Wetland Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Final 5.8.17

WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
ASSESSMENT
CREEKWOOD PLAT
MAY 2017
WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
ASSESSMENT
CREEKWOOD PLAT
MAY 8, 2017
PROJECT LOCATION
21ST AVENUE SOUTHWEST (NEAR STATE ROUTE 509)
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023
PREPARED FOR
AMALANI LLC
105 SOUTH MAIN STREET
SUITE 230
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
PREPARED BY
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC
2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335
(253) 514-8952
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Amalani LLC (Client) with a wetland and fish
and wildlife habitat assessment and environmental planning for a proposed residential development
on an approximately 19.86-acre site located on 21st Avenue Southwest near state route 509 in the
City of Federal Way, Washington 98023. The subject property is situated in the Northeast ¼ of
Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel 1221039037). The
subject property is within an urban residential area in City of Federal Way and is surrounded by
moderately urbanized neighborhoods.
SVC investigated the subject property for the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands,
waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species in the winter of 2013 and in the
summer of 2014. The site investigation identified five wetlands (Wetlands A-G) and four drainages
(Drainages W, X, Y, and Z) on or near the subject property. Three of the wetlands on-site are
potentially-regulated by the City of Federal Way (Wetlands B, D, and E/ F), and two off-site
wetlands were also assessed due to the proximity to the subject property (Wetlands A and G). Two
small areas (Wetlands D and Seep C) are exempt from regulation by the City of Federal Way.
Wetlands A, B, E/F, and G are all Category IV wetlands subject to 40-foot buffers per Federal Way
Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.420(2). One seep (Seep C) was also identified on-site but due to the
lack of hydric soils, the feature was determined to be a non-wetland seep. Wetland D is unregulated
due to its small size and isolation per FWRC 19.145.420(3). Stream Z is a potentially fish-bearing
habitat stream (Type F) and subject to a 100-foot buffer per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(a). In addition,
Drainages W and X are Type Ns streams with seasonal flows and subject to 35-foot buffers, and
Drainage Y is a Type Np drainage with a 50-foot buffer per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(b) and
19.145.270(1)(c). No other critical areas were observed within 225 feet of the subject property per
FWRC 19.145.410(2).
The project proposes a residential development of a 20 lot single-family plat with new access roads,
open space, improvements to existing on-site trails, stormwater facilities and infrastructure, and
associated utilities. In addition, improvements are proposed to existing on-site trails located within
stream and wetland buffers, and 21,404 square feet (0.49 acres) of impacts to Stream Y’s buffer is
necessary to stabilize slopes and provide safe access to the proposed lots. The trail improvements
are being required by the City of Federal Way staff.
The project was carefully designed to avoid and minimize impacts to critically sensitive areas to the
greatest extent feasible. Direct impacts to wetland and drainage features will be entirely avoided. In
addition, impacts to stream and wetland buffers will be minimized to the greatest extent possible
through careful site planning. To achieve reasonable residential development of the site, the project
requires a road along the northern portion of the property which will cross the uppermost buffer of
Drainage Y. This intrusion into the buffer is necessary in order to provide safe access to residential
lots and to provide essential connectivity between an existing stub of 22nd Avenue Southwest and
21st Avenue Southwest. Direct impacts to Drainage Y are further being fully avoided through the use
of a reinforced earthen slope that will be planted with native riparian vegetation. The summary table
below identifies regulation by different agencies.
1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment i May 8, 2017
Regulated Under
Size
Wetland/Drainage Category/ City of Federal Regulated Under Regulated Under
(square feet)/
Name TypeA Way Chapter RCW 90.48B Clean Water Act
length (feet)
19.145.410
Wetland A
Off-site Category IV Yes Yes Likely
(off-site)
Wetland B 7,746 Category IV Yes Yes Yes
Seep C 921 Not ApplicableC No Not Likely Not Likely
Wetland D 644 UnregulatedC No Yes Likely
Wetland E/F 9,659 Category IV Yes Yes Likely
Wetland G
Off-site Category IV Yes Yes Likely
(off-site)
Drainage W 216 Type NS Yes Yes Yes
Drainage X 158 Type NS Yes Yes Yes
Drainage Y 421 Type NP/F Yes Yes Yes
Stream Z 987 Type F Yes Yes Yes
A. City of Federal Way wetland and stream ratings codified methods and definitions Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.420 and
19.145.260.
B. Revised Code of Washington 90.48
C. Below the regulated size threshold under Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.420(3).

Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment ii May 8, 2017
Site Map

Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment iii May 8, 2017
CREEKWOOD - EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
WETLAND G
CAT. IV
(10,558 SF)
40' WETLAND BUFFER
DRAINAGE SETBACK
(TYPICAL) 50' WETLAND E / F
CAT. IV
40' WETLAND (9,659 SF)
BUFFER
DRAINAGE Y
UNREGULATED (MAJOR)
SEEP (921 SF)
35
WETLAND D '
UNREGULATED
(644 SF)
35
'
35'
40-FT WETLAND BUFFER
100'
A PORTION OF THE NE 1 4 OF SECTION 12,

TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 03E, W.M.

CREEKWOOD
DRAINAGE W
31XXX 21ST AVE SW

DRAINAGE X (MINOR)
(MINOR)
10
0'
WETLAND B CULVERT
CAT. IV STREAM Z
(7,746 SF) (MAJOR)
WETLAND A DATE: 5/1/2017

UNREGULATED (LESS THAN 100 SF)
APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND SIZE JOB: 1001.0015
BY: JR
SCALE: 1" = 100'
SHEET 1 OF 3
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2. Proposed Project ....................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Location........................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 2
Chapter 3. Methods .................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 4. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Landscape Setting .......................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Topography and Drainage Basin ................................................................................................. 5
4.3 Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 6
4.4 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 6
4.5 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................... 7
4.6 Priority Habitats and Species ....................................................................................................... 7
4.7 Precipitation .................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 5. Fish and Wildlife Impact Assessment ......................................................................... 8
5.1 Project Effects ................................................................................................................................ 8
5.2 Action Area ..................................................................................................................................... 9
5.3 Assessment Techniques ..............................................................................................................10
5.4 Potential Impacts .........................................................................................................................11
5.4.1. Habitat Impacts........................................................................................................................11
5.4.2 Species Impacts .........................................................................................................................11
5.5 Conservation Measures and Habitat Management Recommendations ...............................17
Chapter 6. Results ..................................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................18
6.2 Wetland Functions .......................................................................................................................25
6.3 Drainages.......................................................................................................................................25
Chapter 7. Regulatory Considerations ....................................................................................... 31
7.1 Trail Improvements .....................................................................................................................31
7.2 Access Road Intrusion into Drainage Y Buffer ......................................................................32
7.2.1 Stream Buffer Crossing ............................................................................................................32
Chapter 8. Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan.......................................................... 34
8.1 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................................34
8.2 Description ...................................................................................................................................34
8.3 Mitigation Sequencing .................................................................................................................34
8.4 Description of Impacts and Minimization ...............................................................................35
8.5 Mitigation Strategy .......................................................................................................................36
8.6 Mitigation Implementation .........................................................................................................36
8.7 Planting Specifications ................................................................................................................36
8.8.1 Erosion Control and Pollution Prevention ...........................................................................37
8.8.2 Planting Scheduling, Species, Density and Location ...........................................................37
8.8.3 Plant Materials and Installation...............................................................................................37
8.8.4 Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage ..............................................................................39
8.8.5 Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials ....................................................................39
8.8.6 Temporary Irrigation Specifications ......................................................................................40
8.8.7 Non-native Invasive Plant Control and Removal ................................................................40

Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment iv May 8, 2017
8.9 Maintenance and Monitoring .....................................................................................................40
8.10 Goals, Objectives and Performance Standards .....................................................................41
8.11 Contingency Plans .....................................................................................................................42
Chapter 9. Closure .................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 10. References ............................................................................................................. 44
Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. King County Parcel Map .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels. ........................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. Precipitation Summary. ................................................................................................. 7
1
Table 2. ESA-Listed Species with Potential for Occurrence Within the Project Parcel. ............... 8
Table 3. State-Listed Species with Potential for Occurrence Within the Project Parcel. ............... 8
Table 4. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations. .................................................................. 10
Table 5. King County ESA-Listed Species and Determination of Project Effects. ..................... 12
Table 6. King County State-Listed Species and Determination of Project Effects...................... 14
Table 7. Wetland Summary........................................................................................................ 18
Table 8. Wetland A Summary. ................................................................................................... 20
Table 9. Wetland B Summary. ................................................................................................... 21
Table 10. Wetland D Summary. ................................................................................................. 22
Table 11. Wetland E/F Summary. ............................................................................................. 23
Table 12. Wetland G Summary. ................................................................................................. 24
Table 13. Functions of Existing On-site Wetlands. .................................................................... 25
Table 14. Waterbody Summary.................................................................................................. 26
Table 15. Waterbody Information Summary – Drainage W. ...................................................... 28
Table 16. Waterbody Information Summary – Drainage X. ....................................................... 29
Table 17. Waterbody Information Summary – Drainage Y. ....................................................... 29
Table 18. Waterbody Information Summary – Stream Z. .......................................................... 30
Table 19. Stream Buffer Plant Species. ...................................................................................... 38
Table 20. Stream Buffer Seed Mix. ............................................................................................ 39
Appendices
Appendix A — Methods and Tools
Appendix B — Background Information
Appendix C – Soil Sampling from Smelter Air Pollution
Appendix D — Site Map and Plans
Appendix E — Data Sheets and Rating Forms

Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment v May 8, 2017
Appendix F — Qualifications

Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment vi May 8, 2017
Chapter 1. Introduction
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Amalani LLC (Client) with a wetland, and fish
and wildlife habitat assessment and environmental planning for a proposed residential development
on an approximately 19.86-acre site located on 21st Avenue Southwest near state route 509 in the
City of Federal Way, Washington 98023. The subject property is situated in the Northeast ¼ of
Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel 1221039037). The
subject property is located within an urban residential area in the City of Federal Way and is
surrounded by moderately urbanized neighborhoods.
The project proposes the development of a residential plat that includes 20 single-family residences
and associated infrastructure, stormwater facilities, open space tracts, extension of public access, and
improvements to existing on-site trails and utility services located north and east of the site along
22nd Avenue Southwest and 21st Way Southwest. Development of the site is substantially limited by
steep slopes, wetlands, drainages, and associated buffers and setbacks. A ravine stabilizing crossing
(reinforced earthen slope) is described in Chapter 2, which requires an intrusion into the outer
portion of Drainage Y’s buffer to accommodate a safe access road into the northeastern portion of
the property. In addition, the City of Federal Way has required trail maintenance and improvements
that will connect an existing bike trail. Through careful site assessment and planning efforts, direct
impacts to the identified wetlands, streams, and drainages will be entirely avoided and wetland and
stream buffer impacts will be minimized by limiting the extent and location of site development
actions.
The purpose of this wetland, fish and wildlife habitat assessment 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, provide impact avoidance and minimization measures
along with project management recommendations, assess potential impacts to any such critical areas
and/or species from the proposed project, as well as present a reinforced earthen slope and provide
restoration recommendations. This report includes conclusions and recommendations regarding:
• Site description, project description, and area of assessment;
• Background research and identification of potentially-regulated areas within the project area;
• Identification, delineation, and assessment of potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies and
within the vicinity of the proposed project;
• Identification and assessment of 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 wetlands, drainages, and standard buffers and setbacks;
• Proposed site plan with proposed building sites and road alignments and location of
associated infrastructure;
• Documentation of wetland avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures;
• Description of mitigation sequencing and strategy for proposed project, and
• Supplemental information necessary for State and local regulatory review.

Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment May 8, 2017
Chapter 2. Proposed Project
2.1 Location
The proposed project is located on 21st Avenue Southwest near state route 509 in Federal Way,
Washington 98023 (Figure 1). The subject property is situated on one parcel in the Northeast ¼ of
Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 3 East W.M. in the City of Federal Way, Washington (King
County Tax Parcel (122103-9037) (Figure 2).
To access the site from the City of Federal Way, 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way,
Washington 98003, head northwest on 8th Avenue South. Turn left onto South 333rd Street and
continue for approximately 0.3 mile, then turn right onto 1st Way South, continue for 1.4 miles.
Then turn left onto Southwest 312th Street and proceed for 1 mile. Continue onto 21st Avenue
Southwest for 0.4 mile. Then turn left onto southwest 307th Street and proceed for 341 feet. Take
the first left onto 22nd Avenue Southwest. 22nd Avenue Southwest terminates at the northern
entrance to the proposed project.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map.
Approximate
Site Location
2.2 Project Description

The project proposes to develop approximately one-third of an approximately 19.86-acre parcel with
a single-family residential plat and associated infrastructure. The residential plat includes 20 single-
family residences, stormwater facilities and infrastructure, open space tracts, improvements to
Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment 2 May 8, 2017
existing on-site trails, new access roads, and utilities. The purpose of the project is to provide single-
family residences within the City of Federal Way’s Urban Growth Boundary.
This project requires safe access across the north portion of the property in order to access
residential lots and to provide necessary connectivity between an existing stub of 22nd Avenue
Southwest and 21st Avenue Southwest. To install this road, the required 50-foot buffer for Drainage
Y must be crossed. This road is a permissible use through Process IV under FWRC 19.145.330.
To accommodate safe access, a reinforced earthen slope with drainage conveyance via a pervious sill
is proposed to maintain upland surface water flow connectivity into Drainage Y, rather than
installing a proposed culvert in an area that lacks an actual stream. The reinforced earth slope,
replanted with native vegetation will be constructed over this pervious sill and will provide a net
benefit to the existing habitat conditions on the site.. This design will provide a stabilized slope, safe
roadway and buffer restoration where the ravine containing Drainage Y begins in the northern
portion of the subject property. Similar reinforced earth slopes, also replanted with native
vegetation, are also proposed in other areas of the proposed project. Currently, the ravine slopes in
the area of the crossing contains minimal vegetation and is littered with trash and debris. Restoration
for intrusion into the buffer will include removal of the trash and debris and planting of native
vegetation within this buffer area. These plantings will provide additional slope stability along with
enhanced hydrological, water quality, and habitat functions. These slopes are currently unstable due
to prior stormwater discharges that have been addressed. However, the area remains poorly
vegetated; therefore, the proposed restoration actions will result in a net ecological benefit for the
stream buffer. In addition, construction of the access road will provide necessary stabilization of the
ravine slopes, which is self-mitigating from a geotechnical perspective and is resistant to settlement
and seismic activity and yet will allow water to percolate downslope into Drainage Y while the
terraced design of the reinforced slope will allow for increased native plant restoration opportunities,
thus improving native plant cover and restoring areas currently degraded by prior anthropogenic
impacts and excessive erosion. . Also, existing trash and debris within the ravine will be removed,
resulting in elimination of various pollution sources. Construction of the reinforced earth slope will
provide enhanced neighborhood connectivity and safety access routes.
The proposed pedestrian trail improvements will preserve existing uses within portions of
Wetland B buffer, and Drainage Y and Stream Z buffers. An existing unimproved trail within the
buffer associated with Drainage Y extends south off 22nd Avenue Southwest. This trail will be
formalized and improved with bark and wood chips to direct foot traffic around Seep C and a large
existing tree. The pedestrian trail will be moved southwest and a staircase will be installed from the
northeastern access road to the trail to facilitate maintenance access to a tight-lined stormwater
outfall pipe that runs north-south through the Drainage Y buffer. Construction of the staircase will
avoid the installation of rockwalls which would have been necessary to stabilize the northern
portions of the pedestrian trail and could have potential impeded future maintenance access to the
existing stormwater pipe. In addition, a Lake Haven Utility easement is currently used as a gravel
paved trail which crosses the southern portion of the site and is oriented east to west; this easement
trail will be preserved and improved.

Chapter 3. Methods
SVC investigated, delineated, and assessed wetlands, drainages, and other potentially-regulated fish
and wildlife habitat within the subject property and identified potentially-regulated features within
200 feet of the subject property during December of 2013, with consecutive follow-up visits in
summer 2014. The wetlands and streams were reevaluated in the spring of 2017 for consistency
with current delineation and assessment methods. All wetland determinations were made using
observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geographic
Survey (USGS) topographic maps, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), King County
Geographic Information Services (GIS) data, City of Federal Way GIS data, Washington State
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW),
the Soil Survey of King County (Snyder et al., 1973), local precipitation data (NOAA), and
orthophotographic resources.
Wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers’ 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 SVC
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. 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; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) classification systems, and assessed
wetlands using the Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (Null et al, 2000).
Following classification and assessment, 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 Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145. Drainages and surface
water features were classified using the DNR Water Typing System as described in the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) Section 222-16 and the guidelines established in FMRC 19.145.270.
SVC also determined the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark using Washington State Department
of Ecology’s (Ecology) method as detailed in Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline
Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et. al., 2016). To mark the centerline or
banks of potentially-regulated streams, 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. 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.

Chapter 4. Existing Conditions
4.1 Landscape Setting
The subject property is located in a residential area within the City of Federal Way and is surrounded
by high density single-family residences and commercial uses. Abutting the western, southern, and
most of the northern boundary of the parcel are a single-family residences. A storage warehouse sits
to the east of the subject property. The northwest corner of the property is bordered by an
undeveloped tract of land. The approximately 19.86-acre subject property is zoned for single-family
residential use.
Figure 2. King County Parcel Map.
Project Site
4.2 Topography and Drainage Basin

The site topography data (King County iMap) and higher resolution private survey data (Core
Design, 2014) shows the property includes a gently sloping terrace formed by two upper lobes, one
in the north central portion and one in the northeast portion of the site. The terrace is bound by a
steep slope down in to an unnamed creek that is potentially fish-bearing (Stream Z). A non-fish
potential habitat perennially flow drainage (Drainage Y) bisects the two lobes of the terrace
(Appendix B).
The property is distinctly terraced with a flat upper bench which transitions to a steep slope to the
south and into an unnamed creek (Stream Z) running from east to west through the southern
portion of the site. This creek joins Lakota Creek just off-site to the west and flows into Puget

Sound approximately three-quarters of a mile to the northwest. Although the site is primarily
undeveloped, there are existing trails and a utility easement located on-site. There are many signs of
illicit disposal and debris dumping into the ravine and stream buffers by neighboring properties to
the north, and remnants of historic flow control structures are present within the drainages. The site
is located within the Puyallup/White watershed (WRIA 10). This watershed drains an area of 1,065
square miles from Pierce and southern King county areas.
4.3 Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey identifies a variety of
Alderwood soil series with variable slopes: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgB) with zero (0) to six
(6) percent slopes, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) with fifteen (15) to thirty (30) percent
slopes, and Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF) (Appendix B). Both Alderwood and
Kitsap soils are considered non-hydric soils; however, Alderwood (AgB) series has hydric inclusion
of Buckley, Bellingham, Norma, Tukwila, and Shalcar soils. The primary soil is Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam. The Soil Survey of King County (Snyder, 1973) describes the on-site soil series as
follows:
Alderwood series
Alderwood soils are described as moderately deep, moderately well drained soils formed in glacial till
on glacially modified foothills and valleys. The series commonly shows a dense, very slowly
permeable glacial till at a depth of approximately 30 to 45 inches. A typical pedon of the Alderwood
series is: 0 inch to 7 inches is a very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam (10YR 3/2); 7 inches to
21 inches is a dark yellowish brown very gravelly ashy sandy loam (10YR 4/4); 21 inches to 30
inches is a dark brown very gravelly ashy sandy loam (10YR 6/3); 30 to 35 inches olive brown
(2.5YR 4/4) very gravelly sandy loam, with 50 percent fragments; and at 35 inches to 43 inches is a
dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) cemented layer.
Alderwood and Kitsap Series

Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep are also considered non-hydric, moderately well drained
soils, occurring on moraines and till plains, derived from basal till and volcanic ash. The series
consists of approximately 50 percent Alderwood and similar soils and approximately 25 percent
Kitsap soils. A typical pedon is: 0 to 5 inches: ashy silt loam, 5 to 24 inches: ashy silt loam, and 24 to
60 inches: stratified silt to silty clay loam.
4.4 Vegetation
No fully paved surfaces are present on-site; however, an existing compacted gravel trail and some
concrete and metal drainage infrastructure are present. Undeveloped areas are vegetated with both
native and non-native invasive species. On-site vegetation includes primarily big-leaf maple, red
alder and Douglas fir, with an understory of various native shrub species including vine maple,
swordfern and salmonberry. Herbaceous species include creeping buttercup and various ferns and
grasses. On-site buffer areas are vegetated primarily by salmonberry and vine maple intermixed with
various fern species.

4.5 Hydrology
The USFWS NWI does not identify any wetlands within the vicinity of the proposed project site
(Appendix B). The City of Federal Way critical areas map, the Washington Department of Natural
Resources’ (DNR) stream typing map, and King County iMAP data identify an unnamed stream
(Stream Z) flowing east to west across the southern portion of the site (Stream Z). City of Federal
Way and King County data sources do not identify any other on-site hydrology.
4.6 Priority Habitats and Species

WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps and data identify terrestrial habitat on the project
site for a Biodiversity Area Corridor for Dash Point/Poverty Bay Open Space Areas. WDFW
interactive salmonid data map, Salmonscape, shows the stream bisecting the southern portion of the
subject property, identifying it without any recorded fish presence possibly due to various culverts,
downstream gradients, poor habitat quality and limited flow. No priority habitats or species were
observed on-site during site investigations. A detailed Habitat Assessment and species impact
determination are provided in Chapter 5.
4.7 Precipitation
Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) weather station at SeaTac Airport for precipitation in the days, weeks, and month leading
up to the site visits. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Precipitation Summary.1

Day 1 Week 2 Weeks Month-To-Date2 Water Year3 Percent of
Date Day of
Before Prior Prior (Observed/Normal) (Observed/Normal) Normal4
11/19/13 0.04 1.03 1.57 3.07 3.68/4.12 5.22/7.60 89/68
12/23/13 0.06 0.42 0.92 1.26 1.62/4.03 6.95/14.08 40/49
12/27/13 0.01 0.00 0.92 1.05 1.63/4.71 6.96/14.76 34/35
08/13/14 0.85 0.50 0.52 0.54 1.39/0.28 36.46/35.39 496/103
Notes:
1. Data obtained from the NOAA weather website at SeaTac International Airport http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew
2. Month-to-date value obtained from the first day of the on-site date visit month to the on-site date.
3. Water Year is precipitation from October 1 to the on-site date.
4. Percent of Normal shown for both the Month-to-Date and the Water Year.
It rained almost an inch each week preceding the November and December 2013 site investigations.
While precipitation was lower than average for the month, precipitation was near normal for the
year. In the August 2014 site visit precipitation levels were 496 percent of normal for the month-to-
date, extremely higher than normal for the late growing season. Precipitation at that time was 103
percent of normal for the water year up to the date of the site visit. Such conditions were considered
in making professional wetland determinations.

Chapter 5. Fish and Wildlife Impact Assessment
5.1 Project Effects
This section is intended to provide an analysis of project effects on protected fish and wildlife
species and habitat. There are no known physical connections from the project site to marine
waters, thus, there is no proposed mechanism for harm to marine species. Therefore, marine
species such as hake, cod, polluck, gray and killer whale, porpoise, and oyster are not discussed in
this report. While no protected species were observed on-site during any of the investigation visits,
all species potentially found in the vicinity of the project area have been assessed within this report.
The non-marine species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with potential presence near
the Action Area are summarized as:
Table 2. ESA-Listed Species with Potential for Occurrence Within the Project Parcel.
Species Name Common Name Federal Status
Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled Murrelet Threatened
Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead Trout Threatened
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon Threatened
Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout Threatened
Strix occidentalis caurina Northern Spotted Owl Threatened
Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear Threatened
The non-marine State-listed species with potential presence near the Action Area are summarized in
the following table. However, Federally-listed species found in Table 2 are not included in Table 3.
Table 3. State-Listed Species with Potential for Occurrence Within the Project Parcel.
Species Name Common Name State Status
Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Candidate
Actinemys marmorata Pacific Pond Turtle Endangered
Aechmophorus occidentalis Western grebe Candidate
Agonum belleri Beller's Ground Beetle Candidate
Anaxyrus boreas Western Toad Candidate
Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle Candidate
Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s Swift Candidate
Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Candidate
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Candidate
Donacia idola Bog Idol Leaf Beetle Candidate
Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Candidate
Eanus hatchi Hatch's Click Beetle Candidate
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Sensitive
Gavia immer Common Loon Sensitive
Gulo gulo Wolverine Candidate
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Sensitive
Lampetra ayresi River Lamprey Candidate
Martes pennanti Fisher Endangered
Mitoura johnsoni Johnson's Hairstreak Candidate
Novumbra hubbsi Olympic Mudminnow Sensitive
Oncorhynchus keta Chum Salmon Candidate
Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye Salmon Candidate
Picoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker Candidate
Plethodon larselli Larch Mountain Salamander Sensitive
Plethodon larselli Oregon Spotted Frog Endangered
Progne subis Purple Martin Candidate
Speyeria zerene bremnerii Valley Silverspot Candidate
Uria aalge Common Murre Candidate
Vulpes vulpes cascadensis Cascade Red Fox Candidate
5.2 Action Area

The “Action Area” encompasses the locations where project activities will occur (the Project Area)
as well as all areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project either through
physical, chemical, or biological mechanisms. The geographic limits of the Action Area were
defined by considering the potential spatial extent of mechanisms that may lead to impacts on listed
species. Two mechanisms have been identified as having potential for impacts to ESA-listed or
state-listed species or habitat. Impact mechanisms include noise from construction equipment and
increasing impervious surfaces, which, when assessed with other non-project related impacts, could
potentially alter hydrology within the watershed. Isolated impacts due to changes in the amount of
impervious surface are confined within the noise Action Area and therefore do not affect the extent
of the outer Action Area.
At certain levels, noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with various behavioral
and/or health-related consequences (WSDOT, 2015). Terrestrial noise (transmitted through air) is
measured in decibels (dB), on a logarithmic scale. Project activities will necessitate the use of an
excavator, loader, and a small dump truck for grading and construction. The use of an excavator in
this urban residential neighborhood will potentially lead to a higher noise level than traffic noise and
ambient sound levels during brief portions of the project actions. The Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Biological Assessment Preparation Advanced Training
Manual, Version 2015 lists average noise levels for typical construction equipment, average ambient
sound levels per population density of the surrounding area, and noise levels for automobile traffic
given certain speeds. According to WSDOT, the average decibel level at 50 feet from a working
excavator is 81 dBA. The average decibel level at 50 feet from a working dump truck is about
76 dBA. The ambient sound level for an urban area, such as Federal Way, with moderated levels of
development and a close proximity to an arterial road is 60 to 65 dBA (WSDOT, 2015).
Construction noise levels will be elevated above normal ambient noise but will not reach levels that
are likely to significantly impact terrestrial species. For terrestrial noise, standard attenuation is
about 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source of noise, depending on whether the
site is classified as hard or soft (WSDOT, 2015). Using an ambient noise level of 60 dB (WSDOT,
2015) considering urban setting and normal attenuation of 6 dB per doubling, the following table
and graph present the estimated construction noise attenuation distance below. Following these
calculations, the construction noise will attenuate to background levels at approximately 566 feet.
Therefore, the Action Area for noise has an approximate 566-foot radius around project activities.
However, due to dense vegetation and steep slopes it is likely noise will attenuate more quickly.
Table 4. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations.
Terrestrial Attenuation Table
Distance from Source Construction Noise Ambient Sound Measured Noise Pressure
(Feet) (Miles) (dBA) (dBA) (Micro-Pascals) (atm)
50 0.00947 81 60 224403.6909 2.27E-08
100 0.018939 75 60 112468.265 1.14E-08
200 0.037879 69 60 56367.65863 5.71E-09
400 0.075758 63 60 28250.75089 2.86E-09
800 0.151515 57 60 14158.91569 1.43E-09
1600 0.30303 51 60 7096.267785 7.19E-10
3200 0.606061 45 60 3556.55882 3.6E-10
6400 1.212121 39 60 1782.501876 1.81E-10
12800 2.424242 33 60 893.3671843 9.05E-11
25600 4.848485 27 60 447.7442277 4.54E-11
Figure 3. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels.
5.3 Assessment Techniques

The site was assessed for any potentially-regulated fish and wildlife habitat within the subject
property boundaries on February 28, 2014. Prior to the site investigation, a thorough review of
background data and pertinent documentation was conducted, including the USFWS NWI, the US
Geological Survey (USGS) Soil Survey data maps, data from the (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), USFWS, and the WDFW PHS and SalmonScape, data and maps from King
County and City of Federal Way, and various photographs. In addition, high-resolution aerial
photography of the surrounding area was carefully examined.
The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted by wildlife biologists of SVC. A thorough
investigation that included an assessment of vegetative structure and composition of dominant
species, any special habitat features, presence and evidence of potentially- regulated fish and wildlife
species, and level of human disturbance. Visual observations using stationary and walking survey
methods were utilized for both aquatic and upland habitats. Any special habitat features or signs of
wildlife activity were photographed for documentation and noted for further examination.
5.4 Potential Impacts
5.4.1. Habitat Impacts
On-site habitat impacts will include loss of some standing snags, mature trees, and shrub cover areas
where single-family residences are proposed; however, direct impacts to all wetlands and drainages
are being entirely avoided with only minor impacts proposed to drainage buffers. Project actions of
site clearing and establishment of new impervious surfaces such as roadways, driveways, and roof
areas will remove less than fifty percent of significant trees and surrounding understory vegetation.
Significant habitat features on-site, including wetlands, drainages, and buffer areas, will be preserved.
Water quality elements such as sedimentation, chemicals, excess nutrients, and other inputs from
subject property runoff and stormwater are a potential source for direct effects on listed aquatic
species; however, the project will provide appropriate stormwater treatment facilities and best
management practices (BMPs) in order detain and treat runoff and minimize impacts to on-site and
downstream aquatic features. In addition, the on-site drainage features do not support salmonid
populations. Three of the on-site drainages (Drainages W, X, and Y) flow into a fourth drainage
(Stream Z), which appears to be a tributary of Lakota Creek. The City of Federal Way’s Shoreline
Inventory Assessment identified Coho and chum have been documented within the lower reaches
of Lakota Creek (ESA, 2007); however, SalmonScape indicates that fish passage barriers are present
downstream of the site. These barriers restrict fish access to the subject property.
An increase in impervious surfaces can change hydrologic dynamics and cause a decline in
evapotranspiration and a decrease in infiltration (NOAA, 2003). On a watershed scale, cumulative
actions which increase impervious surfaces may have an overall negative impact on hydrology.
Changes in hydrology, from increases in impervious surfaces and loss of forested areas, can reduce
infiltration and dilution. Urban runoff and stormwater discharge can increase loading of nutrients,
bacteria, metals, pesticides, and other toxicants to streams (NOAA, 2003). In addition, changes in
hydrology can increase frequency and severity of flooding, accelerate channel erosion and streambed
substrate disturbance (NOAA, 2003). As a result, a stormwater detention tract will be utilized to
slow peak flows and regulate storm water discharge rates. The project does not propose to
adversely impact any ESA- or State-listed species.
Increased noise levels from construction activities could potentially temporarily negatively impact
the use of habitat features within the Action Area. The estimated threshold of harassment/injury
for ESA-listed terrestrial species is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites and the disturbance threshold
is an estimated 70 dBA at a nesting site (WSDOT, 2013). Noise levels may be as high as 81 dBA at
50 feet from project activities, which is below the threshold for harassment or injury, and will
attenuate at approximately 566 feet. The area was assessed for potential nests and nesting sites, and
no PHS or ESA-listed species nests were found, although a few squirrel and small avian species’
nests were observed. It is unlikely priority species’ nesting sites are located within the Action Area
as this area is located in a highly developed urbanized area. Any anticipated habitat impacts due to
noise are anticipated to be temporary and minor due to the existing level of development.
5.4.2 Species Impacts
While not required under FWRC, examination of project effects under the methods and procedures
established under ESA provide a proven mechanism for evaluating project effects on ESA-listed

species, and as such, are examined herein within a local context. ESA and State-listed species
potentially found in the City of Federal Way are evaluated in depth in the sections below to
determine impacts of the project.
Table 5. King County ESA-Listed Species and Determination of Project Effects.

Species Name Common Name Determination of Effects
Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled Murrelet No Effect
May Affect, Not Likely To
Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead Trout
Adversely Affect
May Affect, Not Likely To
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon
Adversely Affect
Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout No Effect
Strix occidentalis caurina Northern Spotted Owl No Effect
Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear No Effect
Marbled Murrelet
Brachyrhampus marmoratus – Threatened, listed 1992
In Washington, marbled murrelets are year-round residents on coastal waters and have been found
in the largest numbers in marine, coastal waters surrounding the Olympic Peninsula (Pearson and
Lance, 2010). They primarily feed in waters within five-hundred feet of the shore to 1.2 miles from
shore at depths of less than one-hundred feet. Nests and roosts are found in mature and old growth
forests of western Washington. Nest trees are typically greater than thirty-two (32) inches in
diameter at breast height, with nesting preference on large flat conifer branches, often covered with
moss (Hamer et al, 1991) and found in old growth forests. Nesting habitats may be located in the
Olympic or Cascade mountain ranges; however, there is no suitable nesting habitat on or within
close proximity to the proposed project area. Foraging habitat can be found in Puget Sound waters
less than one mile from the project site. The marbled murrelet flies long distances between nesting
and foraging habitats, and there still may be a flight path over the site. The most likely presence of
marbled murrelet would be from the species passing over the Action Area in route to foraging sites;
however, lack of suitable habitat near the Action Area make marbled murrelet presence in the
Action Area unlikely. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment
and/or injury guidelines for marbled murrelet that may be passing over the proposed project area.
Due to the unlikelihood of marbled murrelet presence and the lack of impact mechanisms, the
proposed project Will Have No Effect on Marbled Murrelet. In addition, no designated critical
habitat is found within the vicinity of the proposed project; therefore, the project will have No
Effect on Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat.
Puget Sound Steelhead Trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss – Threatened, listed May 11, 2007.
USFWS identifies steelhead trout with potential for presence in King County, and WDFW
SalmonScape identifies modeled presence of Steelhead in Stream Z on-site. Downstream culverts
on Stream Z are present and these barriers block access of salmonids to the site. However, no direct
impacts are proposed to the on-site drainages, and there is no observed or documented presence of
Steelhead trout on-site. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs,
and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will prevent measurable impacts to
water quality on- or off-site in downstream areas caused by increased impervious surfaces or
temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore, the proposed project actions May Affect
but Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound Steelhead Trout. No impacts are proposed to

the drainage features; therefore, the proposed activities will have No Effect on Steelhead Trout
Critical Habitat.
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha – Threatened, listed (reaffirmed) June 28, 2005.
USFWS identifies Chinook salmon with potential for presence in King County, and WDFW
SalmonScape identifies modeled present of fall Chinook on-site in Stream Z. Downstream culverts
on Stream Z are present and these barriers block access of salmonids to the site. However, no direct
impacts are proposed to the on-site drainages, there is no observed or document presence of
Chinook on-site. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and
TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality on- or off-site in downstream areas
caused by increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore,
the proposed project actions May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect Puget Sound
Chinook Salmon. No impacts are proposed to the drainage features; therefore, the proposed
activities will have No Effect on Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat.
Bull Trout
Salvelinus confluentus – (Federal) Threatened, listed November 1, 1999
USFWS identifies bull trout with potential for presence in King County. However, SalmonScape
does not indicate any potential bull trout presence on-site and no direct impacts are proposed to the
on-site drainages. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and
TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality on- or off-site in downstream areas
caused by increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore,
the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Bull Trout. Salmonids are unable to access
the site, and no impacts are proposed to the drainage features; therefore, the proposed activities will
have No Effect on Bull Trout Critical Habitat.
Northern Spotted Owl

Strix occidentalis caurina – Threatened, listed June 23, 1990.
The northern spotted owl prefers large coniferous trees for nesting which are often associated with
old growth forests. Their habitat areas need to contain platforms, cavities, or other structural
features to provide protection from adverse weather conditions and predation. Nesting or foraging
habitats may be located in the Olympic or Cascade mountain ranges; however, there is no suitable
nesting or foraging habitat on or within close proximity to the proposed project area. It is extremely
unlikely a northern spotted owl will be in or near the project vicinity. The Northern Spotted Owl
Conservation does not document any northern spotted owl sites within or near the proposed Action
Area. Unlike marbled murrelets that may have a potential nest to forage flight path over the
proposed project, the northern spotted owl nests and forages in forested areas and does not have
any reason to be near or flying over the proposed project area. Due to the lack of presence, and the
project producing little noise which will be brief in duration, the proposed project will have No
Effect on Northern Spotted Owl. No designated critical habitat is found within the vicinity of the
proposed project; therefore, the project will have No Effect on Northern Spotted Owl Critical
Habitat.
Grizzly Bear
Ursus arctos horribilis – Threatened, listed 1980
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) preferred habitat is semi-open country usually in mountainous
areas. These animals are found in the Selkirk Mountains or the Cascade Range and will not be
found in highly urbanized areas. No habitat is found in the Action Area for this species; therefore,
the project will have No Effect on Grizzly Bear. No designated critical habitat is found within the
vicinity of the proposed project; therefore, the project will have No Effect on Grizzly Bear
Critical Habitat.
State-listed species potentially found in King County are evaluated in the sections below to
determine impacts of the project. Due to the number of species and lack of Federal regulation,
these species have been grouped in order to provide more efficient evaluation, though habitat
requirements are discussed for individual species where appropriate.
Table 6. King County State-Listed Species and Determination of Project Effects.

Group Species Name Common Name Determination of Effect
Anaxyrus boreas Western Toad
Amphibian Plethodon larselli Larch Mountain Salamander No Effect
Plethodon larselli Oregon Spotted Frog
Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk
Aechmophorus occidentalis Western grebe
Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle
Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s Swift
Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Not Likely to Adversely
Bird
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Affect
Gavia immer Common Loon
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle
Picoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker
Progne subis Purple Martin
Uria aalge Common Murre
Lampetra ayresi River Lamprey
Novumbra hubbsi Olympic Mudminnow
Fishes No Effect
Oncorhynchus keta Chum Salmon
Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye Salmon
Agonum belleri Beller's Ground Beetle
Donacia idola Bog Idol Leaf Beetle
Invertebrate Eanus hatchi Hatch's Click Beetle No Effect
Mitoura johnsoni Johnson's Hairstreak
Speyeria zerene bremnerii Valley Silverspot
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s Big-eared Bat
Gulo gulo Wolverine
Mammal No Effect
Martes pennanti Fisher
Vulpes vulpes cascadensis Cascade Red Fox
Reptile Actinemys marmorata Pacific Pond Turtle No Effect
Amphibians
No mechanisms for direct effects to State-listed invertebrates are proposed from project actions.
Larch Mountain salamander and Oregon spotted frog occurrences are tracked in Washington State,
and no populations of either species are known to occur in the region of the project site (Crisafulli
et. al, 2008). Western toad occurrences are also tracked in Washington. Historic populations may
have existed within the Federal Way region; however, no observations of the species in the area have

occurred after 1992. Due to species absence from the area and the preservation of all wetland and
stream habitat, the project will have no effect on State-listed amphibians.
Birds
Many of the terrestrial birds that may occur within King County have specific habitat needs. The
only species with potential to use on-site habitat include pileated woodpecker and purple martin.
Pileated woodpecker habitat primarily consists of old-growth forests and second-growth forests that
contain large snags and fallen trees; however, they may use younger forest habitat and may be found
in pockets of forest within in urbanized areas as well. There is potential for pileated woodpecker to
be located on-site in southwestern portions of the site where bigger trees were observed and are
proposed to be preserved. Purple martin habitat is associated with the availability of nest cavities,
and purple martin nesting has been documented in artificial structures near cities and towns in the
lowlands near Puget Sound. There is potential for purple martin to be located on-site; however,
none were observed during multiple site visits in December 2013 and February and August 2014.
Other species, such as western grebe, golden eagles, peregrine falcon, and bald eagle, may pass over
the site during migration or travel between feeding and nesting sites, but no suitable habitat is
located on-site for these species (UW, 2004). Western grebe may migrate from eastern Washington
breeding grounds to nearshore marine waters during the fall and winter (BCMELP, 2014). Due to
the project site’s proximity to Puget Sound, there is some potential for western grebe to be passing
over or temporarily located on-site during its migration. Golden eagles breed primarily in open
mountainous areas dominated by shrub-steppe communities but are also known to nest in open
areas such as burns or clear cuts in conifer forest. Current distribution maps indicate that nesting
habitat can be found only in the Cascade and Olympic mountain ranges and is not found in the
Puget Sound lowlands. As migration patterns are not well documented, there may be some potential
for golden eagle to be passing over or temporarily located on-site during its migration, though this is
very unlikely, and no suitable habitat is located on-site. Current distribution maps indicate that
peregrine falcon territories may be found within the region of the project site, though none are
located near to or within the Action Area. There is some potential for peregrine falcon to be
passing over or temporarily located on-site, but no suitable habitat is located on-site. Current
distribution maps indicate that bald eagle territories may be found within the region of the project
site (Stinson et. al, 2001), though none are located near to or within the Action Area. There is some
potential for bald eagle to be passing over or temporarily located on-site, but no nests are currently
located on-site.
Some species have highly specific habitat requirements that are not found on-site and should not be
considered to have potential exposure to the site. These species include northern goshawk, Vaux’s
swift, yellow-billed cuckoos, common loon, black-backed woodpecker, and common murre.
Northern goshawk is found in the Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges as it prefers mid- to high-
elevation forests and will not be located in the Puget Sound lowlands. Vaux’s swift is primarily
associated with old-growth coniferous forests, and no suitable habitat is found on-site. Yellow-
billed cuckoos are considered to be extirpated from Washington. Common loon habitat consists of
large lakes. Current distribution maps show no breeding locations near the project site, and no
suitable habitat is located on-site. The black-backed woodpecker is found in the eastern Cascade
Mountains, northeastern Washington, and the Blue Mountains and primarily inhabits recently-
burned areas. Current distribution maps show no black-backed woodpecker populations near the
project site, and no suitable habitat is located on-site. Current distribution of the common murre
indicates that breeding habitat is restricted to the outer coast, specifically from the Grenville Arch to
Tatoosh Island. Common murre habitat consists of cliff ledges or elevated marine terraces on
islands or rocky headlands, and no such suitable habitat is located on or near the site.
The project proposes to remove less than fifty percent of significant trees and surrounding
understory vegetation, and significant habitat features, such as wetlands, drainages, and buffer areas,
will be preserved. In addition, noise from project activities will be temporary and will be below
precautionary harassment or injury guidelines for listed bird species that may be present in the
proposed project area. Noise levels may be as high as 81 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but
will attenuate at a maximum of 566 feet. As the project will protect significant habitat features
(wetlands and drainages), and noise impacts will be temporary and below precautionary levels, the
project is not likely to adversely affect State-listed birds.
Fish
No mechanisms for direct effects to species of fish are proposed from project actions. Temporary
increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of upland habitat will cause
no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of
appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to
water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction.
The indirect effects are expected to be highly discountable and no direct impacts to wetlands or
streams are proposed; therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on State-listed fishes.
Invertebrates
No mechanisms for direct effects to State-listed invertebrates are proposed from project actions.
Beller’s ground beetle, bog idol leaf beetle, and Hatch’s click beetle only inhabit sphagnum bogs
associated with lakes. No suitable habitat occurs within the Action Area. Johnson’s hairstreak
butterfly is considered to be an old-growth obligate. It is dependent on mistletoe, which is parasitic
to conifer trees, for breeding and food. Neither mistletoe nor old-growth was observed on-site, and
no occurrences have been recorded within the vicinity of the project. Valley silverspot is highly
localized and uses open prairies, arctic-alpine tundra, sub-alpine glades, and mid-elevation roadsides
and clearings, and no suitable habitat is present within the Action Area. As it is extremely unlikely
that any of these species will occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat, the project will have no
effect on State-listed invertebrates.
Mammals
Many of the terrestrial mammals that may occur within King County have specific habitat needs or
are endemic to certain locations. Townsend’s big-eared bat has potential to occur within the Action
Area if suitable roost site are available. Roost sites include caves, lava tubes, bridges, mines,
abandoned buildings, concrete silos and concrete dams. No such structures exist on-site where
development is proposed, though they may exist within the Action Area or the vicinity of the
property. Wolverine habitat primarily consists of high elevation timberline areas in the northern
Cascade Mountains (Beauvais, 2004). No habitat for wolverine is found within the Action Area.
The fisher was recorded to be extirpated in Washington in 1997. The Cascade red fox is generally
found in alpine and subalpine habitats and prefers the transition area between forested areas and
more open areas, and no suitable habitat is present within the Action Area (Reese, 2007). Due to
the lack of presence and suitable habitat for these species within the Action Area, the project will
have no effect on State-listed mammals.
Reptiles
The only State-listed reptile species that may occur within King County is pacific pond turtle.
According to WDFW, pacific pond turtles currently are found in just two small populations totaling
about 150 turtles in Skamania and Klickitat counties. Due to the unlikely presence within the Action
Area and protection of all potential habitat features, the project will have no effect on State-listed
reptiles.
5.5 Conservation Measures and Habitat Management Recommendations

Detailed information regarding habitat management recommendations and project BMPs can be
found in the regulatory considerations section located in Chapter 7.

Chapter 6. Results
6.1 Wetlands
The site investigation initially identified four on-site wetlands (Wetlands B, D, E, and F), two off-site
wetlands (Wetlands A and G), one small seep (Seep C), and four on-site drainages (Drainages W, X,
and Y and Stream Z). A joint SVC and City of Federal Way third-party consultant site visit in
August 2014 found that Wetlands E and F should join into one wetland; therefore, Wetland E/F is
treated as one contiguous wetland. The following sections detail these features. A map of all
identified features is included in Appendix D.
Wetlands B, D, and E/ F are located on-site. Wetlands A and G are located off-site. The
northeastern section of Wetland A was delineated along with the southeastern section of Wetland G
to verify the extent of associated buffers potentially extending on-site. In addition, an area west of
Drainage Y near the center of the subject property (Seep C) was also investigated for the presence of
wetland characteristics during several site visits. Results of this investigation showed that the area
referred to as Seep C within this report did not fully qualify as wetland as the area lacks hydric soils
at this time.
Table 7. Wetland Summary.

Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Wetland Size Buffer Width
Wetland
CowardinA HGMB Federal WayC (square feet) (feet)D
Not
A PEME Slope Category IV Off-site (<100 )
Applicable/ExemptE
B PSSB Slope Category IV 7,746 40
Not
D PSSB Slope Category IV 644
Applicable/ExemptE
E/F PSS/EME Slope Category IV 9,659 40
G PFOE Slope Category IV Offsite 40
Notes:
A. Cowardin, L.M. V. (1979), Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013).
B. Brinson, M. M. (1993).
C. Wetland Rating in Accordance with Ecology 2014 Method and FWRC 19.145.420.(1).
D. Wetland Buffer designated under FWRC 19.145.420.(2)
E. Below the regulated size threshold under Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.420.(3).
Wetland A
Wetland A is a very small slope wetland characterized as a Palustrine Emergent Seasonally
Flooded/Saturated (PEME) wetland located off-site near the southwestern portion of the subject
property north of and adjacent to Stream Z. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by the adjacent
stream, nearby southwesterly runoff from Highway 509/Southwest Dash Point Road and direct
precipitation. Wetland A is dominated by salmonberry over northern mannagrass, creeping
buttercup, and minor amounts of horsetail. Under per FWRC 19.145.420.(2), Wetland A is an
unregulated Category IV unregulated wetland as it is less than 1,000 square feet in size and isolated.
Table 8 provides a detailed summary of Wetland A.

Wetland B
Wetland B is 7,746 square foot slope wetland characterized as a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Saturated
wetland (PSSB) located on-site near the southern center portion of the subject property. This
wetland is found on the north side of Stream Z. Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by high
groundwater (seeps) and direct precipitation. Wetland B is dominated by salmonberry over an
understory of piggyback, willowherb and stinging nettle. Wetland B is classified as a Category IV
slope wetland and subject to a 40-foot buffer per FWRC 19.145.420.(2). Table 9 provides a detailed
summary of Wetland B.
Seep C
Seep C is located on-site just west of Drainage Y in the center portion of the subject property.
Although the feature was partially vegetated during the assessment for wetland conditions, the
feature does not fully meet wetland criteria due to lack of hydric soils. The size of the seep is
approximately 921 square feet and would not be regulated under FWRC 19.145.420.(3) even if all
wetland criteria were met.
Wetland D
Wetland D is 644 square foot slope wetland characterized as a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Saturated
wetland (PSSB) located on-site just east of Drainage Y in the center portion of the subject property.
Hydrology for Wetland D is provided by seeps and direct precipitation. Wetland D is dominated by
mannagrass, buttercup, ladyfern, and horsetail. Under per FWRC 19.145.420.(2), Wetland D is
unregulated as it is less than 1,000 square feet in size and isolated. Table 10 provides a detailed
summary of Wetland D.
Wetland E/F
Wetland E/F is a 9,659 square foot slope wetland characterized as a Palustrine Shrub/Scrub and
Emergent Seasonally Flooded/Saturated wetland (PSS/EME) located on-site southeast of
Wetland D. Hydrology for Wetland E/F is provided by seeps and direct precipitation. Wetland
E/F is dominated by salmonberry and vine maple over an understory of ladyfern, stinging nettle and
skunk cabbage. Wetland E/F is subject to a 40-foot buffer per FWRC 19.145.420.(2), buffers are
shown in the wetland tables below. The wetland contains signs of urban dumping. In addition, areas
to the north/upland of the wetland contain a substantial amount of non-native invasive English Ivy.
Table 11 provides a detailed summary of Wetland E/F.
Wetland G
Wetland G is an approximate 10,000 square foot slope wetland characterized as a Palustrine
Forested Seasonally Flooded/Saturated wetland (PFOE) and is located off-site north of the
northwestern corner of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland G is provided by seeps, high
groundwater, surface water, and direct precipitation. Wetland G contains slough sedge,
salmonberry, ladyfern, and minor amounts of skunk cabbage. Under FWRC 19.145.420.(1),
Wetland G is a Category IV slope wetland. Wetland G is subject to a 40-foot buffer per FWRC
19.145.420.(2). Table 12 provides a detailed summary of Wetland G.

Table 8. Wetland A Summary.
WETLAND A – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Location: Off-site, southwest corner of subject property.
Local Jurisdiction Federal Way
WRIA 10
Ecology Rating
IV
(Hruby, 2014)A
Federal Way RatingB IV
Federal Way Buffer WidthC N/A
Building SetbackD 5 feet
Off-site (less than 100 square
Estimated Wetland Size
feet)
Cowardin ClassificationE PEME
HGM ClassificationF Slope
Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP1
Upland Data Sheet (s) DP2
Boundary Flag color Orange
Dominant
Wetland A contains salmonberry over northern mannagrass, buttercup, and minor amounts of horsetail.
Vegetation
NRCS shows soils on-site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils. The site investigation shows silty sand with a stripped
Soils
matrix.
High water table and saturation observed at 9 inches below ground surface. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by
Hydrology
surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, a seasonally-high groundwater table provided through hillside seep.
Rationale for Areas of well-defined surface saturation, hydrophytic vegetation and a depleted matrix. Upland areas were determined
Delineation by topographic rise and predominance of upland plant species, predominately alder and vine maple.
Wetland A is rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington – Washington State
Rationale for
Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, published October 2014 (Hruby, 2014) and guidelines established in the
Local Rating
Federal Way Code 19.145.420.(1).
Wetland Functions Summary
Wetland A has a very limited potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff due to its extremely
Water Quality small size, slope and lack of dense vegetation. Wetland A’s score for Water Quality Functions using the 2014 method
is very low (3).
Observed saturation during the site investigation suggests the wetland retains some water; however, due to the limited
Hydrologic size and slope, the wetland provides very little, if any, hydrologic functions. Wetland A’s score for Hydrologic
Functions using the 2014 method is low (4).
Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small bird and mammal forage and cover. Wetland A’s
Habitat
score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (5).
The vegetated continuity surrounding Wetland A is interrupted by the maintained grass utility easement and Highway
Buffer Condition
509/Southwest Dash Point Road.
Notes:
A. WSDOE rating according to Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Hruby (2014).
B. FWRC 19.145.420.(1). For local wetland rating classification
C. FWRC 19.145.420.(2). For local wetland designated buffers.
D. FWRC 19.145.160. for building setbacks.
E. Cowardin et al. (1979) Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013) or NWI Class based on vegetation: PEM = Palustrine Emergent;
Modifier (-E) = Water Regime or Special Situations for Seasonally Flooded and Saturated.
F. Brinson, M. M. (1993).

Table 9. Wetland B Summary.
WETLAND B – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Location: Southern-center portion of the subject property, along Stream Z.
WRIA 10
Ecology Rating
IV
(Hruby, 2014)A
Federal Way RatingB Category IV
Federal Way Buffer WidthC 40 feet
Estimated Wetland Size 7,746 square feet
Cowardin ClassificationE PSSB
Dominant
Wetland B contains salmonberry, piggyback, willowherb and stinging nettle.
Vegetation
Soils NRCS shows soils on-site as Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes. The site investigation
shows sandy loam with hydrogen sulfide and sandy mucky mineral.
Hydrology Surface saturation and a high water table observed at 5 inches below the surface. Hydrology for
Wetland B is provided by a seasonally-high groundwater table, surface sheet flow and from direct
precipitation.
Rationale for Wetland boundaries were determined by topographic drop and a transition to hydrophytic plant
Delineation community.
Rationale for Local Wetland B is rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington –
Rating Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, published October 2014 (Hruby, 2014) and
guidelines established in the Federal Way Code 19.145.420.(1).
Wetland B has a moderate potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff. The
wetland is sloped, and the vegetation is not dense or diverse; however, due to the size, opportunity,
Water Quality
retention capability, and location within the watershed it likely provides some limited water quality
functions. Wetland B’s score for Water Quality Functions using the 2014 method is low (4).
Observed saturation during the site investigation suggests the wetland retains some water; however,
Hydrologic due to the limited size and slope the wetland provides very little, if any, hydrologic functions.
Wetland B’s score for Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is very low (3).
Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small bird and mammal forage and
Habitat
cover. Wetland B’s score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method is very low (3).
Buffer Condition The buffer surrounding Wetland B is interrupted by the maintained, mowed utility easement.
Notes:
E. Cowardin et al. (1979) Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013) or NWI Class based on vegetation: PSS = Palustrine Scrub-
Shrub; Modifier (-B) = Water Regime or Special Situations for Saturated.

Table 10. Wetland D Summary.
WETLAND D – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Location: Eastern half of subject property, just east of Drainage Y.
WRIA 10
Ecology Rating
IV
(Hruby, 2014)A
Federal Way Rating B IV
Federal Way Buffer Width C 40-feet
Estimated Wetland Size 644 square feet
Cowardin ClassificationE PSSB
Dominant
Wetland D contains creeping buttercup, ladyfern, horsetail and northern mannagrass.
Vegetation
NRCS shows soils on-site as Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes. The site investigation
Soils
shows sandy loam and sandy gravel with a very shallow dark surface.
Hydrology Saturation to the surface and a high-water table at 12 inches.
Areas of well-defined surface saturation, and hydrophytic vegetation. Upland areas were determined
Rationale for
by topographic rise and predominance of upland plant species, predominately sword fern,
Delineation
salmonberry and red berried-alder.
Wetland D is rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington –
Rationale for Local
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, published October 2014 (Hruby, 2014) and
Rating
guidelines established in the Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.420.(1).
Wetland D has limited potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff due to the
Water Quality minimal size and opportunity. Wetland D’s score for Water Quality Functions using the 2014
method is very low (3).
Observed saturation during the site investigation suggests the wetland retains some water; however,
Hydrologic due to the limited size and slope the wetland provides very little, if any, hydrologic functions.
Wetland D’s score for Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is low (4).
Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small bird and mammal forage and
Habitat
cover. Wetland D’s score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (5).
Areas surrounding Wetland D are relatively undisturbed aside from historic fill and culvert placement
Buffer Condition
on the west side of the wetland.
Notes:
Shrub; Modifier (-B) = Water Regime or Special Situations for Saturated.

Table 11. Wetland E/F Summary.
WETLAND E/F – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Location: Eastern half of the subject property, southeast of Wetland D, just west of Drainage W.
WRIA 10
Ecology Rating
Category IV
(Hruby, 2014)A
Federal Way Rating B Category IV
Federal Way Buffer Width C 40 feet
Estimated Wetland Size 9,659 square feet
Cowardin ClassificationE PSS/EME
Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP13, DP15
Upland Data Sheet (s) DP14, DP16
Dominant Vegetation Wetland E/F contains salmonberry, vine maple, deerfern, stinging nettle, and ladyfern.
NRCS shows soils on-site as Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes. The site investigation shows
Soils loamy sand, sandy loam, silt loam, gravelly loam, and gravelly sand with hydrogen sulfide and a thick dark
surface.
Hydrology High water table, saturation to the surface, surface inundation, and ponding in the southern portion.
Rationale for Areas of well-defined surface saturation, inundation, and signs of seasonal hydrophytic vegetation. Upland areas
Delineation were determined by topographic rise, and predominance of upland plant species.
Wetland E/F is rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington – Washington
Rationale for Local
State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, published October 2014 (Hruby, 2014) and guidelines established
Rating
in the Federal Way Code 19.145.420.(1).
Wetland E/F has the potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff due to the presence of
opportunity, retention capability, and location within the watershed. However, a lack of persistent dense
Water Quality
vegetation and the slope inhibits these water quality functions. Wetland E/F’s score for Water Quality
Functions using the 2014 method is very low (3).
Observed saturation during the site investigation suggests the wetland retains some water; however, due to the
Hydrologic slope the wetland provides very little, if any, hydrologic functions. Wetland E/F’s score for Hydrologic
Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (5).
Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small bird and mammal forage and cover.
Habitat
Wetland E/F’s score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (6).
The buffer surrounding Wetland E/F is dominated by native species to the south, east and west; however, areas
Buffer Condition to the north are dominated by non-native invasive English ivy and this northern area also contains some signs of
urban dumping.
Notes:
Shrub; PEM= Palustrine Emergent; Modifier (-E) = Water Regime or Special Situations for Seasonally Flooded/ Saturated.

Table 12. Wetland G Summary.
WETLAND G – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Location: Off-site, north of the northwest corner of subject property.
WRIA 10
Ecology Rating
Category IV
(Hruby, 2014)A
Federal Way Rating Category IV
Federal Way Buffer Size 40-feet
Building Setback 5-feet
Estimated Wetland Size Offsite
Cowardin Classification PFOE
HGM Classification Slope
Wetland Data Sheet(s) Test Pit 1
Upland Data Sheet (s) N/A
Orange (only southern boundary

Boundary Flag color
was delineated)
Dominant Vegetation Wetland G contains slough sedge, salmonberry, ladyfern, and minor amounts of skunk cabbage.
Soils NRCS shows soils on-site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils. The site investigation shows a mucky, thick, dark
surface.
Hydrology High water table, saturation to the surface and some ponding observed.
Rationale for Areas of well-defined surface saturation and hydrophytic vegetation. Upland areas were determined by
Delineation topographic rise and predominance of upland plant species.
Rationale for Local Offsite Wetland G is rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington –
Rating Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, published October 2014 (Hruby, 2014) and guidelines
established in the Federal Way Code 19.145.420.(1).
Wetland G has a low to moderate potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff due to its
relatively large size and location within the watershed but lack of dense vegetation. The opportunity to provide
Water Quality
water quality functions is present as the wetland is bounded by development on three sides. Wetland G’s score
for Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is low (4).
Observation of saturation during the site investigations suggests the wetland retains water; due to the size,
Hydrologic wetland location and opportunity, the wetland likely provides a moderate level of hydrologic functions. Wetland
G’s score for Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (5).
Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small mammal forage and cover, and small bird
Habitat
forage and nesting. Wetland G’s score for Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is low (4).
Due to steep slopes the buffer is relatively undisturbed but likely contains existing residential housing and
Buffer Condition
associated structures in the outer portions of the 40-foot standard buffer.
Notes:
E. Cowardin et al. (1979) Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013) or NWI Class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested;
Modifier (-E) = Water Regime or Special Situations for Seasonally Flooded/Saturated.

6.2 Wetland Functions
On-site wetlands may provide several water quality and hydrologic functions, such as limited
stormwater retention and infiltration, water quality enhancement, and wildlife habitat. Table 13
provides a summary of the assessed on-site wetland functions.
Table 13. Functions of Existing On-site Wetlands.

Wetland
Function A
B D E/F
Water Quality Functions
Sediment Removal x x x
Nutrient and Toxicant Removal x x x
Hydrologic Functions
Flood Flow Alteration x - -
Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization x - -
Habitat Functions
Production & Export of Organic Matter x x x
General Habitat Suitability x x x
Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates x - -
Habitat for Amphibians x - -
Habitat for Wetland-Associated Mammals x - -
Habitat for Wetland-Associated Birds x - -
General Fish Habitat - - -
Native Plant Richness x x x
Special Characteristics
Educational or Scientific Value - - -
Uniqueness and Heritage - - -
A “-“ means that the function is not present; “x” means that the function is present is of lower quality; and “+” means the function is
present and of higher quality.
6.3 Drainages
Site investigation and research identified four (4) on-site drainages (Drainages W, X, and Y and
Stream Z). WDFW’s SalmonScape identifies Stream Z as having modeled presence of fall Chinook,
coho, fall chum, odd year pink salmon, and winter steelhead trout downstream of the site. Non-
vegetated seeps were observed draining into Drainages W and Y; however, these seeps were not
delineated due to the absence of vegetation and lack of a defined bed and bank. Drainages W and X
branch at their headwaters and are divided into A and B branches. Drainage Y bisects the subject
property from north to south. Drainages W, X, and Y all drain into Stream Z which traverses the
southern edge of the parcel. All drainages contain culverted portions either on-site or immediately
off-site. Drainages X and W, are culverted in at least one location each by a corrugated culvert 12
inches in diameter. Drainage Y is culverted in at least two locations by culverts equal to or greater
than 24 inches in diameter. Drainages X and Y and Stream Z also contain old concrete cistern and
drainage infrastructure. Observations made during the site investigation indicate that Drainages X
and W are likely seasonal and Stream Z and Drainage Y are likely perennial. Stream Z is the only
drainage feature typed by the DNR, and is considered a Type F fish-bearing stream (Appendix B5)
though fish presence within the on-site reach is highly unlikely due to man-made passage barriers
downstream. All on-site drainages except Stream Z (and a portion of Drainage Y) likely contain
natural fish passage barriers and do not contain historic fish habitat. All buffers are protected
through steep slope setbacks. The impacts proposed are to the maintenance access road, pedestrian
trail, and ravine crossing completely outside of the OHW mark.
There is also a drainage ditch located on the north side of the Lake Haven utility easement. This
feature was reassessed during the August 2014 site visit, and two additional data plots were taken,
one within the ditch and one just upslope of the ditch. This drainage feature is a constructed ditch
associated with the sewer easement. Per FWRC 19.145.110.(3), such features are not regulated,
provided the feature meets criteria listed under Item 3. This drainage feature was intentionally
created in an upland area and actively operated to divert surface water from the adjacent utility
easement/walking trail. In addition, the hydrologic conditions have not expanded beyond the
facility and the area has limited ecological functions. To our knowledge, this drainage feature was
not created as part of any mitigation actions. In June of 2014, the drainage feature exhibited signs of
wetland vegetation, primarily Equisetum arvense; however, the soils are compacted and non-hydric
and, therefore, this drainage does not meet wetland criteria. Saturation likely results from perched
groundwater atop the constricted soils. Data sheets are provided in Appendix E.
Table 14. Waterbody Summary.

Waterbody Stream Type A Stream Buffer B
Drainage W NS 35 feet
Drainage X NS 35 feet
Drainage Y NP/ F 50 feet
Stream Z F 100 feet
A Per FWRC 19.145.260(2).
B Per FWRC 19.145.270(1).
Drainage W
Drainage W originates on the property from two seeps (W-a and W-b) near the eastern edge of the
parcel and drains south into Stream Z. The water level is expected to fluctuate depending on storm
events. Due to the narrow width, Drainage W was flagged at the center line. Hydrology is primarily
represented by intermittent seasonal stream flow from precipitation and seeps. Water was present
within the channel during the site investigation. Drainage W had several unvegetated seeps that did
not exhibit wetland characteristics and were not delineated as separate from this feature owing to a
lack of a defined bed and bank but were included in the delineation. The lower portion of the
stream contains a utility easement crossing. Upstream areas contained signs of urban dumping such
as a mini fridge, tricycle and other household trash related debris. Under FWRC 19.145.260(2),
Drainage W is considered a Type Ns seasonal non-fish bearing stream which requires a standard 35-
foot buffer. Table 15 provides a detailed summary of Drainage W.

Drainage X
Drainage X originates on the property from two seeps (X-a and X-b) near the eastern edge of the
parcel and drains to the south into Stream Z. The water level is expected to fluctuate depending on
storm events. Due to the narrow width, Drainage X was flagged at the center line. Hydrology is
primarily represented by intermittent seasonal flow from precipitation and seeps. Water was present
within the channel during the site investigation. Drainage X drains into Stream Z via a 12-inch
corrugated metal culvert. Upstream areas contained signs of urban dumping; near where the stream
forked; a plastic lawn chair and other house hold trash related debris was observed. In addition,
areas to the north/upland of Drainage X contain a substantial amount of non-native invasive
English Ivy. The lower portion of the stream contains a utility easement crossing. Under FWRC
19.145.260(2), Drainage X is considered a Type Ns seasonal non-fish bearing stream which requires
a standard 35-foot buffer. Table 16 provides a detailed summary of Drainage X.
Drainage Y
Drainage Y begins on-site at the toe of a steep slope near the north-central boundary of the parcel
and bisects the property in a north-to-south fashion, draining into Stream Z at the southern border
of the subject site. An analysis of historic data demonstrated that a stormwater outfall associated
with the adjacent plat to the north was discharging onto the subject property in an area with
previously mapped flat slopes. As the outfall was not created with proper erosion prevention
standards, catastrophic erosion rates created a deep ravine in which Drainage Y is now located.
After the ravine was created, the City of Federal Way decommissioned the original storm drain pipe
and installed a new storm drain easement located just west of Drainage Y within the drainage
setback associated with Drainage Y. The current stormwater outfall now discharges directly to
Stream Z. The City of Federal Way did not however repair the flooded ravine.
The water flows within Drainage Y are expected to fluctuate depending on storm events. Due to its
narrow width, Drainage Y was flagged at the centerline. On-site flows for Drainage Y originate
from groundwater seeps within the ravine. Water was present within the channel during the site
investigation. A follow-up site investigation in August 2014 with WDFW staff extended
Drainage Y, 20 feet north to account for an area with moist soils at the head of the stream.
Drainage Y has two culverted sections on-site as well as signs of urban dumping (tires in the
channel) and historic concrete water draining and collection structures. An informal footpath is
located alongside Drainage Y and the lower portion of the stream contains a utility easement
crossing. Drainage Y had several unvegetated seeps that did not exhibit wetland characteristics and
were not delineated as separate from this feature due to a lack of a defined bed and bank but were
included in the delineation of Drainage Y. The lowermost reaches of Stream Y (at the intersection
with Stream Z) is likely going to be treated as a Type F stream per FWRC 19.145.260(2) which
requires a 100-foot buffer. Within the upper reaches of Stream Y, the stream is perennially flowing
with non-fish habitat as the stream becomes much narrower in width in conjunction with its narrow
width and steep gradients (greater than sixteen percent gradient) and lack of viable fish habitat.
Under FWRC 19.145.260(2), the upper reach of manmade Drainage Y is considered a perennial
non-fish habitat stream which requires a standard 50-foot setback per FWRC 19.145.270(1).
Table 17 provides a detailed summary of Drainage Y.

Stream Z
Stream Z enters the site from the east and traverses the property along the southern boundary and
exits the site in the southwesterly corner of the subject property. The OHW mark of Stream Z was
flagged only along the north side of the stream. Hydrology is primarily represented by perennial
stream flow, precipitation, Drainages W, X, and Y, seeps and likely other upstream sources. Water
was present within the channel during the site investigation. A portion of the on-site section of
Stream Z showed signs of stream restoration, hardening, and anchored large woody debris. Parts of
Stream Z also showed evidence of eutrophication and bacterial blooms. Approximately half a dozen
culverts discharge into Stream Z on-site. Signs of urban dumping were observed within the stream
feature and included tires and other trash and debris.
Stream Z is a naturally occurring stream feature with mostly silty substrates as well as some areas of
pebble and cobble. The feature was mostly comprised of straight runs but also exhibited some
minor pools and riffles. Stream Z is a tributary of Lakota Creek. SalmonScape (WDFW, 2014) does
not show documented salmonid presence in Lakota Creek, but does identify modeled presence of
fall Chinook, coho, fall chum, winter Steelhead, and odd-year pink salmon. In addition, the City of
Federal Way’s Shoreline Inventory Assessment states that Coho and chum have been documented
within the lower reaches of Lakota Creek (ESA Adolfson, 2007). SalmonScape indicates that fish-
barriers are present downstream of the site. No fish were observed during SVC’s 2013 and 2014
assessments; however, adequate fish habitat was identified within Stream Z that can accommodate
fish populations should downstream passage barriers be removed in the future. Under FWRC
19.145.260(2), Stream Z is potentially considered a Type F stream which requires a standard 100
foot buffer. Table 18 provides a detailed summary of Stream Z.
Table 15. Waterbody Information Summary – Drainage W.

DRAINAGE W INFORMATION SUMMARY
Feature Name Drainage W

City of Federal Way
Type Ns
Classification
City of Federal Way
35 feet
BufferA
Waterbody Length (feet) N/A
Documented Fish
None
Presence
Location of Feature Along eastern edge of subject property.
Connectivity (where stormwater drainage Originates on-site from two forks near the eastern edge of the
feature flows from/to) property and flows south into Stream Z.
Documented Fish Species N/A

A Per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(c).

Table 16. Waterbody Information Summary – Drainage X.
DRAINAGE X INFORMATION SUMMARY
Feature Name Drainage X

City of Federal Way
Type Ns
Classification
City of Federal Way BufferA 35 feet
Waterbody Length (feet) N/A
Documented Fish Presence None
Location of Feature Eastern portion of property, west of Drainage W.

Connectivity (where stormwater drainage feature
Originates on-site from two forks and flows south into Stream Z.
flows from/to)
Documented Fish Species N/A
A Per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(c).
Table 17. Waterbody Information Summary – Drainage Y.

DRAINAGE Y INFORMATION SUMMARY
Feature Name Drainage Y
Type Np
City of Federal Way
(Type F in lowermost
Classification
intersection with Stream Z)
City of Federal Way

50 feet
BufferA
Waterbody Length (feet) 421
None documented - Potential

habitat for the first 20 linear
Documented Fish feet north from Stream Z, and
Presence afterwards lacks fish potential
habitat due to narrow channel
width and steep gradient.
Drainage Y bisects the property from north to south in the
Location of Feature
eastern half of the parcel.
Originates on-site at the toe of a steep slope near the north
Connectivity (where stormwater drainage
central portion of the subject property and flows south into
feature flows from/to)
Stream Z
Documented Fish Species None documented nor modeled.
A Per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(b).

Table 18. Waterbody Information Summary – Stream Z.
STREAM Z INFORMATION SUMMARY
Feature Name Stream Z

City of Federal Way
Type F
Classification
City of Federal Way
100
BufferA
Waterbody Length (feet) 987 (on-site)
Documented Fish
Potential - Modeled
Presence
Stream Z traverses the subject property from the east to the
Location of Feature
west.
Originates off-site to the east of the subject property and flows
Connectivity (where stormwater drainage
off-site in the southwest portion of the site to Lakota Creek
feature flows from/to)
which flows into Puget Sound.
Winter steelhead trout, pink salmon, coho salmon, fall chum
Modeled Fish Species
salmon and fall chinook salmon downstream.
A Per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(a).

Chapter 7. Regulatory Considerations
Due to the presence of on-site wetlands and streams, this report has been prepared pursuant to
FWRC 19.145.080(2). An evaluation of whether on-site wetlands are regulated under
FWRC 19.145.030(2)(c), wetland and associated plant communities descriptions, lists of observed
plants, wetland classifications, and an evaluation of the existing or potential functions and values of
the wetlands can be found in Chapter 6 of this report. Item (3) of FWRC 16.25 addresses drainage
facilities on-site and how to determine if drainage features are considered regulated. As drainage
features W, X, Y and Z all have natural origins, do not meet wetland criteria, and are not actively
operated as surface water drainage facilities, the features are not considered regulated wetlands but
are regulated as fish and wildlife habitat. No impacts are proposed within identified wetland or
drainage features; however, limited project actions are proposed within regulated buffers and
setbacks to accommodate improvements to existing trails and a residential access road. An analysis
of how the project complies with the FWRC critical areas regulations is presented below.
7.1 Trail Improvements

The project proposes to preserve the existing, maintained utility easement that is located on the
north side of Stream Z and transits across the subject property. This utility easement is used as a
trail which traverses the stream buffer for Stream Z and the wetland buffer for Wetland B in an area
that is already impacted. According to FWRC 19.145.120(1), a public improvement may be placed
within a critical area if no practical alternative with less impact on the critical area(s) exists. Due to
existing infrastructure and slope limitations, no such alternative exists.
In addition, the proposed improvement is a required condition of project approval by the City of
Federal Way staff. The trail will connect to an existing bike path, and therefore, the location of the
proposed trail is restricted to its current placement. Locating the proposed trail elsewhere on the
subject property would cause greater impacts to on-site wetlands and drainages. No new stream
crossings are proposed as all smaller drainages are already culverted where the proposed path meets
each one. The buffer associated with Wetland B also includes a portion of the trail; however, in
following with FWRC 19.145.120(1) this modification is permissible within regulated wetland
buffers without the need for buffer averaging, reduction, or mitigation if there is no feasible
alternative for the proposed public improvement. In addition, the impacts proposed within the
buffer of Wetland B are associated with the improvement of the existing unimproved public trail
that will ultimately reduce ongoing impacts to the adjacent wetland and stream by reducing erosion
and sediment output from the currently unpaved trail; therefore, no compensatory mitigation for
these trail improvements are proposed. As Wetland B sits adjacent to Stream Z, and the proposed
trail will connect to an existing path, there is no alternative that will lessen buffer and setback
intrusion. The proposed north-south trail has been realigned to avoid Seep C and protect mature
trees. In addition, a staircase will be constructed from the northeastern access road down to the
existing pedestrian north-south trail to avoid the installation of a small rockwall and to preserve
maintenance access to the stormwater pipe. With this revision, the proposed north-south trail will
reroute southwest of its current location, turn west just above Seep C and circumvent a mature tree
immediately adjacent to Seep C. Rerouting the north-south trail to avoid Seep C and the mature tree
will require the path to turn uphill then traverse a steep area. Trail construction methods and
materials will minimize impacts to critical areas.

7.2 Access Road Intrusion into Drainage Y Buffer
The following section addresses code associated with the proposed ravine stabilizing crossing. This
crossing would intrude upon the 50-foot buffer associated with Drainage Y.
7.2.1 Stream Buffer Crossing
This project requires a road along the north portion of the property in order to provide access to
residential lots and to provide necessary connectivity between an existing stub of 22nd Avenue
Southwest and 21st Avenue Southwest. To install this road, the city’s required 50-foot buffer for
Drainage Y must be crossed.
A ravine stabilizing crossing will involve installing a reinforced earthen slope installed over a
pervious sill to maintain upland surface water flow connectivity into Drainage Y. The reinforced
earth slope will be replanted with native vegetation over this pervious sill. This design provides
stabilized slopes, a safe roadway for site access and buffer restoration where the ravine containing
Drainage Y begins in the northern portion of the subject property. Similar reinforced earth slopes,
also replanted with native vegetation, are also proposed in other areas of the proposed project.
Under FWRC 19.145.330 – Intrusion into Stream Buffers, a project can intrude into a portion of a
stream buffer; however, the proposed project must ensure the following criteria under 19.145.330
(3) are met in order to request approval for clearing and grading in the stream buffer: (a) It will not
adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat
within the stream or buffer area; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention
capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (e) It will not
be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a
whole; and (f) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property.
In order to prevent adversely affecting water quality and drainage functions on-site, adequate
stormwater detention and treatment facilities will be constructed. All existing hydrologic features
and vegetation within avoided buffers and setbacks will be preserved to maintain existing habitat
within the wetland, buffer, stream, and setback areas. Currently, native vegetation is compromised
by sparse cover and substantial deposits of trash and debris in the eastern portion of the Drainage Y
buffer, where the proposed road crossing would occur. Therefore, the proposed road crossing will
not negatively impact the typical hydrologic or habitat functions associated with this portion of the
buffer. Instead, the project will result in an increase in habitat functions due to the proposed clean
up, stabilization, and restorative planting plan. In addition, no culverting of any on-site stream
channel is proposed and loose debris that is located near Drainage Y will be removed in an effort to
improve water quality. The proposed project will be materially beneficial to the public as the project
proposes to create open space tracts and improve on-site pedestrian pathways. The proposed
project has been designed with specific erosion prevention and stabilization elements to avoid the
creation of unstable earth conditions and erosion hazards. The road is required for reasonable
development of the subject property in order to provide safe access to the proposed project. In
order to engage in clearing and grading activities within the stream buffer area, FWRC 19.145.340
must be followed. As the proposed project is also required to adhere to FWRC 19.65, Process III
must also be followed to submit a clearing and grading request.

In following with FWRC 19.145.330(2), the modification to the buffer associated with Drainage Y is
permissible within regulated stream buffers without the need for buffer averaging, reduction, or
mitigation if there is no feasible alternative for the proposed public improvement with a buffer
enhancement plan and shall demonstrate that the remaining and enhanced reduced buffer will
function at an equivalent or higher level than the standard buffer. However, the buffer associated
with Drainage Y is littered with rubber tires, domestic yard and house waste and other trash and
debris. This project proposes to remove all such trash and debris from the Drainage Y buffer in an
area equal to or greater than the area impacted by the proposed road crossing. In addition, areas
temporarily disturbed during road construction, such as the road prism and reinforced earth slope,
will be restored and replanted with native vegetation and a planting plan associated with the
Drainage Y buffer will be implemented.
The cleanup actions, drainage sill, and use of a stabilized slope with native plant cover on each side
of the access road will provide a net benefit to the existing habitat conditions on the site. This
design is resistant to settlement and seismic activity and yet will allow water to percolate downslope
into Drainage Y while the terraced design of the reinforced slope will allow for increased native
plant restoration opportunities, thus improving native plant cover and restoring areas currently
degraded by prior anthropogenic impacts and excessive erosion. Only 21,404 square feet (0.49 acres)
of the buffer area will be impacted by this road crossing design. Under FWRC 19.145.330(1),
construction of essential public facilities, public improvements, or public utilities may be permitted
within stream buffers. As the reinforced earthen slope over the pervious sill is necessary to prevent
erosion and ensure durability of the access road, these actions should be considered a minor public
improvement under FWRC 19.145.070(1).
Minor improvements of public facilities are permitted within stream buffers through Process III, as
long as the proposed project adheres to the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water
quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or
setback area; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will
not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (e) It will not be materially
detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole,
including the loss of significant open space; and (f) It is necessary to correct any of the adverse
conditions specified in a-e of this section.
As discussed earlier in this section, the proposed project is necessary to prevent erosion and stabilize
areas adjacent to the eastern access road, and will adhere to all criteria set forth under Process III.
Thus, buffer intrusion necessary for construction of stabilizing reinforced earthen slope is a
permissible action under FWRC 19.145.330. No other stream, drainage, wetland feature, or
associated buffer or setback will be impacted by the proposed project aside from an intrusion into
the northern portion of Drainage Y to accommodate an access road and stormwater facilities, and
improvements to existing trails within buffer and setback areas which will be improved with
pavement or mulch.

Chapter 8. Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan
8.1 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed project is to provide residential housing within the greater King
County area consistent with zoning and nearby uses to meet the growing needs of the area. The
proposed project intends to provide 20 single-family homes with new access roads, open space,
improvements to existing on-site trails, stormwater facilities and infrastructure, and associated
utilities and infrastructure. In addition, improvements are proposed to existing on-site trails.
8.2 Description
The applicant proposes residential development of approximately one-third of a 19.86-acre site.
The proposed project includes clearing and grading for construction of 20 single-family homes with
new access roads, open space, improvements to existing on-site trails, stormwater facilities and
infrastructure, and associated utilities and infrastructure. For further details, Appendix C provides a
site plan of the proposed project.
8.3 Mitigation Sequencing

The project has been redesigned to avoid impacts to the stream buffer to the greatest extent
possible. Approximately thirty-five (35) percent of the site is encumbered by regulated hydrologic
features and associated buffers and setbacks. In addition, the site contains several areas with steep
slopes which have associated buffers and critical areas. The project was designed to avoid and
minimize negative impacts and to provide restore any unavoidable negative impacts and to provide a
net increase in on-site ecological functions.
Unavoidable impacts to potential critical areas include stream buffer impacts to Drainage Y in the
north-central portion of the site to accommodate an access road. These impacts will be minimized
to the maximum extent possible. Through careful planning efforts, the proposed road alignment
avoids direct stream impacts by limiting the extent of the stream buffer crossing to avoid the most
sensitive critical areas and by constructing a ravine stabilizing crossing reinforced earthen slope
outside the OHW mark of Drainage Y. All construction activities are avoiding direct wetland and
stream critical areas impacts through careful project designing and confining development to
portions of the site that avoid critical areas.
The proposed planting will restore any lost stream buffer and enhance ecological functions and
value by providing additional functions according to the needs of the watershed and providing an
overall improvement to stream buffer areas. Stream buffer enhancement through non-native
vegetation removal coupled with native planting from a reputable source will allow for improved
hydrology and quality of water leaving the project site. Replacing non-native invasive vegetation
with native vegetation within the buffer will enhance the habitat functions provided by the site. A
diverse herbaceous layer will be established to provide browse, cover, and nesting for small
mammals, which in turn provide prey for raptors and other small mammals.

8.4 Description of Impacts and Minimization
In order to provide adequate access to all useable portions of the subject property, an internal access
road is necessary. Currently, the subject property is bordered to the south and north by existing
residences, and to the east by commercial development. Along the southern portion and to the west
of the subject property are steep slopes that preclude vehicular access. As a result, and as the ravine
associated with both Drainage Y and Stream Z completely bisect portions of the subject property
there is no feasible option that would avoid drainage buffer impacts. The project requires a road
along the north portion of the property in order to provide access to residential lots and to provide
necessary connectivity between an existing stub of 22nd Avenue Southwest and 21st Avenue
Southwest. To install this road, the city’s required buffer for Drainage Y must be crossed through a
proposed ravine stabilizing crossing. A ravine stabilizing crossing will involve installing a pervious
sill under a reinforced earth slope to maintain upland surface water flow connectivity into Drainage
Y. A reinforced earth slope, replanted with native vegetation will be constructed over this pervious
sill. This method provides stabilized slope, safe roadway and buffer restoration where the ravine
containing Drainage Y begins in the northern portion of the subject property.
Impacts to Drainage Y have been avoided and minimized by careful design and location of the
stream crossing. The proposed ravine stabilizing crossing was designed in a manner that will allow
for unimpeded surface water flow under the crossing, thus helping to protect habitat quality and
hydrologic connectivity of Drainage Y. In addition, impacts associated with the road crossing are
temporal, and buffers will be restored or enhanced without a net loss of habitat or function.
The proposed project will also involve upland work including: installation of temporary erosion and
sediment control (TESC) measures, grade and fill activities, installation of utilities, construction of
public roads, construction of single-family residential homes, and installation of stormwater
collection and treatment systems designed in accordance with King County’s approved stormwater
design standards outlined in the 2016, King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County,
2016).
8.4.1 Description of Proposed Property Access

As mentioned above, stream buffer impacts are unavoidable in order to construct safe access into
the areas of subject property where construction of single-family residential homes is proposed. The
road placement and necessary grading were designed to minimize stream buffer impacts within the
design standards of the City of Federal Way. These buffer impacts will be contained within the road
impact and trail improvement areas; however, associated non-compensatory mitigation will occur
throughout the buffer associated with Drainage Y. Upon project completion, a net gain in overall
stream buffer functions is anticipated.
8.4.2 Impact Minimization Recommendations
It is important to minimize impacts to all wetlands and streams and associated buffers or setbacks.
Recommendations to further avoid and minimize impacts to these sensitive and buffer and setback
areas include:
• Avoid the use of heavy equipment within all wetland, stream and associated buffer and
setback areas;
• Keep all equipment outside of all wetland, stream, and associated buffer and setback areas;
• Install an underlying quarry spall sill with filter fabric (or other suitable alternative) where the
road crosses the ravine associated with Drainage Y to ensure a mechanism for groundwater
hydrologic connectivity where fill will be placed;
• Replant any temporarily disturbed areas within the stream buffer adjacent to the reinforced
earthen slope disturbance with native vegetation;
• If necessary, use only pesticides, fertilizers, or herbicides approved for use adjacent to
aquatic features, and only as necessary. Where approved, herbicides should be applied by a
licensed pesticide applicator with an endorsement in aquatics and in accordance with the
application practices on the label. Avoid use of chemicals banned by the EPA in all areas;
• Use high visibility fencing to clearly mark all preserved buffer and setback areas prior to site
development actions, and
• Treated stormwater discharge should be tight-lined down the slope to uplands adjacent to
Stream Z to avoid potential erosion issues. BMPs and impact reduction construction
practices such as a stormwater dispersion pipe and a quarry spall splash pad should be used.
8.5 Mitigation Strategy

The objective of the proposed stream buffer non-compensatory mitigation actions is to enhance
water quality and habitat function associated with the Drainage Y buffer impacts and to provide an
overall net benefit in critical area functions by removing trash and debris and non-native invasive
plant species and replanting native vegetation where appropriate. This proposal has utilized, to the
maximum extent possible, the best available construction, design, and development techniques to
ensure the least amount of impact on the critical area and associated buffer area within the subject
property. TESC measures consisting of a construction entrance, silt fencing, seeding of disturbed
soils, and brush barriers will be installed. Stream buffer enhancement actions will include removing
and/or treating non-native invasive plant species, including Himalayan blackberry, English holly,
English ivy, et cetera and replacing removed plant cover with native shrubs and plants. Replacing
non-native invasive species with native vegetation will enhance the habitat functions provided by the
site. A diverse herbaceous layer will be established to provide browse, cover, and nesting for small
mammals, which in turn provide prey for raptors and other small mammals.
8.6 Mitigation Implementation

The following stream buffer enhancement actions will be completed concurrent with development
activities included in the proposed project. All wetland, stream, and 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. Details of each type of restoration
action are described below.
8.7 Planting Specifications

Due to the need for construction activities over and adjacent to Drainage Y, use of existing micro-
topography, targeted planting actions, and substantial coordination with the responsible Biologist
and Geologist may be necessary to properly implement the proposed restoration actions. The
project manager and grading contractor shall meet with the Biologist at the site before construction
activities commence in order to ensure restoration objectives will be met, critical elements are

properly addressed, and implementation of the proposed buffer impacts and restoration actions will
be conducted under the oversight of the responsible Biologist and Project Engineer for the duration
of the project.
The following specifications are established as a set of minimum standards for proper
implementation of the restoration actions. Additional actions, modifications, and/or substitutions
may be necessary at the time of construction and may be approved by the responsible Biologist and
Project Engineer.
8.8.1 Erosion Control and Pollution Prevention
Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures consisting of a construction entrance,
silt fencing, seeding of disturbed soils, and brush barriers will be installed using BMPs outlined in
the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and TESC Plan prepared by the
Project Engineer and approved by the responsible Biologist prior to clearing and grading activities
and construction of the stream buffer crossing. Once TESC measures are in place, hydric soils will
be salvaged, the site will be graded, and the restoration actions will proceed.
Equipment used for restoration will be typical for small excavation and grading activities and will be
kept in good working order free of leaks. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles will be kept
out of wetlands, streams, and buffers and the area will be kept free of spills and/or hazardous
materials. All lot leveling material and road surfacing will be sourced from upland areas on-site or
from approved suppliers, and will be free of pollutants and hazardous materials, and all concrete
wash water will be contained on-site.
8.8.2 Planting Scheduling, Species, Density and Location
Plant installation should occur as close to conclusion of impact activities as possible to limit erosion
and limit the temporal loss of function provided by the stream 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.
8.8.3 Plant Materials and Installation
All plant materials to be used on-site 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.
An approved native seed mix will be used to seed the disturbed areas after planting trees and shrubs.
The buffer seed mix will include 15 percent blue wildrye; 15 percent Idaho fescue; 15 percent red
fescue; 15 percent California brome; 15 percent large leaf lupine; 15 percent meadow barley. The
seed mixture used for hand or hydroseeding shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by
an approved method. In areas where invasive vegetation is removed the project proposes planting
snowberry, salal, Evergreen huckleberry, vine maple, sword fern, nootka rose, and Oregon grape to
increase plant diversity and prevent reestablishment of non-native invasive plant species.
Table 19. Stream Buffer Plant Species.

Plant Spacing on
Plant Name Size
Status center (oc)
Scientific Common
Acer circinatum Vine maple FAC 4 - 5 ft Bare Root
Berberis aquifolium Tall Oregon grape FACU 4 - 5 ft Bare Root
Berberis nervosa short Oregon grape FACU 4 - 5 ft Bare Root
Rosa nutkana Nootka rose FAC 4 - 5 ft Bare Root
Gaultheria shallon Salal FACU 3 ft Bare Root
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 3 ft Bare Root
Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen huckleberry FACU 5 ft Bare Root
Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry FACU 5 ft Bare Root

Table 20. Stream Buffer Seed Mix.
Approximate Percentage
Species Name Common Name
(by weight)
Elymus galucus Blue wildrye 15
Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue 15
Festuca rubra Red Fescue 15
Bromus carinatus California brome 15
Lupinus polyphyllus Large leaf lupine 15
Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley 15
All plant material shall be inspected by the Biologist 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.
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.
8.8.4 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 project biologist. 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.
8.8.5 Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials
The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the mitigation plan with the
Biologist prior to installation. The responsible Biologist 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 Biologist.
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 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 4 to 6 inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant.
8.8.6 Temporary Irrigation Specifications
While the native species selected for restoration are hardy and typically thrive in northwest
conditions, and the proposed restoration actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods
for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions during the
summer months. Therefore, irrigation or regular watering will be provided as necessary for the
duration of the first two growing seasons while the native plantings become established.
8.8.7 Non-native Invasive Plant Control and Removal
Non-native invasive species to be removed or treated include Himalayan blackberry, English ivy,
and any other listed noxious weeds. To ensure these species do not expand following the
restoration actions, non-native invasive plants within the Drainage Y buffer area 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 entire stream and associated buffer. The pre-treatment
with herbicide should occur prior to all planned restoration actions, and spot treatment of any
surviving other non-native invasive vegetation should be performed again each fall prior to leaf
senescence for a minimum of three years.
A maintenance program requiring annual removal of non-native invasive species within all stream
and buffer areas by a homeowner’s association following project completion, and written into the
subdivision’s Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions, is also recommended.
8.9 Maintenance and Monitoring

The Applicant is committed to compliance with the proposed restoration plan and overall success of
the project. As such the Applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping the Drainage Y
buffer restoration area free from non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and yard waste. Monitoring
regulations stipulated under FWRC 19.145.430(7) do not pertain to the proposed project as they
only apply to projects that propose wetland impacts. Nonetheless, the City of Federal Way’s staff are
requesting monitoring of Drainage Y’s stream buffer rehabilitation, in the form of a minimum of
five years of a maintenance and monitoring plan with environmental goals and objectives and
performance standards, and contingency plan.
While the Drainage Y buffer enhancement actions rely primarily on mechanical manipulations, the
establishment of herbaceous groundcover, restoration actions within the buffer, and invasive species
will require some continued monitoring and maintenance. As the restoration actions are limited to
restoration and enhancement of the stream buffer area, the restoration site will be monitored for a
period of 5 years with formal inspections by a qualified Biologist. 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 percent cover measurements at
two permanent monitoring stations/sample plots, walk-through surveys to identify invasive species
presence and dead or dying restoration plantings, photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife

observations, and general qualitative habitat and wetland function observations. No pruning is
proposed; however, annual monitoring efforts may result in recommendations including those
described below in Section 8.11 Contingency Plans.
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 plot. Circular sample plots,
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 buffer area
boundary. Trees and shrubs within each 30-foot diameter monitoring plot are then recorded to
species and areal cover. Herbaceous vegetation will be 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 wetland status is included
within the monitoring report.
8.10 Goals, Objectives and Performance Standards

In accordance with ESA guidelines for stream buffer rehabilitation, this section discusses the goals
and performance standards for the proposed project. The goals and objectives for the proposed
buffer restoration actions are based on improving buffer functions to compensate for project
impacts associated with the stream buffer intrusion of the residential access road. These actions are
capable of improving water quality and hydrologic functions, and providing a moderate to high level
of habitat function for stream buffer-associated wildlife. The goals and objectives of the proposed
restoration actions are as follows:
Goal – Improve habitat functions provided by the buffer associated with Drainage Y by, removing
loose debris within the buffer area, reducing presence of non-native invasive species and increasing
vegetation diversity within the buffer.
Objective 1 – Effectively control non-native invasive species from the stream buffer
enhancement areas.
Performance Standard 1 – Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than
20 percent total areal cover in any growing season following Year 1.
Objective 2 – Increase plant biodiversity in areas where non-native invasive species are
dominant.
Performance Standard 2 – A minimum of 5 native tree and shrub species will be

present within the buffers restored area in all monitoring years.
Performance Standard 3 – The restored buffer area on-site will contain a minimum
of 50 percent areal coverage of native vegetation by Year 2 and 60 percent areal
coverage by Year 3 in all strata. Native volunteer species will be included in areal
coverage calculations.

8.11 Contingency Plans
This section discusses the contingency plan for the proposed project. If observations 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 planting site fail, a contingency plan may be developed and
implemented with approval from the City of Federal Way. Such plans are adaptive and should be
prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed planting characteristics. Contingency plans can
include additional plant installation, 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 2 growing
seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function.
3. Irrigating the restoration 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 stream buffer areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation
occurs.
5. Removing all trash or undesirable loose debris from the wetland and buffer areas as
necessary.
6. Additional treatment of mechanical removal of non-native invasive plant species.

Chapter 9. Closure
The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application
to this project. They 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. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this
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 project may need
to be revised wholly or in part.
All wetland boundaries identified by SVC are based on conditions present at the time of the site
inspection and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland boundaries are validated by the
jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the wetland boundaries by the regulating agency provides a
certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be
regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the
regulating agencies can provide this certification.
As wetlands are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in
wetland boundaries may be expected; therefore, wetland delineations cannot remain valid for an
indefinite period of time. Local agencies typically recognize the validity of wetland delineations for a
period of five years after completion of a wetland delineation report. Development activities on a
site five years after the completion of this wetland delineation report may require revision of the
wetland delineation. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur.
Due of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be
revised wholly or in part.

Chapter 10. References
Anderson, P.S., Meyer, S., Olson, P, and Stockdale, E. 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.
Beauvais, G.P. and L. Johnson. 2004. Species Assessment for Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Wyoming. Prepared
for the US Bureau of Land Management. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Obtained May 2014. Western Grebe.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/westgrebe.pdf
Brinson, M. M., 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
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 and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.
Crisafulli, D.R., D.R. Clayton, and D.H. Olson. 2008. Conservation Assessment for the Larch Mountain
Salamander. USDA Forest Service Region 6.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-
1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
ESA Adolfson, 2007. City of Federal Way: Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for
the City of Federal Way. ESA Adolfson. Seattle, Washington.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal
Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Federal Way Revised Code, 2017. Section 19.145.260, Streams. City of Federal Way, Washington.
Federal Way Revised Code, 2017. Section 19.145.410, Regulated Wetlands. City of Federal Way,
Washington.
King County. 2016. Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department of Natural Resources
and Parks. August 24, 2016.
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. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Washington D.C.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2001. Hydric Soils List: King County, Washington. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C.
Null, William, G. Skinner, and W. Leonard. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for
Linear Projects. Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental Affairs Office
Wetland Strategic Plan Implementation Project
Reese, A. 2007. Addressing Food Conditioning of Cascade Red Foxes in Mount Rainier National Park,
Washington. Evergreen State College.
Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle, 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area,
Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station.
Soundview Consultants, LLC. 2014. Wetland and Stream Assessment Report - Creekwood Plat. Prepared
for Amalani LLC. February 14, 2014. Soundview Consultants, LLC. Gig Harbor,
Washington.
Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2001. Washington State Status Report for the
Bald Eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
University of Washington. Coastal News. 2004. Species of Concern: Western Grebe. Obtained May, 2014.
http://depts.washington.edu/coasst/news/features/western_grebe.html
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:
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2015. Advanced Training Manual

Version 02-2015. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects. Olympia,
Washington.

Appendix A — Methods and Tools
Table A-1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report.
Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference
Wetland USACE 1987 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/e Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Delineation Wetland Delineation lpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Manual Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Regional Supplement http://www.ecy.wa.gov/progra U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional

to the Corps of ms/sea/wetlands/pdf/WestMt_ Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Engineers Wetland May2010.pdf Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys,
Delineation Manual: and Coast Region (Ver2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W.
Western Mountains, Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3.
Valleys, and Coast Vicksburg, MSS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Region Development Center.
Wetland USFWS / Cowardin http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Do Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe.
Classification Classification System cuments/Classification-of- 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats- the United States. Government Printing Office,
of-the-United-States.pdf Washington, D.C.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013.
https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/ Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
projects/wetlands/nvcs-2013 United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition.
Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data
Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC.
Hydrogeomorphic http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ Brinson, M. M. (1993). “A hydrogeomorphic
Classification wetlands/pdfs/wrpde4.pdf classification for wetlands,” Technical Report WRP-
(HGM) System DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Wetland Rating City of Federal Way http://www.codepublishing.co Uses City Rating System under City of Federal Way
Revised Code m/wa/federalway/ Revised Code Title 19.145.
Wetland Western Mountains, http://wetland- Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and
Indicator Status Valleys & Coast plants.usace.army.mil/nwpl_sta N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant
2016 Regional tic/data/DOC/lists_2016/Reg List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-
Wetland Plant List ions/pdf/reg_WMVC_2016v1. 17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X.
pdf
Stream City of Federal Way http://www.codepublishing.co Uses City Rating System under City of Federal Way
Classification Revised Code m/wa/federalway/ Revised Code Title 19.145.260(2).
Plant Names USDA Plant http://plants.usda.gov/ Website
Database
Soils Data NRCS Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda. Website GIS data based upon:
gov/app/ Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973.
Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service in cooperation with
Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
and Washington State University, Agriculture
Research Center. Washington, D.C.
Hydric Soils King County Hydric http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydr Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011.
Data Soils List ic/ Hydric Soils List: King County, Washington. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C.
Threatened and Washington Natural http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Resea Washington Natural Heritage Program (Data
Endangered Heritage Program rchScience/Topics/NaturalHer posted to website November 2010). Endangered,

Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference
Species itage/Pages/amp_nh.aspxand threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington.
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
/refdesk/lists/plantsxco/king. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia,
html WA
Washington Priority http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program (Data
Habitats and Species htm map produced 07/10/12). Map of priority habitats and
species in project vicinity. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW).
USFWS species lists by http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/s Website
County e/SE_List/endangered_Species.asp
WDFW GIS Data http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/sal Website

monscape/

Appendix B — Background Information
This appendix includes a USFWS National Wetland Inventory map (B1), Site Vicinity map (B2),
King County Contours map (B3), Federal Way Wetlands Map (B4), DNR Map (B5), WDFW
SalmonScape map (B6), NRCS Soils Maps (B7), WDFW PHS Map (B8), and SVC All Layer Map
(B9).

Appendix B1. USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map
Approximate Location
of Subject Property

Appendix B2. Site Vicinity Map
of Subject Property

Appendix B3. King County Contour Map (iMap)
of Subject Property

Appendix B4. Federal Way Wetlands
of Subject Property

Appendix B5. DNR Map
of Subject Property

Appendix B6. WDFW SalmonScape Map
of Subject Property

Appendix B7. NRCS Soils Map
of Subject Property

Appendix B8. WDFW PHS Map
of Subject Property

Appendix B9. SVC All Layers Map
of Subject Property

Appendix C – Soil Sampling from Smelter Air Pollution

Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting
Comprehensive Assessment, Planning, and Permitting Services
2 9 0 7 Ha rborv iew Driv e

Gig Ha rbor, WA 9 8 3 3 5
Phone: 253.514.8952
Fa x: 2 5 3 . 5 1 4 . 8 9 5 4
Technical Memorandum
To: City of Federal Way File Number: 1001.0015
From: Rick Fuller, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: September 4, 2014
Re: Amalani LLC (Creekwood) (NWS-2013-1199) – Soil Sampling from Smelter Air
Pollution
Soundview Consultants LLC has been hired by Amalani LLC to provide soil sampling and analysis
following the Dirt Alert Soils Sampling Guidance (Publication #06-09-098) recommended by the
Department of Ecology (WDOE). The area in question is approximately a 19.86-acre site (Creekwood
Residential Plat). The subject property is located on one parcel in the northeast ¼ of Section 12, Township
21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. within the City of Federal Way, Washington (King County Tax Parcel
1221039037). The proposed residential plat includes single-family residences, stormwater tracts, open space
tracts, improvements to existing on-site trails, new access roads, and associated infrastructure.
This Technical Memorandum has been prepared for the proposed project as supporting documentation to
the Wetland and Stream Assessment Report in order to provide an analysis of concentrations of lead and
arsenic following the specific guidance manual for smelter air pollution.
Sampling Plan:
The concentrations of lead and arsenic in soils can vary widely. A robust sampling plan that includes
duplicates and composites many sampling points can help overcome the wide range of concentrations issue.
Our plan at this site was to take 11 samples, 5 composites and 5 single sampling points with one field
duplicate. The composites were spread evenly throughout the 20 acre site using 5 random grabs that were
then well mixed, subsampled and sent to a laboratory. The single grabs were randomly chosen at or near
suspected children play areas and submitted to the laboratory.
Sample Collection:
Eleven samples were collected; 5 individual grabs, 5 composites and 1 duplicate. All samples were submitted
to Spectra Environmental Labs in Tacoma, WA for lead and arsenic following the specific protocol called
for in WDOE’s “Soil Sampling Guidance”. Samples were taken using good field practices, stainless steel
sampling equipment, clean glass sample jars, from the 6-12” upper soil strata after any overburden was
removed, and under chain of custody. All samples were taken on 8/20/2014 between 1100 and 1400 hrs.
1001.0015 Creekwood Soundview Consultants LLC
Environmental Sampling 1 September 4, 2014
Sample Analysis:
A total of 11 samples were submitted to Spectra labs in Tacoma, WA for arsenic and lead following the
prescribed method for smelter plume studies. The particulate size exclusion limit is 2mm, anything over this
was discarded along with any leaves or other organic material. One field duplicate sample was submitted
along with the other 10 samples. The table below shows the analytical results in mg/Kg on a dry weight
basis.
Table 1- Sample Results
Sample Arsenic
Sample ID Time (mg/Kg) Lead (mg/Kg)
SS-01 (comp) 1130 32 95

SS-02 (comp) 1220 24 43
SS-03 (comp) 1230 27 77
SS-04 (comp) 1245 21 82
SS-05 (comp) 1330 6 10
SS-06 1145 14 18
SS-07 1200 8 <4
SS-08 1215 7 9
SS-09 1300 30 48
SS-10 *NR -- --
Site Average 18.8 42.7
Avg School and childcare 20-100 250-500
Avg Parks and camps 20-200 250-700
Any one sample- school 40-200 500-1000
Any one sample- Park 40-400 700-1400
*NR- Denotes that this data is not reportable due to the sample location. The sample was taken outside the
site boundaries.
Data Interpretation:
These data indicate that neither lead nor arsenic are an issue for this entire site according to WDOE’s soil
sampling guidance within the ARSCO plume methods and test results.

Sample locations (Google Maps)
Highlighted areas indicated on map above show an estimated area where those associated grabs were taken
in respect to the area map. Included on this map is a 1,526 foot marker for reference only.
Recommendation:
These soil samples were taken following good field practices and should be considered scientifically sound.
The data indicate that neither lead not arsenic are an issue with this site, all soils are below the WDOE
recommendation for actions within the ASRCO plume boundaries. One spot sample was deleted from the
data set due to the sample being collected outside the property boundaries and did not represent the soil for
the site. No sample results showed any concern for further actions towards hazardous waste cleanup
actions, including notifications.
Rick Fuller
Se n i or En vir onmental Scientist / Chemist
S o undview Co nsultants LLC
2907 Harb o rview Drive
Gig Harb o r, W A 98335
Office (253) 514-8952
Fax (253) 514-8954
Cell (253) 255-7188
rick@so u n d view co n sultan ts.co m
Environmental, Natural Resource, and Land Use Consulting
Co m p reh en sive Assessmen t, Plan n in g, an d Perm ittin g Services
Appendix D — Site Map and Plans
This Appendix includes the site map with the locations of existing and proposed physical features of
the site (delineated wetlands, hydrologic features, existing and proposed topography, stormwater
infrastructure, et cetera).

CREEKWOOD - EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
WETLAND G
CAT. IV
(10,558 SF)
40' WETLAND BUFFER
DRAINAGE SETBACK
CAT. IV
BUFFER
DRAINAGE Y
UNREGULATED (MAJOR)
SEEP (921 SF)
35
WETLAND D '
UNREGULATED
(644 SF)
35
'
35'
100'


CREEKWOOD
DRAINAGE W
31XXX 21ST AVE SW

DRAINAGE X (MINOR)
(MINOR)
10
0'
WETLAND B CULVERT
CAT. IV STREAM Z
(7,746 SF) (MAJOR)
WETLAND A DATE: 5/02/2017

UNREGULATED (LESS THAN 100 SF)
BY: JR
SCALE: 1" = 100'
SHEET 1 OF 3
CREEKWOOD - PROPOSED CHANGES / MAY 2017 UPDATE
BUFFER IMPACT AREA

WETLAND G
21,404 SF - 0.49 ACRES
CAT. IV
(RED HATCH AREAS TOTAL)
(10,558 SF)
PROPOSED REINFORCED EARTH
SLOPE TO BE PLANTED -
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 3
(ALSO SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS)
40' WETLAND BUFFER
DRAINAGE SETBACK
CAT. IV
BUFFER
DRAINAGE Y
UNREGULATED (MAJOR)
SEEP (921 SF)
35
WETLAND D '
UNREGULATED
(644 SF)
35
'
35'
100'


CREEKWOOD
DRAINAGE W
31XXX 21ST AVE SW

DRAINAGE X (MINOR)
(MINOR)
10
0'
WETLAND B CULVERT
CAT. IV STREAM Z
(7,746 SF) (MAJOR)
WETLAND A BUFFER IMPACT AREA DATE: 5/02/2017

UNREGULATED (LESS THAN 100 SF) (RED HATCH AREA)
BY: JR/DS
SCALE: 1" = 100'
SHEET 2 OF 3
CREEKWOOD - PLANT LISTS / MITIGATION PLAN
DRAINAGE SETBACK (TYPICAL)
(NOT TO SCALE)
NEW ROAD AND
PEDESTRIAN PATH
TRACT B (BUFFER)
TRACT H
(STORM)
REINFORCED EARTH SLOPE FACING DETAIL (PLANTABLE FACE FILL - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS)
(NOT TO SCALE)
REINFORCED
INSTALL PLANTS IN FACE OF EARTH SLOPE
REINFORCED EARTH SLOPE
LOCKING TAIL STRUCT
C350 TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (TRM)

TENSAR BX1120 GEOGRID
50'
INSTALL PLANTS IN FACE OF
OFFSET VARIES DRAINAGE Y

(1 1/2" MIN.) REINFORCED FILL (MAJOR)
REINFORCED EARTH SLOPE 3/4" (MIN.) TOP WRAP OF C350 TRM EXTENDING
BENEATH THE UNIT ABOVE
FACING UNIT
TRACT D1
(SEE NOTES 1 AND 2)
(CONSERVATION)
MAXIMUM LIMIT OF TOPSOIL (SEE NOTE 3) SHALL NOT
1 1/2" (MIN.) BOTTOM EXTEND MORE THAN 3" UNDER SUCCESSIVE FACING UNIT
WRAP OF C350 TRM
TENSAR UNIAXIAL GEOGRID IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ELEVATION VIEW TRACT D2
INSTALL PLANTS IN FACE OF (CONSERVATION)
35'
100'
TRACT C
(OPEN SPACE)
REINFORCED EARTH SLOPE CONNECTION

(PULL SLACK OUT OF CONNECTION)
100'
NOTES: TRACT D3
(CONSERVATION)
1. SEE REINFORCED EARTH SLOPE FACING UNIT DETAIL FOR FACING MATERIAL AND DIMENSIONS.
2. FACING UNITS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FROM BLACK STEEL. REMOVE INVASIVE PLANT

3. TOPSOIL SHALL BE LOAMY SAND OR FINER GRADATION WITH 10% - 15% ORGANIC CONTENT OR
SPECIES AND DEBRIS FROM
MATERIAL APPROVED BY A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

4. VEGETATION TYPE SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. DRAINAGE Y BUFFER AND

STREAM Z REPLANT ALL EXPOSED SOIL
(MAJOR) AREAS WITH NATIVE TREES,
CREEKWOOD
SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER
31XXX 21ST AVE SW

(SEE PLANT LIST)
PLANTING PLAN (TYPICAL)
(NOT TO SCALE)
50' DRAINAGE Y
SETBACK
PATH
PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS
AROUND EXISTING TREES
(SEE PLANT LISTS)
DATE: 5/02/2017
ST
50'
JOB: 1001.0015
RE
AM
BY: JR
Y
SCALE: N/A
EXISTING TREES
SEED WITHIN DRAINAGE SETBACK
USING DRAINAGE SETBACK SEED MIX
SHEET 3 OF 3
Appendix E — Data Sheets and Rating Forms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Margolese / Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-2013

Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'20.50" N Long: 122°21'57.71" W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: Climatic conditions show precipitation level is 40% below normal for the month, and 1.32 inches and 0.97 inches of rain fell within 2 weeks
and 1 week, respecteively, prior ro the site investigation. All three wetland criteria met.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnus rubra (not in plot, overhanging - not counted) 100 N/A FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
= Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species x1=
4. FACW species 50 x 2 = 100
5. FAC species 40 x 3 = 120
= Total Cover FACU species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5=
1. Glyceria elata 40 Y FACW Column Totals: 90 (A) 220 (B)
2. Ranunculus repens 40 Y FAC
3. Equisetum telmateia 10 N FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.44
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. Dominance Test is >50%
7. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
8. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
90 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
= Total Cover Present? Yes No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10
Remarks: Dominance test and Prevalence Index percentage meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria.
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
0-5 10YR 2/2 100 -- -- -- -- silty sand
5 - 12 2.5Y 3/1 98 10YR 4/2 2 RM M sand
1 2
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: 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)
3
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Indicators 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: Meets stripped matrix (S6) criterion. Hydric soil condition met.
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): 9
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No saturation above 9 inches due to pourosity of the sand. Water level at elevation similar to stream.

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 5%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'20.42"N Long: 122°21'56.56"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A

Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior ro the site investigation. Soils were not hydric. Not all three wetland criteria met.

1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
4.
1. Rubus spectabilis 15 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Acer circinatum 15 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species x1=
4. FACW species x2=
30 = Total Cover FACU species x4=
1. Column Totals: 30 (A) 90 (B)
2.
3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
9.
10.
11. 1
= Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
= Total Cover Present?
Yes No
Remarks: Ground covered with leaves. Dominance Test and Prevalence Index percentage meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria.
SOIL
0-8 2.5Y 4/3 100 - - - - Sand
8-10.5 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Sandy loam
10.5-16 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed. Does not meet S1, S4, S5, or S6.
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks: Porous sand - no saturation above water table. Water table at stream elevation.

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 15%

Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior ro the site investigation. Hydric soil and hydrology conditions not met. Not all three wetland criteria met.

2.
4.
3. OBL species x1=
4. FACW species x2=
5. FAC species 100 x 3 = 300
1. Column Totals: 100 (A) 300 (B)
2.
9.
10.
11. 1
= Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: Dominance Test and Prevalence Index percentage meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria.
SOIL
0-3 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - Silt loam
3-18 2.5Y 4/2 100 - - - - Sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed.
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks: Porous sand - No saturation above water table. Water table at stream elevation. No primary or secondary wetland hydrology indicators
observed.

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 10%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'21.07"N Long: 122°21'51.73"W Datum: WSG 84

Is the Sampled Area

2.
4.
1. Acer circinatum 100 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
3. OBL species 80 x 1 = 80
4. FACW species x2=
5. FAC species 100 x 3 = 300
1. Carex obnupta 80 Y OBL Column Totals: 180 (A) 380 (B)
2.
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-16 2.5y 4/3 100 - - - - Sand
16-20 N/A - - - - Sandy gravel
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: No primary or secondary wetland hydrology indicators observed.

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 8%

Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior ro the site investigation. Not all three wetland criteria met.

1. Alnus rubra 50 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
4.
50 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B)
3. OBL species x1=
4. FACW species x2=
5. FAC species 140 x 3 = 420
90 = Total Cover FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
1. Polystichum munitum 5 Y FACU Column Totals: 145 (A) 440 (B)
2.
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
Remarks: Dominance Test and Prevalence Index percentage do not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria.
SOIL
0-4 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loamy sand
6-13 5Y 3/2 100 - - - - Sand
13-20 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loamy sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 5%
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) NWI classification: N/A

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks: Climatic conditions show precipitation levels are 40%, 49%, and 10% below normal for the month, water year, and year-to-date,
respectively. All three wetland criteria met.

2.
4.
3. OBL species x1=
1. Tolmiea menziesii 20 Y FAC Column Totals: 90 (A) 265 (B)
2. Urtica dioica 5 N FAC
3. Epilobium ciliatum 5 N FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.9
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-18 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Sandy loam
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
Remarks: Hydric soil indicators A4 and S1 observed.
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks: Primary wetland hyrology indicators observed.

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 20%

Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior ro the site investigation. Soils were not hydric. Not all three wetland criteria met.

2.
4.
2. Rubus spectabilis 40 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species x1=
4. FACW species x2=
5. FAC species 130 x 3 = 390
1. Equisetum arvense 10 Y FAC Column Totals: 130 (A) 390 (B)
2. Tolmiea menziesii 20 Y FAC
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-3 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - Loamy sand
3-16 2.5YR 3/1 100 - - - - Sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks: Primary wetland hydrology indicators observed.

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 45%

Is the Sampled Area

2.
4.
1. Gaultheria shallon 5 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
3. OBL species 85 x 1 = 85
4. FACW species x2=
5. FAC species x3=
1. Carex obnupta 85 Y OBL Column Totals: 92 (A) 113 (B)
2. Rubus ursinus 2 N FACU
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-3 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Sandy loam
3-18 7.5YR 3/3 100 - - - - Sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Minor slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 25%

Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior to the site investigation. Hydric soil and hydrology conditions not met. Not all three wetland criteria met.

2.
4.
3. OBL species x1=
2. Equisetum telmateia 30 Y FACW
3. Athyrium felix femina 5 N FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.1
4. Geum macrophyllum 5 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-2 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Loam
2-16 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - Gravelly sand
16+ 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0-2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: No Saturation below 2 inches. No water in pit after 15 minutes.

Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Bill House Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Minor slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 25%
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: N/A

Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior to the site investigation. Hydric soil and hydrology conditions not met. Not all three wetland criteria met.

2.
4.
3. OBL species x1=
1. Agrostis sp. 30 Y FAC Column Totals: 70 (A) 180 (B)
2. Equisetum telmateia 20 Y FW
3. Athyrium angustum 20 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.57
4. Glyceria elata 10 N FW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-3 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Loam
3-17 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Gravelly sand
17-20 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loam
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0-3 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: No Saturation below 3 inches. Water flows into pit from surface. Area appears to be fill based on broken pieces of wood found at 10 inches
and herbaceous vegetation remnants at 12 inches. Hydrology indicators not observed.

Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Bill House Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 10%

Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior to the site investigation. All three wetland criteria met.

2.
4.
3. OBL species x1=
2. Ranunculus repens 30 Y FAC
3. Athrium filix femina 20 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.5
4. Equisetum telmateia 10 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-4 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Sandy loam
4-16 N/A 100 - - - - Sandy gravel Hard-packed at 4 inches
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
Remarks: Restrictive layer at 4 inches. Soil below 4 inches appears to be compact fill and considered a problematic hydric soil. Hydric soil indicator
(TF12) observed.
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks: Restricted layer at 4 inches. Hard rocked fill (sandy gravel). Primary wetland hydrology indicators observed.

Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Hannah Blackstock Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 15%

Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior to the site investigation. Not all three wetland criteria met.

2.
4.
2. Sambucus racemosa 10 N FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species x1=
2. Equisetum telmateia 5 Y FACW
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
Remarks: Prevalence Index percentage does not meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria.
SOIL
0-8 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loamy sand
8-16 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - Loamy sand
16+ 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 15

Is the Sampled Area

2.
4.
3. OBL species x1=
4. FACW species x2=
1. Athyrium angustum 50 Y FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Blechnum spicant 2 N FAC
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-3 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Silt loam
3-6 5YR 2.5/1 100 - - - - Gravelly loam
6-18 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Gravelly sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
Remarks: Hydric soil indicators observed.
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:


Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior to the site investigation. Not all three wetland criteria met

2.
4.
2. Alnus rubra 10 N FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species x1=
4. FACW species x2=
2. Rubus ursinus 10 Y FACU
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-8 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 - - - - Loam
8-17 2.5Y 4/2 100 - - - - Sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:


Is the Sampled Area

1. Acer macrophyllum 100 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Thuja plicata 10 N FAC
4.
3. OBL species x1=
4. FACW species x2=
1. Athyrium angustum 30 Y FAC Column Totals: 75 (A) 225 (B)
2. Urtica dioica 10 Y FAC
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
Remarks: Big leaf maple located on hummock. Therefore, it was not used in calculations. Dominance Test and Prevalence Index percentage meet
hydrophytic vegetation criteria.
SOIL
0-4 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Loamy sand
4-16 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Sandy loam
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
Remarks: Hydric soil indicators observed.
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:


Is the Sampled Area
and 1 week, respecteively, prior to the site investigation. Not all three wetland criteria met.

1. Acer macrophyllum 90 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
4.
1. Oemleria cerasiformis 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
3. OBL species x1=
4. FACW species x2=
1. Hedera helix 70 Y FACU Column Totals: 195 (A) 775 (B)
2. Polystichum munitum 20 Y FACU
9.
10.
11. 1
1.
Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
SOIL
0-8 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 - - - - Loam
8-17 2.5Y 4/2 100 - - - - Sand
1 2
3
Type:________________________________
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Wetland name or number A 1001.0015 Creekwood
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington

Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A 1001.0015 Date of site visit: 12/23/2013
Rated by J. Downs and E. Swaim Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 3/31/2016
HGM Class used for rating Slope 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 Google Earth 2016
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions or special characteristics )
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS

Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each
Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based
Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three
X Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings
(order of ratings
Improving Hydrologic Habitat is not
FUNCTION
Water Quality important )
List appropriate rating (H, M, L)
Site Potential L L L 9 = H, H, H
Landscape Potential L L L 8 = H, H, M
Value L M H Total 7 = H, H, L
Score Based on 7 = H, M, M
3 4 5 12
Ratings 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
CHARACTERISTIC Category
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above X
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update

Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for

Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #

Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods ) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands

Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands

Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) L 2.2
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands

Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 4.1
(can be added to another figure )
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) S 2.1, S 5.1

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3

HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington

For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
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.
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe

If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands.
If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be
used to score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it.
Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats

If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ),
The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps.
It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks.
The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow
depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep).
The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding
from that stream or river,
The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.

6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at
some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland.
NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding?
The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high
groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet.
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For
example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a
Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE
HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT
(make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for
the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of
the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10%
of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to

being rated use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional
within boundary of depression
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as
class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than
2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating.


SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in
elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance )
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
1
Slope is > 1% - 2% points = 2
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic
0
(use NRCS definitions ): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense
means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or
mowed and plants are higher than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 1
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6 - 11 = M 0-5=L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in
0
land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are
not listed in question S 2.1? 0
Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river,
0
lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue?
0
At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important
for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in 0
which the unit is found ? Yes = 2 No = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4=H 1=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page


SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose
the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants
should be thick enough (usually > 1 / 8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface
0
flows
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land
0
uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding
problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g.,
1
houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood
0
conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:


These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.

HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the
Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be
combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is
smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4

0
Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1
Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if :
The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime
has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of
hydroperiods ).
Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3

Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 0
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 or in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 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
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2

5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes
(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)
is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open
water, the rating is always high.
1
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams

in this row are

HIGH = 3 points

H 1.5. Special habitat features:

Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number
of points.
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long)
Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends
at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at
least 33 ft (10 m) 1
Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for
denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs
or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed )
At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas
that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians )
Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see
H 1.1 for list of strata )
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 3
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:
7.4 % undisturbed habitat + ( 0.17 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 7.485%
If total accessible habitat is: 0

> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:
1
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) -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
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?

H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose
only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated .
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant
or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
2
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the
Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or

regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a

watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If Score is: 2=H 1=M 0=L Record the rating on the first page

WDFW Priority Habitats

Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in
which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species
List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This
question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species
of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species,
forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha)
> 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters
exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200
years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy
coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see
web link above ).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a
dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above ).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that
interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open
Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of
relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page ).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the
earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m),
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings.
May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay
characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast
height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are >

12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are
addressed elsewhere.

CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS

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. 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?
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?
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.
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list
of Wetlands of High Conservation Value?
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. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation
Value and listed it on their website?
SC 3.0. Bogs
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 .
SC 3.1. 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?
SC 3.2. 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?
Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. 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?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4
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.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir,

p ( ) p , p ,
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?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog

SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands

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).
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?
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 )
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 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).
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
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.
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. 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)?
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. 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?
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

Wetland name or number B 1001.0015 Creekwood

Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland B 1001.0015 Date of site visit: 12/23/2013

(order of ratings
FUNCTION
Landscape Potential M L L 8 = H, H, M
4 4 5 13
Ratings 6 = H, M, L
6 = M, M, M
5 = H, L, L
5 = M, M, L
4 = M, L, L
3 = L, L, L
Estuarine
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above X


Western Washington

Riverine Wetlands

Hydroperiods H 1.2

Slope Wetlands

Hydroperiods H 1.2



Question 8.






SLOPE WETLANDS
1
0
0
0
0


SLOPE WETLANDS
0
flows
0
1
0




1
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
hydroperiods ).


1
All three diagrams

in this row are

HIGH = 3 points


of points.
Calculate:

Calculate:
1

2


watershed plan


web link above ).



Vegetated, and
SC 3.0. Bogs

p ( ) p , p ,



rocks
1 ac?

Wetland name or number D 1001.0015 Creekwood

Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland D 1001.0015 Date of site visit: 12/23/2013

(order of ratings
FUNCTION
3 4 5 12
Ratings 6 = H, M, L
6 = M, M, M
5 = H, L, L
5 = M, M, L
4 = M, L, L
3 = L, L, L
Estuarine
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above X


Western Washington

Riverine Wetlands

Hydroperiods H 1.2

Slope Wetlands

Hydroperiods H 1.2



Question 8.






SLOPE WETLANDS
0
0
0
0
0


SLOPE WETLANDS
0
flows
0
1




0
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
hydroperiods ).


1
All three diagrams

in this row are

HIGH = 3 points


of points.
Calculate:

Calculate:
1

2


watershed plan


web link above ).



Vegetated, and
SC 3.0. Bogs

p ( ) p , p ,



rocks
1 ac?

Wetland name or number E and F

Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetlands E and F 1001.0015 Date of site visit: 12/23/2013

(order of ratings
FUNCTION
Site Potential L M M 9 = H, H, H
3 5 6 14
Ratings 6 = H, M, L
6 = M, M, M
5 = H, L, L
5 = M, M, L
4 = M, L, L
3 = L, L, L
Estuarine
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above X


Western Washington

Riverine Wetlands

Hydroperiods H 1.2

Slope Wetlands

Hydroperiods H 1.2



Question 8.






SLOPE WETLANDS
0
0
0
0
0


SLOPE WETLANDS
1
flows
0
1




1
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
hydroperiods ).


1
All three diagrams

in this row are

HIGH = 3 points


of points.
Calculate:

Calculate:
1

2


watershed plan


web link above ).



Vegetated, and
SC 3.0. Bogs

p ( ) p , p ,



rocks
1 ac?

Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland G 1001.0015 Date of site visit: 12/23/2013

(order of ratings
FUNCTION
Site Potential L M L 9 = H, H, H
Landscape Potential M L L 8 = H, H, M
Value L M M Total 7 = H, H, L
4 5 4 13
Ratings 6 = H, M, L
6 = M, M, M
5 = H, L, L
5 = M, M, L
4 = M, L, L
3 = L, L, L
Estuarine
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above X

Western Washington

Riverine Wetlands

Hydroperiods H 1.2

Slope Wetlands

Hydroperiods H 1.2


Question 8.





SLOPE WETLANDS
0
0
0
0
0

SLOPE WETLANDS
1
flows
0
1


1
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
hydroperiods ).


1
All three diagrams

in this row are

HIGH = 3 points

of points.
Calculate:

Calculate:
1

1

watershed plan

web link above ).


Vegetated, and
SC 3.0. Bogs

p ( ) p , p ,


rocks
1 ac?

Appendix F — Qualifications
All field inspections, wetland boundary delineations, hydrologic conditions assessments, and
supporting documentation, including this Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
prepared for the Creekwood Plat were prepared by, or under the direction of, Jeremy Downs or
Jon Pickett, with assistance by Emily Swaim of Soundview Consultants LLC. The qualifications of
each scientist are detailed on the following pages.

Jeremy Downs, Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner
Jeremy Downs is the Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner for the project with professional
training and extensive experience in land use, site planning and design, project coordination,
permitting and management, marine and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and
benthic delineations and assessments, stream assessments, underwater and terrestrial monitoring
programs, and mitigation planning and design since 1987.
Jeremy earned a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology from the University of California, Davis.
In addition, he studied under the Environmental Risk and Recovery program at the Australian
Institute of Marine Science. He also holds graduate-level professional certifications in various
advanced wetland science and management programs from both Portland State University and San
Francisco State University, and he has received professional training in Salmonid Biology from the
University of California Extension.
Jeremy is a certified wetlands delineator under US Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. He has
been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of
Ordinary High Water Mark, Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, and
Reviewing Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and
Washington State Department of Ecology, and in conducting Biological Assessments from the
Washington Department of Transportation. He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist
and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions.
________________________________________ _05/08/2017____
Jeremy Downs Date
Soundview Consultants LLC

2907 Harborview Drive
Gig Harbor, Washington 98335
(253) 514-8952 Office
(253) 514-8954 Fax
jeremy@soundviewconsultants.com

Jon Pickett, Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner
Jon Pickett is a Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner with diverse professional experience in
habitat development as a Regional Biologist and Environmental Project Manager, with an emphasis
in wetland restoration and enhancement. Jon has extensive experience successfully planning,
developing, securing funding, managing and implementing numerous large-scale wetland habitat
projects aimed at restoring the biological and physical functions of wetlands throughout California’s
Central Valley and Southern California.
He worked to ensure the projects were designed and implemented to achieve habitat restoration
goals, including reclamation of wetland and floodplain habitats, reintroduction of aquatic complexity
and habitat, and reestablishment of riparian corridor. Jon also managed regulatory coordination to
ensure projects operated in compliance with Federal, State and local environmental regulations,
preparing permit documentation, coordinating with all pertinent agencies and stakeholders, and
developing and maintaining appropriate permitting timelines to ensure timely approvals.
He oversaw earthwork construction components and revegetation efforts, as well as post-project

monitoring, with an emphasis in native vegetation establishment and natural channel morphology.
Jon managed a 2,200 acre private wetland and upland habitat complex as a public trust resource for
conservation and consumptive use. Jon has worked with Federal and State agencies and private
entities on land acquisitions for conservational habitat and public use, including prioritizing
acquisitions relative to value and opportunity and funding.
____________________________________ _05/08/2017____
Jon Pickett Date

Gig Harbor, Washington 98335
(253) 514-8952 Office
(253) 514-8954 Fax
Jon@soundviewconsultants.com

Emily Swaim, Wetland Scientist/Field Geologist
Emily Swaim is a Wetland Scientist and Field Geologist with a background in delineating and
assessing wetland and aquatic systems, 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, 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 is also
educated in Environmental Science from Iowa State University. She also studied Wetland Science
and Management at the University of Washington in the Professional Continuing Education
Certification Program to further enhance her professional capabilities and wetland science
knowledge. Her education and experience has provided her with extensive knowledge on soils,
wetland science, restoration and field botany, hydrogeology, sedimentology, environmental and
wetland law, environmental geology, landscape ecology, and structural geology.
Ms. Swaim has been formally trained in the use of the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating
System for Western Washington, determination of the Ordinary High Mark, identification of
Wetlands of High Conservation Value, Grass, Sedge, and Rush identification, and how to administer
permits within Washington’s shorelines. She is also formally trained in Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) and is also Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA) 30-hour Construction and 10-hour Construction certified. She also has
extensive experience in environmental compliance monitoring involving final site restoration efforts.
Her former 115-mile 345 kV Electrical Transmission Line construction project won the Trumbull
County Soil and Water Conservation District’s Project and Contractor of the Year Award in 2014 in
regards to environmental compliance efforts that ensured regulatory compliance and successful
project implementation. Ms. Swaim is a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist.
________________________________________ 05/08/2017_____
Emily J. Swaim Date
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
(253) 514-8952 Office
(253) 514-8954 Fax
Emily@soundviewconsultants.com


Wetland Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Final 5.8.17

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Wetland Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Final 5.8.17

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

40' WETLAND BUFFER

A PORTION OF THE NE 1 4 OF SECTION 12,

TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 03E, W.M.

31XXX 21ST AVE SW

WETLAND A DATE: 5/1/2017

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Figure 1. Vicinity Map.

2.2 Project Description

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

4.2 Topography and Drainage Basin

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Alderwood and Kitsap Series

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

4.6 Priority Habitats and Species

Table 1. Precipitation Summary.1

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

5.2 Action Area

Figure 3. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels.

5.3 Assessment Techniques

5.4.2 Species Impacts

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Table 5. King County ESA-Listed Species and Determination of Project Effects.

Puget Sound Steelhead Trout

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon

Northern Spotted Owl

Table 6. King County State-Listed Species and Determination of Project Effects.

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

5.5 Conservation Measures and Habitat Management Recommendations

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Table 7. Wetland Summary.

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Boundary Flag color Orange

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Orange (only southern boundary

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Table 13. Functions of Existing On-site Wetlands.

Table 14. Waterbody Summary.

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Table 15. Waterbody Information Summary – Drainage W.

Feature Name Drainage W

Local Jurisdiction Federal Way

Documented Fish Species N/A

1001.0015 Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC

Feature Name Drainage X

Local Jurisdiction Federal Way

Waterbody Length (feet) N/A

Documented Fish Presence None

Location of Feature Eastern portion of property, west of Drainage W.

Documented Fish Species N/A

A Per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(c).