The URL can be used to link to this page

22-102344-UP-Wetland Assessment-05-25-22-V1 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER REDUCTION & ENHANCEMENT PLAN CREEKSIDE COMMONS OCTOBER 2021 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER REDUCTION & ENHANCEMENT PLAN CREEKSIDE COMMONS OCTOBER 29, 2021 PROJECT LOCATION 1802 & 1816 S 333RD STREET FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 PREPARED FOR LGI HOMES 12951 BEL-RED ROAD STE 150, BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98005 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 2334.0002 – Creekside Commons i Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 1, 2021 Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) is supporting LGI Homes (Applicant) with a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment and buffer reduction and enhancement plan for the proposed residential development on an approximately 10.18-acre property located at 1802 and 1816 South 333rd Street in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The subject property consists of three parcels situated in the Southwest ¼ of Section 16, Township 21 North, Range 04 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 7978200086, 7978200085, and 7978200090). SVC investigated the subject property for the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species in the September 2015 with an additional site visit in August 2017 to confirm findings. Using current methodology, the site assessment efforts identified and delineated two potentially-regulated wetlands (Wetlands A and B) and one drainage (Drainage Z). SVC previously rated Wetlands A and B as Category III wetlands and identified Drainage Z as a non- regulated drainage in a Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan dated February 9, 2018. No other potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, or fish and wildlife habitat were identified on or within 225 feet of the subject property. The 2018 report was submitted to the City of Federal Way and reviewed by a third party (Otak, 2018). The third-party review requested that Drainage Z be classified as a seasonal, non-fish bearing (Type Ns) stream and a consequent update in the Wetland B rating from a Category III to a Category II wetland (Otak, 2018). While SVC disagrees with these determinations, the proposed project was revised to treat Drainage Z as a Type Ns stream and Wetland B as a Category II wetland to expedite the permitting process (SVC, 2018b). A revised buffer enhancement plan based on these determinations was provided in a technical memorandum dated November 11, 2018 (SVC, 2018c). The City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner recommended that the proposed project be approved in October 2019 with the condition that a final Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan be submitted prior to any clearing or grading onsite (City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner, 2019). The purpose of this revised report is to provide the required final Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan and to address changes in the proposed project that were made following the recommendation for approval. These changes include the removal of a proposed retention wall and increases in the extent of clearing and grading activities. The proposed project is vested under the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) in place at the time of the initial project application in 2018. Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a low habitat score subject to a standard 105-foot buffer, and Wetland B is classified as a Category II wetland with a moderate habitat score subject to a standard 165-foot buffer. The proposed project consists of a 94-unit attached single-family housing plan with associated infrastructure and improvements including utilities, landscaping, and parking areas. The proposed design includes careful site planning in order to avoid direct impacts to all onsite critical areas. However, due to site topography, a 25 percent buffer reduction and enhancement as allowed per FWRC 19.145.420(2) for Wetlands A and B is necessary to allow reasonable developable area on the subject property. The Wetland A buffer will be reduced to 78.75 feet, and the Wetland B buffer will be reduced to 123.75 feet. To accommodate topographical transition between the proposed development, 10,508 square feet of reduced wetland buffer will be temporarily impacted by grading activities. The proposed buffer enhancement activities will restore buffer functions that are currently degraded by non-native, invasive species and intensive human use. Buffer enhancement activities will consist of removing non-native, invasive species and planting native species. Dense native plantings 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons ii Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 are proposed within outer buffer areas that are the most highly impacted by non-native, invasive species. The proposed temporary grading impacts will be fully restored, including the replacement of 68 trees to be removed at a 1:1 ratio. The proposed project will result in no net loss of wetland and buffer functions. A tree retention plan was previously prepared for the proposed project (ESM, 2018) that identified existing trees onsite and tree retention requirements for the proposed project per FWRC 19.120.130. The subject property is located in a multi-family zone land use designation, and as such requires and minimum tree density of 30 trees units per acre per FWRC Table 19.120.130-1. A 2018 Tree Retention Plan by ESM Consulting Engineers LLC identified 527.5 trees units to be retained post development across the site, exceeding the 224 tree units required for the site. The proposed project has been updated to include additional grading activities that will remove trees previously proposed for retention. SVC’s Arborist and a qualified biologist assessed the trees within the limits of the newly proposed grading activities. Based on ESM’s tree data, SVC identified that the proposed project’s newly proposed grading area will remove 166 tree units that previously proposed for retention. The site will therefore retain a total of 361.5 tree units and continue to exceed the required 224 tree units to be retained. In addition, the proposed buffer reduction and enhancement plan will plant additional trees within the onsite critical area buffers. The proposed site will continue to provide substantial tree habitat and canopy cover. The summary table below identifies the likely regulatory status of the onsite critical areas by different agencies. Feature Name Size/Length Onsite Type/ Category1 Regulated Under FWRC Chapter 19.145 Regulated Under RCW 90.48 Regulated Under Clean Water Act Wetland A 2,016 SF III Yes Yes Likely Wetland B 18,150 SF II Yes Yes Likely Drainage Z 578 LF Ns Yes Yes Likely 1. Current Washington State Department of Ecology (Hruby, 2014) wetland rating methods and FWRC wetland and stream definitions. 1583.0002 – South 333rd Street iii Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan February 9, 2018 Site Map 20TH AVENUE SS 333RD STREET 100 YEARFLOODPLAINEASEMENT, TYP.WETLAND A78.75-FT BUFFERWETLAND B123.75-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE Z75'75' 12 3 . 7 5 'BLDG CBLDG FBLDG EBLDG BBLDG ABLDG DBLDG GBLDG KBLDG LBLDG HBLDG UBLDG TBLDG SBLDG RBLDG OBLDG NBLDG MBLDG PBLDG QBLDG JDATE: 05/25/2021SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D F P Environmental Assessment . 253.514.8954 . 253.514.8952 Planning Land Use Solutions CREEKSIDE COMMONS 1816 S 333RD ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 SOURCE:JOB: 2334.0002BY: MWSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER(S): 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - PROPOSED SITE PLAN20GRAPHIC SCALE1"=5010020050'WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTSWETLAND A - TEMPORARY GRADING IMPACTS6,163 SFWETLAND B - TEMPORARY GRADING IMPACTS4,345 SFTOTAL TEMPORARY GRADING IMPACTS:10,508 SFPLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYREDUCED WETLAND BUFFERSTREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW)STREAM FLOW DIRECTIONPROPOSED GRADING LIMITSWETLAND BUFFER MITIGATIONWETLANDS A & B - RESTORATION OFTEMPORARY GRADING IMPACTS10,508 SFWETLANDS A & B - OUTER BUFFERENHANCEMENT21,096 SFWETLANDS A & B - INNER BUFFERENHANCEMENT74,946 SFNON-COMPENSATORY PLANTING AREA406 SF(AROUND ARMORED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE. MAY NOT NEED PLANTED)TOTAL MITIGATION:106,956 SF 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons iv Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 3. Methods .................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 4. Background Information ........................................................................................... 6 4.1 Landscape Setting .......................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 6 4.3 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Local and National Stream and Wetland Inventories ............................................................... 7 4.5 Priority Habitats and Species ....................................................................................................... 7 4.6 Precipitation .................................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 5. Results ....................................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Drainages .................................................................................................................................. 13 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations ....................................................................................... 14 6.1 Local Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 14 6.2 State and Federal Considerations .............................................................................................. 17 Chapter 7. Final Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan ....................................................... 18 7.1 Existing Buffer Functions .......................................................................................................... 18 7.2 Description of Impacts ............................................................................................................... 18 7.3 Mitigation Strategy ....................................................................................................................... 18 7.4 Approach and Best Management Practices .............................................................................. 20 7.5 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ...................................................................... 20 7.6 Plant Materials and Installation .................................................................................................. 21 7.7 Maintenance and Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................ 23 7.8 Reporting ....................................................................................................................................... 24 7.9 Contingency Plans ....................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 8. Closure .................................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 9. References ................................................................................................................ 26 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map. ................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Aerial View of the Subject Property. ............................................................................. 6 Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary1 .................................................................................................. 8 Table 2. Wetlands Summary. ....................................................................................................... 9 Table 3. Wetland A Summary .................................................................................................... 11 Table 4. Wetland B Summary .................................................................................................... 12 Table 5. Drainage Z Summary. .................................................................................................. 13 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons v Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendices Appendix A — Methods and Tools Appendix B — Background Information Appendix C — Site Plans Appendix D — Data Forms Appendix E — Wetland Rating Forms Appendix F — Wetland Rating Maps Appendix G — Tree Retention Plan (ESM, 2018) Appendix H — Additional Tree Removal Appendix I — Qualifications 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) is supporting LGI Homes (Applicant) with a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment and buffer reduction and enhancement plan for the proposed residential development on an approximately 10.18-acre property located at 1802 and 1816 South 333rd Street in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The subject property consists of three parcels situated in the Southwest ¼ of Section 16, Township 21 North, Range 04 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 7978200086, 7978200085, and 7978200090). The purpose of this wetland, and fish and wildlife habitat assessment and buffer reduction and enhancement plan is to identify the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species that may be found on or near the subject property; assess potential impacts to any such critical areas and/or species from the proposed project; and provide buffer management recommendations. This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description, project description, and area of assessment; • Identification, delineation, and assessment of potentially-regulated wetlands and other hydrologic features within the vicinity of the proposed project; • Identification and assessment of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species located on or near the subject property; • Standard buffer recommendations, building setbacks, and development limitations; • Existing site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers; • Proposed site plan with proposed project details; • Documentation of impact avoidance and minimization measures; • Description of temporary impacts and buffer reduction and enhancement actions; and • Supplemental information necessary for local regulatory review. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Location The proposed project is located at 1802 and 1816 South 333rd Street in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The subject property consists of three parcels situated in the Southwest ¼ of Section 16, Township 21 North, Range 04 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 7978200086, 7978200085, and 7978200090). To access the site from Interstate-5 North, take exit 142B to merge onto WA-18 West toward South 348th Street. Continue on South 348th Street for 0.6 mile and turn left onto Pacific Highway South. Continue on Pacific Highway South for one mile and turn right onto South 333rd Street. The subject property will be on the left and right after approximately 0.2 mile. Figure 1. Vicinity Map. Subject Property Location 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 2.2 Project Description The project includes a 94-unit attached single-family housing plan with associated infrastructure and improvements including utilities, landscaping, and parking areas. The proposed design includes careful site planning in order to avoid direct impacts to all onsite critical areas; however, due to site topography, reduction and enhancement of the buffer of Wetlands A and B is necessary to allow reasonable developable area on the subject property. A buffer reduction and enhancement plan is provided in Chapter 7 of this report to outline the buffer impacts and enhancement actions to improve existing wetland buffer function to offset those impacts. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Chapter 3. Methods SVC investigated, assessed, and delineated wetlands, drainages, and other potentially-regulated fish and wildlife habitat on or within 225 feet of the subject property on September 10, 2015 with a follow- up site investigation on August 23, 2017 to confirm findings. All determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS) topographic map, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stream typing map, U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), King County geographic information systems (GIS) data, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape maps and data, local precipitation data through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and various orthophotographic resources. Appendix A contains further details for the methods and tools used to prepare this report. Wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Qualified wetland scientists marked boundaries of on-site wetlands with orange surveyor’s flagging labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation along the wetland boundary. Pink surveyor’s flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at formal sampling locations to mark the points where detailed data was collected (DP1-DP4). Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals inside and outside of the wetland boundaries to further confirm each delineation. SVC classified all wetlands using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin, 1979) classification systems. Following classification and assessment, Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE)-trained scientists rated and categorized all wetlands using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014) and the definitions established in FWRC 19.145.420. Streams and surface water features were classified using the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Typing System as outlined in WAC 222.16 and the guidelines established in FWRC 19.145.260. OHW mark determinations were made using Washington State Department of Ecology’s (WSDOE’s) method as detailed in Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et. al., 2016) and the definitions established in the Shoreline Management Act (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 90.58.030(2)(b) and WAC 173-22-030(11). To mark the centerline or banks of potentially-regulated streams and shorelines, blue surveyor’s flagging was alpha- numerically labeled and tied to vegetation. The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visits by qualified fish and wildlife biologists. The experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of fish and wildlife activity. A targeted tree assessment was performed in June 2021 by SVC’s Certified Arborist/Professional Forester and a qualified biologist. The targeted tree assessment identified trees within areas proposed 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 to be newly impacted by updates to the proposed project grading limits; these trees were previously identified for retention under the 2018 Tree Retention Plan by ESM Consulting Engineers. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Chapter 4. Background Information 4.1 Landscape Setting The subject property is located in an urban-residential setting in Federal Way, Washington (Figure 2). The subject property is undeveloped and forested except for a single-family residence on Parcel -0086. Topography on the northern parcels (-0086 and -0085) slopes downward to the southeast, whereas topography on Parcel -0090 slopes moderately upward to the southeast (Appendix B1). The site is located in Water Resource Inventor Area (WRIA) 10 – Puyallup/White. Figure 2. Aerial View of the Subject Property. 4.2 Soils The NRCS Soil Survey of King County identified two soil series on the subject property: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes, and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. A description of the onsite soil series is below: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (AgB) According to the survey, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes is a poorly drained soil. It is nearly level and undulating. This soil is very similar to Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, but it some places the surface layer is up to 3 inches thicker. Some areas are as Subject Property Location 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 much as 15 percent included Norma, Bellingham, Tukwila, and Shalcar soils. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes is listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, 2001). Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC) According to the survey, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, is rolling with moderately rapid permeability in the surface layer and subsoil. In a typical profile, the surface layer to approximately 2 inches is very dark brown gravelly sandy loam, dark grayish brown with dry, fine granular structure. The subsoil to a depth of 12 inches is dark brown gravelly sandy loam and slightly hard. The substratum to a depth of 27 inches is grayish brown gravelly sandy loam and light gray with many distinct mottles of light olive brown. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, is listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, 2001). 4.3 Vegetation Upland vegetation on the subject property is dominated by a canopy of Douglas fir (Pseudostuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), red alder (Alnus rubra), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with an understory of twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and cut-leaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus). Other invasive species observed onsite include English ivy (Hedera helix), English holly (Ilex aquifolium) and English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus). 4.4 Local and National Stream and Wetland Inventories The City of Federal Way Critical Areas map (Appendix B4) identifies two potential wetlands on the subject property. The King County Sensitive Areas map (Appendix B3) identifies a potential stream feature traversing southwest through the subject property. The USFWS NWI map (Appendix B5) and DNR stream typing map (Appendix B8) do not identify any wetlands or streams on or within 225 feet of the subject property. 4.5 Priority Habitats and Species The WDFW PHS map (Appendix B6) and SalmonScape map (Appendix B7) do not identify any priority fish or wildlife species or habitat in the vicinity of the project area. No other priority habitats and/or species presence are identified near the subject property. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 4.6 Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from NOAA for SeaTac International Airport in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation during and preceding the investigation. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Precipitation Summary1 Date Day of Day Before 1 Week Prior 2 Weeks Prior Month to Date (Observed/Normal)2 Year to Date (Observed/Normal)2 Percent of Normal (Month/Year) 8/23/17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.02/0.59 28.42/20.30 3/140 1. Precipitation volume provided in inches. Data obtained from NOAA (http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=sew) for SeaTac Airport. 2. Month-to-date is from the first of the month to the date of the site visit, and year-to-date is from January 1st to the date of the site visit. Precipitation was at 140 percent of normal for the calendar year during the site investigation on August 23, 2017. However, month-to-date precipitation levels were at 3 percent of statistical normal. This precipitation data suggests that site conditions were relatively normalized. Such conditions were considered in making professional wetland and stream typing determinations. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 9 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Chapter 5. Results SVC investigated the subject property for the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species in the September 2015 with an additional site visit in August 2017 to confirm findings. Using current methodology, the site assessment efforts identified and delineated two potentially-regulated wetlands (Wetlands A and B) and one drainage (Drainage Z). SVC previously rated Wetlands A and B as Category III wetlands and identified Drainage Z as a non- regulated drainage in a Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan dated February 9, 2018. The third-party review of the 2018 report classified Drainage Z as a Type Ns stream and Wetland B as a Category II wetland (Otak, 2018). While SVC disagrees with these determinations, the proposed project was revised to treat Drainage Z as a Type Ns stream and Wetland B as a Category II wetland to expedite the permitting process (SVC, 2018b). No other potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, or fish and wildlife habitat were identified on or within 225 feet of the subject property. 5.1 Wetlands 5.1.1 Overview The site investigations identified two potentially-regulated wetlands on the subject property (Wetlands A and B). The identified wetlands contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. Wetland data forms are provided in Appendix D, and wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix E. Table 2 summarizes the wetlands identified during the site investigations. Table 2. Wetlands Summary. Wetland Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Wetland Size On site (acres) Buffer Width (feet)5 Cowardin1 HGM2 WSDOE3 Federal Way4 A PFO/SSE Riverine/Slope III III 0.05 105 B PFO/EME Depressional/Slope II II 0.42 165 Notes: 1. Cowardin et al. (1979) Federal Geographic Data Committee 2013 or NWI Class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested; PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub; PEM = Palustrine Emergent Modifier for Water Regime or Special Situations: E= Seasonally Flooded and Saturated 2. Brinson, M. M. (1993). 3. WSDOE rating according to Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised Hruby (2014). 4. FWRC 19.145.420(1)(c) definition. 5. FWRC 19.145.420(2) buffer standards (2018). Wetland A Wetland A is 2,016 square feet (0.05 acre) in size and is located in the northeastern half of the subject property on Parcel -0085. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by seasonal flow from Drainage Z, surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally-high groundwater table provided through hillside seeps. Wetland vegetation is dominated by Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), salmonberry, slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Wetland A is a Palustrine Forested and Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded and Saturated wetland. Per FWRC 19.145.420(1)(c)., Wetland A is a Category III slope wetland. Table 3 summarizes Wetland A. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 10 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Wetland B Wetland B is 18,150 square feet (0.42 acre) in size onsite, and is located in the southwestern portion of the subject property on Parcel -0090. Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, a seasonally-high groundwater table, and seasonal flow from Drainage Z. Wetland vegetation is dominated by Oregon ash, red alder, salmonberry, twinberry, slough sedge, and climbing nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). Wetland B is a Palustrine Forested and Emergent Seasonally Flooded and Saturated wetland. Per FWRC 19.145.420(1)(c), Wetland B is a Category II depressional wetland. Table 4 summarizes Wetland B. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 11 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Table 3. Wetland A Summary WETLAND A – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Located in the northeastern portion of the subject property, adjacent to Drainage Z. Local Jurisdiction Federal Way WRIA 10 – Puyallup - White WSDOE Rating (Hruby, 2014) III Federal Way Rating III Federal Way Buffer Width (2018) 105 feet Wetland Size 0.05 acre Cowardin Classification PFO/SSE HGM Classification Riverine/Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-2 Upland Data Sheet (s) DP-1 Boundary Flag color Orange Dominant Vegetation Wetland A is dominated by Oregon ash saplings, salmonberry, slough sedge, and creeping buttercup. Soils Primary hydric soil indicator A4 (hydrogen sulfide) was observed. Hydrology Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by seasonal flow from Drainage Z, surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally-high groundwater table provided through hillside seeps. Rationale for Delineation Wetland boundaries were determined by point of saturation and a transition to a hydrophytic plant community. Rationale for Local Rating Local rating is based upon WSDOE’s current rating system and FWRC 19.145.420(1). Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality Wetland A has only a moderate potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff due to its sloped topography that does not retain water long enough to provide significant water quality improvements and Wetland A’s position in the landscape. Wetland A’s score for Water Quality Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (6). Hydrologic Wetland A has a very limited potential to provide hydrologic function to the landscape as it does not have dense plants thick enough to remain erect during surface flows; however, due to down-gradient flooding problems within the sub-basin, Wetland A’s score for Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (6). Habitat Wildlife habitat functions provided by Wetland A may include general habitat suitability small mammal and bird species but is limited for amphibian or aquatic species due to its slope and limited standing water. Wetland A does provide habitat potential with multiple canopy classes. Wetland A’s score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (5). Buffer Condition The buffer surrounding Wetland A is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, big-leaf maple, Oregon ash, red alder, and brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum). 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Table 4. Wetland B Summary WETLAND B – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Located in the southwest portion of the subject property. Local Jurisdiction Federal Way WRIA 10 – Puyallup - White WSDOE Rating (Hruby, 2014) II Federal Way Rating II Federal Way Buffer Width (2018) 165 feet Wetland Size 0.42 acre Cowardin Classification PFO/PEME HGM Classification Depressional/Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-4 Upland Data Sheet (s) DP-3 Boundary Flag color Orange Dominant Vegetation Wetland B is dominated by red alder and Oregon ash with an understory of salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, cut-leaf blackberry, and creeping buttercup. Soils Primary hydric soil indicator A4 (hydrogen sulfide aroma) was observed. Hydrology Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, a seasonally-high groundwater table, and seasonal flow from Drainage Z. Rationale for Delineation Wetland boundaries were determined by point of saturation and a transition to a hydrophytic plant community. Rationale for Local Rating Local rating is based upon WSDOE’s current rating system and FWRC Title 19.145.420(1). Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality Wetland B has only a moderate potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff due to its relatively unconstrained manmade spillway outfall that does not retain water long enough to provide significant water quality improvements. Wetland B’s score for Water Quality Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (7). Hydrologic Wetland B has a potential to provide hydrologic function to the landscape and society as it receives urban drainage stormwater flows from Drainage Z, but is somewhat limited by its slightly constricted manmade spillway outfall. Due to down-gradient flooding problems within the sub-basin, Wetland B’s score for Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (7). Habitat Wildlife habitat functions provided by Wetland B may include general habitat suitability and habitat for bird forage and small mammals. Wetland B provides habitat features such as large, downed, woody debris and standing snags, and also has less than 25% cover of invasive species, allowing abundant native vegetative growth. Additionally, instream and riparian habitat is within 330 feet from Wetland B. Wetland B’s score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (6). Buffer Condition The buffer surrounding Wetland B is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, twinberry, English holly, trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and sword fern. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 13 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 5.1.2 Wetland Buffers Per FWRC 19.145.420(2), Category III wetlands (Wetland A) with habitat scores of five (5) points are subject to standard 105-foot buffers and Category II wetlands (Wetland B) with habitat score of six (6) points are subject to 165-foot buffers. In addition, buildings and other structures require a 5-foot setback from the regulated wetland buffer edge (FWRC 19.145.160). 5.2 Drainages 5.2.1 Drainage Z Using current methodology, the site assessment efforts identified one unnamed drainage (Drainage Z) on the subject property. Drainage Z enters the northeastern corner of the site and flows to the southwest corner of the site after passing under South 333rd Street. Onsite portions of Drainage Z have been manipulated as a stormwater conveyance system with the use of rock armoring to maintain drainage course and prevent erosion. Hydrology for Drainage Z is mainly provided by a system of underground and above stormwater conveyance features including open ditches and buried storm lines, catch basins and large birdcage structures which begins approximately 0.5 mile north of the subject property near the Federal Way mall (i.e., The Commons). Drainage Z drains through Wetland B in a dissapated manner and exits the site intermittantly flowing via a man made riprap-lined spillway. This spillway drains to a culvert crossing 336th Street to a neigboring wetland which then drains to an underground sysem of buried storm line and catch basins before draining to a manmade storm detention pond. Drainage Z is located within the Puyallup-White Watershed (WRIA 10). A summary of Drainage Z is provided in Table 6 below. Table 5. Drainage Z Summary. DRAINAGE Z INFORMATION SUMMARY Feature Name Drainage Z WRIA 10 – Puyallup - White Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way DNR Stream Type Ns Local Stream Rating Ns Buffer Width 35 Documented Fish Use No Location of Feature Drainage Z traverses the subject property from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. Connectivity (where water flows from/to) Drainage Z originates approximately 0.5 mile upstream (north) of the subject property as the underground storm system serving the Commons Mall, enters the northeastern corner of the site from a closed storm drainage system, and flows to the southwest corner of the site after passing under South 333rd Street. The drainage continues to flow intermittently through a wetland unit to the south draining to an underground stormwater conveyance system and above ground ditches to a water quality storm detention pond to the southwest. 5.2.2 Stream Buffer Per FWRC 19.145.270(1), Type Ns streams (Drainage Z) are subject to a standard 35-foot buffer. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 14 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations 6.1 Local Regulations The proposed project is designed to meet the City’s critical areas protections as outlined in FWRC 19.145. 6.1.1 Permanently Altered Buffer Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.440(4), buffer reduction may be approved when existing conditions are such that portions of the required buffer exist in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved parking lots, and permanent structures) and do not provide any buffer function. The buffer may be reduced up to the area where the altered conditions exist. Both Wetlands A and B have portions of their buffer in a permanently altered state due to an adjacent improved city right-of-way, and the buffers are being reduced up to the area where the altered condition exists (the existing improved right-of-way). 6.1.2 Buffer Reduction with Enhancement The project proposes a 25 percent reduction and enhancement of wetland buffers. Pursuant to FWRC 19.145.440(6), buffers may be reduced by up to 25 percent on a case-by-case basis if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan that clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values. The city will review and decide upon buffer reductions using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the six criteria listed below: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; The proposed project will implement water quality treatment for stormwater runoff, avoiding adverse effects to water quality. As a part of water quality mitigation, stormwater runoff from the proposed project and existing offsite frontage roads will be conveyed to water quality treatment facilities prior to release to Drainage Z. Under current conditions, the existing offsite frontage roads drain from the road shoulders directly into the wetland buffers with no water quality treatment. Under the proposed system, the offsite roadway runoff will no longer discharge to the buffer untreated. Additionally, the proposed buffer enhancement will result in a dense planting screen that filters runoff prior to entrance into critical areas. The overall water quality of the discharge to the buffers will be improved, and the proposed buffer reduction will not adversely affect water quality. (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland or buffer wildlife habitat; The proposed enhancement activities will remove existing invasive species from the buffer and include planting design elements specifically targeted to prevent the return of invasive species and increase wetland and buffer wildlife habitat function. All temporary buffer impacts from grading will be restored, including the replacement of trees at a 1:1 ratio. Overall, the wetlands and buffers will receive a net improvement in wildlife habitat due to the increase in native species coverage and diversity. (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 15 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Wetland hydrologic function will be maintained through dispersed flow from proposed outfall structures designed to dissipate energy before entering the buffer; therefore, the reduced buffer width will not have an impact on drainage/retention capabilities. Removal of invasives within the buffer and replanting with a dense planting screen of trees, shrubs and groundcovers should improve hydrology retention capabilities of the wetlands onsite. All proposed actions will only benefit drainage/retention capabilities of Wetland A and Wetland B. (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; The developed site will stabilize once all proposed landscaping matures have been implemented. Prior to final site stabilization, erosion control measures will prevent erosion hazards. The proposed stormwater will be discharged in the form of a dissipated flow achieved using best management practices and design. As a result of erosion control measures and stormwater outfall design, buffer reduction will not increase the likelihood of erosion hazards or unstable earth conditions. (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property or the city as a whole; and Based on the proposed erosion control practices, stormwater quality and outfall design, and buffer enhancement activities, overall buffer function will not only be maintained, but improved through enhancement activities which will prevent external impact associated with the reduced buffers. (f) All exposed areas are stabilized with native vegetation, as appropriate. Any exposed areas within the reduced buffers will be stabilized with native seed mix, shrubs and trees. Temporary impacts from proposed grading will be completely restored to state surpassing existing conditions. All appropriate erosion control best management practices will be used to prevent unstable conditions. 6.1.3 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 using the following sequence: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; The proposed project has been designed to avoid direct impacts to the identified critical areas. The wetland buffers will be reduced and enhanced to minimize impacts of the proposed development; however, the proposed project requires temporary grading impacts to the wetland buffers. The proposed temporary grading impacts are necessary to accommodate topographical transition between the developed portions of the site and the critical areas. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 16 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 (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; The proposed project is pursuing buffer reduction and enhancement as allowed per FWRC 19.145.440(6). Construction impacts will be minimized through the use of best management practices (BMPs) and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures such as silt fencing between project activities and the remaining critical areas and associated buffers onsite. (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; The proposed project will rectify the temporary buffer impacts by replanting the impacted areas. Trees will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and No adverse impacts to the identified critical areas are proposed. (6) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. The proposed rectification of temporary buffer impacts will be monitored as part of the proposed buffer enhancement plan. 6.1.4 Tree and Vegetation Retention Per FWRC 19.120.130, retaining existing trees and vegetation to the maximum extent possible is necessary for all development proposals. In order to properly execute the proposed development, the project will require the removal of native trees and other vegetation from designated upland areas and a small section within the wetland buffers to accommodate proposed grading activities. While retention of all native vegetation is highly encouraged, FWRC 19.120.130(1)(b) allows the use of replacement or supplemental tree planting at a minimum tree density per Table 19.120.130-1, where retention is infeasible. The subject property is located in a multi-family zone land use designation, and as such requires and minimum tree density of 30 trees units per acre per FWRC Table 19.120.130-1. A 2018 Tree Retention Plan by ESM Consulting Engineers LLC identified 527.5 trees units to be retained post development across the site, exceeding the 224 tree units required for the site. The proposed project has been updated since the 2018 Tree Retention Plan prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers to include additional grading areas, which will result in additional tree removal that was not addressed in the 2018 Tree Retention Plan. SVC completed site investigation in June 2021 to assess trees within the newly proposed grading areas. Appendix F contains the 2018 Tree Retention Plan prepared by ESM, and Appendix G contains an exhibit of the 68 trees that will be removed due to the newly proposed grading areas. Based on ESM’s tree data, SVC identified that the proposed project’s newly proposed grading area will remove 166 tree units that previously proposed for retention. The site will therefore retain a total of 361.5 tree units and continue to exceed the 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 17 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 required 224 tree units to be retained. In addition, the proposed buffer reduction and enhancement plan will plant additional trees within the onsite critical area buffers. The proposed site will continue to provide substantial tree habitat and canopy cover. 6.2 State and Federal Considerations In a December 2, 2008, memorandum from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE, joint guidance is provided that describes waters that are to be regulated under section 404 of the CWA (USACE, 2010). This memorandum was amended on February 2, 2012 where the EPA and USACE issued a final guidance letter on waters protected by the CWA. The 2012 guidance describes the following waters where jurisdiction would be asserted: 1) traditional navigable waters, 2) interstate waters, 3) wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, 4) non- navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent meaning they contain water at least seasonally (e.g. typically three months and does not include ephemeral waters), and 5) wetlands that directly abut permanent waters. The regulated waters are those associated with naturally occurring waters and water courses and not artificial waters (i.e. stormwater pond outfalls). The 2012 memorandum further goes on to describe waters where jurisdiction would likely require further analysis: 1) Tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, 2) Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, and 3) Waters that fall under the “other waters” category of the regulations. In addition, the 2012 guidance identifies thirteen waters or areas where jurisdiction will not be asserted: 1) Wet areas that are not tributaries or open waters and do not meet the agencies regulatory definition of “wetlands,” 2) Waters excluded from coverage under the CWA by existing regulations, 3) Waters that lack a “significant nexus: where one is required for a water to be jurisdictional, 4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased, 5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing, 6) Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools excavated in uplands, 7) Small ornamental waters created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons, and puddles, 8) Water-filled depressions created incidental to construction activity, 9) Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems, 10) Erosional features (gullies and rills), 11) Non-wetland swales, 12) Ditches that are excavated wholly in uplands, drain only uplands or non-jurisdictional waters, and have no more than ephemeral flow, and 13) Ditches that do not contribute flow, either directly or through other waterbodies, to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea. Wetlands A and B and Drainage Z may have a potential connection to waters of the United States; therefore, these features are potentially regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. The WSDOE also regulates natural surface waters under RCW 90.48. However, as no direct impacts to Wetlands A and B and Drainage Z are proposed, permitting under USACE and WSDOE are not required at this time. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 18 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Chapter 7. Final Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan The following sections present the proposed buffer reduction and enhancement plan to address the minor indirect impacts associated with the proposed development. The proposed reduction and enhancement actions outlined below are designed to closely adhere to FWRC 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas). 7.1 Existing Buffer Functions The existing buffers for Wetlands A and B consist of a remnant second-growth stand of mixed coniferous and deciduous trees located within an established neighborhood of moderate density single-family residential land use. There is evidence of use of the buffer area by transient people, including excessive amounts of garbage and needles which has a significant impact on wildlife function. The understory vegetation consists of a mix of native shrub species with a significant component of invasive Himalayan blackberry and English ivy. The fragmented nature of the buffer surrounded by housing and the amount of invasive shrub species in the understory limit the habitat function of the buffer. The soils within the buffer are mapped as Alderwood series which are moderately drained but with a perched water table during the winter months which limits retention, recharge, and water quality function. Alderwood soils are not listed as highly erodible and onsite slopes are moderate within the buffers ranging from 15 to 25 percent which would not constitute a high erosion hazard. 7.2 Description of Impacts To accommodate the proposed development, the proposed project will implement a 25 percent reduction in wetland buffers and enhance the currently degraded buffers to restore diverse native forest vegetation. The standard 105-foot buffer width of Wetland A will be reduced by 25 percent to 78.75 feet. The standard 165-foot buffer of Wetland B will be reduced by 25 percent to 123.75 feet. The project proposes also proposes 10,508 square feet of grading along select edges of the reduced wetland buffers to provide a safer transition from the development to critical areas onsite. Grading will result in the temporary removal of vegetation including trees, shrubs, and invasive vegetation. SVC preformed a tree assessment in June 2021 of the trees to be potentially removed during the grading activities. Few of the assessed trees were identified as being in good condition, while the majority were identified as being in a poor, fair, or dying condition. The temporary grading impacts will be rectified by complete restoration and replanting within the areas of impact. 7.3 Mitigation Strategy Impacts to habitat, retention, recharge, water quality, and erosion protection function resulting from a reduction in buffer are being offset by a variety of methods including stormwater mitigation design measures and buffer enhancement actions. Stormwater from the developed area, will be collected and conveyed to water quality treatment facilities. The treated stormwater will then be conveyed to the buffers discharging through several energy dissipating structures to prevent erosion. Wetland hydrology will be maintained through planting design to decrease the flow rate and improve the potential for stormwater infiltration. By planting willow stakes in amended soils directly downhill from 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 19 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 proposed stormwater discharge points, a dense mat of roots over which stormwater will be released will reduce flow rate and increase the likelihood of infiltration under typical rainfall events. In addition, beyond the discharge treatment plantings, the entire reduced buffer will be enhanced with dense plantings to increase time of stormwater concentration as runoff flows through the wetland buffers. Effective buffer enhancement design will not only offset and improve stormwater impacts associated with buffer reduction, a well thought out planting design can increase buffer screening function. The strategy of the buffer enhancement activities proposed will be to provide a dense vegetated screen in the shrub and intermediate tree canopy layers through the wetland buffers. In addition, all exposed areas will be stabilized with a native seed mix. The proposed buffer enhancement activities will consist of different planting strategies in outer and inner buffer areas. The outer buffer areas, including those temporarily impacted by grading activities, will be densely planted with native trees and shrubs to provide screening of critical areas from the development, discourage intrusion into the inner buffer areas and critical areas, and create a highly shaded site that discourages invasive species, such as Himalayan blackberry, from establishing. Additional understory plantings interior to this outer treatment area will replace existing invasive species growing within the buffer. Coordination with the Project Biologist will be required to determine location and amount of planting required within the interior buffer areas to adequately replace the invasive species (see Sheets 2 and 3 of Appendix C). These enhancement actions will provide several additional functions including, preventing artificial light penetration and human intrusion into the buffer to provide better habitat function to the buffer and wetlands, increased hydrologic and water quality function through greater stem density, and greater erosion protection associated with a dense root system at the interface of the proposed development and native environment. Finally, as a part of the enhancement activities, all trash and human disturbance within the buffers will be removed and the buffers maintained to keep them free of anthropogenic disturbance. It is also anticipated the proposed residential development in conjunction with the barrier vegetation will discourage transients from using the buffers and wetlands. This will have a positive effect on the wildlife function of the buffers and wetlands. Buffer enhancement actions include, but may not be limited to, the following recommendations: • Prior to all planned enhancement actions, pre-treat invasive plants with a Washington Department of Agriculture herbicide approved for aquatic use. After pre-treatment, grub to remove the invasive plants and replant all cleared areas with native trees and shrubs. Pre- treatment of the invasive plants should occur a minimum of two weeks prior to removal; • Enhance 96,042 square feet of existing degraded buffers for Wetlands A and B. • Replant and restore 10,508 square feet of temporarily impacted buffer areas for Wetlands A and B by replanting with a suite of native tree, shrub, and groundcovers; • Seed disturbed buffer areas with an approved native seed mix as after planting; • Remove any trash from wetlands and buffers; 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 20 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 • Maintain and control invasive plants annually, at a minimum, or more frequently if necessary. Maintenance to reduce the growth and spread of invasive plants is not restricted to chemical applications but may include hand removal, if warranted; • Provide dry-season irrigation as necessary to ensure native plant survival; • Direct exterior lights away from the wetlands wherever possible; and • Place all activities that generate excessive noise (i.e. generators and air conditioning equipment) away from the wetlands where feasible. 7.4 Approach and Best Management Practices The proposed enhancement plan is intended to provide increased wetland protections by maintenance or improvement of wetland buffer functions. Impacts to buffer are being minimized through careful planning efforts and project design. The enhancement actions should occur immediately after development actions have concluded and should be completed during one enhancement effort. Areas temporary impacts from grading activities will be restored to a state that meets or exceed preexisting conditions. TESC measures will be implemented that consist of high-visibility fencing (HVF) installed around native vegetation along the reduced perimeter of the buffer, silt fencing between the graded areas and undisturbed buffer, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, and seeding of disturbed soils. These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development and enhancement actions and actively managed for the duration of the project. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the wetland and buffer, and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. All fill material and road surfacing should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept out of the wetland and buffer area. Following completion of the development activities, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. In addition, permanent stormwater treatment features will need to be implemented as designed by the project engineer. Following completion of the proposed project, all wetland and associated buffer areas adjacent to the planned development areas will be protected by installation of split-rail fencing and critical areas signage to discourage intrusion and improper use of these areas. 7.5 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The proposed buffer enhancement actions are capable of improving habitat, water quality, and hydrologic functions for the wetland and wetland buffers. The goals and objectives of the enhancement actions are as follows: Goal 1 – Enhance Wetland A and B buffers and restore temporarily impacted buffer areas to provide dense cover of native vegetation between the development and critical areas. Objective 1.1 – Enhance 96,042 square feet of existing degraded buffers for Wetlands A and B. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 21 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Performance Standard 1.1.1 – By the end of Year 1, minimum plant survivorship within the buffer enhancement areas will be at least 100 percent of installed trees and shrubs (replacement of lost plants allowed). Performance Measure 1.1.2 - Areal cover of native woody species below the existing forest canopy will be at least 30 percent at the end of Year 3 and 60 percent in the buffer enhancement areas at the end of Year 5. Performance Standard 1.1.3 - A minimum of 4 different native woody plant species will be present within the enhancement area in all monitoring years. To count, a species must provide at least 5 percent cover overall. Objective 1.2 – Restore 10,508 square feet of temporarily impacted buffer areas for Wetlands A and B by replanting native trees and shrubs. Performance Standard 1.2.1 – By the end of Year 1, minimum plant survivorship within the buffer enhancement areas will be at least 100 percent of installed trees and shrubs (replacement of lost plants allowed). Performance Measure 1.2.2-- Areal cover of native woody species in the temporarily impacted areas will be at least 30 percent at the end of Year 3 and 60 percent at the end of year 5. Performance Standard 1.2.3 - A minimum of 4 different native woody plant species will be present within the restoration area in all monitoring years. To count, a species must p rovide at least 5 percent cover overall. Objective 1.3 -Reduce and manage non-native, invasive species across all Wetland A and B buffer areas. Performance Standard 1.3.1 - Non-native, invasive plants will not make up more than 15 percent areal cover in any growing season following Year 1. 7.6 Plant Materials and Installation 7.6.1 Plant Materials All plant materials to be used for enhancement actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings they will exhibit normal, densely- developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects, and all forms of disease and infestation. Container stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Seed mixture used for hand or hydroseeding shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 22 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 All plant material shall be inspected by a qualified Wetland Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications below will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Fertilizer will be in the form of Agroform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of sterile wheat straw or clean recycled wood chips approximately 1/2 inch to 1 inch in size and 1/2 inch thick. If free of invasive plant species, the mulch material may be sourced from woody materials salvaged from the land clearing activities. 7.6.2 Plant Scheduling, Species, Density, and Location Plant installation should occur as close to conclusion of development activities as possible to limit temporal loss of function provided by the wetland and associated buffer. All planting should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensure plants do not dry out after installation, or temporary irrigation measures may be necessary. Planting shall be under the direction of the Wetland Scientist. A proposed plant list is provided in Appendix C. All planting will be installed according to the procedures detailed in the following subsections. 7.6.3 Quality Control for Planting Plan All plant material shall be inspected by a qualified Wetland Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. The landscape contractor shall provide the responsible Wetland Scientist with documentation of plant material that includes the supplying nursery contact information, plant species, plant quantities, and plant sizes. 7.6.4 Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat moss, or in a manner acceptable to the Wetland Scientist. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installed immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn. 7.6.5 Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the mitigation plan with the Wetland Scientist prior to installation. The responsible Wetland Scientist reserves the right to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate to the mitigation actions outlined above. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings, planting operations will cease until alternate plant locations have been selected by and/or approved by the Wetland Scientist. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 23 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container stock. The pits should be at least 12 inches in diameter, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. The bottom of each pit will be scarified to a depth of four (4) inches. Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment. Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets. Water pits again upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain water, and install a four (4)- to six (6)-inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant. 7.6.6 Temporary Irrigation Specifications While the native species selected for mitigation are hardy and typically thrive in northwest conditions, and the approved mitigation actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions. Therefore, irrigation or regular watering will be provided as necessary for the duration of the first two (2) growing seasons while the native plantings become established. 7.6.7 Invasive Plant Control and Removal Invasive species to be removed include reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, cut-leaf blackberry, and all other listed noxious weeds. To ensure these species do not expand following the enhancement actions, non-native invasive species within the buffer enhancement areas will be pretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (i.e. Rodeo) approximately 30 days prior to being cleared and grubbed from the buffer area. The pre-treatment with herbicide should occur prior to all planned enhancement actions, and spot treatment of any recurring invasive vegetation should be performed again each fall prior to leaf senescence for a minimum of three (3) years. 7.7 Maintenance and Monitoring Plan The Applicant is committed to compliance with the mitigation plan and overall success of the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the mitigation area, keeping the site free from of non- native invasive vegetation, trash, and yard waste. Long-term management actions may include continuous invasive plant removal, removal of potential garbage, and ensuring survival of native plant species. The buffer enhancement actions will require continued monitoring and maintenance to ensure the enhancement actions are successful. Therefore, the enhancement site will be monitored for a period of 5 years with formal inspections by a qualified Wetland Scientist. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, and late in the first through final year’s growing seasons in Years 1, 2, 3, and 5. Monitoring will consist of plant counts and percent cover measurements at permanent monitoring stations, walk-through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying enhancement plantings, photographs taken at fixed locations, wildlife observations, and general qualitative habitat and buffer function observations. To determine percent cover, observed vegetation will be identified and recorded by species and an estimate of areal cover of dominant species within each sampling plots. Circular sample plots, 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 24 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 approximately 30 feet in diameter (706 square feet), are centered at each monitoring station. The sample plots encompass the specified buffer areas and terminate at the observed boundary. Trees and shrubs within each 30-foot diameter monitoring plot are then recorded to species and areal cover. Herbaceous vegetation is sampled from a 10-foot diameter (78.5 square feet) within each monitoring plot, established at the same location as the center of each tree and shrub sample plot. Herbaceous vegetation within each monitoring plot is then recorded to species and includes an estimate of percent areal cover. A list of observed tree, shrub, and herbaceous species including percent areal cover of each species and buffer status is included within the monitoring report. 7.8 Reporting Following each monitoring event, a brief monitoring report detailing the current ecological status of the wetland buffers, measurement of performance standards, and management recommendations will be prepared and submitted to the City of Federal Way within 90 days of each monitoring event to ensure full compliance with the enhancement plan, performance standards, and regulatory conditions of approval. 7.9 Contingency Plans If monitoring results indicate that performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any portion of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with regulatory approval. Such plans are adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. Contingency plans can include additional plant installation, erosion control, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. Contingency/maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to: 1. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary; 2. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after two (2) growing seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function; 3. Irrigating the mitigation areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water; 4. Reseeding and/or repair of wetland buffer areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation occurs; 5. Spot treat non-native invasive plant species; and 6. Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 25 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Chapter 8. Closure The findings and conclusions documented in this assessment report have been prepared for specific application to the South 333rd Street site. These findings and conclusions have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this assessment report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due to such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this assessment may need to be revised wholly or in part in the future. Wetland status and boundaries identified by SVC are based on conditions present at the time of the site visit and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland boundaries are validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the wetland boundaries and jurisdictional status of such features by the regulatory agencies provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland determination and boundaries verified are the units that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulatory agencies can provide this certification. As wetlands and waterbodies are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in boundaries may be expected; therefore, delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Regulatory agencies typically recognize the validity of wetland delineations for a period of five years after completion of an assessment report. Development activities on a site five years after the completion of this assessment report may require reassessment of the wetland delineations. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due to such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 26 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Chapter 9. References Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Publication No. 16-06-029. Final Review Draft. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington. Brinson, M. M., 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner. 2019. “Creekside Commons: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation.” October 24, 2019. Cooke, S.S. 1997. Wetland Plants of Western Washington. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87- 1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC. 2018. Creekside Commons Tree Retention Plan. November 15, 2018. Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). 2017. Chapter 19.145 – Environmentally Critical Areas. Passed September 5, 2017. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-29. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001. Hydric Soils List in King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Otak. 2018. “Creekside Commons Response Memo.” August 13, 2018. Soundview Consultants, LLC (SVC). 2018a. Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Reduction and Enhancement Plan: South 333rd Street. February 9, 2018. Gig Harbor, WA. SVC. 2018b. “Creekside Commons: File #18-100743-00-SU; Wetland Peer Review Comments #1.” July 9, 2018. Gig Harbor, WA. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons 27 Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 SVC. 2018c. “Creekside Commons: File #18-00743-00-SU; Response to 10/13/2018 Meeting with City.” November 14, 2018. Gig Harbor, WA. Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Ver2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 2334.0001- Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 1, 2021 Appendix A — Methods and Tools Table A-1. Methods and Tools Used to Prepare the Report. Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference Stream Classification Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Typing System Forest Practices Water Typing: http://www.stage.dnr.wa.gov/forest practices/watertyping/ WAC 222-16-030: Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030. DNR Water typing system. Wetland Delineation USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs /pdf/wlman87.pdf Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Regional Supplement to the Core of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW /Documents/cecwo/reg/west_mt_f inalsupp.pdf 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), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Wetland Classification Cowardin Classification System http://www.fws.gov/nwi/Pubs_Re ports/Class_Manual/class_titlepg.ht m Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Hydrogeomorphic Classification (HGM) System http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlan ds/pdfs/wrpde4.pdf Brinson, M. M. (1993). “A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands,” Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wetland Rating Washington State Wetland Rating System https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publicat ions/documents/1406029.pdf Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Federal Way Revised Code http://www.codepublishing.com/W A/FederalWay/ Most current western Washington wetland rating system adopted per FWRC 19.145.420. Wetland Indicator Status 2016 National Wetland Plant List https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/doc uments/National-Wetland-Plant- List-2016-Wetland-Ratings.pdf Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Plants USDA Plant Database http://plants.usda.gov/ Website Wetland Plants of Western Washington http://soundnativeplants.com/wp- content/uploads/References_and_R esources.pdf Cooke, S.S. 1997. Wetland Plants of Western Washington. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Flora of the Pacific Northwest http://www.washington.edu/uwpres s/search/books/HITFLC.html Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Soils Data NRCS Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Website Soil Color Charts Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Threatened and Endangered Species Washington Natural Heritage Program http://data- wadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets /wnhp-current-element-occurrences Washington Natural Heritage Program (Data published 07/19/17). Endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA Species of Local Importance Washington Priority Habitats and Species http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.h tm PHS Program (Data requested 11/01/17). Map of priority habitats and species in project vicinity. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Washington SalmonScape http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonsc ape/map.html SalmonScape (Data requested on 11/01/17). Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2334.0001- Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 1, 2021 Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference Report Preparation Federal Way Revised Code http://www.codepublishing.com/W A/FederalWay/ FWRC Chapter 19.145 – Environmentally Critical Areas 2334.0001- Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 1, 2021 Appendix B — Background Information This appendix includes a King County topographic map (B1), NRCS Soil Survey Map (B2), King County Sensitive Areas Map (B3), Federal Way Wetlands Map (B4), USFWS NWI Map (B5), WDFW PHS Map (B6), WDFW SalmonScape map (B7), and DNR Stream Typing Map (B8). 2334.0002 – Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix B1. King County Topographic Map Subject Property Location 2334.0002 – Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix B2. NRCS Soil Survey Map Subject Property Location 2334.0002 – Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix B3. King County Sensitive Areas Map Subject Property Location 2334.0002 – Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix B4. Federal Way Wetlands Map Subject Property Location 2334.0002 – Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix B5. USFWS NWI Map Subject Property Location 2334.0002 – Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix B6. WDFW PHS Map Subject Property Location 2334.0002 – Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix B7. WDFW SalmonScape Map Subject Property Location 2334.0002 – Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix B8. DNR Stream Typing Map Subject Property Location 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix C — Site Plans 20TH AVENUE SS 333RD STREET 100 YEARFLOODPLAINEASEMENT, TYP.16 5 '105'WETLAND ACATEGORY III105-FT BUFFER2,016 SFWETLAND BCATEGORY II165-FT BUFFER18,958 SF (ONSITE)EXISTINGBUILDINGS, TYP.DRAINAGE ZTYPE NS35-FT BUFFERSHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D F P Environmental Assessment . 253.514.8954 . 253.514.8952 Planning Land Use Solutions CREEKSIDE COMMONS 1816 S 333RD ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 SOURCE:PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SETJOB: 2334.0002BY: MWSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER(S): 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - EXISTING CONDITIONS1VICINITY MAPSHEET INDEXSHEETNUMBER SHEET TITLE1EXISTING CONDITIONS2PROPOSED SITE PLAN, IMPACTS &MITIGATION3PLANTING PLAN4PLANT SCHEDULE, NOTES, & DETAILS5PLANTING SPECIFICATIONSSOURCE: ESRI (ACCESSED 10/18/2021)LOCATIONTHE SW 14 OF SECTION 16,TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 04E, WMAPPLICANT/OWNERLGI HOMES12951 BEL-RED ROAD STE 150BELLEVUE, WA 98005(425) 330-2453ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE DGIG HARBOR, WA 98355(253) 514-8952REFERENCE NUMBERSXXXXXSITE0GRAPHIC SCALE1"=50 10020050'20TH AVENUE SS 333RD STREETPLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFERSTREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW)STREAM FLOW DIRECTIONEXISTING CONTOURSDATE: 05/25/2021 20TH AVENUE SS 333RD STREET 100 YEARFLOODPLAINEASEMENT, TYP.WETLAND A78.75-FT BUFFERWETLAND B123.75-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE Z75'75' 12 3 . 7 5 'BLDG CBLDG FBLDG EBLDG BBLDG ABLDG DBLDG GBLDG KBLDG LBLDG HBLDG UBLDG TBLDG SBLDG RBLDG OBLDG NBLDG MBLDG PBLDG QBLDG JDATE: 05/25/2021SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D F P Environmental Assessment . 253.514.8954 . 253.514.8952 Planning Land Use Solutions CREEKSIDE COMMONS 1816 S 333RD ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 SOURCE:JOB: 2334.0002BY: MWSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER(S): 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - PROPOSED SITE PLAN20GRAPHIC SCALE1"=5010020050'WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTSWETLAND A - TEMPORARY GRADING IMPACTS6,163 SFWETLAND B - TEMPORARY GRADING IMPACTS4,345 SFTOTAL TEMPORARY GRADING IMPACTS:10,508 SFPLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYREDUCED WETLAND BUFFERSTREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW)STREAM FLOW DIRECTIONPROPOSED GRADING LIMITSWETLAND BUFFER MITIGATIONWETLANDS A & B - RESTORATION OFTEMPORARY GRADING IMPACTS10,508 SFWETLANDS A & B - OUTER BUFFERENHANCEMENT21,096 SFWETLANDS A & B - INNER BUFFERENHANCEMENT74,946 SFNON-COMPENSATORY PLANTING AREA406 SF(AROUND ARMORED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE. MAY NOT NEED PLANTED)TOTAL MITIGATION:106,956 SF 20TH AVENUE SS 333RD STREET 100 YEARFLOODPLAINEASEMENT, TYP.BLDG CBLDG FBLDG EBLDG BBLDG ABLDG DBLDG GBLDG KBLDG LBLDG HBLDG UBLDG TBLDG SBLDG RBLDG OBLDG NBLDG MBLDG PBLDG QBLDG JDATE: 05/25/2021SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D F P Environmental Assessment . 253.514.8954 . 253.514.8952 Planning Land Use Solutions CREEKSIDE COMMONS 1816 S 333RD ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 SOURCE:PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SETJOB: 2334.0002BY: MWSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER(S): 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - PLANTING PLAN30GRAPHIC SCALE1"=20408020'PLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYREDUCED WETLAND BUFFERSTREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE (OHW)STREAM FLOW DIRECTIONPROPOSED GRADING LIMITSPLANTING PLAN SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D F P Environmental Assessment . 253.514.8954 . 253.514.8952 Planning Land Use Solutions CREEKSIDE COMMONS 1816 S 333RD ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 SOURCE:PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SETJOB: 2334.0002BY: MWSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER(S): 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - PLANTING PLAN4NOTES:1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES INGROUPS OF 3 to 9 AS APPROPRIATE, OR AS SHOWNON PLAN. AVOID INSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHTLINES TO ACHIEVE A NATURAL-LOOKING LAYOUT.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASSAND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TOFULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORMTABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCHMIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUBNOT TO SCALETREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL)SET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSHWITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVEUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADECRITICAL AREA BOUNDARY SIGN NOTES:1. THE WETLAND/STREAM SIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE LOT ANDTHE CRITICAL AREA.2. ONE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED FOR EVERY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ONE PER EVERY ONE HUNDREDFEET FOR ALL PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, TRAILS, PARKING AREAS, PLAYGROUNDS AND ALLOTHER USES LOCATED ADJACENT TO CRITICAL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS AND SHALLBE STATIONED PER LOCATION, ON THE APPROVED PLANS TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.3. PRE-PRINTED METAL SIGN AVAILABLE THROUGH SIGN, AVAILABLE THROUGH:ZUMAR INDUSTRIESPHONE: 1-800-426-7967,WEBSITE: WWW.ZUMAR.COMCritical AreaMIN. 6" DEPTH CRUSHEDROCK BASECOMPACTEDNATIVE MATERIALWetlandNOT TO SCALECRITICAL AREA SIGN DETAIL5 ft.2 ft.min.Help protect and care for this area.Dumping of litter, trash and debris isprohibited.PRE-PRINTED METAL SIGN12"X18" 0.080 ALUMINUM SIGN WITHWHITE LETTERING ON STANDARDINTERSTATE GREEN BACKGROUND.ATTACH SIGN TO POST ORSPLIT-RAIL CEDAR FENCEWITH TWO 5/16" GALVANIZEDLAG BOLTS WITH WASHERS.4" X 4" X 8' CEDAR POST,SET 2' INTO POST HOLECOMPACTED NATIVEBACKFILL IN POST HOLESPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAILNOT TO SCALEPOSTS AREPRE-DRILLED FORFENCE RAIL INSERTS4" TO 6" ROUGHCEDAR RAIL4"X4" ROUGH CEDARPOST (TRIANGULAR)CRUSHEDSURFACING TOPCOURSE (CSTC)NOTES:1.POSTS AND RAILINGS ARE PRECUT FORASSEMBLY.2.3 RAILS ARE PERMITTED.3.FENCES SHALL BE PLACED AT THEAPPROVED BUFFER EDGE.12"DIAMETER2' MIN. 4'6" MIN.8" MIN.12" TO 16"8' ROUGH CEDAR TYPE - (TRIANGULAR)NOT TO SCALELOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCHMIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF TREESET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSHWITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVENOTES:1. PLANT TREES AS INDICATED ON PLAN. AVOIDINSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHT LINES.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASSAND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TOFULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORMTABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL)UNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADEDATE: 05/25/2021 Final Mitigation PlanThe following sections present the proposed buffer reduction and enhancement plan toaddress the minor indirect impacts associated with the proposed development. Theproposed reduction and enhancement actions outlined below are designed to closely adhereto FWRC 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas).1.1 Existing Buffer FunctionsThe existing buffers for Wetlands A and B consist of a remnant second-growth stand ofmixed coniferous and deciduous trees located within an established neighborhood ofmoderate density single-family residential land use. There is evidence of use of the bufferarea by transient people, including excessive amounts of garbage and needles which has asignificant impact on wildlife function. The understory vegetation consists of a mix of nativeshrub species with a significant component of invasive Himalayan blackberry and Englishivy. The fragmented nature of the buffer surrounded by housing and the amount of invasiveshrub species in the understory limit the habitat function of the buffer. The soils within thebuffer are mapped as Alderwood series which are moderately drained but with a perchedwater table during the winter months which limits retention, recharge, and water qualityfunction. Alderwood soils are not listed as highly erodible and onsite slopes are moderatewithin the buffers ranging from 15 to 25 percent which would not constitute a high erosionhazard.1.2 Description of ImpactsTo accommodate the proposed development, the proposed project will implement a 25percent reduction in wetland buffers and enhance the currently degraded buffers to restorediverse native forest vegetation. The standard 105-foot buffer width of Wetland A will bereduced by 25 percent to 78.75 feet. The standard 165-foot buffer of Wetland B will bereduced by 25 percent to 123.75 feet. The project proposes also proposes 10,508 squarefeet of grading along select edges of the reduced wetland buffers to provide a safertransition from the development to critical areas onsite. Grading will result in thetemporary removal of vegetation including trees, shrubs, and invasive vegetation. SVCpreformed a tree assessment in June 2021 of the trees to be potentially removed during thegrading activities. Few of the assessed trees were identified as being in good condition,while the majority were identified as being in a poor, fair, or dying condition. Thetemporary grading impacts will be rectified by complete restoration and replanting withinthe areas of impact.1.3 Mitigation StrategyImpacts to habitat, retention, recharge, water quality, and erosion protection functionresulting from a reduction in buffer are being offset by a variety of methods includingstormwater mitigation design measures and buffer enhancement actions. Stormwater fromthe developed area, will be collected and conveyed to water quality treatment facilities. Thetreated stormwater will then be conveyed to the buffers discharging through several energydissipating structures to prevent erosion. Wetland hydrology will be maintained throughplanting design to decrease the flow rate and improve the potential for stormwaterinfiltration. By planting willow stakes in amended soils directly downhill from proposedstormwater discharge points, a dense mat of roots over which stormwater will be releasedwill reduce flow rate and increase the likelihood of infiltration under typical rainfall events.In addition, beyond the discharge treatment plantings, the entire reduced buffer will beenhanced with dense plantings to increase time of stormwater concentration as runoff flowsthrough the wetland buffers.Effective buffer enhancement design will not only offset and improve stormwater impactsassociated with buffer reduction, a well thought out planting design can increase bufferscreening function. The strategy of the buffer enhancement activities proposed will be toprovide a dense vegetated screen in the shrub and intermediate tree canopy layers throughthe wetland buffers. In addition, all exposed areas will be stabilized with a native seed mix.The proposed buffer enhancement activities will consist of different planting strategies inouter and inner buffer areas. The outer buffer areas, including those temporarily impactedby grading activities, will be densely planted with native trees and shrubs to providescreening of critical areas from the development, discourage intrusion into the inner bufferareas and critical areas, and create a highly shaded site that discourages invasive species, suchas Himalayan blackberry, from establishing. Additional understory plantings interior to thisouter treatment area will replace existing invasive species growing within the buffer.Coordination with the Project Biologist will be required to determine location and amountof planting required within the interior buffer areas to adequately replace the invasivespecies (see Sheets 2 and 3 of Appendix C). These enhancement actions will provide severaladditional functions including, preventing artificial light penetration and human intrusioninto the buffer to provide better habitat function to the buffer and wetlands, increasedhydrologic and water quality function through greater stem density, and greater erosionprotection associated with a dense root system at the interface of the proposed developmentand native environment.Finally, as a part of the enhancement activities, all trash and human disturbance within thebuffers will be removed and the buffers maintained to keep them free of anthropogenicdisturbance. It is also anticipated the proposed residential development in conjunction withthe barrier vegetation will discourage transients from using the buffers and wetlands. Thiswill have a positive effect on the wildlife function of the buffers and wetlands.Buffer enhancement actions include, but may not be limited to, the followingrecommendations:·Prior to all planned enhancement actions, pre-treat invasive plants with a WashingtonDepartment of Agriculture herbicide approved for aquatic use. After pre-treatment,grub to remove the invasive plants and replant all cleared areas with native trees andshrubs. Pre-treatment of the invasive plants should occur a minimum of two weeksprior to removal;·Enhance 96,042 square feet of existing degraded buffers for Wetlands A and B.·Replant and restore 10,508 square feet of temporarily impacted buffer areas forWetlands A and B by replanting with a suite of native tree, shrub, and groundcovers;·Seed disturbed buffer areas with an approved native seed mix as after planting;·Remove any trash from wetlands and buffers;·Maintain and control invasive plants annually, at a minimum, or more frequently ifnecessary. Maintenance to reduce the growth and spread of invasive plants is notrestricted to chemical applications but may include hand removal, if warranted;·Provide dry-season irrigation as necessary to ensure native plant survival;·Direct exterior lights away from the wetlands wherever possible; and·Place all activities that generate excessive noise (i.e. generators and air conditioningequipment) away from the wetlands where feasible.1.4 Approach and Best Management PracticesThe proposed enhancement plan is intended to provide increased wetland protections bymaintenance or improvement of wetland buffer functions. Impacts to buffer are beingminimized through careful planning efforts and project design. The enhancement actionsshould occur immediately after development actions have concluded and should becompleted during one enhancement effort. Areas temporary impacts from grading activitieswill be restored to a state that meets or exceed preexisting conditions. TESC measures willbe implemented that consist of high-visibility fencing (HVF) installed around nativevegetation along the reduced perimeter of the buffer, silt fencing between the graded areasand undisturbed buffer, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, and seeding of disturbedsoils. These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development andenhancement actions and actively managed for the duration of the project.All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the wetland and buffer,and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. All fill materialand road surfacing should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliersand will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials alongwith all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled onpaved surfaces and kept out of the wetland and buffer area. Following completion of thedevelopment activities, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded using hand toolswherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. In addition, permanentstormwater treatment features will need to be implemented as designed by the projectengineer. Following completion of the proposed project, all wetland and associated bufferareas adjacent to the planned development areas will be protected by installation of split-railfencing and critical areas signage to discourage intrusion and improper use of these areas.1.5 Goals, Objectives, and Performance StandardsThe proposed buffer enhancement actions are capable of improving habitat, water quality,and hydrologic functions for the wetland and wetland buffers. The goals and objectives ofthe enhancement actions are as follows:Goal 1 Enhance Wetland A and B buffers and restore temporarily impacted buffer areasto provide dense cover of native vegetation between the development and critical areas.Objective 1.1 - Enhance 96,042 square feet of existing degraded buffers for WetlandsA and B.Performance Standard 1.1.1By the end of Year 1, minimum plantsurvivorship within the buffer enhancement areas will be at least 100 percent ofinstalled trees and shrubs (replacement of lost plants allowed).Performance Measure 1.1.2 - Areal cover of native woody species below theexisting forest canopy will be at least 30 percent at the end of Year 3 and 60percent in the buffer enhancement areas at the end of Year 5.Performance Standard 1.1.3 - A minimum of 4 different native woody plantspecies will be present within the enhancement area in all monitoring years. Tocount, a species must provide at least 5 percent cover overall.Objective 1.2 - Restore 10,508 square feet of temporarily impacted buffer areas forWetlands A and B by replanting native trees and shrubs.Performance Standard 1.2.1By the end of Year 1, minimum plantsurvivorship within the buffer enhancement areas will be at least 100 percent ofinstalled trees and shrubs (replacement of lost plants allowed).Performance Measure 1.2.2-- Areal cover of native woody species in thetemporarily impacted areas will be at least 30 percent at the end of Year 3 and 60percent at the end of year 5.Performance Standard 1.2.3 - A minimum of 4 different native woody plantspecies will be present within the restoration area in all monitoring years. Tocount, a species must p rovide at least 5 percent cover overall.Objective 1.3 -Reduce and manage non-native, invasive species across all WetlandA and B buffer areas.Performance Standard 1.3.1 Non-native, invasive plants will not make upmore than 15 percent areal cover in any growing season following Year 1.1.6 Plant Materials and Installation1.6.1 Plant MaterialsAll plant materials to be used for mitigation actions will be nursery grown stock from areputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will beallowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttingsthey will exhibit normal, densely developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems.Plants will be sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects, and all forms of disease andinfestation.Container stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six monthsbut not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under nocircumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Seed mixtureused for hand or hydroseeding shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by anapproved method. The mixture is specified in the plan set.All plant material shall be inspected by the Project Scientist upon delivery. Plant materialnot conforming to the specifications below will be rejected and replaced by the plantingcontractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site.Fertilizer will be in the form of Agroform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch willconsist of sterile wheat straw for seeded areas (if necessary) and clean recycled wood chipsapproximately ½-inch to 1-inch in size and ½-inch thick for woody plants. The mulchmaterial may be sourced from non-invasive woody materials sourced from the land clearingactivities.1.6.2 Plant Scheduling, Species, Size, and SpacingPlant installation should occur as close to conclusion of the residential plat constructionactivities as possible to limit erosion and limit the temporal loss of function provided by thewetlands and buffers. All planting should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensureplants do not dry out after installation, or temporary irrigation measures may be necessary.1.6.3 Quality Control for Planting PlanAll plant material shall be inspected by the qualified Project Scientist upon delivery. Plantmaterial not conforming to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced by theplanting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site.Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops.The landscape contractor shall provide the responsible Project Scientist with documentationof plant material that includes the supplying nursery contact information, plant species,plant quantities, and plant sizes.1.6.4 Product Handling, Delivery, and StorageAll seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containersshowing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in amanner to prevent wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good tradepractice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meetindustry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled withcare to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be plantedimmediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat moss, or in a manneracceptable to the responsible Project Scientist. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installedimmediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. Noplant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break thebranches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective coveringto prevent windburn.1.6.5 Preparation and Installation of Plant MaterialsThe planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the mitigation plan withthe responsible Project Scientist prior to installation. The responsible Project Scientistreserves the right to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation periodas appropriate. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings,planting operations will cease until alternate plant locations have been selected by and/orapproved by the Project Scientist.Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container stock. The pitsshould be at least 1.5 times the width of the rootball, and the depth of the pit shouldaccommodate the entire root system.Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughlysoaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper gradeand alignment. Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroformtablets. Water pits again upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur aroundtrunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soilaround the edge of each planting pit to retain water and install a 4- to 6-inch layer of mulcharound the base of each container plant.1.6.6 Temporary Irrigation SpecificationsWhile the native species selected for mitigation actions are hardy and typically thrive innorthwest conditions and the actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods forthe species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions. Therefore,irrigation or regular watering may be provided as necessary for the duration of the first twogrowing seasons, two times per week while the native plantings become established. If used,irrigation will be discontinued after two growing seasons. Frequency and amount ofirrigation will be dependent upon climatic conditions and may require more or less frequentwatering than two times per week.1.6.7 Invasive Plant Control and RemovalInvasive species onsite to be removed include Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, andany listed noxious weeds or other invasive species that are existing or may colonize themitigation area. These species are found nearby; therefore, to ensure these species do notexpand following the mitigation actions, invasive species within the mitigation areas will bepretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (e.g., Rodeo) aminimum of two weeks prior to being removed from the wetland buffers. Thepre-treatment with herbicide should occur prior to all planned mitigation actions, and spottreatment of any surviving other invasive vegetation should be performed again each fallprior to leaf senescence for a minimum of three years.1.7 Maintenance & Monitoring PlanThe Applicant is committed to compliance with the mitigation plan and overall success ofthe project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the mitigation area, keepingthe site free from of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and yard waste. Long-termmanagement actions may include continuous invasive plant removal, removal of potentialgarbage, and ensuring survival of native plant species.The buffer enhancement actions will require continued monitoring and maintenance toensure the enhancement actions are successful. Therefore, the enhancement site will bemonitored for a period of 5 years with formal inspections by a qualified Wetland Scientist.Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, andlate in the first through final year's growing seasons in Years 1, 2, 3, and 5.Monitoring will consist of plant counts and percent cover measurements at permanentmonitoring stations, walk-through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead ordying enhancement plantings, photographs taken at fixed locations, wildlife observations,and general qualitative habitat and buffer function observations.To determine percent cover, observed vegetation will be identified and recorded by speciesand an estimate of areal cover of dominant species within each sampling plots. Circularsample plots, approximately 30 feet in diameter (706 square feet), are centered at eachmonitoring station. The sample plots encompass the specified buffer areas and terminate atthe observed boundary. Trees and shrubs within each 30-foot diameter monitoring plot arethen recorded to species and areal cover. Herbaceous vegetation is sampled from a 10-footdiameter (78.5 square feet) within each monitoring plot, established at the same location asthe center of each tree and shrub sample plot. Herbaceous vegetation within eachmonitoring plot is then recorded to species and includes an estimate of percent areal cover.A list of observed tree, shrub, and herbaceous species including percent areal cover of eachspecies and buffer status is included within the monitoring report.1.8 ReportingFollowing each monitoring event, a brief monitoring report detailing the current ecologicalstatus of the wetland buffers, measurement of performance standards, and managementrecommendations will be prepared and submitted to the City of Federal Way within 90 daysof each monitoring event to ensure full compliance with the enhancement plan,performance standards, and regulatory conditions of approval.1.9 Contingency PlanIf monitoring results indicate that performance standards are not being met, it may benecessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenanceis essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any portions of the mitigationareas fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implementedwith City approval. Such plans are adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case basisto reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. Contingency plans can include additionalplant installation, erosion control, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location.The Contingency measures outlined below can also be utilized in perpetuity to maintain thewetlands and buffers associated with the project site.Contingency/maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to:1. Using plugs instead of seed for emergent vegetation coverage where seeded materialdoes not become well-established;2. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary;3. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after twogrowing seasons with the same species or native species of similar form andfunction;4. Irrigating the mitigation areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear tobe too dry, with a minimal quantity of water;5. Reseeding and/or repair of wetland and buffer areas as necessary if erosion orsedimentation occurs;6. Spot treat non-native invasive plant species; and7. Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the buffer area as necessary.SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D F P Environmental Assessment . 253.514.8954 . 253.514.8952 Planning Land Use Solutions CREEKSIDE COMMONS 1816 S 333RD ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 SOURCE:JOB: 2334.0002BY: MWSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER(S): 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - SPECIFICATIONS5DATE: 05/25/2021 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix D — 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: 1583.0002 Moberg City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:09/10/15 and 08/23/17 updated Applicant/Owner: Moberg State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): E. Swaim Section, Township, Range: 16, 21N, 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.30380 Long: -122.30783 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A 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: Not all three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus latifolia 20 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 20 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 40 Y FAC 2. Rubus armeniacus 20 Y FAC 3. Prunus laurocerasus 5 N NL 4. 5. 65 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Ranunculus repens 40 Y FAC 2. Glyceria elata 10 N FACW 3. Tolmeia menziesii 10 N FAC 4. Dicentra formosa 5 N FACU 5. Carex obnupta 5 N OBL 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 70 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed. 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 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 16-20 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed. 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): 14 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: A3 observed during 09/10/15 site visit. No primary nor secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed during 2017 site visit. 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: 1583.0002 Moberg City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:09/10/15 and 08/23/17 updated Applicant/Owner: Moberg State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): E. Swaim Section, Township, Range: 16, 21N, 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope/ Valley Floor Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.30371 Long: -122.30783 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A 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: Not all three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus latifolia 80 Y FACW 2. 3. 4. 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 10 Y FAC 2. Rubus armeniacus 10 Y FAC 3. 4. 5. 20 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Carex obnupta 30 Y OBL 2. Geranium robertianum 5 N FACU 3. Ranunculus repens 5 N FAC 4. Unidentified sp. 1 N FAC* 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 41 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 59 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed. 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 0-10 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil indicator A4 hydrogen sulfide aroma observed. 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): 7 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: A2/A3 observed during 09/10/15 site visit. Secondary indicators of hydrology present D2 and D5 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: 1583.0002 Moberg City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:09/10/15 and 08/23/17 updated Applicant/Owner: Moberg State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator(s): E. Swaim Section, Township, Range: 16, 21N, 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Floor Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 01 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.30371 Long: -122.30783 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A 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: Not all three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 30 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Lonicera involucrata 70 Y FAC 2. Rubus armeniacus 10 N FAC 3. Rubus spectabilis 5 N FAC 4. 5. 85 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Ranunculus repens 5 Y FAC 2. Tellima grandiflora 1 N FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 6 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 44 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/2 99 10YR 3/6 1 C M SiLo Silt Loam 10-15 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silt Loam 15-17 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed. 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): 7 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No primary nor secondary indicators 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: 1583.0002 Moberg City/County: Federal Way/King Sampling Date:09/10/15 and 08/23/17 updated Applicant/Owner: Moberg State: WA Sampling Point: DP-4 Investigator(s): E. Swaim Section, Township, Range: 16, 21N, 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Floor Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 01 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.30300 Long: -122.30910 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A 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: All three wetland criteria observed. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Fraxinus latifolia 40 Y FACW 2. Alnus rubra 20 Y FAC 3. 4. 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 70 Y FAC 2. Rubus armeniacus 10 N FAC 3. Rubus spectabilis 5 N FAC 4. 5. 85 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Ranunculus repens 5 Y FAC 2. Tellima grandiflora 1 N FAC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 6 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 44 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/2 99 10YR 3/6 1 C M SiLo Silt Loam 10-15 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - SiLo Silt Loam 15-17 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - SiLo Silt Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed. 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): 7 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No primary nor secondary indicators observed. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix E — Wetland Rating Forms Wetland name or number B Name of wetland (or ID #):Date of site visit:8/23/2017 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 31-Mar 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 II (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) L M 9 = H, H, H H L 8 = H, H, M H 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 MSite Potential Landscape Potential Habitat M FUNCTION 2334.0001 Wetland B E. Swaim, D. Babineau Google Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 7 7 6 20 H 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 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (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) 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) 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 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B 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 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B 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 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B 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 9 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 2 0 3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B 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 5 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 1 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 3 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 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 0 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 2 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 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B 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 = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species 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 1 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 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B 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 7 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: 1.1 % undisturbed habitat + (0.3 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 1.25% 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: 14.36 % undisturbed habitat + (11.7 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 20.21% 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 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 ) 2 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 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B Rating of Value If Score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B 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 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 12 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine Wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2.Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not WHCV SC 2.3.Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCV SC 2.4. Yes = Category I No = Not WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs SC 3.1. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions . Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25) At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 14 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number B SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2.Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ) Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix F — Wetland Rating Maps ``` ` ``````` Pictometry International Corp. 2015 1802 & 1816 S 333rd STFEDERAL, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 5 11/1/2017 1583.0002 MH 1 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - WETLAND RATING MAP ¢ 0 210 420105 Feet Cowardin Map ``Drainage Site Boundary Scrub-Shrub Emergent Forested 330' Boundary 1 " = 200 ' Wetland A Wetland B ```` ` ````````` Pictometry International Corp. 2015 1802 & 1816 S 333rd STFEDERAL, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 5 11/1/2017 1583.0002 MH 2 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - WETLAND RATING MAP ¢ 0 150 30075 Feet Hydroperiod Map ``Drainage Site Boundary Seasonally Flooded Occasionally Flooded Saturated 150 ' Boundary 1 " = 150 ' Wetland A Wetland B àààààààà àà King County 1802 & 1816 S 333rd STFEDERAL, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 5 11/29/2017 1583.0002 MH 3 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - WETLAND RATING MAP ¢ àààààààà àà King County 1 " = 1,070 ' 0 1200 2400600 Feet Contributing Basin Map ààààààààà ààà Wetland Contributing Basin Wetland A Wetland B Area of Contributing Basin (SF)6,562,682 Area of Wetland A (SF)2,090 Percent of Wetland A within Contributing Basin 0.032% Area of Contributing Basin (SF)6,724,043 Area of Wetland B (SF)18,955 Percent of Wetland B within Contributing Basin 0.282% D..4. D.4.3 Pictometry International Corp. 2015 1802 & 1816 S 333rd STFEDERAL, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 5 11/1/2017 1583.0002 MH 4 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - WETLAND RATING MAP ¢ 0 1600 3200800 Feet Habitat Map Site Boundary 1 KM Polygon High Undisturbed Low 1 " = 1,475 ' Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 1.10% Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 0.30% Accessible Habitat 1.25% Undisturbed Habitat 14.36% Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 11.70% Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 20.21% High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 73.94% H.2.2 H.2.3 H.2.0 Wetland A and B H.2.1 USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR,N Robinson,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen and the GIS User Community 1802 & 1816 S 333rd STFEDERAL, WA 98003 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 797820-0086, 797820-0085, 797820-0090 CREEKSIDE COMMONS DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 5 11/1/2017 1583.0002 MH 5 CREEKSIDE COMMONS - WETLAND RATING MAP ¢ 0 1 20.5 Miles 303d Map Sub Basin 303d Listed Waters 1 " = 6,685 ' 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix G — Tree Retention Plan (ESM, 2018) Trees in purple were originally proposed for retention and are proposed for removal due to project updates in grading.Tree locations and depictions are from 2018 Tree Retention Plan by ESM Consulting Engineers. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix H — Additional Tree Removal %106174+06'48#.(GFGTCN9C[9#VJ#XG55WKVG#2146+101(6*'591(5'%69204)''9/$.7'('40&'8'.12/'06..%%4''-5+&'%1//10564Ä (GFGTCN9C[9#VJ#XG55WKVG$.7'('40&'8'.12/'06..%%4''-5+&'%1//10564Ä (GFGTCN9C[9#VJ#XG55WKVG$.7'('40&'8'.12/'06..%%4''-5+&'%1//10564Ä 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Appendix I — Qualifications All field inspections, wetland determinations, OHW and habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland, Stream, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared for South 333rd Street, were prepared by, or under the direction of, Don Babineau Report revisions were prepared by, or under the direction, of Racheal Villa of SVC. In addition, site inspections were performed by qualified wetland scientists, and report preparation and revisions were completed by Kyla Caddey and Catherine Mills. Racheal Villa Associate Principal and Senior Fisheries Biologist Professional Experience: 15 years Racheal Villa is an Associate Principal and Senior Fisheries Biologist with a diverse background in both freshwater and marine ecology with emphasis in salmonid life histories and habitat. She has experience in assessing marine, shoreline, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations, permitting, and site assessments. Racheal earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Fisheries Biology from the University of Washington, Seattle, with additional graduate level training in salmonid behavior and life history; restoration of fish communities and habitats in river ecosystems; biological problems with water pollution; and biomonitoring and assessment. In addition, she has received formal training in Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark, the revised Washington State Wetland Rating System, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach from the Washington State Department of Ecology; Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects from the Washington State Department of Transportation; and Seagrass Biology, Delineation, and Mapping from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. She is also a Pierce County qualified Fisheries Biologist and qualified Wetland Specialist. Catherine Mills Staff Scientist Catherine Mills is a Staff Scientist with a background in fish, wildlife, and conservation biology in Colorado State. Catherine earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Conservation Biology from Colorado State University, Fort Collins. There she received extensive, hands-on experience working in lab and field settings, and studying wildlife management, biodiversity and natural resource policy. Catherine also spent a semester abroad at Lincoln University in Christchurch New Zealand, where she studied island ecology, wildlife management and environmental planning. One of her more exceptional projects was constructing a research proposal entitled, Impacts of Anthropogenic Pollutants on Fibropapillomatosis in Chelonia mydas in Florida. This project required research, report writing, project budgeting, and an extensive methodology for data analysis. Amidst her undergraduate career, Catherine also interned in the Pollination Lab at CSU. There she conducted research to study the role phytochemicals play on honey bee health, through field work, data collection, and chemical assays. 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Catherine currently assists in wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the regulatory and planning process for various land use projects. Emily Swaim Wetland Scientist/Field Geologist Professional Experience: 4 years Emily Swaim is a Wetland Scientist and Field Geologist with a background in conducting Phase I, II and III Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), underground natural gas pipeline and overhead electrical transmission line project assessment and environmental inspections, construction oversight, stormwater compliance inspections, soil sampling, delineating and assessing wetland and aquatic systems, and stormwater, floodplain, and wetland permitting. Ms. Swaim’s expertise focuses on projects involving sensitive wetland and stream habitats where extensive team coordination and various regulatory challenges must be carefully and intelligently managed from project inception to completion. Emily earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Illinois State University and Wetland Science and Management Professional Certification from the University of Washington, Seattle. She is also educated in Environmental Science from Iowa State University. Her education and experience has provided her with extensive knowledge on soils, wetland science, hydrogeology, sedimentology, environmental law, environmental geology, landscape ecology, and structural geology. Ms. Swaim has been formally trained in Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) and is Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 30-hour Construction and 10-hour Construction certified. She is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wetland Professional In-Training (WPIT) through the Society of Wetland Scientists. Kyla Caddey Staff Scientist Professional Experience: 3 years Kyla Caddey is a Staff Scientist and Pierce County Qualified Wildlife Biologist with a diverse background in riparian habitat restoration, stream and wetland ecology, wildlife ecology and conservation, and wildlife and natural resource assessments and monitoring. Kyla has advanced expertise in report preparation, grant writing, environmental education, data compilation and statistical analysis. Kyla has field experience performing in-depth studies in both the Pacific Northwest and Central American ecosystems. She currently performs wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the regulatory and planning process. Kyla earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science and Resource Management from the University of Washington, Seattle with a focus in Wildlife Conservation and a minor in Quantitative Science. She has received formal training through the Washington State Department of Ecology and Coastal Training Program in Using the Credit-Debit Method in Estimating Wetland Mitigation Needs, How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark, Using Field Indicators for 2334.0002 - Creekside Commons Soundview Consultants LLC Assessment Report & Buffer Reduction & Enhancement Plan October 29, 2021 Hydric Soils, How to Administer Development Permits in Washington Shorelines, Puget Sound Coastal Processes, and Forage Fish Survey Techniques. Don Babineau Environmental Planner/Project Manager Professional Experience: >10 years Don Babineau is an Environmental Planner and Project Manager with a diverse background in urban and commercial forestry, land planning, landscape architecture, stormwater monitoring and civil engineering. Don has experience as a Forester with Washington State Department of Natural Resources stream typing and delineating stream protection zones, as well as implementing Washington State’s Habitat Conservation Plan to foster the creation of old-growth forest characteristics on state trust lands. Don earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Forest Ecosystems Management and a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree, both from the University of Idaho. Don has been formally trained by the Washington State Department of Ecology in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System. In addition, he has received formal training in wetland delineation from the Northwest Environmental Training Center and has experience as certified erosion and sediment control lead (CESCL). He is also a Pierce County Qualified Professional Forester.