionally overfly the project site. As defined by prior assessments, the surface water drainage through the eastern portion of the project site was not identified to provide suitable habitats for fish species. However, this surface water drainage is noted to provide habitats for coho salmon – a federally listed species of concern - by WDFW (Figure 4) and as not providing habitats for fish species by WDNR (Figure 5.) ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION WETLANDS ONSITE: Onsite assessment completed between July and October 2022 identified a slope wetland (Wetland A) to the west of the surface water drainage within a well defined ravine in the eastern portion of the project site. Wetland A was dominated by a deciduous 10 22141 forest plant community (primarily red alder) and an often very dense understory of shrubs. Wetland A was identified to potentially continue a short distance offsite to the north along the drainage corridor (“potentially” is used since no offsite field data were collected as a part of this assessment). Many areas of Wetland A were identified as saturated to the surface throughout the 2022-growing season as a result of a series of hillside seeps (Figure 8). Wetland A met the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded/saturated (PFOE) onsite; and palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded/saturated (PFOE) offsite. Wetland A was also identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Federal Way Category III Wetland. Wetland A was characterized as a slope wetland and achieved a total functions score of 16 points (4 habitat) utilizing the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington (2014 Version) (Appendix B). The standard buffer for a City of Federal Way Category III Wetland with 4 habitats points is 80 feet in width as measured perpendicular from the defined wetland boundary. OFFSITE: Wetland A appeared to extend offsite to the north a short distance along the defined surface water drainage that originated to the south of the project site (south of 2 nd Avenue SW) also along the hillside adjacent the same surface water drainage. STREAMS This assessment identified a stream within the well-defined ravine generally passing south to north through the eastern portion of the project site. During prior assessments this stream was identified as best defined, and subsequently verified during City of Federal Way review, as a City of Federal Way Type Ns Stream (seasonal no direct fish habitats). However, as defined during the late summer and early fall of 2022 this stream was identified to exhibit surface flow patterns. As such, this stream may best be defined as a City of Federal Way Type Np Stream (permanent flow but no direct fish habitats). The standard buffer for a Type Ns Stream is 35 feet and for a Type Np Stream is 50 feet as measured perpendicular from the ordinary high water mark. The buffer for the stream (either 35 feet or 50 feet) through the project site would be overlain by and incorporated into the standard 80-foot buffer associated with Wetland A. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Onsite assessment identified that no portion of the project site or area immediately adjacent to the project site met the criteria for designation as an area where endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; as a commercial or recreational shellfish area; as a kelp or eelgrass bed; as herring, smelt, or other forage fish spawning area; as a naturally occurring pond; as an aquatic area planted with game fish; or as a state natural area preserve, a natural resource conservation area, or a state wildlife area. 11 22141 This assessment identified a City of Federal Way Type Np Stream and an associated Category III Wetland dominating the eastern portion of the project site. This stream and associated wetland would be identified as a “water of the state,” and as City of Federal Way “priority habitats.” In addition, the mixed forested area located within the somewhat vacant parcels to the south and southwest of the project site may also be identified as a City of Federal Way “biodiversity area” since this area represents an area of native vegetation larger than two acres and is located within the City’s urban growth area. The “biodiversity area” would also appear defined as a City of Federal Way “priority habitat.” SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION The Selected Development Action for Parcel 1196003800 focuses on the development of a new single-family homesite within the southwestern portion of the project site. The development of the new single-family homesite within the very southwestern corner of the project site would be completed without any significant adverse encroachments into the identified offsite City of Federal Way Category III Wetland or the Np/Ns stream corridor. However, because of the shape of the parcel and the location of the identified wetland and stream corridor onsite homesite development would require the unavoidable modification of the standard wetland and stream corridor buffer for the placement of the proposed homesite, for the City of Federal Way required upgrades to the existing public roadway through the project site, and for City of Federal Way required emergency vehicle access/turn around upgrades. In addition, the connection of the new homesite to the existing sewer utility would require the unavoidable temporary encroachment into the very outer portion of the identify wetland and associated standard buffer (Figure 8). Permanent Standard Onsite Buffer Reduction 8,562 sqft Temporary Standard Buffer Encroachment for Utility Placement 488 sqft Temporary Wetland Encroachment for Utility Placement Onsite 273 sqft Temporary Wetland Encroachment for Utility Placement Offsite 108 sqft Total Area of Onsite Buffer Restored along with Temporary Wetland Impacts Approximately 18,000 sqft WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION WITH ENHANCEMENT The City of Federal Way may allow a modification or waiver on a case-by-case basis if the provisions of Chapter 19 would deprive the property owner or applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property (19.145.090 – Reasonable Use) pursuant to the following criteria: (a) The application of the provisions of this chapter eliminates all reasonable use of the subject property; 12 22141 Discussion: As presently defined, the presence of the onsite Type Np/Ns Stream, the onsite Category III Wetland, and the associated standard protective buffer areas severely limits the usable area onsite that would not be encumbered by these critical areas/buffers. The very limited area within the very southwestern corner of the project site that is not encumbered is not large enough for the development of a new single-family homesite consistent with the neighborhood while also meeting City of Federal Way public health and safety requirements such as safe roadway access, property boundary setbacks, building setbacks, utility connections, emergency vehicle access, and slope safety considerations. The only way to provide an area suitable in size for the development of a new single-family would be an unavoidable encroachment into the very outer portion of the associated standard wetland buffer area in the southwestern corner of the project site (Figure 8). The placement of a new homesite anywhere else on the project site would significantly encroach into wetland buffer, the existing wetland, of the existing stream corridor. (b) No feasible and reasonable on-site alternatives to the proposal are possible, such as changes to site layout and/or reduction of impervious improvements; Discussion: The project team has reviewed a variety of new homesite locations in an effort to ensure that the final proposed site plan avoids and minimizes potential encroachments into environmentally critical areas and their associated buffers to the greatest extent practicable. The final selected location for the new homesite has been identified to completely avoid permanent loss of wetland or stream corridor area while also meeting public health and safety standards for homesite development. The homesite itself has been reduced in total footprint size through the course of this review and the total area of new managed yard would be held to the required 15-foot building set back between the homesite and the retained buffer. To further reduce impervious improvements the existing public roadway would be used and upgraded only as required by City standards. The size of the emergency vehicle turnaround as required by the City would also be held to the minimum size necessary to meet City standards. (c) It is solely the implementation of this chapter, and not other factors, that preclude all reasonable use of the subject property; Discussion: The project team has identified that the southwestern portion of the project site is suitable for the safe development of a new single-family homesite and that such development could be completed without significant adverse encroachments into environmentally critical areas and also meeting City public safety standards. Other than the unavoidable permanent encroachment into the standard buffer for the identified onsite wetland, no other factors were identified to preclude all reasonable use of the project site. 13 22141 (d) The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition that forms the limitation on the use of the subject property, nor in any way contributed to such limitation; and Discussion: The applicant has not created or exacerbated the condition that forms the limitation on the use of the subject property, nor has the applicant in any way contributed to such limitation. (e) The waiver or modification will not lead to, create nor significantly increase the risk of injury or death to any person or damage to improvements on or off the subject property. Discussion: The requested waiver or modification of the provisions of Chapter 19 – as outlined below – would not lead or create a significant increase in the risk of injury or death to any person or damage to improvements on or associated with the project site. CONCLUSION As presently defined, the requested modifications to the provisions of Chapter 19 for the proposed development of a new single-family homesite would result in the minimum possible impacts to the function and values of identified environmentally critical areas and their associated buffers while also avoiding/minimizing the risks associated with proposed improvements on affected these environmentally critical areas. The new single-family homesite development actions would also incorporate a buffer establishment and restoration program to ensure that the unavoidable buffer reduction and temporary actions associated with utility placement would eliminate any direct undesirable effect while also providing for the establishment of a viable buffer plant community. The establishment and restoration of a protective onsite buffer would increase the effectiveness of the attributes typically associated with a wetland/stream corridor buffer. These attributes include the creation of a viable buffer plant community composed of a variety of desirable native plant species that support wildlife feeding, nesting/denning, cover, and resting habitats. The establishment of a viable buffer plant community would further provide support for the physical and biological functions of the offsite wetland and buffer areas to include light and dust controls, noise controls, physical habitats, erosion protections, water quality protections, and plant community diversity. 14 22141 BUFFER ESTABLISHMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION OF THE BUFFER PROGRAM 1. As compensation for the unavoidable reduction of the standard onsite wetland/stream corridor buffer area associated with the development of a new single-family homesite, the required improvements to the existing public roadway, the creation of an emergency vehicle assess, and temporary impacts associated with the connection of utilities the established onsite buffer and temporary impacted wetland areas would be restored through the installation of a viable plant community composed of a variety of desirable native species. As a part of this program there would be no adverse changes in the existing wetland or stream corridor hydrology patterns or plant communities. 2. The established onsite buffer adjacent to the new homesite would be cleared of existing debris and non-desirable plants (blackberries). All removed materials would be taken to an approved offsite disposal location. During these removal actions any desirable plants would be identified and retained to the greatest extent practicable. 3. The established onsite buffer and temporary impacted wetland areas would be planted with a variety of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover species common to the local area. The selected species would also increase plant community diversity and soil retention capabilities. Plants would be installed following common “pit-planting” techniques and composted mulch would be added within a ring of four-inches (4) deep and three (3) feet in diameter around each plant to assist with weed control and water retention. 4. The outer boundary of the established buffer would be marked with standard City of Federal Way buffer boundary signs at 25-foot intervals along the established buffer boundary adjacent to the new homesite. This outer buffer boundary may also be fenced with a split-rail fence, or other fence approved by the City of Federal Way, to limit intrusion into these areas. 5. Temporary and long-term erosion control measures would be implemented. These measures include the placement of orange construction fencing and silt fencing during site preparation and establishment of the buffer area and seeding of exposed soil areas. 6. Following the completion of buffer and wetland restoration program activities an Implementation Report would be prepared and submitted to the City of Federal Way. The Implementation Report would include a description of who completed the onsite compensatory actions, a description of the scope of work completed, a description of work specifications, and a detailed timeline of completed actions. 15 22141 The Implementation Report would also include photo documentation and a project evaluation prepared by the project biologist. 7. Upon the acceptance of the Implementation Report by the City of Federal Way a five-year monitoring program would be undertaken to ensure the success of the buffer program. IF REQUIRED BY THE CITY the project proponent would also establish financial guarantees for project implementation phase and performance monitoring phase to ensure that the proposed program is completed, documented, and successful. GOAL OF THE BUFFER ESTABLISHMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAM The GOAL of the Buffer Establishment and Restoration Program is to establish a viable onsite buffer associated with identified Category III Wetland and associated stream corridor that adequately protects the physical and biological functions of this wetland/stream corridor area, protects local water quality, and provides functional wildlife habitats. To achieve the defined GOAL the following PERFORMANCE CRITERIA are adopted: Objective A. The established onsite buffer would exhibit a scrub/shrub and sapling tree vegetation class within five years following initial planting. Performance Criterion #A1: As defined by monitoring within the established buffer the groundcover plant community would exhibit the following minimum aerial coverage during the fall monitoring periods within five years following initial planting. For purposes of the aerial coverage determination the emergent plant community would include both planted and desirable volunteer species. MONITORING YEAR MINIMUM AERIAL COVERAGE End of monitoring year one 15% End of monitoring year two 20% End of monitoring year three 40% End of monitoring year four 60% End of monitoring year five 80% Performance Criterion #A2: As defined by monitoring within the established buffer the scrub/shrub and sapling vegetation class would exhibit the following minimum aerial coverage during the fall monitoring periods within five years following initial planting. For purposes of the aerial coverage determination the scrub/shrub and sapling vegetation class would include both planted and desirable volunteer species. MONITORING YEAR MINIMUM AERIAL COVERAGE End of monitoring year one 5% End of monitoring year two 10% End of monitoring year three 20% 16 22141 End of monitoring year four 40% End of monitoring year five 50% Performance Criterion #A3: As defined by monitoring 100% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the established buffer would exhibit survival through the end of the first growing season following initial planting. Performance Criterion #A4: As defined by general observations throughout the established onsite buffer, invasive shrubs would not exceed 10% aerial coverage at the end of the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth growing seasonal following initial planting. SELECTED PLANTS The plants selected for the restored buffer would be obtained as nursery stock. These selected species are native and commonly occur in the local area. The plants are selected to increase plant diversity, match present onsite communities, increase wildlife habitats, and enhance the aquatic and terrestrial environments. Suitable native plants include: NUMBER COMMON NAME (ID) - SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE 40 Western red cedar (THP) - Thuja plicata 2 gallon 20 Douglas fir (PSM) - Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 gallon 40 Sitka spruce (PIS) - Picea sitchensis 2 gallon 10 Big leaf maple (ACM) - Acer macrophyllum 2 gallon 10 Paper birch (BEP) - Betula papyrifera 2 gallon 5 Western dogwood (CON) - Cornus nattallii 2 gallon 30 Western crabapple (PYF) - Pyrus fusca 2 gallon 155 TOTAL TREES 40 Vine maple (ACC) - Acer circinatum 1 gallon 30 Oceanspray (HOD) - Holodiscus discolor 1 gallon 40 Nootka rose (RON) - Rosa nutkana 1 gallon 30 Hazelnut (COC) - Corylus cornuta 1 gallon 30 Red flowering current (RIS)- Ribes sanguineum 1 gallon 20 Tall Oregon grape (BEA) - Berberis aquifolium 1 gallon 30 Snowberry (SYA) - Symphoricarpus albus 1 gallon 30 Oregon grape (BEN) - Berberis nervosa 1 gallon 20 Kinnikinnick (ARU) – Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 1 gallon 30 Sitka willow (SAS) – Salis sitchensis 1 gallon 30 Red osier dogwood (COS) – Cornus stolonifera 1 gallon 30 Black twinberry (LOI) – Lonicera involucrata 1 gallon 360 TOTAL SHRUBS 17 22141 IMPLEMENTATION INSPECTION Essential to the success of the Buffer Establishment and Restoration Program is the accurate inspection of onsite activities immediately prior to and during the initial buffer establishment and associated planting phases. These activities include pre- implementation site inspection, onsite inspection and technical direction during removal and planting activities, and post-planting site inspection and evaluation. The pre- implementation site inspection allows the project team and the project biologist to evaluate and, if necessary, adjust the onsite implementation steps. These steps include analysis of project site elevation features, access to the buffer, project sequencing and timing, unforeseen required minor modifications to the original establishment plan, and the establishment of environmental protections (silt fences, etc.) required during implementation. At the direction of the project proponent the project biologist would perform oversight and address minor unforeseen construction difficulties to assure that the intent of the buffer program is met. PROJECT MONITORING Following the successful implementation of the Buffer Establishment and Restoration Program a five-year monitoring and evaluation program would be undertaken. The purpose of this program is to ensure the success of the selected program actions as measured by an established set of performance criteria. STANDARDS OF SUCCESS A 100% count of initially and supplementally installed desirable plants within a minimum of four (4) 15-foot radius sample plots established within the restored buffer would be used to define plant survival, plant community establishment, and plant species coverage. 1. Upon the completion of initial planting and as a part of each monitoring period the project biologist would count the number of live plants which were planted within the monitoring plots. Plants would be identified to species and observations of general plant condition are to be recorded. 2. The project biologist would document percent aerial coverage for ground cover species and percent aerial coverage for the scrub/shrub and sapling tree species. The percentage coverage would include initially planted and desirable volunteer species. 3. The project biologist would count the number of undesirable invasive plants and estimate the aerial coverage (as if the observer were looking straight down from above) of these invasive plants. Undesirable plants include blackberries, Scot’s broom, tansy ragwort, and other such plants listed in the Washington State Noxious Weed List. 18 22141 4. During each onsite vegetation monitoring period the project biologist would take photographs that show the monitoring plots and the entire restored buffer. During the five-year monitoring period photos would be generally taken in the same direction and at the same location to provide a series of photos. These photos would document plant growth, plant species, and plant coverage. 5. Upon the completion of the initial project planting and upon the completion of each monitoring period the project biologist would prepare a report defining methods, observations, and results along with the date the observations were completed. Each report would be provided to the City of Federal Way. MONITORING YEAR PLANT COMMUNITY MONITORING SUBMITTAL OF MONITORING REPORT YEAR-1 on or about April 15, 202x+1 on or about Sept. 15, 202x+1 report due Oct. 7, 202x+1 YEAR-2 on or about April 15, 202x+2 on or about Sept. 15, 202x+2 report due Oct. 7, 202x+2 YEAR-3 on or about Sept. 15, 202x+3 report due Oct. 7, 202x+3 YEAR-5 on or about Sept. 15, 202x+5 report due Oct. 7, 202x+5 202x represents the year of implementation VEGETATION MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance of the restored buffer plant community may be required to ensure the long- term health and welfare of the buffer environmental functions. Such maintenance would be identified during the monitoring periods documented within the accompanying annual report. The overall objective is to establish an undisturbed plant community that does not require maintenance. Activities may include, but are not limited to, the removal of invasive non-native vegetation and the irrigation of selected areas and should be completed at the direction of the project biologist. Established maintenance activities include the removal of any trash within the restored buffer. REMOVAL OF INVASIVE NON-NATIVE VEGETATION As a contingency, should the removal of invasive non-native vegetation become necessary, the project proponent would contact the City of Federal Way to establish and define specific actions to be taken. Resultant contingency plan activities would be implemented when the ongoing vegetation monitoring program indicates that plants listed in the Washington State Noxious Weed List, blackberries, or Scot's broom are becoming dominant in the community (greater than 10% aerial coverage). The following invasive vegetation removal program would also be implemented to ensure the establishment of desirable plant communities. Invasive shrubs would be removed using hand tools that facilitate the removal of the rootball. 19 22141 MONITORING YEAR FIRST REMOVAL ACTION SECOND REMOVAL ACTION THIRD REMOVAL ACTION YEAR-1 on or about April 10, 202x+1 on or about June 10, 202x+1 on or about August 15, 202x+1 YEAR-2 on or about April 10, 202x+2 on or about June 10, 202x+2 on or about August 15, 202x+2 YEAR-3 on or about April 10, 202x+3 on or about June 10, 202x+3 on or about August 15, 202x+3 202x represents the year of implementation CONTINGENCY PLAN As a contingency, should the Buffer Establishment and Restoration Program fail to meet the performance criteria, the project proponent would undertake required remedial actions. Where plant survival is the failing component, the project proponent would replant and ensure the success of this second planting which would be held to the same standard of success as measured by performance criteria and monitoring processes. Where non-native, invasive vegetation exceeds 10% aerial coverage the project proponent would undertake removal actions. Such removal actions would be completed using hand tools or pulling the plants by hand to remove the invasive vegetation without disrupting the soil profile. All cut or pulled vegetation would be removed from the restoration area and disposed of in an approved location. Herbicides shall only be used following approval by the City of Federal Way environmental staff. All herbicide applications shall be completed by a licensed professional. Should additional remedial actions be required, the project proponent and project biologist would meet with the City of Federal Way to establish and define actions to be taken to meet the desired goal of this buffer program. TEMPORARY IRRIGATION The project proponent would ensure that a minimum of one (1) inch of water is supplied each week to the buffer area between May 1 and October 15 for at least the two years following initial planting. The calculated amount of required water would include both natural rainfall and temporary irrigation. The need for additional years of irrigation would be determined based on site conditions and overall plant survival. The amount of water supplied to the restoration area would be increased if onsite monitoring defines such a need. The water supply connection may be a direct, temporary connection to the system, a portable system, or a removable meter attachment to the fire hydrant system. The project proponent would be responsible for purchase of the temporary irrigation water. 20 22141 PLANTING NOTES All plant materials utilized within the restored buffer would be native to the Puget Sound Region. The onsite biologist would inspect plant materials to assure the appropriate plant schedule and plant characteristics are met. The project proponent would warrant that all plants would remain alive and healthy for a period of one year following completion of planting activities. The project proponent would replace all dead and unhealthy plants with plants of the same specifications. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE IF REQUIRED - Financial guarantee would be provided for this project and would be defined in two parts. Part One (Implementation Guarantee) would be associated with the initial onsite elements of the restoration program. Part Two (Performance Guarantee) would be associated with the monitoring and reporting elements of the proposed restoration program. These guarantees would be defined using the standard bond quantity worksheet upon the approval of the Buffer Establishment and Restoration Program outlined above. STANDARD OF CARE This Environmentally Critical Areas Assessment has been completed by Habitat Technologies for use by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Prior to extensive site planning the findings documented in this document should be reviewed and verified by the City of Federal Way resource personnel. Habitat Technologies has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished. No other warranties are expressed or implied. Habitat Technologies is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Bryan W. Peck Senior Wetland Biologist Thomas D. Deming, SPWS Habitat Technologies 21 22141 FIGURES K in g Date : 11 /1 7 /2 022 Notes: ±The informati on included on this map has been c ompil ed by King County s taff from a variety of sources and issubject to change without notice. King County makes no repr esentations or warr anties, ex press or implied,as to accurac y, completeness, timel iness, or rights to the us e of such information. T hi s doc ument i s not intendedfor use as a s urvey product. Ki ng County shall not be l iable for any general , special, indirect, incidental, orconsequential damages i ncl uding, but not li mited to, lost revenues or los t profits resulting from the us e or mi sus eof the information contained on this map. Any sale of thi s map or informati on on this map is prohi bited exc ept bywritten permi ss i on of Ki ng County. Figure 1 Site Vici nity HABITAT Figure 6 TECHNOLOGIES City of Sumner Mapping HABITAT Figure 6 TECHNOLOGIES City of Sumner Mapping Soil Map—King County Area, Washington (Figure 7 Soils Mapping) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 11/17/2022 Page 1 of 3 47° 20' 14'' N 122° 20' 18'' W47° 20' 14'' N122° 20' 13'' W47° 20' 12'' N 122° 20' 18'' W47° 20' 12'' N 122° 20' 13'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 0 20 40 80 120 Feet 0 5 10 20 30 Meters Map Scale: 1:483 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 8, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 6, 2020—Jul 20, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—King County Area, Washington (Figure 7 Soils Mapping) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 11/17/2022 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.0 2.9% AkF Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep 0.2 22.5% InC Indianola loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.1 14.1% InD Indianola loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.5 47.9% KpC Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.1 12.7% Totals for Area of Interest 1.0 100.0% Soil Map—King County Area, Washington Figure 7 Soils Mapping Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 11/17/2022 Page 3 of 3 Title:For: 12 7708 CHRIS PENWELL 696 MOSS FARM ROAD CHESHIRE, CT 06410 PENWELL PROPERTYFORCITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONPTN. OF THE SE 1/4, OF THE NE 1/4, SEC. 06, TWP 21 N., RGE 04 E., W.M.FOR PENWELL PROPERTYCALL BEFORE YOU DIG: 8119/5 /23 VIC E N T E VARAS COLLADOPROFESSIONAL ENGI N EERREGISTERED S TAT E OF WASHINGTON22015717NOTESWETLAND BUFFER TABLEHORIZONTAL CONTROL AND SITE PLAN2 HORIZONTAL CONTROL AND SITE PLANSCALE: 1"=20'TREE UNIT CALCULATIONS 22 22141 REFERENCES AND BACKGROUND RESOURCES Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, Lewis M. et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetlands Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. http://wetland-plands. Usace.army.mil/ Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. March 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), Environmental Laboratory ERDC/EL TR-08-13. US Climate Data, 2015 http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/tacoma/washington /united-states/uswa0441/0441/2014/1 USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Plants Database, 2015 (for hydrophytic plan classification): http://plants.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. 2016 http://vewsoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/newfeatures.2.3.htm. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Mapper, 2016 (for NWI wetland mapping): http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. 23 22141 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication Number 96-94. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Maps 2016 http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife SalmonScape Mapping System, 2016 (for fish presence): http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html Washington State Department of Natural Resources FPARS Mapping System, 2016 (for stream typing): http://fortess.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm 24 22141 APPENDIX A – FIELD DATA WORKSHEETS US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 1196003800 City/County: City of Federal Way Sampling Date:12 SEP 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK1 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside along ravine Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2-4% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand NWI classification: Moderately well drained Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: monotypic red alder along drainage corridor VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. Alnus rubra 99 yes FAC 3. 4. 99 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Rubus spectabilis trace no FAC 2. Oemleria cerasiformis trace no FACU 3. 4. 5. trace = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: dense evenaged red alder and almost no ground cover US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 3/2 100 GSL gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 1196003800 City/County: City of Federal Way Sampling Date:12 SEP 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK3 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside along ravine Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2-4% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand NWI classification: Moderately well drained Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: area of prior management along the eastern side of drainage VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 20 yes FACU 2. Alnus rubra 30 yes FAC 3. 4. 50 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Rubus spectabilis trace no FAC 2. Oemleria cerasiformis trace no FACU 3. Rubus armeniacus 30 yes FAC 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Rununculus repens 50 yes FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 50 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Area of prior management to the east of the drainage. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 GSL gravelly sandy loam 12-24 10YR 3/3 99 10YR 4/6 1 D M GSL 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 1196003800 City/County: City of Federal Way Sampling Date:12 SEP 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK4 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside along ravine Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2-4% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand NWI classification: Moderately well drained Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: mono typic red alder just upslope of line of hillside seeps along the western side of drainage VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 10 no FACU 2. Alnus rubra 90 yes FAC 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Rubus spectabilis trace no FAC 2. Oemleria cerasiformis trace no FACU 3. Rubus armeniacus 100 yes FAC 4. 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: red alder and blackberries just upslope of line of hillside seeps US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 3/2 100 GSL gravelly sandy loam 14-24 10YR 3/3 99 10YR 4/6 1 D M GSL gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 1196003800 City/County: City of Federal Way Sampling Date:12 SEP 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK7 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside along ravine Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2-4% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand NWI classification: Moderately well drained Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: monotypic red alder just downslope of line of hillside seeps. area wet at surface. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. Alnus rubra 95 yes FAC 3. 4. 95 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. Rubus spectabilis 75 yes FAC 3. Rubus armeniacus trace no FAC 4. 5. 75 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Lysichitum americanum <10 no OBL 2. Carex obnupta <5 no OBL 3. Athyrium filix-femina <10 no FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. <25 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: red alder and dense salmonberry just downslope of line of seeps. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 2/1 100 SL soft and highly organic 18-24 10YR 4/1 10 10YR 4/6 10 D M GSL 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology area just below line of hillside seeps. free water at the surface with small, short rivulets. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 1196003800 City/County: City of Federal Way Sampling Date:12 SEP 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK10 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside along ravine Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2-4% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand NWI classification: Moderately well drained Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: monotypic red alder just upslope of line of hillside seeps along the western side of drainage VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum 25 yes FACU 2. Alnus rubra 75 yes FAC 3. 4. 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Rubus spectabilis 40 yes FAC 2. Rubus parviflorus trace no FACU 3. Rubus armeniacus 25 yes FAC 4. Rubus laciniatus 25 yes FACU 5. 95 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Polystichum munitum 20 yes FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: red alder and shrubs on hillside adajcent to proposed new homesite US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK10 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 3/2 100 GSL gravelly sandy loam 2-24 10YR 4/3 100 GSL gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 1196003800 City/County: City of Federal Way Sampling Date:12 SEP 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK11 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside along ravine Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2-4% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand NWI classification: Moderately well drained Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: monotypic red alder just upslope of line of hillside seeps along the western side of drainage VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. Alnus rubra 75 yes FAC 3. 4. 75 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. Rubus armeniacus 50 yes FAC 4. Rubus laciniatus 50 yes FACU 5. 100 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: red alder and shrubs on hillside north of proposed new homesite US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK11 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 3/2 100 GSL gravelly sandy loam 10-24 10YR 3/3 100 GSL gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology area just above line of hillside seeps. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 1196003800 City/County: City of Federal Way Sampling Date:12 SEP 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK12 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillside along ravine Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2-4% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand NWI classification: Moderately well drained Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: monotypic red alder just downslope of line of hillside seeps. area wet at surface. AREA VERY SOFT - TAKE OF ROPE VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. Alnus rubra 75 yes FAC 3. 4. 75 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. Rubus spectabilis trace no FAC 3. Rubus armeniacus 90 yes FAC 4. 5. 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Lysichitum americanum <5 no OBL 2. Carex obnupta trace no OBL 3. Athyrium filix-femina <5 no FAC 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. <10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: red alder and dense blackberries just downslope of line of seeps. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK12 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 2/1 100 SL soft and highly organic 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology area just below line of hillside seeps. free water at the surface with small, short rivulets. 25 22141 APPENDIX B – WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2 Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? Other sources ________________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows . Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1 All other conditions points = 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam that have flooding problems: The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 ____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 ____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) ____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) ____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2  It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.  Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).  Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).  Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.  Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.  Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).  Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.  Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).  Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.  Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page).  Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.  Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.  Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.  Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. 26 22141 PHOTOS 27 22141 General view of the area identified for the proposed new homesite. General view of the upper edge of Wetland A. 28 22141 General view of the central portion of Wetland A. General view of the area to the east of the defined stream corridor.