The URL can be used to link to this page

20-102775-Critical Areas and Buffer Mitigation Plan-07-15-2020-V1CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT & BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN Federal Way Wall Short Plat Federal Way, Washington February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 206-525-8122 raedeke.com Associates, Inc. Raedeke Report To: Jeffrey Wall & Karen Wall C/O Matt Reider, ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 30201 18th Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Title: Critical Area Assessment and Buffer Mitigation Plan Federal Way Wall Short Plat Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 2017-102-002 & 003 Date: February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 206-525-8122 raedeke.com Associates, Inc. Raedeke Project Manager: Will Hohman, B.S., P.W.S. Senior Wetland Ecologist Project Personnel: Will Hohman, B.S., P.W.S. Senior Wetland Ecologist Annamaria Clark, B.S., W.P.I.T. Wetland Technician Chris Wright, B.S. Principal / Soil and Wetland Scientist Submitted by: Signature Will Hohman Printed Name February 26, 2019 (REVISED October 16, 2019) Date: iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ V LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................... V 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 2.0 PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................1 3.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ............................................................................................1 4.0 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................2 5.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................2 6.0 BACKGROUND REVIEW ...........................................................................................3 6.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................4 7.0 RESULTS OF FIELD WORK AND SITE OBSERVATIONS ....................................5 7.1 Stream Buffer Assessment ......................................................................................7 8.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................................8 8.1 Federal Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) ...................................8 8.2 Washington State ....................................................................................................9 8.3 City of Federal Way ................................................................................................9 9.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN .......................................................................11 9.1 Mitigation Sequencing ..........................................................................................12 9.2 Impacts Analysis ...................................................................................................13 10.0 PROPOSED BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN ....................................................15 11.0 MAINTENANCE, MONITORING, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ........15 12.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................16 13.0 LIMITATIONS ..........................................................................................................16 14.0 LITERATURE CITED ..............................................................................................17 FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................21 iv ATTACHMENTS ..............................................................................................................35 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Site Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................22 2. King County Parcel Map .......................................................................................23 3. NRCS Web Soil Survey .........................................................................................24 4. USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map ............................................................25 5. WDNR Forest Practice Water Type Map ..............................................................26 6. SalmonScape Map .................................................................................................27 7. City of Federal Way 2016 Sensitive Areas Map ...................................................28 8. MTN 2 Coast LLC 2/28/2017 Topographic Survey (SV 1 Sheet 1 of 1) ..............29 9. ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 11/16/2018 Preliminary Utility & Grading Plan (UT-01 Sheet 4 of 4) ..............................................................................................30 10. Proposed Impacts Plan and Mitigation ..................................................................31 11. Proposed Planting Schedule ...................................................................................32 12. General Notes.........................................................................................................33 13. Maintenance & Monitoring....................................................................................34 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT Page A. Sample Plot Data Forms (SP 1 through 7) .............................................................36 B. January 25, 2018 and August 6, 2019 Emails from Larry Fisher, WDFW Habitat Biologist .................................................................................................................51 C. WDFW PHS Report ...............................................................................................60 vi D. Existing Conditions Photographs ...........................................................................63 E. Mtn 2 Coast LLC Wall Short Plat Topographic Mapping Survey ........................67 1 Federal Way Wall Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 1.0 INTRODUCTION Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff visited the Federal Way Wall Short Plat property located in Federal Way, King County, Washington, on January 12, 2018 to perform a critical areas assessment for wetlands, streams, and associated habitats (Figure 1). During our site visit, we did not find any wetlands on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. We did find and delineate the ordinary high-water mark of a stream located on the project site. Based on our review of engineering design plans prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers, LCC, we understand that the proposed development plan will result in buffer related impacts requiring mitigation in accordance with Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas (City of Federal Way, 2019a). We revisited the site on September 9, 2019 to collect data in the drainage ditch west of 20th Place SW, across the street from the project site at the request of the City of Federal Way’s third-party consultant’s (Landau Associates) review letter dated July 29, 2019. This report presents results of our delineation, assessment of critical areas and their buffers, and summarizes our analysis of the proposed development plan’s buffer related impacts. Enclosed are proposed buffer restoration and enhancement plans to provide mitigation for the calculated impacts. Results of our critical areas assessment and the mitigation proposed herein is subject to review and approval by the City of Federal way prior to constructing your project. 2.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this site visit was to identify and delineate any wetlands or streams on the property or within the immediate vicinity, and to search for the presence or habitat of Federal or State-listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate, other priority, or monitored wildlife species, and/or areas that meet criteria to be considered Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2008, 2019) priority habitats. During our site visit, we identified one stream (Type F) on the Wall Short Plat project area. No other critical areas were identified on or within the vicinity of the project area. This report provides a summary of our findings and is intended to be used for project planning purposes regarding critical areas wetlands, streams, and associated habitats regulated by the City of Federal Way. Regulatory considerations regarding Federal and State regulations for wetlands and streams are also included herein. 3.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES Since this is a residential site development project, Mr. Jeffrey Wall is responsible for the implementation of this mitigation plan and any associated permitting. The list below presents the project owner’s information along with project consultants that Raedeke Associates, Inc. understands have been involved with this project to date. 2 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 Project Owner/Applicant/Tree Surveyor: Mr. Jeffrey Wall 30201 18th Avenue SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Project Topographic Surveyor: Mtn 2 Coast LLC Blair E. Prigge, PLS 1506 Fairview Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 Wetland Consultant: Raedeke Associates Inc. Mr. Will Hohman 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98133 Project Engineer: ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC Mr. Matt Reider, PE 33400 8th Avenue South, Suite 205 Federal Way, WA 98003 Project Geotechnical Engineer: Earth Solutions LLC Keven D. Hoffmann, PE 1805 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington, 98005 4.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Federal Way Wall Short Plat project site consists of three parcels totaling approximately 7.93-acres, located at 30201 18th Ave SW, 30026 20th Place SW, and 30300 19th Place SW within Section 1, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. in the City of Federal Way, King County, Washington as described in information received from ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC on October 6, 2017. The project site is comprised of tax parcels 0121039146, 0121039013, 0850500040, and a portion of the right-of-way west of 20th Place SW that is proposed for roadway width expansion. Parcel maps retrieved on-line from King County depict the property boundaries (Figures 1 and 2). The property is bordered to the west by 20th Place SW, to the south and east by single- family residential lots, and to the north by forested private lots. The property is accessed primarily from 20th Place SW along the western side of the properties. However, there is also a private access driveway to one of the two residential homes on the property from 18th Ave SW. 5.0 METHODOLOGY Wetlands and streams are protected by federal law as well as by state and local regulations. Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into “Waters of the United States,” including certain wetlands, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE 2012). The COE makes the final determination whether an area meets the definition of a wetland and whether the wetland is under their jurisdiction. 3 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 The COE wetland definition was used to determine if any portions of the project area could be classified as wetland. A wetland is defined as an area “inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Federal Register 1986:41251). We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1994), as updated for this area by the regional supplement to the COE wetland delineation manual for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (COE 2010). The COE wetlands manual is required by state law (WAC 173-22-035, as revised) for all local jurisdictions, including Federal Way, Washington. We based our delineation of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for streams within the Phase II area on definitions provided under the Washington State Shorelines Management Act of 1971. The Washington State definition for the OHWM is as follows: Ordinary high water line" or "OHWL" means the mark on the shores of all waters that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil or vegetation a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, provided that in any area where the ordinary high water line cannot be found, the ordinary high water line adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high water, and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be the elevation of the mean annual flood.”…(RCW 90.58.030(2)(b) and WAC173-22-030(5); WDOE 1994). As outlined in the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 1994) Shoreline Administrators Manual, the general guidelines for determining the OHWM include: (1) a clear vegetation mark; (2) wetland/upland edge; (3) elevation; (4) a combination of changes in vegetation, elevation, and landward limit of drift deposition; (5) soil surface changes from algae or sediment deposition to areas where soils show no sign of depositional processes; and/or (6) soil profile changes from wetter conditions (low chroma, high soil organic matter, and lack of mottling) to drier conditions (higher chroma, less organic matter, or brighter mottles). 6.0 BACKGROUND REVIEW Prior to and after our site visit, we reviewed existing background maps and information for the project site from the King County iMaps (King County 2019), U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS 2019) Web Soil Survey, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS 2018) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) in order to assist in our 4 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 determination of whether wetlands were present within the property or its vicinity. We also reviewed current and historical aerial photographs (Google Earth 2018) to assist in the definition of existing plant communities, drainage patterns, and land use. To understand the possible stream characteristics and priority habitats on the project sites, we also reviewed Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species maps (WDFW 2018), SalmonScape interactive mapper (WDFW 2019), Washington Department of Natura Resources (WDNR) forest practices application review system mapping tool (WDNR 2019a), and WDFW fish passage barrier maps (WDNR 2019b). 6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS King County GIS data (King County 2019) maps an erosion hazard in the northern and northwestern portions of the project site (Figure 2). No wetlands or other critical areas are mapped on King County iMap. The King County iMap hydrography and hydrology layer depict a stream entering the project site in the southwest corner and exiting through the northwest corner of the site. Review of the City of Federal Way (2016) sensitive areas mapping depicts an erosion hazard area and stream in the northwest corner of the project site (Figure 7). No wetlands are depicted on the City’s sensitive area map (Figure 7). The USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USFWS 2019) identifies Alderwood soil series in the study area (Figure 3). Although Alderwood soils are not listed as hydric soils on either the state or national hydric soils list, it may contain the following potential hydric soil inclusions: Norma and Mckenna soils (USFWS 2019; U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service 1991, Federal Register 1995). Soil series boundaries or mapping units are mapped from aerial photographs with limited field verification. Thus, the location and extent of boundaries between mapping units may not be accurate for a given parcel of land within the survey area. The USFWS (2019) NWI does not show any wetlands on or within the vicinity of the project site. The nearest NWI mapped wetland is approximately 0.25 miles north of the project site located along the edge of the Puget Sound. National Wetland Inventory does map an intermittent riverine streambed on the project site that is indicated to be seasonally flooded and in the vicinity of the stream observed during our field investigation (USFWS 2018, Figure 3). Wetlands shown on the NWI are general in terms of location and extent, as they are determined primarily from aerial photograph interpretation. Google earth imagery shows the site is primarily forested with coniferous and deciduous tree canopy and surrounding residential development. Review of WDFW SalmonScape and Fish Passage Barrier maps depict a stream with potential salmon habitat along the western project site boundary. The stream feature extends from the northwest corner to just upstream (i.e. south) of the apparent driveway culvert off of 20th Place SW (Figure 6). It continues off-site from the southwest corner of the project area. WDFW maps do not depict any fish passage barriers such as culverts dams, or other barriers along this mapped stream feature. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 5 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 forest practices mapping tool maps a stream in the same location as WDFW. However, WDNR map the stream as Type-N on the project site. The stream is mapped off-site as Type-F. This water typing is located downstream (i.e. north) of a mapped unknown barrier north of the project site (Figure 5). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife PHS maps source data for three species of salmonids in the mapped stream including: Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Fall Chum (Oncorhynchus keta), and Resident Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki). Refer to Attachment C for results of the PHS search. 7.0 RESULTS OF FIELD WORK AND SITE OBSERVATIONS The project site consists of three lots and three single-family residences. A gravel road entering from 20th Place SW traverses the central and northern lots, providing access to two of these houses. The third house, located on the southernmost lot, is accessed from 19th Place SW. The site is primarily forested with some gravel and dirt access drives throughout the central portions. Each residence has maintained lawn and landscaped areas. The primary residence on the center of the project site includes an outdoor basketball court. Overall the site generally ranges in elevation from 280 in the southeast corner to approximately 180 in the northwest corner. The majority of the site drains from southeast to northwest toward the stream. The drainage feature west of 20th Place SW drains from south to north, along the western edge of the road, into a pipe and catch basin and then outlets from the catch basin via a culvert that drains east beneath 20th Place SW and into the on-site stream. During our January 12, 2018 site visit, we did not identify any wetlands on or within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. We identified one stream in the western area of the property, flowing to the north. During our site visit, Raedeke staff walked the onsite portions of the stream feature and field flagged the ordinary high-water mark on both the left and right banks of the stream. Flagging was only hung within the apparent project site boundaries and not within the road right of way. The offsite stream portions were observed from existing rights-of way associated with 20 Place SW. The upstream and offsite portions of the stream along the western boundary exhibited artificial drainage features such as linear and trapezoidal shape parallel and typical to roadside swales and ditches. The feature generally continued south along the eastern side of 20th Place SW. Our field data averaged a greater than two-foot bank-full-width along the longest and narrowest reach of the stream, less than 16 percent slope on site, and approximately 2-3 feet deep in the section of the stream reach located on-site and along the eastern side of 20th Place SW. The downstream onsite portion of the stream exhibited more natural channel features. Based on the background information reviewed for the site and these observations, the stream is expected to be considered Type-F by WDFW. We confirmed this during the site visit with Mr. Larry Fisher, a habitat biologist with WDFW. 6 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 Dominant vegetation across the site consists of big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU), red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), and fragrant fringecup (Tellima grandiflora, FACU). We also observed some larger conifer species including western arborvitae (Thuja plicata, FAC) douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga mensiesii, FACU), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FACU). Refer to sample plots 1 through 7 in Attachment A. Approximate locations of each sample plot are depicted on Figure 2. Soils on the Wall Short Plat project site consist of up to 5 inches of very dark brown (7.5Y 2.5/2) gravelly sandy loams over up to 15 inches of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4 or 10YR 4/3) gravelly sandy loams. During our site investigation, we did not encounter any primary indicators of wetland hydrology such as saturated soils or a water table within 18 inches of the soil profile, nor did we observe any evidence of seasonal inundation or flow patterns on site (with the exception of Sample Plot 6, located within the OHWM of the stream). Thus, the area lacked positive evidence of hydric soil or wetland hydrology (see Sample Plot 1, attached). Although some sample plots exhibited positive indications of hydrophytic vegetation (wetland plants) which is a criterion for identifying wetlands, the lack of hydric soils (wetland soils) and wetland hydrology confirms that the site does not contain wetlands. Refer to the sample plot data sheets presented in Attachment A for more information on the data collected to make this determination. We did not observe any evidence of nesting within the site or vicinity by hawks, eagles, great blue herons, or other species of concern during our field investigation. We did observe signs of current and past foraging activity typically evidence of the presence of woodpecker on some of the larger woody vegetation but no apparent nest or roost cavities. The WDFW (2018) PHS database does depict priority species within the stream running through the project site: coho, fall chum, and resident coastal cutthroat, but we did not observe any fish during the delineation. At the request of the City’s third-party consultant, we revisited the site on September 18, 2019 to collect additional data on the western roadside drainage feature located west of 20th Place SW. The drainage feature west of 20th Place SW averaged 5-7-foot bank-full- width, 6-8 percent slope, and approximately 1-2 feet deep in the section of the drainage within the street right-of-way, immediately west of the road, and in the nearest vicinity of the project site. The unusually wide bank-full-width (top of bank) appears to coincide with the roadside edge and nearby residential lawn areas elevations. This feature maintains a general bottom width average of approximately less than 1 foot and up to 2 feet in certain portions. It appears to be entirely influenced by stormwater runoff. The drainage feature west of 20th Place SW contained no trees or shrubs and averaged 20 percent herbaceous cover dominated by Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis, FAC), 7 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 fringed willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum, FACW), bittercress (Cardamine sp.), and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC). Generally, soils in the drainage feature appeared disturbed and contained gravels, cobbles, and concrete rubble throughout most of it. Soils consist of 1 to 4 inches of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) to very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) gravelly sandy loam or sands with cobbles, over 1 to 6 inches of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) to very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam, over compact gravels in the roadside drainage feature west of 20th Place SW. Soils in this area are not mapped as hydric but rather mapped as Alderwood soil series typically found in upland areas (Figure 3). The feature did not meet the criteria to be mapped as a wetland. Furthermore, correspondence with Mr. Larry Fisher of WDFW on October 14, 2019 indicated that this drainage feature does meet criteria to be considered a jurisdictional watercourse. Based on observations and our desktop analysis, the drainage feature west of 20th Place SW appears to be primarily constructed to serve as roadside drainage, constructed from uplands, and is separated from the onsite stream feature by 20th Place SW, a catchbasin, and 12-inch pipe underneath the roadway. We performed visual observations from the site of off-site conditions. Generally, the surrounding area extending approximately 300 feet beyond the project site boundaries consists of developed single-family residential properties with no signs of potential wetland habitats. 7.1 STREAM BUFFER ASSESSMENT The stream is located along the western project site parcel boundary and along the eastern edge of 20th Place SW. In the vicinity of the project site, 20th Place SW has a roadside swale along the western edge of the road and the project site stream along the eastern edge. This segment of road is crowned draining roadway runoff to the east and west sides of the road. Therefore 20th Place SW appears to act as a stream buffer barrier west for any standard buffer area west of the crown of the road. This limits and greatly reduces the function and value of the 100-foot buffer, located off-site, along the western side of the stream. Portions of the western stream buffer which abut and serve to protect the stream consist of mowed grasses and forested areas. The eastern part of the stream buffer which extends onto the project site, is forested containing the following dominant plant species: red maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU), western arborvitae (Thuja plicata, FAC) (Alnus rubra, FAC), douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga mensiesii, FACU), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU). These dominant species are prominent north of the private driveway and established on steep erosion proned slopes depicted on the topographic survey, Figure 8 and Attachment E, and King County iMap environmental layers, Figure 2. The eastern stream buffer south of the access driveway is in a degraded condition containing fewer woody species and a more dominant understory of Himalayan blackberry. At the time of our site visit, many plant species were dormant revealing a 8 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 large opening in the buffer canopy south of the private access driveway and areas that were poorly vegetated. 8.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Wetlands and streams are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and other state and local policies and ordinances including City of Federal Way (2019a) code. Regulatory considerations pertinent to these types of resources identified within the study area are discussed below; however, this discussion should not be considered comprehensive. Additional information may be obtained from federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for, or interest in, the site. A brief review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, Washington Department of Ecology regulations, and City of Federal Way policy, relative to wetlands, streams, and their associated buffers are presented below. 8.1 FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT (U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) discourages the discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands and streams, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251), and thus, if it is under their jurisdiction. We should caution that the placement of fill within wetlands or other “Waters of the U.S.” (ex. streams) without authorization from the COE is not advised, as the COE makes the final determination regarding whether any permits would be required for any proposed alteration (COE 2012). Because the COE makes the final determination regarding permitting under their jurisdiction, a jurisdictional determination from the COE is generally recommended prior to any construction activities, if wetland and streams exist on or near the project and any modification of these resources is proposed or work near these features may result in impacts to the wetland or stream. Although, the current proposed development plan does not appear to impact the on-site stream feature, we recommend that you submit this information and your proposed development plan to COE for a request “letter of no permit required.” Based on the streams dimensions, connectivity with the Puget Sound, and characteristics described herein we would expect COE to claim jurisdiction of this feature. From our experience with similar projects, we would expect COE would grant this project a confirmation response that no permit is required for the proposed work. However, Raedeke Associates, Inc. is not regulatory. Ultimate authority and jurisdiction to verify your project is compliant with applicable Federal law lies with COE. 9 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 8.2 WASHINGTON STATE Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, an activity involving a discharge in waters of the U.S. authorized by a federal permit must receive certification by the affected certifying agency. In Washington State, the certifying agency is the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), which has regulatory authority over waters of the state, including streams and isolated wetlands, under the state Water Pollution Control Act (90.48 RCW) and the Shoreline Management Act (90.58 RCW). If the proposed project does not propose discharge in to the site stream feature or any changes to existing structures, we do not anticipate the need for a water quality certification from WDOE. However, ultimate authority and jurisdiction lies with WDOE in making this decision. 8.3 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Critical areas regulated by the City of Federal Way code include geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, wetland, critical aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded areas and their corresponding buffers. The City of Federal Way (2019a) regulates wetlands and streams under Chapter 19.145 of its Environmentally Critical Areas code. Although all critical areas are discussed to some extent herein, this report specifically describes the work performed to verify and delineate the presence and/or absence of wetlands and streams on the project site and identify the anticipated critical area buffers for each. The City of Federal way is the jurisdictional authority assigned to review and verify the extent and limits of any wetlands and streams delineated onsite, estimated buffers, and the information provided in this report for planning purposes. Wetlands The city classifies wetlands as Category I, II, III, or IV based on the Washington Department of Ecology’s (WDOE) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (publication #14-06-029) (Hruby 2014). The City of Federal Way (2019a) determines wetland buffer widths based on their classifications and habitat function. Standard buffer widths, in general per code, may be modified by averaging or be reduced or increased as evaluated on a case by case basis by the City of Federal Way. Wetlands are defined under the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.05.230 “W” definitions (2019b) as: “‘Wetland’ or ‘wetlands’ means 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 10 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 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.” During our site visit, we did not observe any wetlands on site or where accessible and observable from onsite within 225 feet of the outer most limits of the project site. Therefore, no wetland impacts are anticipated with the proposed project development plan. Streams Streams are defined under the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.05.190 “S” definitions (2019c) as: “…a course or route, formed by nature, including those which have been modified by humans, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks or sides throughout substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining from higher to lower elevations. A stream need not contain water year-round. In development, streams may run in culverts or may be channeled in a concrete, rock or other artificial conveyance system. This definition does not include irrigation ditches, stormwater facilities or other artificial watercourses unless they are used by resident or anadromous salmonid dish, or the feature was constructed to convey a natural stream which existing prior to construction of the watercourse. Those topographic features that resemble streams but have no defined channels shall be considered streams when hydrologic and hydraulic analyses done pursuant to a development proposal predict formation of a defined channel after development. For the purpose of defining the following categories of streams, normal rainfall is rainfall that is at or near the mean of the accumulated annual rainfall record, based upon the current water year for King County as recorded at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.” The city classifies streams as Type F, Type Np, and Type Ns. City of Federal Way (2019a) further defines these classifications as follows: Type F stream are those stream that are used by fish or have the potential to support fish. Type Np streams are those streams that are perennial during the year of normal rainfall and do not have the potential to be used by fish. Type Np streams include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of the perennial flow. If the uppermost point of perennial flow cannot be identified with simple, nontechnical observations, then the point of perennial flow should be determined using the best professional judgment of a qualified professional. 11 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 Type Ns streams are those streams that are season or ephemeral during a year of normal rainfall and do not have the potential to be used by fish. The identified stream flowing north along the western portion of the project site meets criteria to be classified as a Type-F stream and is anticipated to have a 100-foot setback by the City of Federal Way. The City of Federal Way is responsible for reviewing and approving all critical areas as delineated and discussed herein. The director at the City may require increased buffer widths when necessary to protect habitat, health, safety, and welfare on site specific areas. These often include areas with insufficient buffers, when a channel migration zone or erosion/landslide hazard is present in the stream buffer. Permanently altered buffers such as buffer reduction may occur in certain circumstances upon approval by the director of the City of Federal Way. For example, a buffer in permanently altered state or one that does not provide any function or value toward protecting the resource is considered a permanently altered buffer. Furthermore, intrusions into stream buffers may occur when reviewed and decided upon using process III in Chapter 19.65 of Federal Way Revised Code (2019d) and must coincide with a buffer enhancement plan that demonstrates the remaining and enhanced reduced buffer will function at an equivalent or high level than the standard buffer. Permanent and temporary impacts to the stream buffer are anticipated with the proposed development plan. Therefore, a proposed buffer enhancement plan is included herein. The following sections describe the proposed development plan, assess buffer impacts, and proposed a buffer enhancement plan suitable for City of Federal Way review. Off-site Drainage Feature The drainage feature west of 20th Place SW will be relocated west of the proposed road widening described below. The roadway widening is proposed within the existing right- of-way, adjacent to the overall proposed project parcel development plan, in order to bring the roadway up to current design standards. No critical areas were identified within the artificial roadside drainage feature. WDFW has determined the feature does meet criteria to be considered a jurisdictional watercourse and that it could be relocated without a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Follow-up correspondence with Mr. Larry Fisher is provided in Attachment B. Streams defined under the City of Federal Way Chapter 19.05.190 “S” definitions (2019c) are further defined to exclude ditches, artificial drainage features created in uplands through purposeful human action, from regulated streams definitions. Furthermore, the proposed development plan proposes to maintain this roadside feature as an open, vegetated roadside drainage ditch. 9.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN The site currently has two single-family residences which will remain in the proposed development plan. Based on our discussion with Mr. Jeffrey Wall and his consultants, 12 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC, several single-family residential lots with related improvements (water, electric, septic, etc.) are proposed under this development plan. Based on the information provided to date, finish grade elevations and the exact locations of each residential structure and associated improvements were not available for review. However, the design plans provided did include proposed project site improvements for access and anticipated stormwater management. These include widening the existing private access driveway from 20th Place SW at the stream crossing and through the stream buffer, installation of an additional site access point off of the cul-de-sac of 19th Place SW, installation of a stormwater detention facility with associated outfall pipe, installation of a stormwater dispersion trench, installation of a roadside interceptor ditch to direct driveway runoff toward the detention facility, layout of associated utility and drainage easements, and associated site grading required for each of these project elements. The project also proposes to widen the western edge of 20th Place SW to meet roadway design standards. Widening this section of road will result in the need to relocate the grass lined roadside swale along the western side of 20th Place SW further west. It is our understanding that ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC will be finalizing all stormwater management facility designs and associated best management practices with the final design documentation per City of Federal Way Code and associated federal and state stormwater management regulations. Final construction documents are anticipated to include the required design plans, Construction Stormwater General Permit Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plans consistent with the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington or most current and the City of Federal Way requirements (WDOE 2012). For purpose of this development review, we specifically asked ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC to provide all proposed project elements within the stream buffer and immediate vicinity of the outer limits of the buffer to understand the proposed development plans impacts on the stream buffer. Figure 9 and the buffer mitigation shown on Figures 10 through 13 assumes that all of the proposed development plan work in the stream buffer and immediate vicinity is fully designed. Any changes required during final development plan design must be evaluated for compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations prior to construction. Changes from the design herein do not obviate the need to obtain additional approvals for the proposed work. 9.1 MITIGATION SEQUENCING Mitigation has been defined by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197- 11-768; cf. Cooper 1987), and more recently in a Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Anonymous 1989). In order of desirability, mitigation may include: 1. Avoidance - avoiding impacts by not taking action or parts of an action; 13 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 2. Minimization - minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3. Compensation - which may involve: a) repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; b) replacing, enhancing, or creating substitute resources or environments; c) mitigation banking. Project elements that consider mitigation sequencing include but are not limited to the following: 1. (Avoidance) An additional access off of 19th Place SW was added to accommodate the proposed site development plan and avoid existing access drive upgrades that would result in direct impacts to the stream; 2. (Avoidance) removal of native vegetation within the proposed enhancement and restoration areas will be avoided; 3. (Avoidance) the design utilizes the extents of the existing stream crossing and access drive without touching the existing culvert to avoid direct discharge to the stream; 4. (Minimization) widening of the access driveway through the buffer will be done in a manner to minimize impacts to existing trees and designed using minimum engineering design standards; 5. (Minimization) utility improvements and new utilities will use the additional access off of 19th Place SW instead of the existing driveway through the stream buffer; 6. (Minimization) temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures would be installed during construction and would utilize appropriate best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction, including placement of straw bales and silt fencing between work activities and adjacent wetlands; 7. (Avoidance and minimization) all other construction areas and proposed site development activities will be outside of the stream buffer (ex. no residential structural encroachment); 8. (Avoidance and minimization) proposed stormwater management is located outside of the buffer area between the site development activities and the outer portions of the stream buffer providing the stream and buffer with protection from pollutants commonly found in stormwater runoff. 9.2 IMPACTS ANALYSIS This section presumes that the existing site contains currently serviceable structures or fill that either received a permit, if required, is considered previously authorized, or is grandfathered in to the regulations and requirements relating to wetlands, streams, and 14 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 their associated buffers. Based on the proposed design, Figure 9, this project proposes to make some improvements to the existing private access driveway that crosses the stream. The crossing improvements include expanding the existing driveway width in a manner that will not result in direct discharge into the stream or change the vertical elevation of the driveway. Personal communication with ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC in emails received November 7 and 16, 2018 indicates that the driveway width is designed to the minimum standards required for private driveways serving 3 or 4 lots. The project also does not propose to disturb the existing stream culvert under the driveway per personal communication with ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC and Mr. Jeffrey Wall. Work is anticipated to occur within the limits of and on the existing fill overtop of the culvert. To avoid having to meet additional standards which would result in direct impacts to the stream, this project proposes to add a site access point from 19th Place SW. This new site access point will carry all required utilities and utility upgrades necessary for the proposed site development. Per these design considerations, the stream crossing is not expected to be an impact requiring mitigation. We included the driveway width expansion from pre-development to post-development in our calculated impacts within the stream buffer. The existing driveway is not included in these impact calculations since it regularly used and remains as buffer existing in a permanently altered state. The proposed development plan will result in stream buffer related impacts based on the proposed driveway improvements from 20th Place SW, including driveway width expansion and associated grading necessary to tie the nearest existing grade. It also includes stream buffer impacts related to the proposed stormwater detention facility’s principal spillway. This includes installation of an overland outfall pipe down the steep slopes located in the northern portions of the onsite stream buffer. Pipe installation will need to occur in a manner to avoid existing native trees and shrubs currently established in the buffer. At the end of this pipe, a rocked outfall protection will be installed. The location and extent of the temporary and permanent impacts calculated are depicted on Figures 10 and 11. Specifically, the calculated impacts include 2,653 square feet of permanent buffer impacts including the driveway width expansion, the overland outfall pipe, and the pipe outfall area. Temporary impacts include 724 square feet during construction to install the stormwater outfall pipe through the stream buffer. Mitigation for these stream buffer impacts are presented in the following section. If proposed development design described herein is incorrect or changes, Raedeke Associates, Inc. should be contacted to review this report to verify if the recommendations for mitigating stream buffer related impacts remain compliant with the City of Federal Way critical areas approved documentation and their associated code. Raedeke Associates, Inc. should be provided copies of final design packages to confirm that all proposed and City approved mitigation is included appropriately in the final project construction documents. 15 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 10.0 PROPOSED BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN According to observations made during our site visit and results of a limited tree survey performed by Mr. Jeffery Wall, the proposed stream buffer impacts will result in the loss of a few trees serving to provide habitat, water quality, habitat, and erosion protection for the stream. We understand that the proposed stormwater outfall will be installed in a manner to avoid direct impact to trees in the stream buffer. Furthermore, the outfall protection is being designed by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC to manage erosive velocities leaving the pipe. Since the stormwater management detention facility is designed not only for volume control but also water quality, we do not anticipate any adverse impacts to water quality and installation of the overland pipe will serve to maintain stormwater retention and groundwater recharge capabilities down the existing slope. Based on this analysis of the stream buffer impacts, the proposed buffer enhancement plan proposes a buffer enhancement to permanent impact ratio that is approximately 6:1 and a ration that is 1:1 by means of buffer restoration for all temporary impacts. Figures 10 and 11 depict 16,510 square feet of buffer enhancement and 724 square feet of buffer restoration to compensate for the proposed stream buffer impacts. The area proposed for buffer enhancement is in a degraded condition containing Himalayan blackberry and limited forest canopy. The buffer enhancement will consist of three different strata of plants designed to establish native forest and create structural diversity with an array of trees, tall and medium stature shrubs, and low groundcovers. Figures 10 and 11 detail the proposed plant schedules, critical area buffer protection measures, and buffer enhancement notes. Work in both the stream buffer enhancement area and at the location of temporary stream buffer impacts will also include removal of invasive species prior to planting to further encourage establishment of a native forest stream buffer. 11.0 MAINTENANCE, MONITORING, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Environmental goals and objectives of the proposed buffer enhancement plan is presented on Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13. These figures also include details and information regarding the following mitigation plan requirements: 1. General notes for installation, 2. Schedule 3. Invasive species removal 4. Critical areas site fencing 5. Performance standards 6. Monitoring program 7. Contingency plan, and 16 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 8. Maintenance The owner will be required to provide a financial guarantee to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented and fulfilled. This must be posted in accordance with Chapter 19.25 of the Federal Way Revised Code (2019e). Furthermore, the critical area tract shall be designated on the final project plat as shown on the figures herein. The plat shall include the following note required by City of Federal Way (2019a): Native preservation shall be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including but not limited to controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat. Removal or disturbance of vegetation and landscaping within the tract is prohibited, except as necessary for maintenance or preplacement with approval by the City of Federal Way. 12.0 CONCLUSIONS Due to unavoidable impacts to a Type-F stream buffer, this project requires review by the City of Federal Way for authorization of impacts that require mitigation. The analysis herein, concludes that the anticipated project development impacts can be mitigated for within the existing standard 100-foot stream buffer. The report was prepared using the best available science practices recognized by WDOE and the City of Federal Way to support the proposed mitigation herein. With this report, we propose that the critical areas delineation, characterization and estimate of stream buffer width, proposed development plan analysis of impacts, and proposed buffer enhancement plan be reviewed for compliance with the City of Federal Way code requirements. Based on the proposed development stream crossing design and email correspondence with WDFW, we do not anticipate the need for a Hydraulic Project Approval (Attachment B). 13.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Jeffrey & Karen Wall, and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Jeffrey & Karen Wall. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction activities. 17 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and has been prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. If you have any questions or comments, or wish to discuss this issue further, please contact Will Hohman at (206) 525-8122 or at whohman@raedeke.com. 14.0 LITERATURE CITED Anonymous. 1989. Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 404 B1 Guidelines. Effective 7 November 1989. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. Cooper, J.W. 1987. An overview of estuarine habitat mitigation projects in Washington State. Northwest Environmental Journal 3(1): 112-127. City of Federal Way. 2019a. Federal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. City of Federal Way. 2019b. Chapter 19.05.230: Zoning and Development. W definitions current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. City of Federal Way. 2019c. Chapter 19.05.190: Zoning and Development. S definitions current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. City of Federal Way. 2019d. Chapter 19.65: Process III – Project Approval current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. City of Federal Way. 2019e. Chapter 19.25: Bonds current through Ordinance 19-863, passed January 2, 2019. Last accessed February 22, 2019. 18 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 City of Federal Way. 2016. City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map. GIS Division, Map Date: May 2016. http://www.cityoffederalway.com/sites/default/files/maps/sensitive_2016.pdf. Last Accessed January 18, 2018. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Volume 59, No 133, July 13, 1994. Revised September 15, 1995. Google Earth. 2018. Image for Lat. 47.331756, Long. -122.359123 in Federal Way, WA dated May 2018. © 2016 Google Inc. Accessed January 25, 2019. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State wetlands rating system for western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 14-06- 029. October 2014. King County. 2019. King County iMap Geographical Information Interactive Mapping Tool with Environmentally Sensitive Areas layers on. https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/. Last accessed February 19, 2019. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: western mountains, valleys, and coast region (Version 2.0). Wakeley, J.S., R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. May 2010. 19 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Special Public Notice. Final Regional Conditions, 401 Water Quality Conditions, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Responses, for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. March 19, 2012. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States: In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. On-line Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed February 20, 2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online Mapper. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html. Accessed December 28, 2018 Washington Department of Ecology. 1994. v.1 Shoreline Administrators Manual. Shoreline Management Guidebook, 2nd Ed. Publication No. 93-104a. January 1994. Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and the 2012 Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority habitats and species list. August 2008. Olympia, Washington. 174 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00165. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. PHS on the web. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed January 11, 2018. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019a. WDFW Maps and Data products SalmonScape mapping tool. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html. Last accessed February 19, 2019. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019b. WDFW Maps and Data products Fish Passage Program map application. https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/habitat/fish_passage/data_maps.html. Last accessed February 19, 2019. 20 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2019. WDNR Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool. https://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/default.aspx. Last accessed February 19, 2019. 21 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 FIGURES FIGURE 1 - SITE VICINITY MAP WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 PREPARED: 12/28/2018 UPDATED: 10/04/2019 BY: WH Associates, Inc. Raedeke 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, Washington 98133SOURCE INFORMATION: SNAPSHOT IMAGES FROM https://www.bing.com/maps APPROXIMATE PROJECT SITE LOCATION FIGURE 2 - KING COUNTY PARCEL MAP WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 PREPARED: 02/19/2019 UPDATED: 10/03/2019 BY: WH Associates, Inc. Raedeke 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, Washington 98133SOURCE INFORMATION: KING COUNTY iMAP GIS INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/imap/ APPROXIMATE PROJECT SITE LOCATION Date: 10/22/2018 Notes: The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and issubject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied,as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intendedfor use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, orconsequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuseof the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County. 0121039146 0121039013 0850500040 APPROXIMATE SAMPLE DATA PLOT LOCATION (TYP. NOT TO SCALE) SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4SP5 SP6 SP7 Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.LEGENDFIGURE 3 - NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY MAPWALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WARAI PROJECT: 2017-102PREPARED: 12/28/2018UPDATED: 10/04/2019BY: WH Associates, Inc. Raedeke 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219Seattle, Washington 98133APPROXIMATEPROJECT SITELOCATIONSoilsSoil Rating PolygonsHydric (100%)Hydric (66 to 99%)Hydric (33 to 65%)Hydric (1 to 32%)Not Hydric (0%)Not rated or not availableWater FeaturesStreams and CanalsTransportationRailsInterstate HighwaysUS RoutesMajor RoadsLocal RoadsSoil Map Unit DescriptionsAgB - Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,0 to 8 percent slopes (46.9 acres asshown; 92.3% of area shown)AgD - Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 percent slopes (1.8 acres asshown; 3.5% of area shown)EvB - Everett very gravelly sandy loam,0 to 8 percent slopes (2.2 acres asshown; 4.3% of area shown)Hydric Rating by Map UnitAgB - 10AgD - 5EvB - 0SOURCE INFORMATION: United States Department of Agriculture Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil Survey online mapping tool -https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 1:26,336FIGURE 4 - USFWS NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAPWALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WARAI PROJECT: 2017-102PREPARED: 12/28/2018UPDATED: 10/04/2019BY: WH Associates, Inc. Raedeke 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219Seattle, Washington 98133LEGEND:This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.WetlandsEstuarine and Marine DeepwaterEstuarine and Marine WetlandFreshwater Emergent WetlandFreshwater Forested/Shrub WetlandFreshwater PondLakeOtherRiverineAPPROXIMATEPROJECT SITELOCATION FIGURE 5 - WDNR Forest Practice Water Type Map WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 PREPARED: 02/19/2019 UPDATED: 10/04/2019 BY: WH Associates, Inc. Raedeke 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 SOURCE INFORMATION: Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Application Review System Forest Practices Activity Mapping Tool - https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/forest-practi ces/forest-practices-application-review-system-fpars APPROXIMATE PROJECT SITE LOCATION LEGEND FIGURE 6 - SalmonScape Map WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 PREPARED: 01/25/2019 UPDATED: 10/04/2019 BY: WH Associates, Inc. Raedeke 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 SOURCE INFORMATION: Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife SalmonScape interactive Mapper, http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/ USGS/NHD Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmi, Intermap, increment P Corps., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, (C) OpenStreetMap cotributors, and the GIS user. APPROXIMATE PROJECT SITE LOCATION APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION S APPROXIMATE PROJECT SITE LOCATION FIGURE 7 - City of Federal Way 2016 Sensitive Areas Map WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 PREPARED: 01/25/2019 UPDATED: 10/04/2019 BY: WH Associates, Inc. Raedeke 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 SOURCE INFORMATION: City of Federal Way, General Maps, 2016 Sensitive Areas Map Snapshot from https://www.cityoffederalway.com/maps FIGURE 7 - City of Federal Way 2016 Sensitive Areas SW 312th St SW 320th St SW 308th St SW Dash Point RdSWD ash P oi nt R d 12th Av SW21st Av SW8th Av SWntakota)LakGrovElem AdelaideElem. LakotaMiddleSchoolDecaturHigh School Lakota FParkLP AdelaidePark Fisher'sPond PovertyBayOpenSpace TrainingCenter FireSta62 MirrorLake LowerPugetSound FIGURE 7 - City of Federal Way 2016 Sensitive Areas Map WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT 30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WA RAI PROJECT: 2017-102 PREPARED: 01/25/2019 UPDATED: 10/04/2019 BY: WH Associates, Inc. Raedeke 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 SOURCE INFORMATION: City of Federal Way, General Maps, Snapshot from 2016 Sensitive Areas Map https://www.cityoffederalway.com/maps; Map Date: May 2016 APPROXIMATE PROJECT SITE LOCATION lair Wa Hylebos Creek Lower Green River Lower Puget Sound Mill Creek White River Erosion Hazard Area Landslide Hazard Areas Wetlands (1998 City Survey) Lakes Streams Drainage Basins:Critical Areas:Water Features: Legend: Boundaries are approximate. Remember, ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE AREAS MAY EXIST. See Map Notes below for more information.Pacific HwPlease Note:Map Notes: Wetlands and streams were identified in a1998 City of Federal Way survey. Data for the Landslide hazard and erosion hazard areas is provided by King County. Drainage basin boundaries within city limits havebeen verified by the City of Federal Way. Basin boundaries outside of city limits are provided by King County and have not been verified by the City of Federal Way. Critical area information is provided forillustrative purposes ONLY.Actual boundaries are subject of field verification. ADDITIONAL CRITICAL AREAS MAY EXIST. Critical areas in Pierce County are not shown. The City of Federal Wayshall not be liable for any damages due to the use or misuse of the information represented on this map. Wetlands are onlyshown in Federal Way and its Potential Annexation Area.Contact the City for an explanation of these areas and theregulations that govern them.Source: City of Federal Way, King County LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 BLAESIWOOD PLAT SHORT PLAT 1277151 AFN7910020898 LOT 320TH PL SW21ST AVE SW18TH AVEPARCEL B PARCEL A BLA 16-100077-00-SU BLA 16-100077-00-SU 19TH PL SW BLAESI WOOD PLAT V 99, PG 1 PROPERTY LINES ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE EXISTING CONTOURS BUFFER SCALE: 1" = 100' 200'100'50'0 NORTH Associates, Inc. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 Raedeke LEGEND FIGURE RAI PROJECT: DATE: DRAWN BY:PM: BASE INFORMATION: WHAC 10/4/2019 2017-102 FEDERAL WAY, WA EXISTING CONDITIONS CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT WALL SHORT PLAT JEFFREY & KAREN WALL 7 T:\2017\2017-102-002 Federal Way Wall Short Plat\2017-102 Figures.dwgTREE KEY SURVEY AND SITE PLAN: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON 1/17/19. SURVEY UPDATED 10/3/2019 TREE SURVEY: COMPLETED BY THE WALLS LEGEND (UTILITIES) CABLE MARKER POST CABLE RISER/ PEDESTAL CABLE VAULT/MANHOLE CULVERT LUMINAIRE WITH ARM LUMINAIRE LANDSCAPE/YARD LIGHT NATURAL GAS MARKER POST NATURAL GAS METER PROPANE TANK NATURAL GAS VALVE POWER CONDUIT GUY ANCHOR GUY POLE POWER JUNCTION BOX POWER MARKER POST POWER METER POWER POLE PP WITH DROP LINE PP WITH DROP AND LIGHT PP WITH DROP, LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER PP WITH DROP AND TRANSFORMER PP WITH LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER PP WITH LIGHT PP WITH TRANSFORMER POWER TRANSFORMER POWER VAULT/ MANHOLE SS CLEANOUT SS MANHOLE SS MARKER POST SEPTIC TANK STORM CATCH BASIN STORM MANHOLE STORM CLEANOUT STORM ROOF DRAIN STORM YARD DRAIN STORM MARKER POST TELEPHONE CABINET TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX TELEPHONE RISER TELEPHONE MARKER POST TELEPHONE POLE TELEPHONE VAULT/MANHOLE WATER BLOW OFF FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION HOSE BIB IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE WATER MARKER POST WATER METER WATER POST INDICATOR VALVE SPRINKLER HEAD WATER VALVE WATER VAULT/MANHOLE C C C G G G GUY P P P CO S S S D D RD D T T T T T W W PIV W WATER FIRE HYDRANT BASE SURVEY FILE INFORMATION PREPARED BY MTN 2 COAST LLC. SURVEY DATED 02/28/2017 SIGNED/SEALED 08/29/19. TREE SURVEY DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTED BY PROJECT OWNER (MR. JEFF WALL) ON 11/26/2018 AND PROVIDED TO RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. ON 12/28/2018 BY ESM CONULTING ENGINEERS. FIGURE 8 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. MARKUP FOR OCT. 16, 2016 REVISED CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN REPORT STREAM FIGURE 9 - ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS PROPOSED PLAN WALL SHORT PLAT PROJECT30201 18th Ave SW, FEDERAL WAY, WARAI PROJECT: 2017-102PREPARED: 02/26/2019BY: WH Associates, Inc. Raedeke 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219Seattle, Washington 98133 20TH PL SW21ST AVE SW18TH AVE19TH PL SW TYPE F STREAM DISPERSAL TRENCH ROCK SPLASH PAD ANCHORED STORMWATER PIPE 100' BUFFER STORMWATER POND VEGETATED FLOW PATH LIMITS OF PROPOSED DRIVEWAY EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD EDGE 100' BUFFER EX. FENCE PERMANENT BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT 724 SF 2,653 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 16,510 SF PROPERTY LINES SPLIT RAIL FENCE (SEE DETAIL 1) CRITICAL AREA SIGN (SEE DETAIL 2) SCALE: 1" = 100' 200'100'50'0 NORTH FIGURE RAI PROJECT: DATE: DRAWN BY:PM: BASE INFORMATION: WHAC 10/4/2019 2017-102 FEDERAL WAY, WA PROPOSED IMPACTS PLAN & MITIGATION CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT WALL SHORT PLAT JEFFREY & KAREN WALL 9 T:\2017\2017-102-002 Federal Way Wall Short Plat\2017-102 Figures.dwgAssociates, Inc. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 Raedeke LEGEND ’ 4' 6" GRAVEL POSTS ARE PRECUT FOR FENCE RAIL INSERTS 4" TO 6" ROUGH CEDAR RAIL 4" X 4" ROUGH CEDAR POSTS (TRIANGULAR) BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOILS NOTES: POSTS AND RAILINGS ARE PRECUT FENCE AND POSTS ARE TO BE UNTREATED CEDAR 12" DIAMETER2' MIN. 12"- 16" 8" 8' ROUGH C E D A R T Y P E - T R I A N G U L A R NGPA SPLIT RAIL CEDAR FENCE NTS1 CRITICAL AREAS SIGN DETAIL FOR A STREAM NTS2 SURVEY AND SITE PLAN: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON 1/17/19. SURVEY UPDATED 10/3/2019 TREE SURVEY: COMPLETED BY THE WALLS FIGURE 10 20TH PL SWPERMANENT BUFFER IMPACT TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT 724 SF 2,653 SF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 16,510 SF PROPERTY LINES SCALE: 1" = 50' 100'50'25'0 NORTH FIGURE RAI PROJECT: DATE: DRAWN BY:PM: BASE INFORMATION: WHAC 10/4/2019 2017-102 FEDERAL WAY, WA PROPOSED PLANTING SCHEDULE CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT WALL SHORT PLAT JEFFREY & KAREN WALL 10 T:\2017\2017-102-002 Federal Way Wall Short Plat\2017-102 Figures.dwgAssociates, Inc. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 Raedeke TREES SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WIS STATUS MIN. SIZE SPACING QTY. Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir FACU 4' tall 20' O.C.14 Thuja plicata Western red Arborvitae FAC 4' tall 20' O.C.18 Tsuga hetrophylla Western Hemlock FACU 4' tall 20' O.C.10 SHRUBS SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FAC STATUS MIN. SIZE (container)SPACING QTY. Acer circinatum Vine Maple FAC 2 gal.6' O.C.75 Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut FACU 2 gal.6' O.C.50 Gaultheria shallon Salal FACU 1 gal.6' O.C.50 Mahonia aquifolium Hollyleaved Oregon grape FACU 1 gal.6' O.C.50 Oemleria cerasiformis Osoberry FACU 2 gal.6' O.C.25 Polystichum munitum Pineland Swordfern FACU 1 gal.6' O.C.75 Sambucus racemosa Red Elder FACU 2 gal.6' O.C.25 Symphoricarpos albus Common Snowberry FACU 1 gal.6' O.C.75 Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen Blueberry FACU 1 gal.6' O.C.25 PLANT LEGEND FOR BUFFER ENHANCEMENT SHRUBS SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FAC STATUS MIN. SIZE (container)SPACING QTY. Polystichum munitum Pineland Swordfern FACU 1 gal.5' O.C.6 Rosa pisocarpa Clustered Rose FAC 1 gal.5' O.C.6 Salix scouleriana Scouler Willow FACW 1 gal.5' O.C.6 Sambucus racemos Red Elder FACU 2 gal.5' O.C.6 Symphoricarpos albus Common Snowberry FACU 1 gal.5' O.C.6 PLANT LEGEND FOR BUFFER RESTORATION BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 1.REMOVE ALL NON-NATIVE VEGETATION FROM WITHIN BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA. KEEP ALL NATIVE VEGETATION. 2.PLACE TREES IN APPROPRIATE SUN/ SHADE LOCATIONS, AND DO NOT INSTALL WITHIN THE DRIPLINE (OR TOO CLOSE) TO EXISTING TREES. 3.INSTALL SHRUBS PER THE SPECIFIED SPACING. 4.WATER THE NEWLY INSTALLED PLANTS AT A RATE OF 1 INCH PER WEEK DURING THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS. 5.MONITOR THE SURVIVAL AND GROWTH OF THE PLANTS FOR FIVE YEARS. 6.MAINTAIN THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT ZONE, SO AT NO TIME IS GREATER THAN 15% OF THE AREA COMPRISED OF NON-NATIVE VEGETATION, SUCH AS ENGLISH IVY OR ST. JOHNS WORT (HYPERICUM SP.). LEGEND SURVEY AND SITE PLAN: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON 1/17/19. SURVEY UPDATED 10/3/2019 TREE SURVEY: COMPLETED BY THE WALLS FIGURE 11 FIGURE RAI PROJECT: DATE: DRAWN BY:PM: BASE INFORMATION: WHAC 10/4/2019 2017-102 FEDERAL WAY, WA GENERAL NOTES CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT WALL SHORT PLAT JEFFREY & KAREN WALL 11 T:\2017\2017-102-002 Federal Way Wall Short Plat\2017-102 Figures.dwgAssociates, Inc. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 Raedeke GENERAL NOTES AND CONDITIONS 1.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION FURNISH ALL MATERIALS, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND LABOR NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANTING, AS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS AND SPECIFIED HEREINAFTER. WORK INCLUDES REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES BY HAND METHODS, PLANTING, MULCHING, AND GUARANTEE OF PLANTED AREAS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. 1.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION / QUALITY ASSURANCE / GUARANTEE THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST / ARCHITECT SHALL BE INVOLVED DURING THE FOLLOWING PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION: (1) ON-SITE MEETING PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK (PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING), FLAG CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FOR GARBAGE, DEBRIS, AND HARD SURFACE REMOVAL (2) APPROVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL COMPLETION; (3) APPROVAL OF PLANTS, PLANTING LOCATIONS AND TECHNIQUES; AND (4) FINAL INSPECTION. PRIOR NOTICE OF 48 HOURS TO THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST FOR THE ABOVE ACTIVITIES IS REQUIRED. APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST MUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS. THESE MAY BE PERMITTED BASED ON PLANT AVAILABILITY. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE FULL YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. ANY DEAD PLANTED MATERIAL OR PLANTED MATERIAL THAT IS NOT IN VIGOROUS CONDITION WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE TO THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR ALL PLANT MATERIALS AND OTHER MATERIALS USED IN THE PROJECT. 1.3 SITE CONDITIONS / DAMAGE / CLEANUP THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY IF SITE CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN IN THE PLANS. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO PROTECT THE STREAM DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THE MITIGATION PLANTING AREA SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED BY CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ANY ITEMS NOT SHOWN IN THE PLANS, SUCH AS EXISTING BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, WALKS, AND/OR ROADS DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED AND/OR REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, IN A MANNER SATISFACTORY TO THE OWNER/CONSTRUCTION SITE SUPERINTENDENT BEFORE FINAL PAYMENT WILL BE MADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING PLANTED AREAS FREE OF DEBRIS. UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SURPLUS MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, AND DEBRIS FROM THE SITES. ALL PLANTED AREAS SHALL BE RAKE-CLEAN PRIOR TO MULCHING. 1.4 SCHEDULE ALL GRADING AND OTHER SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MITIGATION AREAS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO REMOVAL OF ASPHALT AND OTHER HARDENED SURFACES OR REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, SHALL OCCUR BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND OCTOBER 30 UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST OR UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. ALL WORK IN SATURATED SOILS AT ANY TIME OF THE YEAR OR DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER IS NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO EXECUTION, AND MAY REQUIRE USE OF TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO SATURATED SOILS OR ADJACENT AREAS OF STANDING WATER. PLANTING OF WOODY MATERIAL SHOULD OCCUR BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND MARCH 1 TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SEASONAL RAINS AND GREATER AVAILABILITY OF PLANT MATERIAL. PLANTING DURING ABNORMALLY HOT, DRY, OR FREEZING WEATHER, OR AT TIMES OTHER THAN AS NOTED IS NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION AND MAY REQUIRE PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION. 2.0 PRODUCTS 2.1 TOPSOIL- IMPORTED THE IMPORTED TOPSOIL SHALL BE FRIABLE SURFACE SOIL FROM THE A HORIZON AS DETERMINED BY THE US AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL SURVEY. TOPSOIL SHALL BE FREE FROM: MATERIALS TOXIC TO PLANT GROWTH, NOXIOUS WEED SEEDS, RHIZOMES, ROOTS, SUBSOIL, STONES AND OTHER DEBRIS. ALL TOPSOIL SHALL PASS THROUGH A 1" SCREEN. TOPSOIL SHALL CONSIST OF A SANDY CLAY LOAM, SANDY LOAM, LOAM, CLAY LOAM, SILTY LOAM SOIL. MAXIMUM PERCENTAGES ALLOWED IN THE SOIL IS 50% SAND AND/ OR 20% CLAY. TOPSOIL SHALL BE AMENDED WITH COMPOST IF MORE ORGANIC CONTENT IS NEEDED AS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WITH A ONE POUND SAMPLE OF TOPSOIL FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO SITE. 2.2 ORGANIC COMPOST A WELL-DECOMPOSED, HUMUS-LIKE MATERIAL DERIVED FROM THE DECOMPOSITION OF GRASS CLIPPINGS LEAVES, BRANCHES, WOOD, AND OTHER ORGANIC MATERIALS. COMPOST SHALL BE PRODUCED AT A PERMITTED SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY (HEALTH PERMIT, WDOE STORMWATER PERMIT, PSAPCA FACILITY, AND EQUIPMENT REGISTRATION). COMPOST MUST MEET THE DEFINITION OF “COMPOSTED MATERIALS” IN WAC 173-350-220. THIS CODE IS AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT: HTTP://WWW.ECY.WA.GOV/PROGRAMS/SWFA/FACILITIES//350.HTML THE SOIL AMENDMENT MUST ALSO MEET THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS: · SCREEN SIZE (APPROX. PARTICLE SZE): 3/4-INCH MAXIMUM · MATURITY: GREATER THAN 80% · MATURITY MEASURE (C/N RATIO): 35:1 MAXIMUM · ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT BY DRY WEIGHT: 35% TO 80% · MEETS CONTAMINANT STANDARDS FOR GRADE A COMPOST 2.3 PLANT MATERIALS ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LOCALLY GROWN AND BE OF ACCEPTED SIZE STANDARDS AS SPECIFIED IN "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK - 2014" PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (ANSI Z60.1-2004V). ROOTED PLANTS SHALL BE FIRST QUALITY, WELL-FOLIATED, WITH WELL-DEVELOPED ROOT SYSTEMS, AND NORMAL WELL-SHAPED TRUNKS, LIMBS, STEMS, AND LEADS. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST/INSPECTOR SHALL INSPECT FOR QUALITY CONFORMANCE. ALL ROOTED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LABELED BY GENUS AND SPECIES. PLANTS DEEMED UNSUITABLE SHALL BE REJECTED BEFORE OR AFTER DELIVERY. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE FROM DAMAGE, DISEASE, INSECTS, INSECT EGGS AND LARVAE. BARE ROOT MATERIAL MAY BE USED IF PLANT MATERIAL IS INSTALLED BETWEEN FEBRUARY- MARCH. CONTACT PROJECT BIOLOGIST FOR PLANTING DETAILS FOR BARE ROOT MATERIAL. 2.4 BARK & STRAW MULCH BARK MULCH SHALL CONSIST OF GROUND FIR OR HEMLOCK BARK OF UNIFORM COLOR, FREE FROM WEED, SEEDS, SAWDUST, AND SPLINTERS AND SHALL NOT CONTAIN SALTS, OR OTHER COMPONENTS DETRIMENTAL TO PLANT LIFE. SIZE RANGE OF MULCH SHALL BE FROM 1/2" TO 1-1/4" WITH MAXIMUM OF 20% PASSING A 1/2" SCREEN. STRAW MULCH WILL CONSIST OF STRAW FREE FROM WEED SEEDS. 3.0 EXECUTION 3.1 SILT FENCE INSTALLATION INSTALLATION OF A SILT FENCE CONSISTENT WITH BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF ANY EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES, SITE GRADING, OR REMOVAL OF UN-PERMITTED FILL WITHIN THE WETLAND BUFFER, WOULD BE PROTECTED AS SHOWN ON THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN. 3.2 GARBAGE, DEBRIS, AND HARD SURFACE REMOVAL REMOVE ALL GARBAGE AND OTHER DEBRIS FROM THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA. REMOVE ALL HARD SURFACES SUCH AS GRAVEL, CONCRETE, AND ASPHALT WITHIN THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA. DISPOSE OF ALL DEBRIS OFF-SITE AT AN APPROVED CITY, COUNTY, OR OTHER WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY. 3.3 INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL WALK MITIGATION SITE WITH THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST TO IDENTIFY LIMITS OF INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL. INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL MAY EXTEND BEYOND THE PLANTING AREA TO REMOVE SEED SOURCES THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE BUFFER RESTORATION AREA. INVASIVE SPECIES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY, ENGLISH LAUREL, ENGLISH HOLLY, REED CANARYGRASS, AND OTHER INVASIVE SPECIES IDENTIFIED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. INVASIVE SPECIES WILL BE REMOVED BY GRUBBING OUT ROOT MASS. ALL NON-NATIVE, INVASIVE SPECIES INCLUDING ALL PLANT PARTS MUST BE REMOVED FROM PROJECT SITE AND DISPOSED AT A FACILITY THAT ACCEPTS YARD WASTE.. 3.5 PLANT INSTALLATION PLANTING SHALL OCCUR ACCORDING TO PREVIOUSLY DEFINED SCHEDULE. PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH DETAILS IN THE PLANS. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WILL EVALUATE IF ADDITIONAL SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED FOR PLANTING HOLES. SEE DETAILS PROVIDED IN THE PLANS. IF CONTAINER STOCK APPEARS TO BE ROOTBOUND, SLASH ROOTS VERTICALLY WITH A SHARP KNIFE ALONG OUTSIDE OF BALL IN THREE (3) PLACES MINIMUM BEFORE PLANTING. SOAK DRIED ROOTBALLS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO AND AFTER PLANTING. CLEANLY PRUNE BROKEN ROOTS ONE-HALF-INCH OR GREATER IN DIAMETER. PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED SO FINISH GRADE IS LEVEL WITH THE TOP OF ROOT BALL. PLANTS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND WATER-SETTLED. NO COMPACTION OF BACKFILL IS TO OCCUR AROUND PLANT. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE WATERED THOROUGHLY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. NO TREES OR SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED IN STANDING WATER. 3.5 MULCHING IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETION OF PLANTING, BARK MULCH SHALL BE SPREAD EVENLY TO A DEPTH OF 3 INCHES WITHIN THE ENTIRETY OF THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA. 3.6 CRITICAL AREAS SIGNS & FENCE GET SIGNS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, PRIOR TO HAVING THE SIGNS MADE. THE SIGNS SHOULD BE FOR A STREAM, NOT A WETLAND, OR FOR A BUFFER, CRITICAL AREA. INSTALL SIGNS AT LOCATIONS SHOWN IN PLAN PER THE DETAIL. INSTALL THE FENCE AT THE OUTER EDGE OF THE BUFFER AND ALONG THE ENTRANCE ROAD. 4.0 IRRIGATION SUPPLEMENTAL WATER FOR ALL SHRUB PLANTINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR DURING THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASON AFTER INSTALLATION TO ENSURE SURVIVAL OF PLANT MATERIAL. HAND WATERING OR A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAY BE USED. 5.0 PLANT ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE PERIOD FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE BUFFER RESTORATION BY CONTRACTOR AND FINAL APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST, THE LANDSCAPE PLANTING WARRANTY PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IN EFFECT. FROM THIS DATE FORWARD, FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, A 100% SURVIVORSHIP OF NEWLY INSTALLED PLANT MATERIAL IS REQUIRED UNDER THIS GUARANTEE. IF MORTALITY OCCURS DURING THIS PERIOD, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WILL SPECIFY WHICH PLANTS WILL BE REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR TO ACHIEVE A 100% SURVIVAL RATE. SPECIFIED PLANTS SHALL BE REPLACED WITH PLANTS OF SPECIES, SIZES, AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST IN WRITING. ALL MAINTENANCE OF PLANTED AREAS DURING THE GUARANTEE PERIOD SHALL BE BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL INCLUDE ITEMS AS INDICATED TO FULLY ESTABLISH ALL PLANTED AREAS TO A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS STATE. AT THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD, AND FOLLOWING REPLACEMENT OF ANY DEAD OR DEFECTIVE PLANT MATERIAL BY THE CONTRACTOR, THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WILL CERTIFY IN WRITING THE PLANT MATERIAL IS SUITABLE AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND THAT THE ONE-YEAR WARRANTY IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON 1/17/19. SURVEY UPDATED 10/3/2019 TREE SURVEY: COMPLETED BY THE WALLS FIGURE 12 FIGURE RAI PROJECT: DATE: DRAWN BY:PM: BASE INFORMATION: WHAC 10/4/2019 2017-102 FEDERAL WAY, WA MAINTENANCE & MONITORING CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT WALL SHORT PLAT JEFFREY & KAREN WALL 12 T:\2017\2017-102-002 Federal Way Wall Short Plat\2017-102 Figures.dwgAssociates, Inc. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Ste 219 Seattle, WA 98133 Raedeke MONITORING NOTES & MAINTENANCE PLAN 1.0 MONITORING PROGRAM THIS PLAN INCLUDES A SYSTEMATIC MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE RESTORED BUFFER TO EVALUATE THE SUCCESS OF THE MITIGATION EFFORT. THE RESULTS OF THE MONITORING WILL BE USED TO DEVELOP ANY NEEDED MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS OF THE SITE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE PURPOSES OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM ARE: (1) TO DOCUMENT PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MITIGATION AREA, AND (2) TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES COMPLY WITH PERMIT SPECIFICATIONS. THE MONITORING PROCESS WOULD CONSIST OF THREE DISTINCT PHASES: (1) CONSTRUCTION MONITORING; (2) COMPLIANCE MONITORING; AND (3) LONG-TERM MONITORING. THE “TIME-ZERO” OR BASELINE COMPOSITION, STRUCTURE, AND COVER ABUNDANCE WOULD BE DOCUMENTED DURING THE COMPLIANCE MONITORING PHASE. THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PROGRAM WOULD DOCUMENT THE SURVIVAL OF PLANTED VEGETATION AND RATES OF COLONIZATION BY OTHER PLANTS (I.E., IN PLANTED AREAS) OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD AFTER INSTALLATION OF THE BUFFER RESTORATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS DESCRIBE THE ELEMENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE MONITORING PROGRAM. 1.1 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WOULD BE PRESENT ON-SITE DURING THE VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO: (1) DEMARK THE LIMITS OF THE AREAS TO BE RESTORED; (2) REVIEW THE REMOVAL OF HARD SURFACES AND THE DECOMPACTION OF THOSE AREAS (3) REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PLANT MATERIALS AND RECOMMEND THEIR FINAL PLACEMENT BEFORE PLANTING; (4) ENSURE THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE CONDUCTED PER THE APPROVED PLAN; AND (5) RESOLVE PROBLEMS THAT ARISE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THUS LESSENING PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT OCCUR LATER DURING THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PHASE. 1.2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING COMPLIANCE MONITORING CONSISTS OF EVALUATING THE RESTORATION AREAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER ALL FEATURES OF THE MITIGATION PLAN HAVE BEEN INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE OBJECTIVES WOULD BE TO CERTIFY THAT ALL DESIGN FEATURES, AS AGREED TO IN THE PLANTING PLAN, HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY AND FULLY IMPLEMENTED, AND THAT ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE FIELD ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN. EVALUATION OF THE PLANTING AREAS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE DONE BY THE BIOLOGIST USING EVALUATION STANDARDS AND CRITERIA DISCUSSED IN SECTION 2.0. THE COMPLIANCE MONITORING PHASE WOULD CONCLUDE WITH THE PREPARATION OF A BRIEF COMPLIANCE REPORT BY THE BIOLOGIST. THE REPORT WOULD VERIFY THAT ALL DESIGN FEATURES HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY, FULLY, AND SUCCESSFULLY INCORPORATED. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES MADE IN THE PLANTING PLANS WOULD BE NOTED IN THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND ON THE DRAWINGS FOR USE DURING THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PHASE. DOCUMENTATION OF PLAN CHANGES SHOULD INCLUDE WHAT WAS DONE, WHERE, WHY, AT WHOSE REQUEST, AND THE RESULT OF THE CHANGE. LOCATIONS OF MONITORING STATIONS ESTABLISHED FOR THE COMPLIANCE MONITORING WOULD BE IDENTIFIED ON THE AS-BUILT PLANS. THE PLANTING PLANS, WITH THE COMPLIANCE REPORT, WOULD DOCUMENT “AS-BUILT” CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE. A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANTS ESTABLISHED IN THE BUFFER RESTORATION AREA WOULD BE RECORDED AT REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE PLOTS FOR BASELINE DATA. THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE USED TO DOCUMENT “TIME-ZERO” CONDITIONS FROM WHICH THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD WOULD BEGIN. THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND AS-BUILT DRAWINGS WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. 1.3 LONG-TERM MONITORING LONG-TERM MONITORING WOULD BE CONDUCTED OVER FIVE GROWING SEASONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND AS-BUILT PLAN BY THE CITY. LONG-TERM MONITORING WOULD EVALUATE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANT COMMUNITY IN THE RESTORED BUFFER TO DETERMINE IF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MITIGATION PLAN HAVE BEEN MET. PLANT SPECIES WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AND PLANT COUNTS WOULD BE MADE DURING THE EACH YEAR OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING IN ORDER TO DOCUMENT THE PERCENT SURVIVAL OF EACH PLANTED SPECIES. PLANT IDENTIFICATIONS WOULD BE MADE ACCORDING TO STANDARD TAXONOMIC PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN HITCHCOCK AND CRONQUIST (1976), WITH NOMENCLATURE AS UPDATED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONAL WETLAND PLANT LIST (LICHVAR AND KARTESZ 2009). SIGNS OF PLANTING STRESS OR DAMAGE, PRESENCE OF INVASIVE SPECIES, AS WELL AS SIGNS OF VIGOR, AND RATES OF COLONIZATION BY OTHER PLANTS (I.E., IN BARE SOIL AREAS) WOULD BE DOCUMENTED DURING EACH YEAR OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING. PHOTOS WOULD BE TAKEN ANNUALLY TO PROVIDE PHYSICAL DOCUMENTATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE MITIGATION AREAS. PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD BE TAKEN FROM ALL LOCATIONS ESTABLISHED DURING THE COMPLIANCE MONITORING SITE VISIT AND EACH YEAR THEREAFTER OF THE MONITORING PERIOD FROM THE ESTABLISHED LOCATION POINTS. 1.4 MONITORING AND REPORTING SCHEDULE AND CONTENTS FORMAL MONITORING OF THE ENHANCED BUFFER WOULD OCCUR AFTER THE SEASON'S GROWTH IS VIRTUALLY COMPLETE (RECOMMENDED DURING AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER). IN ADDITION, SPRING SITE CHECKS WOULD BE CONDUCTED DURING EACH YEAR OF THE FIVE-YEAR LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD TO ASSESS SITE PROGRESS AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER SITE MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED. MONITORING REPORTS WOULD BE PREPARED FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE GROWING SEASON OF EACH YEAR OF THE FIVE-YEAR LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD WILL COMMENCE FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND “AS-BUILT” DRAWINGS BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. MONITORING REPORTS WOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE MONITORING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, WITH A TARGET DATE OF DECEMBER 31 OF EACH MONITORING YEAR. THE REPORT WOULD DOCUMENT CONDITIONS WITHIN THE RESTORED AREAS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTING ANY PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED. 2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO BE USED IN THE FIVE-YEAR LONG-TERM MONITORING ARE THE FOLLOWING: ·100% SURVIVAL OF ALL PLANTED VEGETATION (TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVERS) IN THE RESTORED BUFFER, & THE RESTORED & CREATED WETLAND FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE FIRST YEAR AFTER PLANTING. ALL PLANTINGS THAT DO NOT SURVIVE DURING THE FIRST YEAR MUST BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR SPECIES AND SPECIFICATIONS. UPON INSTALLATION OF REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST YEAR, THE 100% SURVIVAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE MET; · 85% SURVIVAL OF ALL PLANTED VEGETATION (TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVERS) IN THE ENHANCED BUFFER FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF MONITORING YEARS 2 AND 3. SUFFICIENT PLANTINGS WILL BE REPLACED, AS NECESSARY, WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR SPECIES AND SPECIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO MEET THE 85% SURVIVAL STANDARD. AT THE END OF THE THIRD YEAR THE PLANTS WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED. ·COVERAGE BY TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SPECIES (VOLUNTEER AND PLANTED INDIVIDUALS) WITHIN THE ENHANCED BUFFER WILL BE THE FOLLOWING: §AT LEAST 20% AFTER THREE YEARS; §AT LEAST 40% AFTER FIVE YEARS; ·THERE WILL BE NO MORE THAN 15% COVER BY HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY OR OTHER INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES, AS IDENTIFIED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST AT ANY TIME DURING THE FIVE-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD WITHIN THE AREA OF BUFFER ENHANCEMENT. 4.0 MAINTENANCE 4.1 IRRIGATION SUPPLEMENTAL WATER WILL BE PROVIDED TO ALL TREE AND SHRUB PLANTINGS DURING THE FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. HAND WATERING OR A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAY BE USED. IRRIGATION WILL OCCUR FROM JUNE 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 30 OR OTHER PERIODS OF HOT, DRY WEATHER AND WILL DELIVER APPROXIMATELY 1 INCH OF WATER PER WEEK THROUGHOUT THE RESTORATION AREAS. IF WATERED BY HAND, THEN THE MINIMUM WATERING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE 1 TO 3 GALLONS OF WATER FOR SMALL SHRUBS AND 3 TO 5 GALLONS PER WEEK FOR SAPLING TREES AND LARGE SHRUBS. THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE GUIDELINES THAT MAY VARY DEPENDING ON PLANT LOCATION, EXPOSURE, SOIL CONDITION, AND PRESENCE OF EXISTING VEGETATION. 4.2 SITE MAINTENANCE THE RESTORED BUFFER & WETLAND IS DESIGNED TO BE SELF-SUSTAINING. TO ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF THE PLANTINGS, ADDITIONAL REPLANTING AND CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES MAY BE NECESSARY AFTER INITIAL INSTALLATION. THIS MAINTENANCE PLAN INCLUDES ALL ACTIONS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PLANTS FREE OF INSECTS AND DISEASE, CONTROL COMPETITION WITH GRASSES AND WEEDS, AND LIMIT DIE-BACK OR MORTALITY DUE TO INADEQUATE SOIL MOISTURE TO WITHIN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SPECIFIED ON SHEET 1. UPON COMPLETION OF THE REMOVAL OF ALL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND UNPERMITTED FILL AND INSTALLATION OF THE RESTORATION PLANTINGS, MULCH AND ALL OTHER ITEMS SPECIFIED BY THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN, ALL SURPLUS MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE MITIGATION SITE. ALL SILT FENCES WILL BE REMOVED FROM WITHIN THE ENHANCED/RESTORED BUFFER WHEN THE ADJACENT HERBACEOUS VEGETATION IS ONE FOOT IN HEIGHT OR AS APPROVED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST AND OR THE CITY OF SAMMMAMISH. THE SITE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM WOULD COMMENCE UPON APPROVAL OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AND AS-BUILT PLAN BY THE CITY. THE SITE WOULD BE REGULARLY MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WOULD INSPECT THE SITE DURING SPRING (MARCH-APRIL) DURING EACH YEAR OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD TO IDENTIFY ANY DEVELOPING PROBLEMS WITHIN THE MITIGATION SITE. ITEMS TO BE EVALUATED WITHIN THE RESTORATION AREAS INCLUDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM OPERABILITY (IF APPLICABLE), PRESENCE OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PLANT HEALTH, ANIMAL DAMAGE TO PLANTINGS, AND PRESENCE OF TRASH. THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST WOULD SUBMIT A WRITTEN SUMMARY OF HIS/HER FINDINGS ALONG WITH MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PROJECT PROPONENT WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS/HER INSPECTION. MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE PROJECT PROPONENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT FROM THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. INVASIVE SPECIES WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY METHODS THAT DO NOT COMPROMISE THE ESTABLISHED VEGETATION OR THE REST OF THE RESTORATION PLANTINGS. UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST, REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES WILL BE DONE BY HAND, WITH HAND PULLING OF ALL WEEDS WITHIN THE DRIP RING OF ANY INSTALLED SHRUB OR TREE. NO WEED-WHIPPING WITH MECHANIZED LINE TRIMMERS WILL BE ALLOWED BETWEEN WOODY PLANTS WITHIN CLUSTER OR CLUMPED PLANTINGS. 5.0 PROJECT ACCEPTANCE AFTER COMPLETION OF THE FIVE-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD AND CONFIRMATION BY THE CITY OF SAMMAMISH THAT THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT HAS SUCCESSFULLY MET THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, THE CITY OF SAMMAMISH SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF THE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT SIT AND RELEASE ALL BONDS IN PLACE AS GUARANTEE OF MITIGATION SITE CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE. 3.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN CONTINGENCY PLANS ARE NEEDED IF POST-MITIGATION MONITORING SHOWS THAT OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN MET. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP A DETAILED CONTINGENCY PLAN UNTIL THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED ARE KNOWN. IT WOULD BE UNPRODUCTIVE TO TRY TO ANTICIPATE ALL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS AND THEIR SOLUTIONS AT THIS TIME. COMMON PROBLEMS, BOTH HUMAN AND NATURAL, THAT MIGHT ARISE CAN BE IDENTIFIED AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REMEDY PROPOSED. FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER THE SECOND YEAR, PLANT COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE CREATED, RESTORED AND ENHANCED AREAS MAY NOT BE ESTABLISHED AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REPLANT WITH NEW OR DIFFERENT STOCK, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WATERING OR IRRIGATION DURING CRITICAL SEASONS, OR AUGMENT THE SOIL. THE CONTINGENCY PLAN MAY REQUIRE EXTENSION OF THE MONITORING PHASE OF THE PROJECT, ESPECIALLY IF MAJOR CHANGES IN THE PLAN ARE REQUIRED. IF, AT THE END OF THE LONG-TERM MONITORING PERIOD, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR YEAR FIVE HAVE NOT BEEN MET, IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS WILL BE ADDRESSED, AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING AN ADDITIONAL MONITORING YEAR(S) AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF SAMMAMISH. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN: ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ON 1/17/19. SURVEY UPDATED 10/3/2019 TREE SURVEY: COMPLETED BY THE WALLS FIGURE 13 35 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ATTACHMENTS 36 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ATTACHMENT A Sample Plot Data Forms 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: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way, WA Sampling Date:1/12/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 1 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long: -122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None 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: Located in a section of lawn, north of the house on Parcel No. 0121039146. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. 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: 67 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra (Red Alder) 60 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus spectabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 50 Y FAC 2. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry) 5 N FAC 3. 4. 5. 55 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) 1. Polystichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 1 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 99 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 1 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 - 5 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 Gr S Loam 5 - 14 10YR 4/3 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Gr S Loam 14 - 20 10YR 4/4 >95 7.5YR 4/6 <5 C M Gr S 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 Soils 3: 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: 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 indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. 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: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way, WA Sampling Date:1/12/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 2 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long: -122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None 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: Located in low drainage point northeast of home located on parcel 0121039013. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 =0 FACW species 0 x 2 =0 FAC species 40 x 3 =120 FACU species 70 x 4 =280 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 Column Totals: 110 (A) 400 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.6 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum (Big-Leaf Maple) 60 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry) 40 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 40 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) 1. Polystichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 5 Y FACU 2. Tellima grandiflora (Fragrant Fringecup) 5 Y FACU 3. Musci. species 5 NI NA 4. Unknown sedge 1 NI NA 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 16 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 84 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 2 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 - 4 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 Gr S Loam 4 - 20 10YR 4/4 100 Gr S 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 Soils 3: 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: 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 indicators of hydrology were observed. 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: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way, WA Sampling Date:1/12/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 3 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 - 10 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long: -122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None 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: In custer of trees located in the center of the site. Refer to Figure 2 of 02/26/2019 report for all approximate sample plot locations VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (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: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum (Big-Leaf Maple) 60 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis (Oso-Berry) 20 Y FACU 2. Hedera helix (English Ivy) 5 N FACU 3. Vaccinium parvifolium (Red Blueberry) 3 N FACU 4. Rubus spectabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 1 N FAC 5. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry) 1 N FAC 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) 1. Polystichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 20 Y FACU 2. Tellima grandiflora (Fragrant Fringecup) 15 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 35 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 3 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 - 5 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 Gr S Loam 5 - 18 10YR 4/4 100 Gr S 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 Soils 3: 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: 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 indicators of hydrology were observed. 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: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way, WA Sampling Date:1/12/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 4 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 3 - 5 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long: -122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None 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: Located north of residence and parcel 0850500040. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 =0 FACW species 0 x 2 =0 FAC species 30 x 3 =90 FACU species 90 x 4 =360 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 Column Totals: 120 (A) 450 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.8 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum (Big-Leaf Maple) 65 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 65 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus spectabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) 1. Polystichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 15 Y FACU 2. Tellima grandiflora (Fragrant Fringecup) 10 Y FACU 3. Rubus ursinus (California Dewberry) 5 N FACU 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 30 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 4 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 - 8 10YR 3/3 100 Gr S Loam 8 - 10 10YR 5/4 100 Gr S Loam With fire ped inclusions 10 - 18 10YR 3/3 100 Gr S Loam With fire ped inclusions 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 Soils 3: 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: 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 indicators of hydrology were observed. 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: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way, WA Sampling Date:1/12/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 5 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long: -122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None 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: Located on slight slope near between southwest cornern of property an private access driveway off of 20th Place SW. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. 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 0 x 1 =0 FACW species 0 x 2 =0 FAC species 60 x 3 =180 FACU species 50 x 4 =200 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 Column Totals: 110 (A) 380 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum (Big-Leaf Maple) 35 Y FACU 2. Alnus rubra (Red Alder) 15 Y FAC 3. 4. 50 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus spectabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 25 Y FAC 2. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry) 20 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 45 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) 1. Tellima grandiflora (Fragrant Fringecup) 10 Y FACU 2. Polystichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 5 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0 - 3 10YR 2/2 100 Gr S Loam 3 - 7 10YR 3/3 100 Gr S Loam With fire ped inclusions 7 - 14 10YR 4/3 >95 10YR 4/6 <5 C M Gr S Loam With fire ped inclusions 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 Soils 3: 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: 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 indicators of hydrology were observed. 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: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way, WA Sampling Date:1/12/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 6 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long: -122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None 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: Located within OHWM, in wide stream bow in northwest corner of project site. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 =0 FACW species 0 x 2 =0 FAC species 80 x 3 =240 FACU species 87 x 4 =348 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 Column Totals: 167 (A) 588 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum (Big-Leaf Maple) 75 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 75 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus spectabilis (Salmon Raspberry) 80 Y FAC 2. Acer macrophyllum (Big-Leaf Maple) saplings 10 N FACU 3. 4. 5. 90 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) 1. Geranium robertianum (Lesser Herbrobert) 1 Y FACU 2. Tellima grandiflora (Fragrant Fringecup) 1 Y FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 2 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 98 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 6 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 2/2 100 Gr S 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 Soils 3: 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: 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): 0.5 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Federal Way Wall Short Plat City/County: Federal Way, WA Sampling Date:1/12/2018 Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey & Karen Wall State: WA Sampling Point: SP 7 Investigator(s): W. Hohman & A. Clark Section, Township, Range: S1, T21N, R3E, W.M. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 15 Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests & Coasts (LRR A) Lat: 47.33 Long: -122.36 Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None 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: Located approximately 10 feet east uphill from stream and approximately 40 feet east of Sample Plot 6 near northwest corner of project site. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 =0 FACW species 0 x 2 =0 FAC species 15 x 3 =45 FACU species 165 x 4 =660 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 Column Totals: 180 (A) 705 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.9 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5 m) % Cover Species? Status 1. Acer macrophyllum (Big-Leaf Maple) 75 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 75 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. Rubus ursinus (California Dewberry) 40 Y FACU 2. Sambucus racemosa (Red Elder) 20 Y FACU 3. Alnus rubra (Red Alder) saplings 15 Y FAC 4. 5. 75 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) 1. Polystichum munitum (Pineland Sword Fern) 30 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 30 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 7 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 2/2 100 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 Soils 3: 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: 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 indicators of hydrology were observed. 51 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ATTACHMENT B Email Correspondence from Larry Fisher, WDFW Habitat Biologist 1 Will Hohman From:Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Sent:Monday, October 14, 2019 9:10 AM To:Will Hohman Subject:RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Will: Yes, I still agree that feature is a totally artificial watercourse and not jurisdictional. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 Cell: 425-449-6790 – Please note phone change to just my cell phone. <'){{}}>< <'){{}}>< From: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 2:23 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Larry, We received an updated survey from the engineer for this project. This email will hopefully fully close the loop on our recent discussions. The roadside feature discussed in my Tuesday, August 6, 2019 9:49 AM email does actually get piped from the catch basin on the east side of 20th Place SW to the west side of the road where the stream is that we looked at in January 2018. Attached is an update showing the old survey (left side of the page which assisted in the basis of your determination in your email below) and the latest updated survey information (right side of the page). Again, they simply want to widen the road and move the open roadside feature west keeping it as an open roadside drainage feature. It appears to be excavated from uplands, constructed as an artificial drainage feature based on our desktop review and observations of disturbed conditions. Feel free to call me for more information if needed. When you get a moment, can you let me know if your thoughts highlighted below still stand? Attached are some photographs of this feature and here is another link to look at it in Google Maps. 47°19'52.3"N 122°21'38.1"W Thank you very much for your time in advance. Best regards, Will H. 2 Will Hohman, PWS Phone: (206) 525-8122 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 2:19 PM To: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Will: I believe that is not a jurisdictional watercourse, so it could be relocated without obtaining an HPA. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 Cell: 425-449-6790 – Please note phone change to just my cell phone. <'){{}}>< <'){{}}>< From: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 9:49 AM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Good Morning Larry, I have an issue that came up on this project that you met me at in Federal Way. Likely not an issue, but I would like to ask you in order to help check the boxes for our client? You and I reviewed a roadside ditch feature on the east side of 20th Pl SW in Federal Way back in January. Here is a decent google maps link to refresh your memory so you can look at it from street views. 47°19'52.3"N 122°21'38.1"W There is another much smaller roadside drainage feature located north of the intersection of 20th Pl SW and 21st Ave SW that is located along the western side of 20th Pl SW. It is much smaller than the one on the east side. I am working with the engineer and surveyor to determine exactly where this goes. Attached is a markup of the survey information. The red line is the feature in question; highlighted are details on the ROW and pipes within this roadside feature. As you can see it is likely that this feature is less than 2 feet width with 12” pipes in it and appears to be wholly excavated in uplands and is less than 1 foot deep. From what I recall during out site visit, this feature almost gets as shallow as the edge of the roadway itself. If my client needed to widen the road and push this feature west, leaving the existing pipes alone and simply reconstructing the drainage feature to the same dimensions alongside the widened roadway footprint, would that trigger an HPA for this project? I am working on collecting more information about this feature and wanted to at least start the discussion with you recognizing that you are probably very busy this summer. 3 I hope you are doing well and having a great week. If I can explain this in a better way, please feel free to ask questions or give me a call… Best regards, Will H. Will Hohman, PWS Phone: (206) 525-8122 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 3:35 PM To: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Will: If the culvert is not altered, an HPA would not be required to work on the fill over it. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <'){{}}>< <'){{}}>< From: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 3:21 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Larry. Happy New Year to you and your family! Quick question for our client: They need to expand the width of the existing driveway per their current concept design. No direct discharge into the stream or change in vertical elevation of the driveway (pre- vs post- construction). They are not proposing to replace or touch the culvert either. Still needs an HPA, right? If so, can you call me to chat about this b/c I have some concerns regarding what might be required on a site like this considering what is actually happening out there (upstream and downstream). Attached photo is looking upstream from where you and I collected some channel width measurements. Feel free to call me if I can explain better. I hope you are doing well and having a great start to the New Year. Best regards, Will H. 4 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:07 PM To: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Cc: Annamaria Clark <aclark@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Will: The photos look like that may be a totally artificial watercourse. If you are asking if the stream we looked at could be changed from F to unclassified because the artificial watercourse drains into it, the answer to that would be no. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <'){{}}>< <'){{}}>< From: Will Hohman [mailto:whohman@raedeke.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:55 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Cc: Annamaria Clark <aclark@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Larry, I wanted to follow up and say thanks for taking the time to meet Annamaria and I out at the property off 20th place in the City of Federal Way on Friday January 12th. It sounded like, based on the following site conditions, the segment of stream contiguous and on portions of the property would classify as a Type F (Type 3) per the following field data: per WAC 222-16-031 “(3) Type 3 Water (b)(i) natural waters… presumed to have fish use: (a) Stream segments having a defined channel of 2 feet or greater within the bankfull width in Western Washington… and having a gradient of 16% or less.” Summary of our site walk and findings: We estimated an average 3 foot bankfull width immediately downstream of the access gravel drive culvert which opens to a bankfull width that is larger than 3 feet approximately midway along the western most property edge and between a 8-12% gradient along the length of the property boundary. We also measured the same bankfull width upstream of the access drive culvert for some distance past the southern property boundary. Given this criteria, existing man-made structures (culverts), and no observed natural barriers, the stream falls in line with the definition of a Type-F stream per above referenced WAC. Do you agree with my takeaway from our meeting or see it another way to look at it given some of your recent training/discussions with DNR and others? My only last question would be, does the smaller roadside conveyance (attached photos looking upstream) get excluded from consideration as a “natural water” if it is actively maintained and artificially created. Perhaps this is a moot point since it is connected to the larger bankfull width downstream. If I can verify that this smaller section was artificially created, when it was, and that it is regularly maintained… could that result in potentially declassifying this reach 5 section? Just thought I would ask. I see the WAC is more specific to irrigation in these scenarios, so since it is “presumed to have fish” by definition then perhaps this does not work without further survey and/or more formal consultation. Again, thank you for your time and cooperation. I hope you are fully recovered from your cold. Have a peaceful start to your week. Kindest regards, Will H. Will Hohman, PWS Phone: (206) 525-8122 Ext. 124 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) [mailto:Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 9:03 AM To: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way I could meet either Th or F about 1:45 or so this week. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <'){{}}>< <'){{}}>< From: Will Hohman [mailto:whohman@raedeke.com] Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 1:58 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Great! I know it is short notice, but would you be available this Thursday or Friday afternoon to meet us on site? If not, would late next week work for you? Afternoon would be best for me. The site is up off of 20th Place SW north of SW 304th street in Federal way. I still need to confirm with the project owner once we have a date that works. No rush, just thought I would ask in case we can make it happen sooner than later. Kindest regards, Will H. Will Hohman, PWS 6 Phone: (206) 525-8122 Ext. 124 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) [mailto:Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 8:01 AM To: Will Hohman <whohman@raedeke.com> Subject: RE: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Will: Yes, I will be the contact for that. Thank you for the kind thoughts. Right back at you. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <'){{}}>< <'){{}}>< From: Will Hohman [mailto:whohman@raedeke.com] Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 2:54 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) <Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov> Subject: Water Typing in City of Federal Way Hi Larry, I have a project that I think we are going to want WDFW to weigh in on regarding water typing/classification. It is in the City of Federal Way in King county. Are you the point of contact if we need to schedule a field site meeting in a few weeks to review? If not, could you possibly point me in the direction with whom I should be speaking. Thanks for your time in advance, Larry. I hope you and your family had a very happy and peaceful holiday season! Talk to you soon. Kindest regards, Will H. Will Hohman, PWS Wetland Ecologist whohman@raedeke.com 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98113 7 Phone: (206) 525-8122 Ext. 124 Fax: (206) 526-2880 http://raedeke.com/ LOT 3BLAESIWOOD PLAT20TH PL SW21ST AVE SWNew area in question? Raedeke trying to verify ifsurvey picked up thedirection that this featureleaves the catchbasin.Area reviewed withWDFW on January 12,2019 (determined to be aregulated watercourse).small catch basinSNAPSHOT OF SURVEYPREPARED BY MOUNTAIN 2COAST ON 02/28/2017MARKUPS PREPARED BYRAEDEKE ON 08/06/201920TH PL SWARTIFICIAL ROADSIDEDRAINAGE FEATURE IN QUESTION?SNAPSHOT OF SURVEYPREPARED BY MOUNTAIN 2 COAST ON 08/29/2019 MARKUPSBY RAEDEKE ON 10-11-2019 60 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ATTACHMENT C WDFW PHS Report SOURCE DATASET:WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFEPRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORTREPORT DATE:P180111120551PHSPlusPublic01/11/2018 12.06Query ID:Priority AreaCommon NameAccuracySource EntityOccurrence TypeResolutionNotesSource DateSite NamePHS Listing StatusScientific NameSource DatasetState StatusMgmt RecommendationsMore Information (URL)Sensitive DataFederal StatusGeometry TypeSource RecordOccurrence/migrationhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htmLinesN/ANA43528AS MAPPEDN/ASWIFDCohoPHS LISTEDhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?NOncorhynchus kisutchOccurrence/MigrationOccurrence/migrationhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htmLinesN/ANA43592AS MAPPEDN/ASWIFDCohoPHS LISTEDhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?NOncorhynchus kisutchOccurrence/MigrationOccurrence/migrationhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htmLinesN/ANA43527AS MAPPEDN/ASWIFDFall ChumPHS LISTEDhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?NOncorhynchus ketaOccurrence/MigrationOccurrence/migrationhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htmLinesN/ANA43591AS MAPPEDN/ASWIFDFall ChumPHS LISTEDhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?NOncorhynchus ketaOccurrence/MigrationOccurrence/migrationhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htmLinesN/ANA43526AS MAPPEDN/ASWIFDResident Coastal CutthroatPHS LISTEDhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?NOncorhynchus clarkiOccurrence/MigrationOccurrence/migrationhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htmLinesN/ANA43590AS MAPPEDN/ASWIFDResident Coastal CutthroatPHS LISTEDhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?NOncorhynchus clarkiOccurrence/MigrationDISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency responseas to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fishand wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out thepresence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to vraition caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more thansix months old.01/11/2018 12.061 WDFW Test Map Wash ingt on Fish an d WildlifeSource: E sri, Dig it alGlob e, Geo Eye, Ea rt hsta r Geo gr ap hics, CNES /Airbus PH S Re po rt C lip Ar ea PT LN PO LY AS MAPPED SECTION QTR -TW P TO WN SH IP Ja nua ry 11, 20 18 0 0.3 0.60.15 mi 0 0.55 1.10.275 km 1:19,8 42 63 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ATTACHMENT D Existing Conditions Photographs ATTACHMENT D – Existing Conditions Photographs Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Project: Federal Way Wall Short Plat Photo Plate 1 of 3 Project Number: 2017-102-003 Photo 1 Developed portion of project site with lawn, landscaping, and mature trees. [Image 2017 taken 01-12-2018] Photo 2 Undeveloped portion of project site with mature trees, shrubs, and sword fern. [Image 2038 taken 01-12-2018] Photo 3 On-site stream, east of 20th Place SW, looking upstream and east. [Image 069 taken 01-12-2018] Photo 4 Drainage conveyance west of 20th Place SW in location of proposed road-widening. [Image 1099 taken 09-18-2019] ATTACHMENT D – Existing Conditions Photographs Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Project: Federal Way Wall Short Plat Photo Plate 2 of 3 Project Number: 2017-102-003 Photo 5 Developed portion of project access driveway and home on northern project parcel. [Image taken 01-12-2018] Photo 6 On-site stream, east of 20th Place SW, looking upstream. [Image taken 01-12-2018] Photo 7 On-site landscaping and mowed lawn areas (typical). [Image taken 01-12-2018] Photo 8 Stream buffer conditions. [Image taken 01-12-2018] ATTACHMENT D – Existing Conditions Photographs Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan Project: Federal Way Wall Short Plat Photo Plate 3 of 3 Project Number: 2017-102-003 Photo 9 Culvert under site access driveway in on-site stream, east of 20th Pl SW, looking upstream. [Image taken 01-12-2018] Photo 10 Drainage feature west of 20th PL SW, looking east northeast. [Image 1085 taken 09-18-2019] Photo 11 Drainage feature west of 20th PL SW, looking north and downstream. [Image 1099 taken 09-18-2019] Photo Reference: Image Source King County iMap GIS Interactive Mapping Tool: https:://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/imap/ 67 Federal Way Wall Short Plat Raedeke Associates, Inc. Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan February 26, 2019 Revised October 16, 2019 ATTACHMENT E Mtn 2 Coast LLC Wall Short Plat Topographic Mapping Survey