HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit MI98-0060 - LACY RODGER - FILLINGci9vr
MIcti?‘•a
CITY O( TUKWILA
Permit Center
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 431 -3670
Miscellaneous Permit Application
Application and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review.
Applications will not be accepted through the mall or facsimile.
Pro ect Name/Tenant:
Value of Construction:
Will there be storage of flammable /combustible hazardous material in the building? ❑ yes PA no
Attach list of materials and storage location on se.arate 8 1/2 X 11 •a•er indicatin..uantities & Material Safet Data Sheets
Site Address' 5. / �'-.. S I. ,A- d 2 -5- City State /Zip:
Tax Parcel Number:
' 1« 611'a
Phone:
(20&.,) r7..2,2 -- 6
o /-16 .-.1
7 /' `-i
Property Owner: ")
R Moo Y F. J__ A e ' f,;)
Street Address: G .��
PVC' - City State /Zip:
( 7, L LC UC' 13.. 5t ei /-li IA,' !l
Fax it:
Address:
r
Contact Person: c
-, A "y✓t C? cl 5 (1 6-1/-e,
Phone:
City /State /Zip:
Street Address: City State /Zip:
Fax #:
0 Sewer
Contractor:
0 GO k)e.,, / ki 11CA `-e Y-
Phone:
Street Address: City State /Zip:
- (%1Yv) , A` CI bUlf`(`!-
Fax #:
Architect: ��
/0 i
Phone:
Street Address: City State /Zip:
Fax #:
Engineer: 11 ff (( IA
J" G) U I,. c-17) t-- ' l e l,.) U 0 `!` Clt f )
Phone'
(a a) ) 5-`1 l9 -
'q O I
Street Address: ..) City tate /Zip:
to . j N, ,ZoI Loyu -e. - , :Pctbii.e ,(A/A 61-16) 'J
Fax #:
MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT REVIEW AND` APPROVAL REQUESTED: (TO BE FILLED OUT:BY'APPLICANT) ":.
Des ri.ti•n of work to,be done:
1ld ; ) e,.4a C) _ ._1 de - .
Will there be storage of flammable /combustible hazardous material in the building? ❑ yes PA no
Attach list of materials and storage location on se.arate 8 1/2 X 11 •a•er indicatin..uantities & Material Safet Data Sheets
■ Above Ground Tanks ■ Antennas /Satellite Dishes ■ Bulkhead /Docks ■ Commercial Reroof
❑ Demolition ❑ Fence ❑ Mechanical ❑ Manufactured Housing - Replacement only
❑ Parking Lots ❑ Retaining Wails ❑ Temporary Pedestrian Protection /Exit Systems
❑ Temporary Facilities ❑ Tree Cutting
AP, PLICANTREQUEST ;FOR' MISCELLANEOUS' PUBLIC'WORKS PERMITS`'.';
❑ Channelization /Striping
❑ Flood Control Zone
❑ Landscape Irrigation
❑ Storrn Drainage
❑ Water Meter /Exempt #
❑ Water Meter /Permanent it
❑ Water Meter Temp #
❑ Miscellaneous
❑ Curb cut /Access /Sidewalk ❑ Fire Loop /Hydrant (main to vault) #: Size(s): _
X Land Altering: 0 Cut cubic yards ,rie Fill jubic yards 0 sq. ft.grading /clearing
❑ Sanitary Side Sewer #: ❑ Sewer Main Extension 0 Private 0 Public
❑ Street Use ❑ Water Main Extension 0 Private 0 Public
0 Deduct 0 Water Only
Size(s):
Size(s):
Size(s): Est. quantity: gal Schedule:
❑ Moving Oversized Load /Hauling
MONTHLYSERVICEBILLINGS .TO;."
Name:
Phone:
Address:
City /State /Zip:
0 Water
0 Sewer
0 Metro
0 Standby
WATER`METER'DEPOSIT /REFUND •BILLING:..
Name:
Phone:
Address:
JCity /State /Zip:
Value of Construction • In all cases, a value of construction amount should be entered by the applicant. This figure will be
reviewed and is subject to possible revision by the Permit Center to comply with current fee schedules.
Expiration of Plan Review - Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall
expire by limitation. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days
upon written request by the applicant as defined in Section 107.4 of the Uniform Building Code (current edition). No application
shall be extended more than once.
Date application accepted:
y- .z- 98
Date application expires:
/Q 2 - 2 a
Application taken by: (initials)
MISCPMT.DOC 7/11/96
ALL MISCELLANEOUS PER1i APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMI D WITH THE FOLLOWING:
➢ ALL DRAWINGS SHALL B AT A LEGIBLE SCALE AND NEATLY DRAWN
BIJI itliG: A'F„ IN IS AND UTILITY PLANS ARE TO BE COMBINED
➢ ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED ARCHITECT
➢ STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON
LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
➢ CIVIL/SITE PLAN DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER
(P.E.)
SUBMIT APPLICATION AND REQUIRED CHECKLISTS FOR PERMIT REVIEW
❑ Above Ground Tanks/Water Tanks= Supported directly -upon grade.
exceeding 5,000 gallons and a ratio of height to diameter, or width
which exceeds 2:1
;Submit checklist.::
Antennas /Satellite Dishes
Submit checklist';:
Awnings /Canopies - No`signage
Commercial' Tenant.Improverpent
Permit
Bulkhead /Dock
Submit ,checkiist`:
❑
Commercial.Reroof
Subrnit checklist No::`M=
Demolition
Submit checklist'
Fences - Over 6 feet in Height
Submit checklist ..N6:
Land Altering/Grading/Preloads.
Submit checklist'': No::
Loading Docks
Mechanical(Residential & Commercial)
Miscellaneous Public;Works Permits
Commercial Tenant: Improvement >:
Permit. Submit: ci "ecklist No - H =:1;7" `
Submit checklist;
Residential :oily
' Submit" checklist;:
Manufactured Housing (RED INSIGNIA ONLY):
Submit checklist:,;: _No:
Moving Oversized:Load /Hauling
Submit checklist: '-':`N
Parking Lots
Submit : checklist: : ' No:; ;''M_4:
Residential Reroof Exempt with following exception :If :roof structure
to be repaired or replaced
Retaining Walls - Over 4 feet in height
Residential' BUIlding` Permit
"Submit,checklist
Submit checklist';';
Temporary:Facilities .•
Submit checklist ?:':No:
Temporary Pedestrian Protection/Exit Systems
Submit checklist: rNo: ' M-4,:'.
Tree Cutting
Submit checklist,: No: Mi =2
❑ Copy of Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Valid Contractor's License. If
not available at the time of application, a copy of this license will be required before the
permit is issued, unless the homeowner will be the builder OR submit Form H -4, "Affidavit
in Lieu of Contractor Registration ".
Building.Owner /Authorized. Agent If the applicant is other than the owner, registered a rcllitect/ engineer;'or,contradtorIicepsed
by the State of Washington, a notarized letter from the property owner authorizing the agent' to submit this:permit;appllcatlop and
obtain the permit will be required as part of this submittal.
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND I AM AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR THIS
PERMIT.
BUILDING OWNER OR AUTHORIZEAGENTf / = .
Signature: ,, ` f �- )
�,rr�ra�1% r ,,' :'1;//'.•���� r�:. _, f
/ /2 f , F
Date: �, f .� f
Print name: ,) C.
o ,.
Fax #:
Address: 44 l ,1_ ; 1_i _S'- r" V' > 0 ( )f
it ea St� ) l'PJAI l i rl
MISCPMT.DOC 7/11/96
?erntif c!oout
PLAN REVIEW /ROUTING
ACTIVITY NUMBER: M198 -0060 DATE: 4 -2 -98
PROJECT NAME: RODGER LACY
DEPARTMENT:
in Divisrlion FiPreienti
rks truct I
C
Planning Division
Permit Coordinator
DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS: (Tues, Thurs) DUE DATE: 4 -7 -98
Complete n Incomplete
Not Applicable E
Comments:
TUES /THURS ROUTING: Please Route ❑ No further Review Required ❑
Routed by Staff ` (if routed by staff, make copy to master file and enter into Sierra)
REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE:
APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: (ten days)
Approved ❑ Approved with Conditions
REVIEWER INITIALS:
DUE DATE: 4 -21 -98
Not Approved (attach comments) n
CORRECTION DETERMINATION:
ell'
DATE:
Approved ❑ Approved with Conditions E
DUE DATE:
Not Approved (attach comments) [,]
REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE:
\PR"ROUTE,DOC
1/98
!roes Kelcie Peterson
Tot Brian, Gary -B, City- PO.Jason
Dates 9/11/98 10:29am
Subjects Rodger Lacy Permit (MI98 -0060)
Mr. Lacy's permit for land altering (filling low areas of property) will expire on
October. 2, 1998. A correction letter was mailed to him on May 15, 1998. He has
yet to respond. Please let me know what the status is of this permit application
in your department (any correspondence, stop - works, etc.) I would appreciate a
response by the end of next week (9/18/98).
Thank you.
CCs Jack, Joanna, Ross -E
From: Brian Shelton
To: Kelcie0TUK- MAIL.6300 -PO,
Date: 9/17/98 10 :20am
Subject: Rodger Lacy Permit (MI98 -0060) -Reply
got your message.
working on answer for you.
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
May 15, 1998
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Mr. Rodger Lacy
4133 - 46th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98118
Dear Mr. Lacy:
SUBJECT: CORRECTION LETTER #1
Development Permit Application Number MI98 -0060
Lacy, Rodger
S 158 St & SR -518
This letter is to inform you of corrections that must be addressed before your
application for development permit can be approved. All correction requests from
each department must be addressed at the same time and reflected on your drawings. I
have enclosed comments from the Public Works Department and the Planning Division
At this time the Building Division and the Fire Department have no comments
regarding your application for permit.
The City requires that two (2) complete sets of revised plans be resubmitted with the
appropriate revision block.
In order to better expedite your resubmittal a Revision Sheet must accompany every
resubmittal. I have enclosed one for your convenience. Corrections /revisions must be
made in person and will not be accepted through the mail or by a messenger service.
If you have any questions please contact me at the City of Tukwila Permit Center at
(206) 431 -3672.
Sincerely, .
Kelcie J. Peterson
Permit Coordinator
Enclosures
File: MI98 -0068
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
DATE: May 12, 1998
PROJECT: Lacy Land Altering
PERMIT NO: MI98-0060
PLAN REVIEW) R: Contact Joanna Spencer at (206) 433-0179, if you have any questions
regarding the following comments.
1. Resolution of issues identified in May 4, 1998 memo from Steve Lancaster, Director of
Community Development should be resolved before Public Works department can
proceed with the site plan review.
TO:
FROM: Steve Lancaster
L
SUBJECT: Land Altering Permit Application #MI98 -0060
DATE: May 4, 1998
TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kelcie Peterson
INTER - OFFICE MEMO
The purpose of this memo is to review the referenced Land Altering Permit application with regard to
compliance with Chapter 18.45 TMC, Sensitive Areas Overlay (SAO) regulations.
A wetland study was submitted with the application, as required by the SAO. The wetland study, prepared
by Shapiro & Associates, was reviewed by Gary Schulz (April 9, 1998 memo attached). Mr. Schulz
disagreed with the conclusions reached by Shapiro. I determined that an independent review by a third party
would be appropriate, and retained the services of Adolfson Associates, Inc. to review the Shapiro study.
The results of Adolfson's review is contained in a letter dated April 22, 1998 (copy attached). To
summarize, Adolfson concluded that the wetland delineation prepared by Shapiro appears to be inaccurate.
The ability to permit grading and filling as requested depends upon the nature and extent of sensitive areas
on and adjacent to the site. The issues raised by Mr. Schulz and by Adolfson must be addressed by the
applicant's consultant before application #MI98 -0060 can be processed further by this office.
I would note that even if the wetland/upland boundary identified by Shapiro were verified as correct, grading
and filling the property in the specific manner proposed by the application cannot be approved. The plans
submitted do not provide sensitive area buffers as required by TMC 18.45.040. This could include an
appropriate buffer from the watercourse along the southern boundary of the site. While I understand that the
property owner hopes to pipe this watercourse, I believe that a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the
State would be required to accomplish this. If the owner is unable to obtain such a permit and must leave the
watercourse open, it will be subject to the appropriate buffer requirements of the SOA. I would urge the
applicant to contact the State Department of Fisheries (425.391.4365) to investigate the need for an HPA
prior to finalizing his plans.
Finally, it appears that the subject site, and possibly some adjacent property, has been improperly cleared and
graded without a land altering permit. By copy of this memo to the City Engineer, I am recommending that
appropriate enforcement action be taken.
cc: Brian Shelton, City Engineer
Gary Barnett, Development Engineer
Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
Rhonda Berry, Assistant City Administrator
22 April 1998
Jack P. Pace, Planning Manager
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Rodger Lacy, Sr. Property Wetland Study
Dear Mr. Pace:
FILE COPY
46411im
ADOLFSON
ASSOCIATES, INC.
RECEIVED
APR 2 4 1998
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Adolfson Associates, Inc. (AAI) is pleased to present the following summary of my study
of wetland conditions on the Rodger Lacy, Sr. Property in Tukwila. The subject property
is located near Crystal Springs Park in Section 32, Township 23 North, Range 4 East
(W.M.). The site is triangularly shaped, covering about 4,000 square feet. It is bounded
to the south and west by additional property owned by Mr. Lacy, and to the
north/northeast by right -of -way for State Route 518. My study consisted of a review of
several pertinent documents, and a site visit conducted on Monday, 20 April 1998.
Documents that I reviewed include:
• A letter to Mr. Lacy, dated 27 March 1998, prepared by Shapiro & Associates, that
describes the results of wetland delineations they conducted on the site (from data
sheets appended to the letter, it appears that their field work was conducted on 24
March 1998);
• A proposed grading plan sheet, dated 30 March 1998, prepared by The Galli Group;
• A letter to the Tukwila Public Works Department, dated 31 March 1998, prepared by
The Galli Group, that describes the proposed grading plan noted above;
• A boundary and contour survey of the site, dated 28 February 1995 and revised on 1
March 1998, prepared by Lund & Associates;
• A City of Tukwila Miscellaneous Permit Application for filling "low areas" of the
subject property, dated 2 April 1998 (Permit No. MI98- 0060);
• City of Tukwila Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations (Jones &
Stokes, 1990); and
• City of Tukwila Watercourse Rating Data Sheets (Jones & Stokes, 1990).
Based on the contour survey and as observed in the field, the site slopes down towards the
northeast; The Galli Group letter states that the slope gradient is about 10 percent, and the
contour survey indicates that elevations range from about 228 feet to about 250 feet.
Note that the majority of the property, as well as nearly the entirety of the adjacent Lacy
Property to the south, had been recently disturbed, From the dominance of grasses, and
from the cemented nature of the soils, it appears that clearing and grading activities have
occurred.
tvifiBb�bO
A channelized stream is located along the southern boundary of the property. The stream
was flowing on the day of my site visit, although substantial rain had not occurred in the
preceding week, and temperatures during that time approached 70 °F. The stream
emerges from a forested wetland to the west of the site; presumably, stream flow noted on
20 April 1998 was due primarily to groundwater discharge.
I used the definitions, criteria, and procedures of the 1997 Washington Stale Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual to determine that much of the northern and
western portions of the property boundary are wetlands. The wetland is an extension of
the forested wetland to the west, and on the subject property, is located both along sloping
portions of the western property boundary as well as in a depression that covers
approximately 700 square feet. I could not determine how the depression was formed.
However, at least the northernmost portion of the depression does not appear to have
been recently created through site grading activities, as a fence along the State Route 518
right -of -way showed no signs of having been previously buried (the bottom of the fence is
at the same elevation as the northern part of the depression) and a fallen red alder in the
depression had also obviously been growing at that elevation for years.
Soils throughout both the sloping portions of the wetland and within the depression were
saturated during my field visit (again, substantial rain had not occurred for more than a
week prior to my visit), and were clearly "hydric" soils, that is, indicative of long term
anoxic /reducing conditions. Areas of standing water ranging up to seven inches in depth
were found within the depression. From the saturated and /or inundated soils, it appears
certain that wetland hydrologic conditions exist in these locations. As noted above,
vegetation throughout the site has been altered, so plants would not be expected to be a
good indicator of wetland conditions at this point. However, despite the recent site
disturbance and the presence of seeded grasses, numerous common wetland plants -
including skunk cabbage, an obligate wetland species - were noted within the wetland,
Note I did not conduct a formal wetland delineation, and therefore, can only estimate the
extent of the wetland. It would be particularly challenging to determine the wetland
boundary on the south side of the depression, as the soils are disturbed (thus having
become somewhat cemented). Further, the stream is located above the depression to the
south - it would be important to determine if the stream "leaks" shallow groundwater that
may create wetland conditions, thus connecting the stream to the depression.
Based on my observations, the Shapiro & Associates wetland delineation appears
inaccurate. While a professional survey of their delineation flagging was not included in
their letter report (a hand sketch showing approximate locations was provided), I was able
to located all four of their flags. The wetland clearly extends both south of Flag No. A2
(the southernmost on -site flag) and clearly extends east of Flag No, Al (the easternmost
on -site flag). All four flags are located on the slope above the depression. I found
saturated, hydric soils outside of the delineated wetland (that is, within areas identified as
uplands in the Shapiro letter) as well as hydrophytic plants, including skunk cabbage.
Further, the depression was identified as upland in the Shapiro letter. This is confusing, as
their letter states that "surface water" was present at the time of their visit (on 24 March
1998, which is well into the growing season) and that the soil color was very dark gray
(10 YR 3/1 on a Munsell Soil Color Chart). Dark soil colors, especially when standing
water is present weeks into the growing season, are usually a strong indicator of wetland
conditions. The text of the letter states that the depression is not a wetland due to the
"depression microtopography," the "dominant upland" vegetation, and the upland soils
surrounding the depression. However, microtopographic depressions are obvious
locations in which wetlands might form, and would not be evidence that uplands occur
there. Further, the appended vegetation data sheet (for Sample Plot 4, identified in the
text and hand sketch as being within the depression) states that 75 percent of the dominant
vegetation has a wetland indicator status of obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland
(FACW), or facultative (FAC): this is wetland dominated vegetation, not upland
dominated vegetation. Indeed, at the bottom of this data sheet Shapiro staff clearly state
that hydrophytic (that is, wetland) vegetation is present. On the soils and hydrology data
sheet for Sample Plot 4 (also appended to the letter), Shapiro staff state that all three
mandatory criteria for wetland identification have been met. Curiously, they also indicate
on that data sheet that there had been no significant disturbance to soils, hydrology, or
vegetation, but also indicate on the data sheet that the vegetation had been recently
removed. Lastly, the upland nature of the soils surrounding the depression would have
little or no bearing on a wetland determination within the depression itself.
Based on my observations, and assuming that the on -site wetland is an extension of the
forested wetland to the west, then this wetland would likely be rated a Type 2 wetland
according to the Tukwila Zoning Code. The City's Zoning Code requires 50 -foot buffers
for Type 2 wetlands. I did not determine the rating of the stream along the southern
property boundary; however, it is likely that this stream would be either a Type 2 or Type
3 watercourse. Type 2 watercourses require 35 -foot buffers and Type 3 watercourses
require 15 -foot buffers. Given the location and rating of the wetland and stream, and their
respective buffer requirements, it appears that that much, perhaps a majority, of the site is
either a sensitive area or buffer. To accurately make this determination, further wetland
delineation work - including a professional survey of wetland flagging - would be
necessary.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to conduct this study, and to provide these.
comments. If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 789 - 9658. Thank you.'
Sincerely,
Andrew T. Chstelle, PWS, CPSS
Director of Natural Sciences
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: April 16, 1998
RE: Environmental Review for Land Altering Permit #MI98 -0060.
FILE "OPY
This memo is written to address any environmental impacts associated with the proposed fill activity on a
parcel located north of the current Lacy building permit project, Tract 48. Shapiro & Associates, Inc. have
investigated the site and reported their findings to Mr. Lacy in a letter report dated 3/27/98. My review
requires a site visit to verify the report findings. The results of my review are as follows:
Project site existing conditions
The triangular piece of property is about 4,000 square feet in size and borders the Lacy property to the south
and WSDOT's ROW to the northeast. A watercourse flows across the south edge of this site and enters a
WSDOT drainage swale. Most of this parcel has been recently cleared to bare ground. There is evidence of
native tree and shrub cover that was removed throughout the area of disturbed ground. Clearing has extended
west onto Tax Lot 402. This area has also been very recently seeded with domestic grasses.
The site slopes from west to east and north. The east portion of the site adjacent to WSDOT fencing is a low
depression area extending across the subject property. Standing water and slow drainage to the north were
observed in this depression. The estimated size of the depression is 600 square feet and is considered to be
wetland area. If extended off -site either north or west, the wetland would be rated a Type 2 due to a forested
component.
Unauthorized clearing of wetland and wetland buffer areas has occurred on the parcel proposed for filling and
also on the adjacent Tax Lot 402 to the west.
Wetland assessment findings
The wetland study by Shapiro & Associates determined that most of the subject parcel is upland. I have
evaluated the site related to the findings of the wetland study and have the following comments.
1) The report does not refer to the City's wetland or watercourse inventories, conducted in 1990. The
area of the subject property includes inventoried wetland #19 and inventoried watercourses 22 -7 and
22 -8. Watercourse 22 -8 is mostly contained within the adjacent WSDOT right -of -way. The
referenced "stormwater ditch" on the site is a regulated watercourse supported by groundwater.
2) The SCS King County Area soil mapping, cited in the Shapiro report appears to be near the border of
the property but located off -site to the east. Regardless of actual location the mapped soils do not
correlate with report findings.
1 .I
Lacy, #MI98 -0060 Memo
April 16, 1998
Page 2
3) Because the area has been recently cleared, the wetland assessment could be subject to the Atypical
Situations (Disturbed Area) methodology. The report and data forms refer to the site being cleared of
blackberry (upland related), and therefore, the majority of data points were not included for the
hydrophytic vegetation criteria. There was nor correlation to adjacent undisturbed vegetation or other
observations.
My observations of the disturbed ground includes remnant sahnonberry shrubs and red alder trees
which are considered hydrophytic vegetation. Reliance on soil conditions is acceptable, however, the
entire area does not appear to have been covered by blackberry.
The on -site depression area is approximately 40 feet long and about 600 square feet in size. The area
has standing water, hydric soils, and a drainage pattem that extends off -site to the north. Data Plot #4
confirms all three wetland criteria are met; however, the area was not determined as wetland.
Groundwater is entering this depression from the adjacent disturbed slope to the west. In addition,
skunk cabbage, an obligate wetland species, is growing on the slope area that appears to be outside
the flagged wetland boundary.
4. Although mentioned in the conclusion, the report does not identify the Sensitive Area Ordinance
classification and standard buffer. Wetland A is a forested wetland that likely exceeds 1.0 acre and
will be rated a Type 2. Type 2 wetlands have a standard 50 -foot buffer and are protected from most
uses.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the wetland determination conducted by Shapiro & Associates. If this
proposal is continued the approved wetland delineation will need to professionally land surveyed and impacts
identified. This project is not part of the Lacy Reasonable Use Permit and appears to be outside of the
administrative approval process.
cc: Gary Barnett, Project Development Engineer
Jack Pace, Planning Manager
GG
THE GALLI GROUP
Geocechnical Consulting
March March 31, 1998
Project 98- 1041 -05
City of Tukwila Public Works
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Attention: Grading Permit Center
Subject: Rodger Lacy Sr. Property
Proposed Grading Plan
A Portion of Sunnydale Gardens
The Galli Group has prepared a proposed grading plan for the triangular piece of property north
of Tract 48 and east of Tax Lot 402 in Sunnydale Gardens (see attached survey). The parcel is
adjacent to property owned by Mr. Lacy which is currently planned for improvements under an
approved building permit. The site is triangular in shape, and contains approximately 0.1 acres. It
slopes toward the NE at a grade of about 10 percent.
The proposed grading plans for receiving embankment fill from excavation activities on Tract 48.
The embankment should be constructed of material compacted in nor greater than 10 -inch lifts to
a minimum compaction of 88 percent modified proctor density. Maximum side slopes of the
embankment should be limited to 3H:1 V to minimize sloughing of material.. The fill will approach
6 feet at it's maximum thickness, but the majority of the fill will be less than 3 to 4 feet thick and
feather out to match existing grade at the property limits.
We estimate the total fill amount to be on the order of 360 cubic yards. Fill placement will not
adversely affect the stability of the site. A silt fence should be constructed prior to placing fill
material, and should be maintained until permanent vegetation is established. Impact to existing
FiECEIVED
APR 2 - 1998
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WC1Ptec..., -.
Proposed Grading Plan
Project 98- 1041 -05
Page 2
drainage patterns will be minimal. Sheet flow from the west will tend to collect against the fill and
drain toward the north, but will still discharge overland to the existing WSDOT Swale.'
Please contact us if you have any questions or something needs additional clarification.
Sincerely,
THE GALLI GROUP
Paul L. Stoltenberg P.E.
Project Engineer
Attached: Boundary and Contour Survey
Proposed Grading Plan (Enlarged Area)
March 27, 1998
Nil IOW
SHAPIRO
& ASSOCIATES. INC.
Mr. Rodger Lacy
4133 46th S.
Seattle, Washington 98118 '
Re: Tukwila Wetlands Study
Dear Mr. Lacy:
At your request, Shapiro and Associates, Inc. (SHAPIRO) visited your property in the City
of Tukwila, King County, Washington on September 25, 1997 in order to identify and
delineate wetland boundaries. The site (Figure 1) is bounded by Crystal Springs Park on
the south, SR518 to the north and 51st Avenue S. to the east (Township 23N, Range 4E,
Section 22).
Methods.
Wetlands on the site were identified and their boundaries established using methods
described in the, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987), commonly. referred to as the 1987 Manual. Wetland
boundaries were marked with bright orange flagging labeled "WETLAND BOUNDARY"
with red flagging. - Wetland flagging was numbered in sequential order. Sample plots were
established at the site. Soil was characterized by digging a hole to a depth of at least 18
inches below the ground surface. Soil layers, or horizons, were described with regard to
the soil texture, color, presence or absence of redoximorphic features (such as mottling or
gley color formation), and organic matter content. All herbaceous plant species within a 5-
foot radius of the soil pit were identified, and the percent of the ground each covered was
estimated. All shrubs, saplings, and trees within a 30 -foot radius of the soil pit also were
identified and their cover estimated. Data collected at each of these - sample plots were
recorded. Data forms are attached.
Results
A review of existing literature, including the National Wetland Inventory, Des Moines,
4 rV.
Washington uadran le U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987), and the King County
• 1� WA 9B104 Wetlands Inventory (King County Environmental Division, 1990), indicates that the site
e
was not identified as a wetland at the time of those surveys. The King County Wetlands
Inventory does not map wetlands less than 1 acre in size.
The Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (United States Department of
.24 9190 .Agriculture: Soil Conservation Service, 1973) has mapped the site as containing the
Arents, Alderwood soil series. This soil series is characterized as being so disturbed by
urbanization that it can no longer be classified with the Alderwood series. The Arents,
Alderwood series has not been classified as hydric according to Hydric Soils of the United
States (United States Department of Agriculture: Soil Conservation Service, 1985).
RECEIVED
APR 2 - 1998
ogshap:com
k1 •ooro
TuKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Rodger Lacy
Page 2
March 27, 1998
The investigated area is an approximately 4000- square -foot parcel in the northern section of
the property (Figure 2). The triangular shaped parcel slopes downhill from southwest to
northeast. A stormwater ditch traverses the property from west to east. The' ditch is the
southern boundary of the investigated area. The northern boundary is the chain link fence
that designates the right of way property line of SR518. The western boundary is forested
with upland and wetland habitat. The vegetation on the investigated area includes recently
planted grasses, bare ground, and clumps of blackberry bushes. There is evidence that a
road previously existed along the north side of the ditch.
A wetland was identified in the western area of the parcel approximately 40 feet east of the
forested area of the property. This wetland boundary was designated Wetland A and
flagged from Al to A4 in a north south line from the chain link fence to the ditch. This
wetland would be classified as a palustrine emergent /scrub shrub wetland. The Wetland A
boundary is approximately 80 feet long. The wetland was investigated for approximately
50 feet west of the wetland boundary. The area east of Wetland A was identified as
upland.
Eight sample plots were established at the site (see Figure 1). Sample Plots 1, 2, and 3
were characterized with vegetation dominated by what appears to be a recently planted
commercial grass seed mixture including bluegrass (Poo sp.), bentgrass (Agrostis sp.),.and
fescue (Festuca sp.). Vegetation also includes common horsetail (Equisetum arvense),
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and trailing blackberry (R. cusinus). The trees in
Sample Plot 2 are on the north'side of the chain link fence and include big -leaf maple (Acer
ncacrophyllurn) and red alder (Alms rubra). The soils at Sample Plots 1 and 3 are dark
brown to brown (10YR 4/3 and 10YR 3/3) loams and sandy loams. The mottles are olive
brown (2.5Y 4/3), few, and medium.. The soils at Sample Plot 2 are very dark grayish
brown to yellowish brown (10YR 3/2 and 10YR 5/4) sandy loams. The mottles are olive
brown (2.5Y 4/4), few, and fine. The soils had no hydrological indicators. None of the
wetland parameters are met at Sample Plots 1., 2, and 3. Sample Plot 7 has soils and
hydrological characteristics consistent with Sample Plots 1 and 3. Vegetation is the only
wetland parameter met at Sample Plot 7.
Sample Plot 4 is in a depression approximately 20 square feet in area. The dominant
vegetation is Himalayan blackberry. The ground is mostly bare with traoe amounts of
common horsetail. The soils are very dark gray to very dark brown (10YR 3/1 and 10YR
2/2) sandy loams with no mottles. There was surface, water at the time of the investigation.
This area is not identified as a wetland due to the depression microtopography, the
dominant upland vegetation, and the consistent upland soils surrounding the depression.
Sample Plots 5, 6, and 8 characterize the wetland area of the parcel. Vegetation includes
the grass seed variety, common horsetail, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and large
patches of bare ground. Soils are dark gray to very dark gray (10YR 3/1 and 10YR 2/2)
loam and sandy loams. Mottles in Sample Plot 8 are yellowish brown (2.5Y 5/4), few,
and medium. All three sample plots have saturated soils, and Sample Plots 6 and 8 had
free standing water at 12 and 10 inches respectively. The vegetation, soil, and hydrology
at Sample Plots 5, 6, and 8 are hydric according to wetland classification criteria.
RECEIVE
APR 2 --.1998
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Rodger Lacy
Page 3
March 27, 1998
Conclusions
SHAPIRO delineated the eastern boundary of the wetland on Mr. Lacy's property on
March 24, 1998. The wetland appears to meet the minimum criteria to be considered a
jurisdictional wetland by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: the presence of wetland
plants, hydric soil, and hydrology at or near the ground surface. Any development
activities that may affect this wetland may require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. In addition to applicable federal regulations, the City of Tukwila has
regulations that pertain to the altering of wetlands.
. The wetland boundary, classification and recommended buffers described herein are
Shapiro's best professional opinion based on the circumstances and site conditions at the
time of our study. Final determinations of wetland boundaries, classifications, and the
required buffers and setbacks are made by local, state, and federal jurisdictions.
Thank you for the opportunity to, prepare this material for you. If you require additional
assistance on this or any other project, please do not hesitate to call me or Mark Pedersen.
Sincerely;
SHAPIRO AND ASSOCIATES, IN
Calvin Kelly Douglas
Ecologist
c^
F
6
NE
Ag
a
N`f=1
0
(BASIS Cr DEARI i -PLAT)
N 0YA'20t
65412
N U'0650t CI-
sr ' ~i i �- /, 1 153459 1 1 I 1 I /
// .',/ / / / I I I III lit/ / / /
,`I• ;,f __�� /,/ / 1 1 1 I 1 /// / i/
/ / - ----...-/ .J ::( II }' i �1i / //. / // /� /I1/S(�1.,1 // /` // /"(111 ^1 - -// ,/ I\_ ---- .,1 �' �_IIP..' -r %%/
// / 9Z " // r / 1 ter'
7
, _,....4,/ _/r" - , / ///1- / 0r '/--
/ / // 0,----A, - - -Ai
1_" /.. ;/V'__— //_ l 1r /', ). //O,
-- .=-00_!/ u^ 11 i/ J�I't1' /J // tp'
// //3// /./...././„...238.0 .. .` // f ,I e }
-1
-4-I
.1.
J
N 0'09'20E
674]3
S 0'06'5011
49376
RECEIVEr
APR 2 -- 1998
PUBLIC O KS
N
,5- Ct06AK1Y
C
4
3
r, 301 x 1 !IIUI9i31 7'931
SNI:JOAA 0111311ct
.=11.r7
86R - .1c1V (•.)
tnim>ini
6
0
tel .40,0 i
fl
0 4 a CISIA13331A
7
0 ,
tti ___r fa,
n A
in ..-1 4 -0.- 4) k
eih
✓ 43 --C- E4
/
•.3 3 ())" (:‘ /
..01,...
< 0 /
ce 0 it tt 1 /
•-• N 0 •1 •
9dp i—ezz®?
0 it
0 /1
1E96
MS2.90 0 S
0
c
1,
D
ttz•
ivk .......-- k. „,
/
,46,4112k 3 /
CU .0..00. 43e
/ cr
so
I
•
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Project /Site: 1981020p Sample Plot #: 1
Field Investigator(s): CKD Date: 3/24/98
Sp Code.. Herbs & Bryophytes
SHAPIRO &
ASSGEIATES2
Indicator %Areal Cover
Status " Cover Class Midpoint Rank
agsp Agrostis sp. FACW -FACU 30 4 38.0
fesp Festuca sp. FACW -UPL " 30 4 38.0
posp Poa sp. FACW -UPL " 30 4 38.0
eqar Equisetum arvense FAC 5 1 3.0
amanlo 0' VW/2W
Sp Code Shrubs
rudi Rubus discolor
ruur Rubus ursinus
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator
Status **
FACU
FACU
%Areal
Cover
15
117.0
58.5
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
2 10.5 1
10 2 10.5 1
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
21.0
10.5
Sp Code Saplings
Indicator
Status**
% Areal
Cover
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Sp Code Trees
Indicator
Status "
%Areal
Cover
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
RECEIVED
APR 2 - 1998
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
;JO 'Atrir,.jf;6a•iti. its: 4 Ur..?. itf:'-. i• s..#, Ywyo1:..:': i.$ n' a>: i. T9+ t. 9viaSl: •.aN ^.�w:ahl;^?:.irJ.'.v.:wrv; ✓.
% of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: undetermined
Hydrophytic Vegetation?
Comments: it appears the site has recently been cleared of blackberry vegetation and grass mixture has been planted in
recent weeks, identification of new grass insufficient to make hydrophytic vegetation call,
To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints. Then sum midpoints In order •" Species that do not appear on the National List (Reed, 1988) may have been assigned an Indicator
until 50% of total for all species (dominance threshold) Is Immediately exceeded. All status based on field observations and habitat information from the literature.
species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total
midpoint value are marked with an asterisk.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Project /Site: 1981020p Sample Plot #: 2
Field Investigator(s): CKD Date: 3/24/98
Sp Code_ Herbs & Bryophytes
SHAPIRO &
ASSC(EIATES2
Indicator % Areal Cover
Status** Cover Class Midpoint Rank
agsp Agrostis sp. FACW -FACU 30 4 38.0
fesp Festuca sp. FACW -UPL " 20 3 20.5
posp Poa sp: FACW -UPL " 20 3 20.5
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
79.0
39.5
Sp Code Shrubs
rudi Rubus discolor
pomu Polystichum munitum
ruur Rubus ursinus
Sp Code Saplings
Indicator
Status"
FACU
FACU
FACU
%Areal
Cover.
60
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
5 63.0 1
2 1 3.0
10 2 10.5
Sum of Midpoints: 76.5
Dominance Threshold: 38.3
Indicator
Status**
411=11211=11111211111191611111, densmsemoscommi
% Areal Cover
Cover Class Midpoint Rank
Sp Code Trees
acma Acer macrophyllum
alru Alnus rubra
RECEIVED
TUKWiLA
PUBLIC WOHKS
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator
Status**
FACU
FAC
% Areal Cover
Cover Class Midpoint Rank
10 2
10 2
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
qi' ;. •i'1
10.5 1
10.5 1
21.0 •
10.5
% of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: undetermined
Hydrophytic Vegetation?
Comments: it appears the site has recently been cleared of blackberry vegetation and grass mixture has been planted in
recent weeks, identification of new grass insufficient to make hydrophytic vegetation call, bare ground 20%
To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints. Then sum midpoints in order
until 50% of total for all species (dominance Threshold) is Immediately exceeded. All
species contributing to This cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total
midpoint value are marked with an asterisk.
" Species that do not appear on the National Usl (Recd, 1088) may have been assigned an Indicator
status based on field observations and habitat information from the literature.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Project /Site: 1981020p
Field Investigator(s): CKD
Sp Code,_ Herbs & Bryophytes
Sample Plot #: 3
Date: 3/24/98
SHAPIRO &
ASSc. 1ATES2
Indicator % Areal Cover
Status ** Cover Class Midpoint Rank
agsp Agrostis sp. ' FACW -FACU 30 4 38.0
fesp Festuca sp. FACW -UPL ** 30 4 38.0
posp. Poa sp. FACW -UPL "* 30 4 38.0
eqar Equisetum arvense FAC 5 1 3.0
cear cerastium arvense FACU 5 1 3.0
Sp Code Shrubs
rudi Rubus discolor
Sp Code Saplings
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator
Status**
FACU
%Areal
Cover
120.0
60.0
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
20 3 20.5 1
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
20.5
10.3
Indicator
Status **
% Areal
Cover
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Sp Code Trees
Indicator
Status`*
% Areal
Cover .
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
RECEIVED
APR 2 - 1998
TU KIM LA
PUBLIC WORKS
•4%..7 r .,:G..,pj1. .j v.,e •..
% of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: undetermined
Hydrophytic Vegetation?
Comments: it appears the site has recently been cleared of blackberry vegetation and grass mixture has been planted in
recent weeks, identification of new grass insufficient to make hydrophytic vegetation call
To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints, Then sum midpoints In order " Species that do not appear on the National Ust (Reed, 1988) may have been assigned an indicator
until 50% of total for all species (dominance threshold) Is Immediately exceeded. AU status based on field observallona and habitat Information from the literature.
species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total
midpoint value are marked with an asterisk.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Project /Site: 1981020p
Field Investigator(s): CKD
Sp Code,. Herbs & Bryophytes
Indicator
Status **
Sample Plot #: 4
Date: 3/24/98
eqar Equisetum arvense FAC
Sp Code Shrubs
rudi Rubus discolor
rusp Rubus spectabilis
%Areal
Cover
5
Cover
Class
1
SHAPIRO&
ASSalATFS2
Midpoint Rank
3.0 1.
Sum of Midpoints: 3.0
Dominance Threshold: 1,5
Indicator
Status"
FACU
FAC+
%Areal
Cover
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
30 4 38.0 1
15 2 10.5 2
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
48.5
24.3
Sp Code Saplings
Indicator
Status"
%Areal
Cover
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
WNW
Sp Code Trees
alru Alnus rubra
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
RECEIVED
APR 2 - 1998
TUKWILA
Indicator
Status**
FAC
%Areal
Cover
10
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Cover
Class
2
p.4'. •r y, .uL,, i•.• -, 4.r 4i +.h4'v
Midpoint Rank
10.5 1
% of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation?
Comments: it appears site recently cleared of blackberry
toe of slopes
To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints, Then sum midpoints In order
until 50% oI total for all species (dominance threshold) Is immediate exceeded. All
species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total
midpoint value are marked with an asterisk.
10.5
5.3
75%
yes
vegetation, 95% bare ground or open water, a depression at the
" Species that do not appear on the National List (Reed, 1988) may have been assigned an indicator
status based on field observations and habitat information from the literature.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Project /Site: 1981020p Sample Plot #: 5
Field Investigator(s): CKD
Sp Code Herbs & Bryophytes
Date: 3/24/98
SHAPIRO&
ASSC(EIATES2
:M'n
Indicator % Areal Cover
Status" Cover Class Midpoint _. Rank
agsp Agrostis sp. FACW -FACU 20 3 20.5
fesp Festuca sp. FACW -UPL ** 20 3 20.5
posp Poa sp. FACW -UPL ** 20 3 20.5
eqar Equisetum arvense FAC 12 2 10.5 2
Iyam Lysichitum americanum OBL 6 2 10.5 2
tisomosessasissuosaszemiar
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator
Sp Code Shrubs Status **
rusp Rubus spectabilis FAC+
Sp Code Saplings
%Areal
Cover
20
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator
Status **
%Areal
Cover
82.5
41.3
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
3 20.5 1
20.5
10.3
Cover
Class Mid . oint Rank
Sp Code Trees
alru Alnus rubra
Sum of Midpoints: •
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator
Status **
%Areal
Cover
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
RECEIVED
APR 2 -- 1998
FAC
10 2 10.5 1
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
10.5
5.3
'VA 4lk'.I6
r1:. x•.t,.t,w': =.rn.r. r. :.�.'cr .'rl�:.:w^.'�r•rc.,:;r _,.:s i:'.a ,.a w,ce4,:.
�.tf�tf.�:.s..fi l,xb .::•�:.
TUKWiLA
PUBLIC WORKS
% of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: undetermined
Hydrophytic Vegetation?
Comments: it appears the site has recently been cleared of blackberry vegetation and grass mixture has been planted in
recent weeks, identification of new grass insufficient to make hydrophytic vegetation call, 20% bare ground
To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints. lhen sum midpoints In order ** Species that do not appear on the National Ust (Reed, 1988) may have been assigned an indicator
until 50% of total for all species (dominance threshold) Is immediate exceeded. All . status based on field observations and habitat Information from the literature.
species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total
midpoint value are marked with an asterisk.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Project /Site: 1981020p
Field Investigator(s): CKD
Sp Code_., Herbs & Bryophytes
Sp Code Shrubs
rusp Rubus spectabllis
Sample Plot #: 6
Date: 3/24/98
SHAPIRO&
ASSCCIATES2
Indicator % Areal Cover
Status** Cover Class Midpoint Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator
Status **
Sp Code Saplings
FAC+
% Areal
Cover
25 3
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
20.5
20.5
10.3
Indicator % Areal Cover
Status" Cover Class Midpoint
Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Sp Code Trees
Indicator
Status **
%Areal
Cover
Cover
Class
Midpoint Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
RECEIVED
APR 2 - 1998
PURL C WlORKS
,. '.i,. �....r..l'.iyi,.9':v KitilM.r. u.,r�d.::.. ...�.l i•.7:kaYicu u4.5,
% of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation?
Comments: mostly bare ground
To determine dominants, first rank species by mkdpoints. Then sum midpoints in order
until 501 of total for all species (dominance threshold) is immediately exceeded, All
species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total
midpoint value are marked with an asterisk.
100%
Yes.
" Species That do not appear on the National Ust (Reed, 1988) may have been assigned an indicator
status based on field observations and habitat Information from the literature.:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Project /Site: 1981020p
Sample Plot #: 7
Field Investigator(s): CKD Date: 3/24/98
Sp Code, Herbs & Bryophytes
SHAPIRO&
ASSCiEIATES$
Indicator % Areal Cover
Status** Cover Class Midpoint Rank
agsp Agrostis sp. FACW -FACU 15 2 10.5
fesp Festuca sp. FACW -UPL ** 15 2 10.5
posp Poa sp. FACW -UPL" 15 2 10,5
eqar Equisetum arvense FAC 3 1 3.0
Sp Code Shrubs
Sp Code Saplings
Sum of Midpoints: 34.5
Dominance Threshold: 17.3
Indicator % Areal
Status" Cover Class Midpoint Rank
Cover
111111111111112101
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator % Areal Cover
Status ** Cover Class Midpoint
Rank
Sp Code Trees
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator
Status'•
% Areal
Cover
Cover
Class Midpoint Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
RECEIVED
APR 2 - 1998
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
4 .H�Mt it thud +:v,1 :r•i�
0‘x;.,• .'r�:`• r v + viK -'ya :v• +(+. Sith�:f l�..y..,
of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: undetermined
Hydrophytic Vegetation? .
Comments: it appears the site has recently been cleared of blackberry vegetation and grass mixture has been planted In
recent weeks, identification of new grass insufficient to make hydrophytic vegetation call, 50% bare ground
To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints, Then sum midpoints in order " Species that do not appear on the National Ust (Reed, 1988) may have been assigned an Indicator
until 5096 of total for all species (dominance Threshold) is immediately exceeded. Al status based on field observations and hab8at information from the literature.
species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total
midpoint value are marked with an asterisk,
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Project /Site: 1981020p Sample Plot #: 8
Field Investigator(s): CKD Date: 3/24/98
SHAPIRO&
ASSCWIATFS2
Indicator % Areal Cover
Sp Code._ Herbs & Bryophytes Status ** Cover Class Midpoint Rank
agsp Agrostis sp. FACW -FACU 7 2 10.5
fesp Festuca sp. FACW -UPL ** 7 2 10.5
posp Poa sp. FACW -UPL ** 7 2 10.5
eqar Equisetum arvense FAC 8 2 10.5 1
Sp Code Shrubs
Sum of Midpoints: 42.0
Dominance Threshold: 21.0
1621111131126 11110SIMINISIMILIMSSINECO111111116112=11
Indicator %Areal Cover
Status ** Cover Class Mid oint Rank
rusp Rubus spectabills
Sp Code Saplings
vontemovaanammak
Sp Code Trees
FAC+ 40 4 38.0 1
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
38.0
19.0
Indicator % Areal Cover
Status ** Cover Class Mid • olnt Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
Indicator
Status **
% Areal Cover
Cover Class Midpoint Rank
Sum of Midpoints:
Dominance Threshold:
RECEIVED
APR 2 - '1998
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
a�.IrJ1ra .t :d ,i4-11:4 4. r; "•
% of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and /or FAC: undetermined
Hydrophytic Vegetation?
Yes
Comments: grass mixture has been planted in recent weeks, identification of new grass insufficient to make hydrophytic
vegetation call, 60% bare ground
To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints. Then sum midpoints in order
until 50% of total for all species (dominance threshold) Is Immediately exceeded. All
species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total
midpoint value ate marked with an asterisk.
'• Species that do not appear on the National List (Reed, 1988) may have been assigned an Indicator
status based on field observations and habitat Information from the literature.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY
Project Number: 1981020p
Project /Site: Tukwilla
Field Investigator(s): CKD
SOILS
SCS Mapping Unit: Arent's, Alderwood series
Field Identification: No
Is soil on hydric soils list? No
Date: 3/24/98
Sample Plot #: 1
Is soil a histosol? No
Histic epipedon present? No
Is soil mottled? Yes
Is soil gieyed? No
Horizon
Horizon Depth
Texture
Matrix
Color
Mottle
Color
Occurrence
of Mottles
Gley Organic
Color Content
0 -6"
6 " -18"
Loam
sandy loam
10YR 4/3 none none
10YR 3/3 2.5Y 4/3 f, 2, f
none low
none low
Landform /Topography: sloped grass field, enclosed by roads, park, forested wetland, and SR518 ROW forested area
Comments: parcel cleared of vegetation in recent past, now has planted grass, stormwater ditch traverses parcel
Hydric Soils?
No Basis: high chromas, mottling is sparse
HYDROLOGY
Is ground surface inundated? No
Is soil saturated? No
Depth to free - standing water In pit: None
❑ Yes ® No - Oxidized root zones
❑ Yes ® No -Water marks.
❑ Yes ® No -Drift lines
❑ Yes ® No - Water -borne sediment deposits
Comments: No hydrologic features
Surface water depth: None
Depth to saturation: None
❑ Yes IR No - Water - stained leaves
❑ Yes ® No - Surface scoured areas
❑ Yes ® No - Wetland drainage patterns
❑ Yes IN No - Morphological plant adaptations
Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No evidence of hydrology
SUMMARY
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes
Has the vegetation, soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No
Disturbed area? No Basis: No evidence
Problem area? No Basis: No evidence
APR 2 - 1998
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: it appears blackberry vegetation was cleared in recent past and grass mixture has been planted in recent weeks,
therefore soils and hydrology have been used to determine wetland/upland distinction where grass is dominate
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? ?
Is the hydric soil criterion met? No
Is the wetland hydrology criterion' met? No
Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: soil and hydrology parameters not met
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY
Project Number: 1981020p
Project /Site: Tukwilla
Field Investigator(s): CKD
SOILS
SCS Mapping Unit: Arent's, Alderwood series
Field Identification: No
Is soil on hydric soils list? No
Date: 3/24/98
Sample Plot #: 2
Is soil a histosol? No
Histic epipedon present? No
Is soil mottled? Yes
Is soil gleyed? No
Horizon
Horizon Depth
Texture
Matrix
Color
Mottle
Color
Occurrence
of Mottles
0 -7" sandy loam
7 " -19" sandy loam
10YR 3/2 none none
10YR 5/4 2.5Y 4/4 f, 1, f
Gay Organic
Color Content
none low
none low
Landform /Topography: sloped grass field, enclosed by roads, park, forested wetland, and SR518 ROW forested area
Comments: parcel cleared of vegetation in recent past, now has planted grass, stormwater ditch traverses parcel
Hydric Soils? No
basis: high chromas, mottling is sparse
HYDROLOGY
Is ground surface inundated? No
Is soil saturated? No
Depth to free- standing water in pit: None
❑ Yes RI No - Oxidized root zones
❑ Yes ® No -Water marks
❑ Yes No -Drift lines
❑ Yes IN No - Water -borne sediment deposits
Comments: No hydrologic features
Surface water depth: None
Depth to saturation: None
❑ Yes ® No - Water- stained leaves
❑ Yes ® No - Surface scoured areas
❑ Yes IN No - Wetland drainage patterns
❑ Yes ® No - Morphological plant adaptations
Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No evidence of hydrology
SUMMARY
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No
Disturbed area? No Basis: No evidence
Problem area? No Basis: No evidence
APR 2 - 1998
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: it appears blackberry vegetation was cleared in recent past and grass mixture has been planted in recent weeks,
therefore soils and hydrology have been used to determine wetland/upland distinction where grass is dominate
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? ?
Is the hydric soil criterion met?
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?
Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland?
No
No
No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: soil and hydrology parameters not met
Project Number: 1981020p
Project /Site: Tukwilla
Field Investigator(s): CKD
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY
Date: 3/24/98
Sample Plot #: 3
SOILS
SCS Mapping Unit: Arent's, Alderwood series
Field Identification: No
Is soil on hydric soils list? No
Is soil a histosol? No
Histic epipedon present? No
Is soil mottled? Yes
Is soil gleyed? No
Horizon
Horizon
Depth
Texture
Matrix
Color
Mottle
Color
Occurrence
of Mottles
Gley
Color
Organic
Content
0 -18" sandy loam
10YR 4/3 2.5Y 4/3 f, 1, f
none low
Landform /Topography: sloped grass field, enclosed by.roads, park, forested wetland, and SR518 ROW forested area
Comments: parcel cleared of vegetation in recent past, now has planted grass, stormwater ditch traverses parcel
Hydric Soils? No
Basis: high chromas, mottling is sparse
HYDROLOGY
Is ground surface inundated? No
Is soil saturated? No
Depth to free - standing water in pit: None
CI Yes ® No - Oxidized root zones
o Yes ® No -Water marks
I] Yes ® No -Drift lines
n Yes ® No - Water -borne sediment deposits
Comments: No hydrologic features
Surface water depth: None
Depth to saturation: None
❑ Yes ® No - Water - stained leaves
O Yes ® No - Surface scoured areas
O Yes ® No - Wetland drainage patterns
O Yes M No - Morphological plant adaptations
Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No evidence of hydrology
SUMMARY
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes
Has the vegetation, soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No
Disturbed area? No Basis: No evidence
Problem area? No Basis: No evidence
APR 2 - 1995
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: it appears blackberry vegetation was cleared in recent past and grass mixture has been planted In recent weeks,
therefore soils and hydrology have been used to determine wetland/upland distinction where grass is dominate
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? ?
Is the hydric soil criterion met? No
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No
Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: soil and hydrology parameters not met
Project Number: 1981020p
Project /Site: Tukwilla
Field Investigator(s): CKD
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY
Date: 3/24/98
Sample Plot #: 4
SOILS
SCS Mapping Unit: Arent's, Aldeiwood series
Field Identification: No
Is soil on hydric soils list? No
Is soil a histosol? No
Histic epipedon present? No
Is soil mottled? No
Is soil gleyed? No
Horizon
Horizon Depth
Texture
Matrix
Color
Mottle
Color
Occurrence
of Mottles
Gley Organic
Color Content
0 -18" sandy loam
10YR 3/1 & none none
10YR 2/2
none low
Landform /Topography: sloped grass field, enclosed by roads, park, forested wetland, and SR518 ROW forested area
Comments: small depression with upland soils along border of pooled area
Hydric Soils? Yes Basis: low chromes
HYDROLOGY
Is ground surface inundated? Yes
Is soil saturated? Yes
Depth to free - standing water in pit: surface water
D Yes
D Yes
D Yes
D Yes
® No - Oxidized root zones
® No -Water marks
® No -Drift lines
® No - Water -borne sediment deposits
Surface water depth: 1"
Depth to saturation:
D Yes
D Yes
D Yes
D Yes
No - Water - stained leaves
No - Surface scoured areas
® No - Wetland drainage patterns
® No - Morphological plant adaptations
Comments: small, 2' X 10" depression, slopes from all sides, upland soils surround pooled area
Wetland Hydrology? Yes Basis: pooled water
SUMMARY
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes
Has the vegetation, soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No
Disturbed area? No Basis: No evidence
Problem area? No Basis: No evidence
APR 2 - 1998
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: it appears blackberry vegetation was cleared in recent past and grass mixture has been planted in recent weeks,
therefore soils and hydrology have been used to determine wetland /upland distinction where grass is dominate
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes
Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: small pooled depression area surrounded by upland soils, dominant vegetation
Rubus discolor, mostly bare ground,
Project Number: 1981020p
Project /Site: Tukwilla
Field Investigator(s): CKD
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY
uate: j/ 24/9e3
Sample Plot #: 5
SOILS
SCS Mapping Unit: Arent's, Alderwood series
Field Identification: No
Is soil on hydric soils list? No
Is soil a histosol? No
Histic epipedon present? No
Is soil mottled? No
Is soil gleyed? No
Horizon
Horizon Depth
Texture
Matrix
Color
Mottle
Color
Occurrence
of Mottles
Gley
Color
Organic
Content
0 -18" Loam to sandy loam 10YR 3/1 & none none none
10YR2/2
low
Landform /Topography: sloped grass field, enclosed by roads, park, forested wetland, and SR518 ROW forested area,
Comments: parcel cleared of vegetation in recent past, now has planted grass, stormwater ditch traverses parcel
Hydric Soils? Yes Basis: Iowchromas,
Is ground surface inundated? No
Is soil saturated? Yes
Depth to free - standing water in pit: none
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
® No - Oxidized root zones
® No - Water marks
IN No -Drift lines
® No - Water -borne sediment deposits
Wetland Hydrology? Yes
Basis: saturated soils
SUMMARY
Surface water depth: None
Depth to saturation: 8"
❑ Yes ® No - Water - stained leaves
❑ Yes ® No - Surface scoured areas
❑ Yes ® No - Wetland drainage patterns
❑ Yes ® No - Morphological plant adaptations
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes
Has the vegetation, soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No
Disturbed area? No Basis: No evidence
Problem area? No Basis: No evidence 7lJW
PUBLIC O
Wt�RKS
Comments: It appears blackberry vegetation was cleared in recent past and grass mixture has been planted in recent weeks,
therefore soils and hydrology have been used to determine wetland/upland distinction where grass is dominate
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? ?
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes
Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: soil and hydrology parameters hydric
APR 2 - 1998
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY
Project Number: 1981020p vale: J/44/o
Project /Site: Tukwiila Sample Plot #: 6
Field investigator(s): CKD
SOILS
SCS Mapping Unit: Arent's, Alderwood series
Field Identification: No
Is soil on hydric soils list? No
Is soil a histosol? No
Histic epipedon present? No
Is soil mottled? Yes
Is soil gleyed? No
Horizon
Horizon Depth
Texture
Matrix
Color
Mottle
Color
Occurrence
of Mottles
Gley Organic
Color Content
0 -18" sandy loam
10YR 3/1 none none
none low
Landform /Topography: sloped grass field, enclosed by roads, park, forested wetland, and SR518 ROW forested area
Comments: parcel cleared of vegetation in recent past, now has planted grass, stormwater ditch traverses parcel
Hydric Soils? Yes Basis: lowchromas
Is ground surface inundated? No
Is soil saturated? Yes
Depth to free - standing water in pit; 12"
o Yes
o Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
® No - Oxidized root zones
® No -Water marks
® No -Drift lines
® No - Water -borne sediment deposits
Surface water depth: None
Depth to saturation: 8"
I] Yes ® No - Water- stained leaves
O Yes ® No - Surface scoured areas
p Yes ® No - Wetland drainage patterns
o Yes ® No - Morphological plant adaptations
Wetland Hydrology? Yes Basis: saturation and standing water
SUMMARY
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes
Has the vegetation, soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No
Disturbed area? No Basis: No evidence
Problem area? No Basis: No evidence
APR 2 - 1998
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: it appears blackberry vegetation was cleared in recent past and grass mixture has been planted in recent weeks,
therefore soils and hydrology have been used to determine wetland/upland distinction where grass is dominate
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes
is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes
Rationale for Jurisdictional decision: Three parameters met
11...... oi' Alrl°
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY
Project Numoer: i s iu'zup
Project /Site: Tukwilla
Field Investigator(s): CKD
SOILS
SCS Mapping Unit: Arent's, Alderwood series
Field Identification: No
Is soil on hydric soils list? No
IJalt7. J /44/.70
Sample Plot #: 7
Is soil a histosol? No
Histic epipedon present? No
Is soil mottled? No
Is soil gleyed? No
Horizon
Horizon Depth
Texture
Matrix
Color
Mottle
Color
Occurrence
of Mottles
Gley Organic
Color Content
0 -12"
1 2"-1 8"
sandy loam
sandy loam
10YR 3/3 none
10YR 4/3 none
none
none
none low
none low
Landform /Topography: sloped grass field, enclosed by roads, park, forested wetland, and SR518 ROW forested area
Comments: parcel cleared of vegetation in recent past, now has planted grass, stormwater ditch traverses parcel
Hydric Soils? No
Basis: high chromas, no mottling
Is ground surface inundated? No
Is soil saturated? No
Depth to free- standing water in pit: None
HYDROLOGY
i] Yes IN No - Oxidized root zones
❑ Yes ® No -Water marks
o Yes ® No -Drift lines
o Yes ® No - Water -borne sediment deposits
Comments: No hydrologic features
Surface water depth: None
Depth to saturation: None
❑ Yes ® No - Water- stained leaves
I] Yes ® No - Surface scoured areas
o Yes ® No - Wetland drainage patterns
ID Yes ® No - Morphological plant adaptations
Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No evidence of hydrology
SUMMARY
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes
Has the vegetation, soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No
Disturbed area? No Basis: No evidence
Problem area? No Basis: No evidence
RECEIVE!
APR 2 _.1998
TUKWILA
Comments: it appears blackberry vegetation was cleared in recent past and grass mixture has been plantedn WORKS weeks,
therefore soils and hydrology have been used to determine wetland/upland distinction where grass is dominate
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? ?
Is the hydric soil criterion met?
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?
Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland?
Rationale
No
No
No
for jurisdictional decision: soil and hydrology parameters not met
nlata• 1/04 /QR
WETLAND DETERMINATION
INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD
SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY
rrojeci Numner: tvolueup
Project /Site: Tukwilla
Field Investigator(s): CKD
SOILS
SCS Mapping Unit: Arent's, Alderwood series
Field Identification: No
Is soil on hydric soils list? No
v 11.1 •V • VI i.T /NV
Sample Plot #f: 8
Is soil a histosol? No
Histic epipedon present? No
Is soil mottled? Yes
Is soil gleyed? No
Horizon
Horizon Depth
Texture
Matrix
Color
Mottle
Color
Occurrence
of Mottles
Gley Organic
Color Content
0 -18" silt loam
10YR 3/1 2.5Y 5/4 f, 2, d
none low
Landform /Topography: sloped grass field, enclosed by roads, park, forested wetland, and SR518 ROW forested area
Comments: parcel cleared of vegetation in recent past, now has planted grass, stormwater ditch traverses parcel
Hydric Soils? Yes Basis: lowchromas
Is ground surface inundated? No
Is soil saturated? Yes
Depth to free - standing water in pit: 10"
0 Yes
D Yes
o Yes
D Yes
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
® No - Oxidized root zones
® No -Water marks
® No -Drift lines
® No - Water -borne sediment deposits
Surface water depth: None
Depth to saturation: at surface
o Yes ® No - Water - stained leaves
❑ Yes ® No - Surface scoured areas
❑ Yes ® No - Wetland drainage patterns
ID Yes ® No - Morphological plant adaptations
Wetland Hydrology? Yes Basis: standing water and saturation
SUMMARY
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes
Has the vegetation, soils, and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No
Disturbed area? No Basis: No evidence
Problem area? No Basis: No evidence TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: it appears blackberry vegetation was cleared in recent past and grass mixture has been planted in recent weeks,
therefore soils and hydrology have been used to determine wetland/upland distinction where grass Is dominate
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes
Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: soil and hydrology parameters hydric, grass mixture not dominant
RECEIVED
APR 2 - 1998
05',Q57.
1,
v1
/4
Ni
IDL . 402 \i t
, .A c I ,,
Re N �J \ t4 \ _
, \ \ \
.....,� \\ e...
NE39'331321•4 `
\
156.92 1 \.
4 a II ■ \I ' I 1 ■ ro s b& I b
'N I ) --Ii L
_= -,.. -- Planned Improvements under separate permit
1 .,,. , .. .._.
kl.) // /, %,�. Emil Concoor�(Typ) '�
Tract 48 �'� f;�'- • • ''; ;• o
..4c1).4.4.
.� //, O 11 JJ '� Fneh or = 2. b�
�;, i '1 �r FcotEtev. - ;r4 CG ;
l
\ �� .
\ r. , .. l ;\ O IA / /
-----4.-7:-.1* . 1 is I
\,\ \. •\
Gee
F••
•
'•
cn
- 4 05'
Area to be left undisturbed
Provide silt fence during construction. Maintain
antii permanent vegetation is established
3H:1V Maximum Embankmen
224
Match planned grades on Tract 48
The Gaih
628N20.
- 4.05'
Area to be left undisturbed
Legend:
Proposed 2' Contour Line
Existing 2' Countour Line
Total estimated Fill = 360 yards
Provide silt fence during construction. Maintain
until permanent vegetation is established
22V
3H:1V Maximum Embankment
Owner:
;S)11.1OM Ofl fd
U�IIr1a > {fl_!..
966 — 1 1dV
Scale 1" = 20'
Rodger E. Lacy Sr.
4133 - 46th Avenue S. -; L
Seattle, WA 98118 �l.r :,; wal
'R I,
Match planned grades on Tract 48
•—.•'ti� ,...-..- -.. •� •••,'••••••'•:-••
"fir .1 ' 4- - -- \ •.�;
..L. '-'\. ••a•
`C......•�. `--•.
permit
P7IsTEP3Peomm.
EXPIRES / 2 - /4 IP 91. 1
Proposed Grading Plan
SCALE:
APPROVED SY:
?L. 6.
DATE: .30 • 98
Tre Galh Group
628 N 201 Lane. Seattle, WA 98133
200. 546.8901
A portion of Sunnydale Gardens
DRAWING NUMBER
98- 1041.- 05-
M1'Is c.o