21-100731-UP-Wetland Assessment 02-24-2021-V1 February 22, 2021 AOA-6216 Neitha Wilkey
AustinCina Architects 12202 Pacific Ave. S., Suite C Tacoma, WA 98444
SUBJECT: Critical Areas Study for Twin Lakes Veterinary Hospital (Revised) 1060 SW 320th Street, Parcel 072104-9202 City of Federal Way, WA (File #20-104038-PC)
Dear Neitha: We have prepared this updated critical areas study associated with a building permit for a small expansion to the existing veterinary hospital on the subject property.
Based on our conversations, it is my understanding that the City of Federal Way is allowing a small modification to an existing wetland buffer on the site since the expansion is for educational purposes and is therefore considered an essential service. 1.0 EXISTING CRITICAL AREAS On June 9, 2020 I conducted a wetland reconnaissance and delineation on the site utilizing the methodology outlined in the May 2010 Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and
Coast Region (Version 2.0).
One wetland (Wetland A) was identified throughout the central portion of the property and its southern boundary was delineated during the field investigation. The wetland delineation was subsequently surveyed and is depicted on Figure 1. Attachment A contains data sheets prepared for a representative location in both the wetland and upland. These data sheets document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary delineation Wetland A on the site is part of a larger wetland that extends off-site to the east and
west. The wetland is a Depressional Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class that was almost entirely ponded at the time of the June 2020 site review. Runoff within the on-site portion of the wetland drains from east to west.
Neitha Wilkey February 22, 2021 Page 2 of 6 Soils within Wetland A consisted primarily of a silty clay and vegetation within the wetland consisted of a palustrine forested and scrub-shrub mosaic (PFO/PSS) that
was dominated by black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), willow (Salix sp.), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), spirea (Spiraea douglasii), twinberry (Lonicera
involucrata), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), and water parsley (Oenanthe
sarmentosa).
Wetland A meets the criteria for a Category III wetlands with 6 Habitat Points (Attachment B). Category III wetlands with 6 Habitat Points require a standard 150-foot buffer per Table 1 in FWRC 19.145.420(2).
City Wetland Mapping
Wetland Functional Assessment
Wetlands, in general, provide many valuable ecological and social functions, including stormwater storage, water quality protection, groundwater recharge and discharge, and wildlife habitat. As a well vegetated ponded Depressional HGM class, Wetland A on the site provides many of these
functions.
Neitha Wilkey February 22, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Wetland A provides stormwater storage and serves to maintain water quality in downstream areas by trapping sediments and other pollutants. The
trapping of sediments and other pollutants within the wetland maintains water quality in downstream areas and aids in the prevention of fish habitat degradation by limiting silt accumulation within spawning areas. The wetland also provides some further benefit to fish and other wildlife by
releasing water slowly during the dry summer months, thereby contributing to downstream base flows. In addition to the hydrologic functions, Wetland A also provides biological functions. The overall wetland provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species acclimated to
undeveloped areas within suburban environments. Another important biologic function of the wetland is the transport of nutrients to downstream areas. Nutrients transported to downstream areas provide biological support for fish and other aquatic wildlife.
Wetland A does provide some cultural wetland functions as part of the overall open space associated with the site, including some passive recreational opportunities such as wildlife viewing.
Typical view of Wetland A
Neitha Wilkey February 22, 2021 Page 4 of 6 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project consists of a small addition to the existing veterinary hospital. As part of the project, 1,079 s.f. of new structure would be created within the buffer. All the impacted buffer area currently consists of existing asphalt, concrete pavers, or lawn and no native vegetation would be removed as part of the project. None of the
impacted buffer areas currently provide any significant functional benefit to the wetland and no direct wetland impacts are proposed.
Typical view of proposed expansion area. Mitigation Sequencing
The City of Federal Way requires any proposed impacts to wetland buffers apply mitigation sequencing per FWRC 19.145.130. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical
areas. When alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be
avoided, minimized, or compensated in the following order of preference:
(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
Nearly the entire existing veterinary hospital structure is located within the current standard buffer from the wetland. The required expansion area is very specific to a certain part of the building and it is not possible to
completely avoid working within the existing buffer and still complete the goal of the expansion.
(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative
steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce
impacts;
It is my understanding that the proposed expansion is the minimum necessary to meet the goal of the project. The proposed expansion is
Neitha Wilkey February 22, 2021 Page 5 of 6 relatively small and any reduction in the expansion would not justify the goal of the project.
(3) Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the
initiation of the project;
All the impacted buffer areas currently consist of existing impervious surfaces
or mowed lawn and none of the proposed impacted buffer areas currently provide any significant functional benefit to the wetland. Since no native vegetation would be removed, no restoration should be required.
(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action;
All the vegetated wetland and buffer areas on the site would be preserved in perpetuity and no vegetation removal is proposed.
(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments; and
Although there would be no loss of functional wetland buffer as a result of the project, mitigation in the form of buffer replacement will be provided. As part of the project, 1,079 s.f. of additional forested buffer in the southeast portion of the site would be protected and preserved in perpetuity.
(6) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action
when necessary.
Since no compensatory mitigation planting is proposed, there should be no monitoring requirement.
The proposed project cannot be accomplished using standard buffer reduction or buffer
averaging provisions. In addition, it is my understanding that the City has determined that the existing development within wetland buffer provision of FWRC 19.145.440(4) does not fully apply since some of the buffer is lawn and therefore not permanently altered. It is also my understanding that the modification will be allowed by the City since the building expansion is for educational purposes and is thereby considered an
essential service. 3.0 CONCLUSION
Since additional forested buffer will be provided, there will be no loss of buffer area or functional benefit from the project.
Neitha Wilkey February 22, 2021 Page 6 of 6 If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC
John Altmann Ecologist Attachments
King
Vicinity Map
Date: 10/6/2020 Notes:
The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to changewithout 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 intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liablefor any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map isprohibited except by written permission of King County.±
King County, EagleView
Date: 10/6/2020 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.
Parcel 0721049202
PTSYMBRDPMTRDRDGATEGATEPMTRDSRDRDPMTRDRDRDRDRDPB285285284284286286287287
283284285284284286286285285285285285SSW 32OTH ST285285284284282283281280280281282PTSYMBRDPMTRDRDGATEGATEPMTRDSRDRDPMTRDRDRDRDRDPB285285284284286286287287
283284285284284286286285285285285285SSW 32OTH ST285285284284282283281280280281282PROJECTDRAWNDATESCALEREVISEDLandscapeArchitectureAOAEnvironmentalPlanning &Office (425) 333-4535PO Box 578Carnation, WA 98014Fax (425) 333-4509Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC6216-MIT-02-17-21.dwg
PTSYMBRDPMTRDRDGATEGATEPMTRDSRDRDPMTRDRDRDRDRDPB285285284284286286287287
283284285284284286286285285285285285S285285284284282283281280280281282PTSYMBRDPMTRDRDGATEGATEPMTRDSRDRDPMTRDRDRDRDRDPB285285284284286286287287
283284285284284286286285285285285285S285285284284282283281280280281282PROJECTDRAWNDATESCALEREVISEDLandscapeArchitectureAOAEnvironmentalPlanning &Office (425) 333-4535PO Box 578Carnation, WA 98014Fax (425) 333-4509Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC6216-MIT-02-17-21.dwg
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 8') Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Salix lasiandra 20 yes FACW Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4.
50% = 10, 20% = 4 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 8')
1. Salix lasiandra 20 yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 30 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Spiraea douglasii 10 no FACW OBL species x1 =
4. Rubus armeniaucs 10 no FAC FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = 35, 20% = 14 70 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 8') UPL species x5 =
1. Oenanthe sarmentosa 60 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 30, 20% = 12 60 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 8')
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Parcel 072104-9202 City/County: Federal Way/ Sampling Date: 6-9-20
Applicant/Owner: Twin Lakes State: WA Sampling Point: DP#1
Investigator(s): John Altmann Section, Township, Range: S7, T21N, R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.31622 Long: -122.34989 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Sk, AgB NWI classification: PSSC, R4SBC
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 Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Located 8' into off of A-11
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP 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
0-15 10 YR 2/1 100 silty clay
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 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 Stresses 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): 7" Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Parcel 072104-9202
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 8') Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Populus balsamifera 40 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4.
50% = 20, 20% = 8 40 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 8')
1. Oemleria cerasiformis 40 yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 30 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Sambucus racemosa 10 yes FACU OBL species x1 =
4. FACW species x2 =
5. FAC species x3 =
50% = 40, 20% = 16 80 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 8') UPL species x5 =
1. Urtica dioica 10 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Prevalence Index = B/A =
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 5, 20% = 2 10 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 8')
1. Rubus ursinus 25 yes FACU
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = 12.5, 20% = 5 25 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
Project Site: Parcel 072104-9202 City/County: Federal Way/ Sampling Date: 6-9-20
Applicant/Owner: Twin Lakes State: WA Sampling Point: DP#2
Investigator(s): John Altmann Section, Township, Range: S7, T21N, R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.31622 Long: -122.34989 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Sk, AgB NWI classification: PSSC, R4SBC
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 Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Located 8' into upland off of A-11
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP#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
0-16 10 YR 3/3 100 gravelly sandy loam
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 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 Stresses 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): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Project Site: Parcel 072104-9202
ATTACHMENT B
WETLAND RATING
Wetland name or number A
Name of wetland (or ID #):Date of site visit:6/9/2020
Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 03/08 & 03/15
HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No
NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions or special characteristics )
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each
Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based
X Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three
Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
M M 9 = H, H, H
M L 8 = H, H, M
M H Total 7 = H, H, L
7 = H, M, M
6 = H, M, L
6 = M, M, M
5 = H, L, L
5 = M, M, L
4 = M, L, L
3 = L, L, L
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
X
Depressional & Flats
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
List appropriate rating (H, M, L)
HydrologicImproving
Water Quality
HSite Potential
Landscape Potential
Habitat
M
FUNCTION
Parcel 072104-9202
Altmann
King County iMAP
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
Value
Score Based on
Ratings 7 6 6 19
M
CHARACTERISTIC Category
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
None of the above
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number A
Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes B
Hydroperiods B
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods )B
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)B
Map of the contributing basin G
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)C
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)D
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
Hydroperiods
Ponded depressions
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure)
Map of the contributing basin
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
Slope Wetlands
Map of: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
Hydroperiods
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to another figure )
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
A
S 3.1, S 3.2
S 3.3
S 4.1
S 2.1, S 5.1
To answer questions:
H 1.1, H 1.4
H 1.2
S 1.3
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
L 3.1, L 3.2
L 3.3
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
R 3.1
R 3.2, R 3.3
To answer questions:
L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
H 1.2
R 1.1
R 2.4
R 1.2, R 4.2
R 4.1
R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
L 1.2
L 2.2
D 1.1, D 4.1
D 2.2, D 5.2
D 4.3, D 5.3
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
D 3.1, D 3.2
D 3.3
To answer questions:
H 1.1, H 1.4
To answer questions:
D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
D 1.4, H 1.2
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number A
For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe
NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ),
The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands.
If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be
used to score functions for estuarine wetlands.
The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps.
It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks.
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow
depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep).
The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding
from that stream or river,
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it.
Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington
If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit
with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to
Question 8.
At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number A
NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional
NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
HGM class to
use in rating
Riverine
Depressional
Lake Fringe
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than
2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating.
Riverine
Treat as
ESTUARINE
Slope + Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional + Lake Fringe
Riverine + Lake Fringe
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of
the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10%
of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
Slope + Riverine
Slope + Depressional
Depressional
Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding?
The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high
groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet.
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a
Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE
HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT
(make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored.
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at
some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number A
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
points = 3
points = 2
points = 1
points = 1
Yes = 4 No = 0
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 15
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes = 1 No = 0 0
Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland?Yes = 1 No = 0 0
Source Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Yes = 1 No = 0
Yes = 1 No = 0
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
1
0
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet
that is permanently flowing
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly
constricted permanently flowing outlet.
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)
with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is
a permanently flowing ditch.
4
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important
for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in
which the unit is found)?
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic
(use NRCS definitions ).
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or
Forested Cowardin classes):
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are
not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river,
lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list?
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list?
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
1
0
0
4
5
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number A
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
points = 4
points = 2
points = 1
points = 0
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points = 0
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 8
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes = 1 No = 0 0
D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?
Yes = 1 No = 0
Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
points = 2
points = 1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin.points = 1
points = 0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland.points = 0
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas
where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-
gradient of unit.Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-
gradient.
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
2
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water
leaving it (no outlet)
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet
that is permanently flowing
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly
constricted permanently flowing outlet
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is
a permanently flowing ditch
3
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site?
1
1
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)?
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained
by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland
cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why
1
0
3
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of
the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the
deepest part.
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of
upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best
matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest
score if more than one condition is met.
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood
conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number A
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1
Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover)1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if :
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandSeasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
If you counted:> 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
2
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the
Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be
combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller
than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row are
HIGH = 3 points
2
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime
has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of
hydroperiods ).
1
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do
not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple
loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes
(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)
is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open
water, the rating is always high.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number A H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long)Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 11
Rating of Site Potential If Score is: 15 - 18 = H 7 - 14 = M 0 - 6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site?
H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:
0.4 % undisturbed habitat + (0 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 0.4%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:
13.6 % undisturbed habitat + (6.6 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 16.9%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (-2)
≤ 50% of 1km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -1
Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: 4 - 6 = H 1 - 3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
Site meets ANY of the following criteria:points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If Score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
0
1
-2
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose
only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated .
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
2
Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see
H 1.1 for list of strata )
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends
at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning
(> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees
that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed )At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
5
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number
of points.
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or
regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a
watershed plan
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
Wetland name or number A
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the
earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are
addressed elsewhere.
WDFW Priority Habitats
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This
question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species
of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ).
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species,
forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters
exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200
years old west of the Cascade crest.
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in
which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species
List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy
coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see
web link above ).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a
dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above ).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that
interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open
Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of
relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page).
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay
characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast
height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12
in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m),
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May
be associated with cliffs.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015
EagleView Technologies, Inc.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500US Feet
Subject Property Parcel: 072104-9202
Approximate Wetland A Rating Unit
1 Km Habitat Classification Polygon
Accessible Relatively Undisturbed Habitat 0.4%
Accessible Low_Moderate Intensity Habitat 0%
Relatively Undisturbed Habitat 13.2%
Low_Moderare Intensity Habitat 6.6%
High Intensity Habitat 79.8%
Figure A AOA - 6216
101060 SW 320th St.
Federal Way, WA 98023
City of Federal Way
Parcel: 072
King County, EagleView Technologies, Inc.
0 140 280 420 56070US Feet
Subject Property Parcel: 072104-9202
Approximate Wetland A Rating Unit
150' Pollution Assessment Polygon
Pollution Generating Surfaces 54.0%
Figure B AOA - 6216
101060 SW 320th St.
Federal Way, WA 98023
City of Federal Way
Parcel: 072
Figure C
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and
June 12, 2020
0 0.5 10.25Miles
K
AssessedWaters/Sediment
WaterCategory 5 - 303dCategory 4CCategory 4BCategory 4ACategory 2Category 1
SedimentCategory 5 - 303dCategory 4CCategory 4BCategory 4ACategory 2Category 1
WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS
(TMDLs)
Overview of the
process
Project Catalog
by WRIA
by County
Funding
Opportunities
Project
Development
Priority Lists
Related
Information
TMDL Contacts
RELATED
ECOLOGY
PROGRAMS
Water Quality
Water Quality Improvement > Water Quality Improvement Projects by WRIA > WRIA
9: Duwamish-Green
WRIA 9: Duwamish-Green
The following table lists overview information for water quality improvement projects
(including total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs) for this water resource inventory
area (WRIA). Please use links (where available) for more information on a project.
Counties
King
Waterbody
Name
Pollutants Status** TMDL Lead
Duwamish
and Lower
Green River
Ammonia-N Approved by
EPA
Joan Nolan
425-649-
4425
Fauntleroy
Creek
Fecal Coliform Approved by
EPA
Has an
implementation
plan
Joan Nolan
425-649-
4425
Fenwick Lake Total
Phosphorus
Approved by
EPA (1993,
Clean Lakes
Program)
Category 5,
2008 Water
Quality
Assessment
Tricia
Shoblom
425-649-
7288
Green River
and
Newaukum
Creek
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
Green River
TMDL Approved
by EPA
Newaukum
Creek TMDL
Approved by
EPA
Joan Nolan
425-649-
4425
Has an
implementation
plan
Lake Sawyer Total
Phosphorus
Approved by
EPA
Has an
implementation
plan
Tricia
Shoblom
425-649-
7288
Newaukum
Creek
Bacteria Under
development
Joan Nolan
425-649-
4425
Soos Creek Fecal Coliform Under
development
Joan Nolan
425-649-
4425 Aquatic Habitat
Dissolved
Oxygen
Temperature
** Status will be listed as one of the following: Approved by EPA, Under
Development or Implementation
For more information about WRIA 9:
Waterbodies in WRIA 9 - using the Water Quality Assessment Query Tool
Watershed Information for WRIA 9
* The Department of Ecology and other state resource agencies frequently use a
system of 62 "Water Resource Inventory Areas" or "WRIAs" to refer to the state's
major watershed basins.
Back to top of page
Last updated August 2016
Feedback?
King County, EagleView Technologies, Inc.
0 390 780 1,170 1,560195US Feet
Rivers_and_Streams_in_King_County
Subject Property Parcel: 072104-9202
Approximate Wetland A Rating Unit 2.4 Acres
Approximate Contributing Basin 73.6 Acres
Contributing High Intensity Habitat 68.5%
Figure G AOA - 6216
1060 SW 320th St.
Federal Way, WA 98023
City of Federal Way
Parcel: 072104-9202
JOHN J. ALTMANN, PRINCIPAL
Ecologist, Project Manager
Wetland Delineations, Stream Studies, Functional Analysis, Mitigation, Environmental
Impact Assessments, Planning, Regulatory Analysis & Permitting, Wildlife Studies
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Altmann has 32 years of experience working in resource and environmental planning,
project management, and field analysis. His main area of concentration is wetlands and
streams and his experience includes: delineations; environmental assessments; impact
statements; mitigation plans; natural resource inventories and sensitivity analyses; site
planning; and wildlife habitat management studies in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska,
California, Wyoming, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
Responsible for over 3,500 wetland and wildlife studies conducted in past 32 years, with
most of these projects occurring in King, Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Pierce, Thurston,
Clark, Lewis, Kitsap, and Mason counties in Washington State. Most of these projects
involved analysis of wetland and stream conditions in relation to some proposed
construction activity that could potentially affect their functions and values. Many of the
studies involved delineation only, whereas others required determination of wetland
functions and values and wetland impact mitigation planning and other sensitive areas
analyses. Project sizes ranged from under 1 acre to over 600 acres, with the wetlands on
these properties being nearly as variable as their size. Wildlife studies include flora and
fauna inventories, habitat impact assessments, and threatened and endangered species
studies. Some of the projects representative of this experience are listed below.
Shoreline Delineation & Habitat Assessment for private land owners on Lake
Sammamish, Bellevue, WA
Wetland Mitigation and Long-Term Monitoring for Weyerhaeuser Real Estate
Development Company’s Mint Farm Phase II project in the City of Longview, WA
Stream Delineation Study, Mitigation Plan for the Greystone PRD, Redmond, WA
Wetland Delineation and Study for the Group Health Support Facility in the City of
Tukwila, WA
Critical Areas Delineation, Study, and Mitigation Plan for the Cadman High Rock
Quarry in Snohomish County, WA
Critical Areas Delineations, Studies, and Mitigation Plans for the Microsoft Corporate
Campus in the City of Redmond, WA
Critical Areas Study, Mitigation Plan, Biological Assessment, and Long-Term Monitoring
on 90-acre Northpointe Corporate Campus for OPUS NW in Snohomish County, WA
Wetland Delineation, Study, and Mitigation Plan for the Puyallup Downs Residential
Development in the City of Puyallup, WA
Wildlife Study on 40-acre Site in North Bend Area of King County, WA for Private
Developer
Critical Areas Delineation and Study for Data I/O Corporation in Redmond, WA for
the Quadrant Corporation
Sensitive Areas Assessment for 74-acre Church site in Redmond, King County, WA
Wetland Delineation on 47-acre Marine Industrial Site Location in Snohomish River
Estuary, Everett, Snohomish County, WA for Private Developer
Wetland Study and Mitigation Plan for 37-acre Office Park Site in Redmond, King
County, WA for Private Developer
Wetland Maintenance and Monitoring Plan for Property on Raging River in King
County, WA for Private Developer
OTHER PROJECT EXPERIENCE
• Wetland Biologist for the King County Parks, Planning and Resource Department,
Environmental Division, Resource Planning Section. Mapped, classified, inventoried
and rated the wetlands in the cities of Kirkland, Bothell, Normandy Park, Duvall,
and Lake Forest Park for inclusion in the King County Sensitive Areas Folio.
• Research Assistant for the NJ Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife's Endangered and
Nongame Species Program. Responsible for the research, feeding, and monitoring
of osprey fledglings for 3 seasons of the NJ osprey hacking program. Responsible
for the collection and analysis of information pertaining to population size and
migration along with species density and behavior of shorebirds along the Delaware
Bay.
• Research Assistant for the NJ Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. Responsible for
the collection, processing and analysis of biological information pertaining to the
whitetail deer population in NJ.
EDUCATION
B.S., Natural Resource Management, Wildlife Science Option, Rutgers
University, Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Society of Wetland Scientists
The Wildlife Society