Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PRE2014-00008
sON c()(- JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend,WA 98368 I Web:www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitvdevelooment s.r � \ Tel:360.379.4450� Fax:360.379.4451 �Email:dcd a(�co,iefferson.wa.us Building Permits&Inspections i Development Consistency Review!Long Range Planning I Watershed Stewardship Res urce Center Pre-Application Conference The Jefferson County Code (JCC) requires that before an application is made for all Type II and Type Ill project applications and Type I applications proposing impervious surfaces of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more and/or non-single family structures of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more, a pre-application consultation must be held. The consultation includes preliminary review and administrative assistance. This service does not include extensive field inspection or correspondence. Pre-application consultation does not limit subsequent administrative review. At the conference, Department of Community Development personnel shall provide the applicant with: (1) A list of the requirements for a completed application; (2) A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application; (3) The references to relevant code provisions or development standards that May apply to the approval of the application; and (4) A list of any applicable hourly review fees that may be charged by one or more County agencies upon the filing of a project permit application with the County. Discussions at the conference or the information provided by the staff shall not bind or prohibit the County's future application or enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by County representatives shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements of County, state and federal codes, laws, regulations and land use plans. Kevin Long, North Olympic Salmon Coalition NAME: p/b j e rrtet a,er ( -, or) C MAILING ADDRESS:2058 W PatiSon St, Port Hadlock WA 98339 TELEPHONE:(HOME) _ (WORK) 360.379.8051 REPRESENTATIVE: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE:(HOME) _ (WORK) DIRECTIONS _ 1. Please answer all questions on this form completely. 2. Attach a sketch of the Conceptual Design for the proposed use or activity,showing the following information: a. Vicinity arrow sketch; b. North arrow and scale; IS(`(V✓"' c. Property boundaries and identification of land uses on adjacent properties; d. Means of ingress and egress; e. Property/lot drainage; 1 vikg — 5 2014 f. Possible locations of sewage disposal and water supply systems; g. Location of utility easements; and h. Proposed location of buildings, including setbacks to property boundaries. JEFFERSON COUNTY 3. Attach payment of the applicable fee, as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance. MI.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Property Description General Location: Causeway on Flagler Road (Hwy116) that connects Indian Island to Marrowstone Island and surrounding wetlands. Legal Description(from Property Tax Statement): N/A The project encompasses multiple parcels and highway ROW. See— a.ff0.Ghej. q0400000/9.lo,K Lt009 , 9a-j ogq-oo? 9-Digit Parcel Number(from Property Tax Statement): /c,1.I 0 3 00(� q.4, /o g: /00,5— Total Acreage: 7.5 Zone: %Lot Coverage: Applicant: ❑ Owner ❑ Lessee ❑ Contract Purchaser © Other Project Sponsor Project Description Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project: The project plans to replace the earthen causeway that connects Indian Island and Marrowstone Island with a 450' multiple span bridge. Tidal channels that historically connected Oak Bay and Kilisut Habor have filled in due to the causeway and will be excavated ow as a part of the project:- J1 c �1 A �L /� / ��AS< G`rro,.naG fV rt�„VrL. O,t Kl Oo G.1 kfitJ. (/� LIS AC0E �+ 'Pio- A —c Property Owner(name and mailing address): Kevin Long, North Olympic Salmon Coalition Standard Disclosure Information provided to a prospective applicant during the pre-application consultation is based on County regulations in effect at the time of the pre-application consultation. Revised or new County regulations could affect a future development application. A pre- application consultation does not vest a future development application. By signing the application form,the applicant/owner attests that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of their knowledge. I also certify that this application is being made with the full knowledge and consent of all owners of the affected property. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the applicant/owner with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities,1 judgments, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. This right of entry shall expire when the County (through the Administrator or the Administrator's representatives)concludes the application has complied wi all applicable laws and regulations. Access and and ri ht of entry to the applicant's property shall be requested and shall occur only duri g regular business hours. 4. j z((.30/14 , SIGNATURE) (DATE) I hereby designate to act as my agent in matters related to this pre-application conference: e (LANDOWNER SIGNATURE) (DATE) Aj2) (-----_,,, G:\Per itCenter ##FORMS##M\DRD\Current DRD Formslpre-app conference form_FINAL.00c REV.11/1/2013 ', Page Onsite Pre-Application Conference Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project North Olympic Salmon Coalition June 11, 11:00-12:00 Case No. PRE14-00008 Attendees: Applicant: North Olympic Salmon Coalition, Kevin Long Jefferson County Department of Community Development:Joel Peterson Department of Natural Resources: Bridget Kaminski-Richardson Department of Fish and Wildlife: Margaret Bigelow US Fish and Wildlife Service: Ginger Phalen WDFW Estuary&Salmon Restoration Program:Jay Krienitz Naval Magazine Indian Island: Don Zimmerman, Bill Kalina Naval Facility Bangor: Eugene King,Tammy Lee, Gregory Garnett Description of Proposal: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project will replace the earthen causeway connecting Indian Island and Marrowstone Island with a 450-foot multiple span bridge. Sediment-filled tidal channels will be excavated as part of the project. Agency Evaluation of Proposal Jefferson County Development Review Division: Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.25 JCC) • Shoreline Environment Designation: Natural • Restoration and Enhancement may be permitted in all shoreline Environment Designations subject to policies and regulations of program. May require shoreline substantial development permit or statement of exemption approval. • Shoreline Development Permit exemption for Watershed Restoration Project 18.25.560(16)(c) JCC; and exemption for public or private project,the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage. o Project approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife o Project received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife o UDC Administrator determined project is consistent with Shoreline Program • Statement of Exemption Approval for Shoreline exemption at 18.25.570 (1)et seq. o Recommended Restoration Action, Marrowstone and Kilisut Harbor, Final Shoreline Restoration Plan, Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Project, October 2008, pp.5-42—5-44. Assurances are unavailable. Discussions at the Pre-Application Conference are not binding,and no statement made by county representatives shall in any way relieve applicant of the duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant regulations and requirements. Critical Areas(Chapter 18.22 JCC) Wetlands 18.22.3401CC-- Noncompensatory enhancement,Type 1 Noncompensatory enhancement—requires Enhancement Plan review. Archaeological Resources—contact State Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation Stormwater Management Plan—"Large Project" (>7000 s.f. land disturbance); Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Permanent Stormwater Control Plan. SEPA—Environmental Checklist required as project does not meet exemption: 197-11-800 (1)(i) Lands Covered by Water OTHER REGULATORY/LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS Contact Washington Department of Archaeological and Historical Preservation (DAHP)for cultural resource review. Application and Fees: Complete Application includes : • Master Permit Application • SEPA Environmental Checklist • JARPA • Development Drawings • Site Plan • Stormwater Calculation Worksheet • Stormwater Management Permit Application • Engineered Stormwater Management Plan • Wetland Report • Enhancement Plan prepared by qualified wetlands consultant or accepted in writing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serve,the Washington Department of Fish and wildlife, or the Washington Department of Ecology. • Statement of Exemption Approval form Fees due at time of application: • Shoreline Development Permit Exemption Approval --$532.00 • Stormwater Management Permit--$380.00 • SEPA Review--$919.00 Assurances are unavailable. Discussions at the Pre-Application Conference are not binding,and no statement made by county representatives shall in any way relieve applicant of the duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant regulations and requirements. I JEFFERSON COUNTY I SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE PROJECT ECOLOGY GRANT #G0600343 IFinal Shoreline Restoration Plan UOctober 2008 Prepared by: ESA Adolfson in association with ISearun Consulting LaRoche+Associates Coastal Geologic Services IPrepared for: IJefferson County Department of Community Development fo ` ~ I ,\ 91 Tide i ' - ,r I ..s . IV - , nI I 11!212006 j Chimacum Beach 10119(2007 II 9.1/e.2 Tides 1'lke I • iyZ 2G':F to 79'26C7 I I f 0 0 c 0 0.04- . a a)— O Y 3 y) 0 '- N y O yyC11 Y yy a) a1 7'0 N . L co co E C430 '6430 2 . o ¢ C C'O �. C L O y 0 N 0.0� fi C E °�vv o)m E k C N N N O G ac0 0 p C O m q p o E� m° o)a) acS `ao�0)�L� c ° o a-O0 m'O N a1 C O N C N w ° 7 O o �Qa}1 C o a'w a d O)c a7 L > 1a V) a. N C V O W C C n;0 a) C 21 0 N 8 0 E c w o co °r R R'1.---'C o r'c O OI w U7 al co 0'� CL o!7 o a) .- O la ca 0 o'la 3 a) o W r0 aa)) N f�a 0 J o p 2.-0 L °s-m c co a a) > O pr p2-o E o0m@ce'- 30 2oE o -° c y y—m c as c ° N 1f 03 a) Ein m E o o Z m•- aCF-Ya) 4., O1r0nEYa) 35°c .a E C C? 0.x -,> .c ;Fs 0)E L"' U a) E3 ° E c W ao-O 4 -O C o C 0 O F- w .6 N.,'O-O ai U N >.m e p 0 > . 0 J J v2 d ma E �y �ccpc ;PEEP °a E w _- o N�v) c m >Zr O"— m y) 1•• c a) a) U O 'C.0 0 0 17 0'�U V C U N c 0 d 0 O -° C N L - 0 CO -) 2' 'mt.-0 O O L a3 0 0 t�.0 O)7 0' o)0 O 0 ;, .. ss= a 0,C 2 o-n°t, °) N a) > C ° c la.0 l) 1a N `y O - co O O 3 V)-O OL CU C CQL a1.0 — J U A d o 2 0 ,84 )0 p E 2 = !0 j C c _.- a N C m N E T° 0_0 C•n O'y a1 J J (0L O N N -L1 2 0 ,0 .2 L E ,_ rnLU, E., 0maa? yo0 -Er) E a).-.J o=a E a�'a72 CO.0 E CO c a) 1a a) mO1 w 7 "E' E C LL ° 2 `�.- y"O�L. T�'L E H o c'm E N ma y o 3'tia-a 0)p a) m*-C 2 •� E a fl aa)) _ c rn dr 2—a N c O �' c w 2 c o c 3 �0mrmEc >,-cEwL ° @c 0. •. c a a) c 20 a W a 1a O L`$ 2 1a 0 C T as as O T co C CD 1a 0 E c a o.c a) > i0 c o C N E m 5 °Z $63 a) E oF :°- E a u £ m vi`o tang •co +-• 13- ° 0c - d 5 al L E � c '5c-2m> o ��vQc° oa �° r rn y r m m a+ N i)U O L E G 0 1a > N Y C T N c C C a Y) o N N ¢ a) O _0 C C Z O c_ of W N CU 13 0 p CU 03 0 d O a) Ui a1 E CU 2 m!� d -°0 y 2' •L3 " r c �_ CU a , _rn 0 yr Nc2.ov4)ry10cay °10op c cN acEa) > caa) m O O Y N U U o V "'C la CU E CO .N O a) a — a) _p Y amt.00c�� a° a >., cc o tom m >4) 2 w _ N L Y vE �°YE� d ° CZmrnvm in a ,p>p '7 a7 O o vaO _ a 0 � d ° d = • w U • 0-0 m E m� > V L a d � $ 3 o) �t � Q�J L }? t c - 0 as�p', c o `- 3cm > aC ZEmd m � Cmm co A" m E m0c v, E2=c to—= 2 °' Earn " o �aC 0 > O N p O r a.2 y CO m CO C C y C w0 E V1 Si' .0 J'C to 4- 0 U a) c O m L 10 O � mE' of > C� o cb.2Eoc 0 °.-0 3Z' c c4 -• r � 3 y O d c g� o caE � yE -0 : o 9_3 N . U y m m E c m m ° 0-23 d 2 d m L d C1N K a a a) m 0 aO • m O , a) cog m m OW N >O G C O� ` O T bI N ` UCIL a?` O O.O tlI UI aJ '- 0.-E a 0 E d 0 C a ai m c a a m 13 O) V a) co E a U E C N N C r E .- C 0 N C oC N ti m a U C.) c E 2 L c Q -J J 2 2 a) O F a L a) c a) E ro F- J J 2 2 l0 N U O c w, yU 0 0 J U J J = 2 m m C co N o O c a a o . .a o o E C 2 a N a N c O as -a m O d C O a a) C 03 € a) y:. V OI v' al N N a N C OI a) N c C- C `) E N c L O a C m C V m m v € v c •o m e z @ a d m 0 m 7 rn v R y 7 O. a 0 y) i O) .O V -O T S a a 01 c C u! , o .N -O a) O 2 O O E r ° m c d o a o m N NL 2 Q H y p N CO N N co N C C 'O V) C a 0 L N N m O o C — = T 0 m a1 L �, Ip A. r N m ° E 000, 003 ° O m a a m 8 o w « — 4 a, m n a 5 m .2 o m c o r o m c a)" E m o mN E n °'a 2 a CO a v a a c a) .2 a) 0 v ` a $ w d E c rn E rn c o • c > o a E m € >m m CI m , t ' (p N m a a D ? O 0 7,— c c m — U d T L a_ U 2 m —a c C > y oL .. .0 m m o 4= m L 0 c N 2 w 2 3u) a) - a) m m a w - .- N ao a m ° a _ o m m m � o o d o ,Z` o v a 0 m > o 0 a QC a E C S O o- m C C ac c c m 0 yy c -ga)C S d 2 a N O a) O aN O 0 m X a) N O 7 O � ¢ aa52 'OUaS2 to0naoCare 2 co0eam ¢ ce 2 o y m O O) N T a Ca D `o m a1 m O@ O cis D. - a) > 0) L U N .2 a = 7 o. a) ae a maL- ' s dw� oao at ca o � € E ` 8aao oc Laa �c m 2 H � � c v8 vE cam o � .w a) mc , e * E �' s y° 1 C a c CL o v ° 4 a° "' m {p0> S N« 8 .• a, N m y > a) C a) CO m 0 CO lU L N O Y r { O.c RI .0 W C > ,y N N a) E a) Ol y m m a) as 0 m , m C to o E CC I .E= re 3 5 ac E2m'Sa ICES. 0 c a) iz i m to « a) }m O :: H E. I m Y 0 V ` N N 2' O o -0 -O U O .+ m N m O r = c m co m_c C '$" - c v c m co o0 w m 2� m8 E 9 m o m:a E �•� � p 3 a >. ca C 3 .002�u, o =xm� a�i E° �a 3coa N m > m O-. m N Z' r "O O ''):0_s> '>.E as cO > N N L E N O > `•N f` E C m O c° c 0 ca ci .. O m a C(a w m rn O m N a.- 0�m Q c" ,... V V N 0 O' w.- " 0 3 0 'j ° " $E'0 J O m rrn= c. Zvi oa $ Ce_09s CO cm ■ O �' m > ° a m o m m ,- 7 U N = 0'O w c m y E y m>,0.❑L U C >„L C m t, o..p OL J C .' m 00 = 0 „00 ,... N m 0 0 E.0 N a '0 m a N V C L m ma a 21 Lm.. T N«, m N. m.0 C L N m 0. ai N O ° d N C m c c 0 v (6 C 0,9m (a 21 C C x >s - > mm E'rnmrncavm �a >= m > o U.1 am 5 j 2 a .E m °.o E >a E yv 0) 2 E E 2 N m2m as 0' � mQOa1w- ° v am'vaR � cOc.ca12.0 - £ aim0•0_a) m cNE m L M co L C a ED t C e N w cs V mmm0m-O >ro t S T c m e aaa111 E C ea -- m •o t C m 0 ❑ d c .Lm-• 0.0�L W R -J F 'a — 2)m o j.c C E L m mac 0)-6 °o m t EI E y0cari--° m10EV ✓ N N a)xii- m 3 °O J p NU N a 2 F o ca W "O _ r-i C p LN d 0 01 N 7 O m m .. L CO m � > >.,,C «x J U -,-",, $ o _-0 Y N Nm_ C 0 m .,.. c (a O J • 0 '" E m a.° a1 a - to c yro 7 C y E �'' x 8 N 3 L E °'O O N C w 8- 0 �[ .r U o 0. C C .c 0 0 0-p L 0 0 ' C • of O)O '0 .1-. C N C O O 0 n E 0 0 ` 0 c N z p_ v a- « x $ p f6 V O m as m 0) N L Q V m N C m C a O C _ @ 0) ' N O1 C O C F O .0 N c - c C >.o c a m co r m m o r m m w U "0 O1 0_.. O Vl c 0 .0 T N E N - 0.c D a y - O C E 0 `avyO0L �00 m o L C2 a 0 m a1 0 _a 0 O N C F N C Q 0 0 C y E m m - o m T m CO CL .G O'O 21 C 2 O d W al L N O- c 1� o y rn o1 m me ao ELF m a rn o m ,o _ C_ - O N._r • a p C Td Q RI m 0F 3 m 2' ai O C• N 2 a C iy uU c m ° N s v n U 'ICoC 6 o � EE1= ��m U N c c c N m mm � o C Tm a a a V J w rt O.N 3 m O N ° m 2 o m 2 E N c E L c � c B a ° 3 o o ° $ °' `rnm ac Inc am o m O m `EQ c $ 2 S S m c mm mN_ Nm ai p m i o o U2a_ < < w2 co , i0 > -0 UaS2 0 it C 0 °1O 0-0 2- c c m rnmcai 8 0. 0 ° ° m w° ,mCpo aa C E -o 03 0 N C N m Y 0 L ° N m N C > C m N m u C aC R' m dO-0 !6 a L s VI a o C 0 a C 0 ,--C Y m CM .... 0 O y1 p m L y m C0 0 C E 0 •t M .8 Q C U pp 3 m T:. C 0 m CO N w CQ L m N 0-0 a--aN ' 0-0 a) es L O C N O 0 C ° m N C Y m U m ° a) 0.. E O m O L N m O m 0 mR y O 4- O CO 3) CD) m y N I : m -O U a1 um/ m a O a O'" .a T p 4$ jccU C C . v ° w z L A L O > 2 E w i° m o u y C CO = P. m =CO m f 1 a -o - ax ° o 03-0. A m .o m m V x E w m a (a d N N.. Vm 0 x c o m C 0 j m C m j a c . m p 4 o. > m C CO.A CJ o K E m TgEvm.8Erm (3 v E f, o^ ao 58Z-c 3 c aL � � 8mY ° mm a_ .0 � 3N 0 o_ ° 3c 0a d oc . v0 � tcm -o° 8 o1- o /w V Q C 0 .a m N O € m N-0 12;"� L 9 �' C 'O L 0 m a.. m CO N . a = Etxma) , om,' 8 Mn t E ?3rE �3 -o � c� c . CO O 0 m o ,s0 O o m N m` m F av) 3awz-axmb .2. kr - Jefferson County Code 18.25.550 (5) Regulations—Essential Public Facilities. (9) Regulations — Electrical Energy and Coin- (a) Essential public facilities shall be munication Systems. located, developed,managed, and maintained in a (a) Systems components (including substa- manner that protects shoreline ecological functions tions, towers, and transmission and distribution and processes. lines) that are not water-dependent shall not be (b) Essential public facilities shall be located on shorelines unless alternatives are infea- designed to enhance shoreline public access and Bible. (b) Underground placement of lines shall be aesthetics. (c) Essential public facilities shall be required for new or replacement lines that are par- located outside of shoreline jurisdiction unless they allel to the shoreline,and do not cross water bodies. require a waterfront location or unless there is no New or replacement lines that cross water or criti- feasible alternative. cal areas may be required to be placed underground (6) Regulations—Sewage Systems. depending on impacts on ecological functions and (a) Outfall pipelines and diffusers are water- processes and visual impacts. Poles or supports dependent but shall be located to minimize adverse treated with creosote or other wood preservatives effects on shoreline ecological functions and pro- that may be mobile in water shall not be used along cesses or adverse impacts upon shoreline resources shorelines or Regulations associated Power wetlands. neration Facilities. and values. (b) Septic tanks and drain fields are prohib- Power generation facilities involving emerging ited where public sewer is readily available. technologies such as tidal energy shall not be per- (7) Regulations—Solid Waste Facilities. miffed until and unless the county determines that (a) Facilities for processing and storage and the adverse effects can be fully mitigated and the disposal of solid waste are not normally water- public benefits clearly outweigh the risks to the dependent. Components that are not water-depen- shoreline environment_ [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. dent shall not be permitted on shorelines. VIII § 11)] (b) Disposal of solid waste on shorelines or in water bodies has potential for severe adverse Article IX.Permit Criteria and Exemptions effects upon ecological processes and functions, property values, public health, natural resources, 18.25.540 Substantial development permit and local aesthetic values,and shall not be permit- To be authorized,zd, all uses and developments tee. (c) Temporary storage of solid waste in suit- shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is able receptacles is permitted as accessory to a per- consistent with this program and the policy of the miffed primary use or for litter control. Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless (8) Regulations — Oil, Gas and Natural Gas of whether a shoreline permit,statement of exemp- Transmission. lion, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional (a) Oil,gas and natural gas transmission and use permit is required. [Ord. 7-13 Exh.A(Art. IX distribution pipelines and related facilities shall not § 1)] be located in shoreline areas unless alternatives are 18.25.550 Exemptions from shoreline demonstrated to be infeasible. (b) Local natural gas service lines shall not substantial development permit be located in shoreline areas unless serving process. approved shoreline uses. Crossings of shorelines (1) Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. shall not be approved unless alternatives are Only those developments that meet the precise � demonstrated to be infeasible. terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may (c) Developers and operators of pipelines be granted exemptions from the substantial devel- and related facilities for gas and oil shall be opment permit process. required to demonstrate adequate provisions for (2) An exemption from the substantial develop- preventing spills or leaks, as well as established ment permit process is not an exemption from procedures for mitigating damages from spills or compliance with the Act or this program, or from other malfunctions and shall demonstrate that peri- any other regulatory requirements. To be autho- odic dic maintenan ce will not disrupt shoreline ecolog- rized,all uses and developments must be consistent o and provisions of this program ical functions. with the policies an p p g and the Act. 18-168.47 (Revised 3/14) 18.25.560 (3) A use or development or use that is listed as repair means to restore a development to a state a conditional use pursuant to this program or is an comparable to its original condition within a rea- unlisted use or development, must obtain a condi- sonable period after decay or partial destruction tional use permit even if the development or use except where repair causes substantial adverse does not require a substantial development permit. effects to the shoreline resource or environment. (4) When a development or use is proposed that Replacement of a structure or development may be does not comply with the bulk,dimensional and/or authorized as repair where such replacement is the performance standards of this program,such devel- common method of repair for the type of structure opment or use shall only be authorized by approval or development and the replacement structure or of a shoreline variance even if the development or development is comparable to the original strut- use does not require a substantial development per- tare or development including but not limited to its mit. size, shape, configuration, location and external (5) The burden of proof that a development or appearance and the replacement does not cause I use is exempt is on the applicant/proponent of the substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or exempt development action. the environment. (6) If any part of a proposed development is not (3) Residential Bulkhead. Construction of the eligible for exemption,then a substantial develop- normal protective bulkhead common to single- ment permit is required for the entire proposed family residences. A normal protective bulkhead development project. includes those structural and nonstructural devel- (7) All permits or statements of exemption opments installed at or near, and parallel to, the issued for development or use within shoreline ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of jurisdiction shall include written findings prepared protecting an existing single-family residence and by the administrator, including compliance with appurtenant structures from loss or damage by ero- bulk and dimensional standards and policies and sion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt regulations of this program.The administrator may if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. attach conditions to the approval of exempt devel- When a vertical or near vertical wall is being con- opments and/or uses as necessary to assure consis- strutted or reconstructed,not more than one cubic tency of the project with the Act and this program. yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used for [Ord. 7-13 Exh.A(Art. IX §2)] backfill. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting 18.25.560 Exemptions listed. the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further The following activities shall be considered waterward of the existing bulkhead than is neces- exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline sary for construction of new footings. When a substantial development permit in accordance with bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary RCW 90.58.030 and WAC 173-27-040: high water mark has been established by the pres- (1) Fair Market Value. Any development of ence and action of water landward of the bulkhead, which the total cost or fair market value,whichever then the replacement bulkhead must be located at is higher,does not exceed$6,416 or as adjusted by or near the actual ordinary high water mark.Beach WAC 173-27-040, if such development does not nourishment and bioengineering erosion control materially interfere with the normal public use of projects may be considered a normal protective the water or shorelines of the state.For the purpose bulkhead when any structural elements are consis- of determining whether or not a permit is required, tent with the above requirements and when the the total cost or fair market value shall be based on project has been approved by the Washington the value of development that is occurring on Department of Fish and Wildlife. shorelines of the state as defined in RCW (4) Emergency Construction. Emergency con- 90.58.030(2)(c).The total cost or fair market value struction necessary to protect property from darn- of the development shall include the fair market age by the elements. An emergency is an value of any donated, contributed or found labor, unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, equipment or materials. safety or the environment that requires immediate (2) Maintenance and Repair. Normal mainte- action within a time too short to allow full compli- nance or repair of existing structures or develop- ance with this program. Emergency construction ments, including damage by accident, fire or does not include development of new permanent elements. Normal maintenance includes those protective structures where none previously usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse or cessation existed. Where new protective structures are from a lawfully established condition. Normal deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate (Revised 3/14) 18-168.48 Jefferson County Code 18.25.560 means to address the emergency situation, upon (9) Residential Docks. Construction of an indi- abatement of the emergency situation the new vidual/single-user or shared dock for private non- structure shall be removed or any permit that commercial contract pleasure hater of use single-family the or would ve been required, absent an emergency, lessee, pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, Chapter 173-27 multifamily residence.The private dock exemption WAC or this program,shall be obtained.All emer- applies to dock construction cost as specified in gency construction shall be consistent with the pol- RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). icies of Chapter 90.58 RCW and this program. As (10) Irrigation.Operation,maintenance,or Ion- a general matter,flooding or other seasonal events struction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, that can be anticipated and may occur but that are or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter not imminent are not an emergency. created or developed as a part of an irrigation sys- (5) Agriculture.Construction and practices nor- tem for the primary purpose of making use of sys- mal or necessary for farming,irrigation,and ranch- tern waters including return flow and artificially ing activities, including agricultural service roads stored ground water for the irrigation of lands;pro- and utilities,construction of a barn or similar agri- vided, that this exemption shall not apply to con- cultural structure,and the construction and mainte- struction of new irrigation facilities proposed after I nance of irrigation structures including, but not December 17,2003. I limited to,head gates,pumping facilities, and im- (11) State Property. The marking of property gation channels. A feedlot of any size, all process- lines or corners on state owned lands, when such ing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, marking does not significantly interfere with nor- or alteration of the contour of the shorelands by mal public use of the surface of the water. leveling or filling other than that which results (12) Energy Facilities.Any project with a certi- from normal cultivation, shall not be considered fication from the governor pursuant to Chapter normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. 80.50 RCW. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or (13) Site Exploration. Site exploration and capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, investigation activities that are prerequisite to grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not preparation of a development application for include land for growing crops or vegetation for authorization under this program, if: livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it (a) The activity does not interfere with the include normal livestock wintering operations. normal public use of surface waters; (6) Drainage. Operation and maintenance of (b) The activity will have no significant any system of dikes,ditches,drains,or other facil- adverse impact on the environment including but ities existing on June 4, 1975, that were created, not limited to fish,wildlife,fish or wildlife habitat, developed or utilized,primarily as a part of an agri- water quality and aesthetic values; cultural drainage or diking system. (c) The activity does not involve the instal- (7) Navigation Aids.Construction or modifica- lation of any structure and,upon completion of the tion,by or under the authority of the Coast Guard activity, the vegetation and land configuration of or a designated port management authority,of nav- the site are restored to conditions existing before igational aids such as channel markers and anchor the activity; buoys. (d) A private entity ty seekin g development (8) Single-Family Residences. Construction on authorization under this section first posts a perfor- shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract pur- mance bond or provides other evidence of financial chaser of a single-family residence for their own responsibility to the administrator to ensure that the use or for the use of their family,which residence site is restored to preexisting conditions;and does not exceed a height of 35 feet above average (e) The activity is not subject to the permit grade level and that meets all requirements of the requirements of RCW 90.58.550. state agency or local government having jurisdic- (14) Noxious Weeds. The process of removing tion thereof. Single-family residence means a or controlling aquatic noxious weeds,as defined in detached dwelling designed for and occupied by RCW 17.26.020,through the use of an herbicide or one family including those structures and develop- other treatment methods applicable to weed control ments within a contiguous ownership which are a that are recommended by a final environmental normal appurtenance as defined in Article II of this impact statement published by the Department of chapter. Agriculture or the Department of Ecology jointly with other state agencies under Chapter 43.21C RCW. 18-168.49 (Revised 3/14) 18.25.570 (15) Watershed Restoration. Watershed resto- (a) The project has been approved in writing ration projects as defined herein and by RCW by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as neces- 89.08.460.The administrator shall review the proj- sary for the improvement of the habitat or passage ects for consistency with this program in an expe- and appropriately designed and sited to accomplish ditious manner and shall issue its decision along the intended purpose; with any conditions within 45 days of receiving a (b) The project received hydraulic project complete application form from the applicant/pro- approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife ponent. No fee may be charged for accepting and pursuant to Chapter 75.20 RCW; and processing applications for watershed restoration (c) The administrator has determined that projects as defined in this section. the project is consistent with this program. The (16) "Watershed restoration project" means a administrator shall make such determination in a public or private project authorized by the sponsor timely manner and provide it by letter to the project of a watershed restoration plan that implements the proponent. [Ord. 7-13 Exh.A (Art. IX§3)] plan or part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: 18.25.570 Statements of exemption. (a) A project that involves less than 10 miles (1) The administrator is hereby authorized to of stream reach, in which less than 25 cubic yards grant or deny requests for statements of exemption of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, dis- from the shoreline substantial development permit turbed or discharged,and in which no existing veg- requirement for uses and developments within etation is removed except as minimally necessary shorelines that are specifically listed above. Such to facilitate additional plantings; statements shall be applied for on forms provided (b) A project for the restoration of an eroded by the administrator. The statement shall be in or unstable stream bank that employs the principles writing and shall indicate the specific exemption of of bioengineering,including limited use of rock as this program that is being applied to the develop- a stabilization only at the toe of the bank,and with ment,and shall provide a summary of the adminis- primary emphasis on using native vegetation to trator's analysis of the consistency of the project control erosive forces of flowing water; or with this program and the Act. As appropriate, (c) A project primarily designed to improve such statements of exemptions shall contain condi- fish and wildlife habitat,remove or reduce imped- tions and/or mitigating measures of approval to iments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery achieve consistency and compliance with the pro- resource available for use by all of the citizens of visions of this program and Act. A denial of an the state;provided,that any structures,other than a exemption shall be in writing and shall identify the bridge or culvert or in-stream habitat enhancement reason(s) for the denial. The administrator's structure associated with the project, is less than actions on the issuance of a statement of exemption 200 square feet in floor area and is located above or a denial are subject to appeal pursuant to the the ordinary high water mark. appeal provisions in Article X of this chapter. (17) "Watershed restoration plan" means a (2) Exempt activities related to any of the fol- plan,developed or sponsored by the Department of lowing shall not be conducted until a statement of Fish and Wildlife,the Department of Ecology,the exemption has been obtained from the administra- Department of Transportation, a federally recog- tor: dredging, flood control works and in-stream nized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its structures,archaeological or historic site alteration, authority,a city,a county or a conservation district clearing and ground disturbing activities such as that provides a general program and implementa- landfill or excavation,dock construction,shore sta- tion measures or actions for the preservation,resto- bilization, freestanding signs, or any development ration, recreation, or enhancement of the natural within a priority aquatic, aquatic or natural shore- resource character and ecology of a stream,stream line designation;provided,that no separate written segment, drainage area or watershed for which statement of exemption is required for the con- agency and public review has been conducted pur- struction of a single-family residence when a suant to Chapter 43.21C RCW,the State Environ- county building permit application has been mental Policy Act. reviewed and approved by the administrator;pro- (18) A public or private project, the primary vided further, that no statement of exemption is purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife hab- required for emergency development pursuant to itat or fish passage, when all of the following WAC 173-14-040(1)(d). apply: (Revised 3/14) 18-168.50 Jefferson County Code 18.25.590 (3) No statement of exemption shall be required (d) That the variance authorized does not for other exempt uses or developments unless the constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed administrator has cause to believe a substantial by the other properties in the area, and will be the question exists as to qualifications of the specific minimum necessary to afford relief; use or development for the exemption, or the (e) That the public interest will suffer no administrator determines there is a likelihood of substantial detrimental effect; adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions. (f) That the public rights of navigation and (4) Whenever the exempt activity also requires use of the shorelines will not be materially inter- a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit fered with by the granting of the variance; and under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or a Sec- (g) Mitigation is provided to offset unavoid- tion 404 permit under the Federal Water Pollution able adverse impacts caused by the proposed Control Act of 1972, a copy of the written state- development or use. ment of exemption shall be sent to the appli- (4) In the granting of all variances, consider- cant/proponent and Ecology pursuant to WAC ation shall be given to the cumulative environmen- 173-27-050. [Ord. 7-13 Exh.A(Art.IX§ 4)] tal impact of additional requests for like actions in the area.For example, if variances were granted to 18.25.580 Variance permit criteria. other developments in the area where similar cir- (1) The purpose of a variance is to grant relief cumstances exist, the total of the variances should to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set also remain consistent with the policies of RCW forth in this program where there are extraordinary 90.58.020 and should not produce significant or unique circumstances relating to the property adverse effects to the shoreline ecological func- such that the strict implementation of this program tions and processes or other users. would impose unnecessary hardships on the appli- (5) Other factors that may be considered in the cant/proponent or thwart the policies set forth in review of variance requests include the conserva- RCW 90.58.020. Use restrictions may not be var- tion of valuable natural resources and the protec- ied. In authorizing a variance, special conditions tion of views from nearby roads, surrounding may be attached to the permit by the county or the properties and public areas. In addition, variance Department of Ecology to control any undesirable requests based on the applicant's/proponent's effects of the proposed use.Final authority for van- desire to enhance the view from the subject devel- ance permit decisions shall be granted by the opment may be granted where there are no likely Department of Ecology. detrimental effects to existing or future users,other (2) Variances will be granted in any circum- features or shoreline ecological functions and/or stance where denial would result in a thwarting of processes, and where reasonable alternatives of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all equal or greater consistency with this program are instances extraordinary circumstances shall be not available.In platted residential areas,variances shown and the public interest shall suffer no sub- shall not be granted that allow a greater height or stantial detrimental effect. lesser shore setback than what is typical for the (3) Variances may be authorized, provided the immediate block or area. applicant/proponent can demonstrate all of the fol- (6) Permits and/or variances applied for or lowing: approved under other county codes shall not be (a) That the strict application of the bulk or construed as shoreline permits under this program. dimensional criteria set forth in this program pre- [Ord. 7-13 Exh.A(Art. IX § 5)] eludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable permitted use of the property; 18.25.590 Conditional use permit criteria. (b) That the hardship described above is (1) The purpose of a conditional use permit is to specifically related to the property,and is the result allow greater flexibility in administering the use of conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or regulations of this program in a manner consistent natural features and the application of this pro- with the policies of RCW 90.58.020.In authorizing gram,and not,for example, from deed restrictions a conditional use, special conditions may be or the applicant's/proponent's own actions; attached to the permit by the county or the Depart- (c) That the design of the project will be ment of Ecology to control any undesirable effects compatible with other permitted activities in the of the proposed use.Final authority for conditional area and will not cause adverse effects on adjacent use permit decisions rests with the Department of properties or the shoreline environment; Ecology. 18-168.51 (Revised 3/14) Fee=Associated with PRE14 C0008 r Fee Type Reuenue'GL Account Fee Amount Amount Due Updated Hy. Health Dept Re•:le;, L1.• Associated fees i' Paid history Totals: $535.00 S0.00 1 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and Wetland Delineation Report Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Project Number E114001300 Cardno ENTRIX Shaping the Future Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Document Information Prepared for Kevin Long, North Olympic Salmon Coalition Project Name Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and Wetland Delineation Report for the Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Project Number E114001300 Project Manager Jack Bjork PE, D.WRE Date March 26, 2014 Prepared for: SWIM CRAIWIIC SALMON North Olympic Salmon Coalition 104 N Laurel St Suite 121 Port Angeles,WA 98362 Phone.360-504-5646 Prepared by: (.1"4". Cai r[dno ENTRIX Shaping the Future Cardno ENTRIX 801 Second Avenue Suite 700,Seattle,WA 98104 Phone(+1)206-832 4620 Fax(+1)206-269-0098 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Report 1-1 2 Regulatory Background 2-1 2.1 Waters of the United States 2-1 2.2 The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County(SWANCC)Decision 2-2 2.3 The Rapanos Decision 2-2 2.4 Waters and Wetlands of the State 2-3 2.5 State of Washington Wetlands Rating Method 2-4 2.6 Jefferson County,WA: Chapter 18.22-Critical Areas Ordinance Requirements and Permitting 2-5 3 Methods 3-1 3.1 Vegetation 3-1 3.2 Soils 3-2 3.3 Hydrology 3-2 3.4 Waters of the U.S.: Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) 3-3 4 Project Area 4-1 4.1 Existing Conditions: Marine Intertidal Persistent Emergent Wetlands 4-1 4.1.1 Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Floodplain Map 4-3 4.1.2 USFWS National Wetland Inventory Maps 4-4 4.1.3 Cowardin Classification 4-5 4.1.4 Hydrogeomorphic Classification 4-5 4.1.5 Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (Wetlands) 4-6 4.2 Vegetation 4-7 4.3 Soils 4-8 4.3.1 Miscellaneous Map Unit Co-Coastal Beaches 4-9 4.3.2 Soil Map Unit Td -Tidal Marsh 4-10 4.3.3 Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh: Hydric Soil 4-10 4.4 Hydrology 4-10 4.4.1 Tidal Hydrology 4-10 4.4.2 Tidal Analysis 4-10 5 Results 5-1 5.1 Waters of the U.S and Jurisdictional Wetlands 5-1 5.1.1 Scow Bay Intertidal Slough: Perennial Distributary Channels WOUS(7.9 acres) 5-1 5.1.2 Low Marsh Wetland Habitat(11.8 acres) 5-1 5.1.3 High Marsh Wetland Habitat(7.6 acres) 5-2 5.1.4 Palustrine Forested Slope Wetland Habitat(1.2 acres) 5-2 5.1.5 Upland Habitat 5-3 5.1.6 Washington State Wetland Rating Summary 5-6 March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Table of Contents i 1 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 6 Findings 6-1 6.1 Potential USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. 6-1 6.2 Non-USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S 6-1 7 Supplemental Information 7.1 7.1 Directions to the Project Area 7-1 7.2 Contact Information 7-1 8 References 8-1 Appendices Appendix A Wetland Determination Field Data Forms Appendix B Representative Photos of the Project Area Appendix C Washington State Wetland Rating Form Figures Figure 1-1: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Area and Regional Location 1-2 Figure 1-2: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Area and Vicinity 1-3 Figure 4-1: 1871 map(left)and 2000 WDNR orthophoto(right)showing changes at the Scow Bay habitat complex. 4-2 Figure 4-2: Spit and salt marsh habitat complexes of the Kilisut Harbor(Scow Bay)and Oak Bay region 4.3 Figure 4-3: FEMA Floodplain Map for Scow Bay and Oak Bay,WA(Map Panel Number 5300690190B) 4-4 Figure 4-4: National Wetland Inventory Map showing wetlands in the vicinity of the Project Area 4-5 Figure 4-5: Jefferson County Critical Areas Map. The green highlighted areas represent wetlands that have been mapped as part of the County's Critical Areas Wetland Inventory. 4-7 Figure 4-6: NRCS Soil Web Survey image depicting two map units as being associated with the Project Area. 4-9 Figure 5-1: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Area Wetland Delineation Map 5-4 Tables Table 5.1: Tabular Summary of the Wetland Types described within the Project Area. 5-6 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 1 Introduction As requested by the North Olympic Salmon Coalition (NOSC), Cardno ENTRIX conducted a routine wetland delineation and completed this Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD)to assist the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USAGE)in their determination of potential Waters of the United States (WOUS)and jurisdictional wetlands within the Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Area (Project Area)(Figures 1-1 and 1-2).The Project Area includes the intertidal slough channel and adjacent salt marsh located at the south end of Scow Bay.The Project Area is located northeast of Oak Bay approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Port Hadlock-Irondale,WA and 6.75 miles north of Port Ludlow,WA. in northeastern Jefferson County, on the western shores of the Puget Sound at the isthmus between Indian Island and Marrowstone Island; and is located in Section 7, Township 29 North, Range 1 East in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17(Quilcene River and Snow Creek). The total Project Area is approximately 28.6 acres in size.The intertidal slough channel meanders through an abutting and hydrologically associated salt marsh wetland and mud flat complex that is located on the north and south sides of the State Route 116 causeway.The slough channel WOUS and the marine, intertidal salt marsh wetlands were the focus of the field assessment and this report.This assessment included only the WOUS and associated wetlands located within the Project Area. Cardno ENTRIX assumed proof of ownership and authorization for access was not required with this submittal in consideration of existing documentation available to the USAGE from the NOSC. This PJD report presents the results of the available literature review, aerial photographic analysis and examination of existing data from a number of regional, state, and federal agencies, including the National Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)Web Soil Survey, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)National Wetland Inventory and U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)Surface Water Resource web sites.The field assessment and subsequent desk top analysis were conducted to confirm and refine the information cited from the sources cited above.This report provides a preliminary determination of the waters of the U.S. and related jurisdictional wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act(CWA)for the entirety of the defined Project Area. 1.1 Purpose of the Report The purpose of this report is to identify and describe jurisdictional wetlands and distributary slough channels in the Kilisut Harbor Design Restoration Project Area. The report also facilitates NOSC's efforts to accomplish the following: 1. Document wetland boundary determinations for review by regulatory authorities. 2.To help the Project's design avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and streams. 3. Establish valuable baseline information for Project impact and mitigation analysis and planning (helping project engineers develop a Wetland Mitigation Plan, if necessary). This report is also intended to assist the project proponents with meeting Jefferson County Critical Areas Code Findings and Compliance Requirements (Chapter 18.22.290). Review by the following agencies is anticipated because the Project's design is expected to permanently, or temporarily, impact a wetland or stream. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USAGE)Section 404 permit • Washington Department of Ecology(Ecology)Section 401 Water Quality Certification • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Introduction 1-1 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project The following two figures provide a visual orientation to the regional location of the Project and the approximate boundaries identifying the Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Area. n ■ivk ■4 Nortilarol 7 $7,74,7r,z,77.7„, 4 17077, 074 P ( H7lcitaltk 117 4,77 4? = Project Area 4. ,J:y.mr, Pot-714mi Port ::.11efr Lud7c..* Figure 1-1: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Area and Regional Location 1-2 Introduction Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project LY 4 CIO • -rrn* a Figure 1-2: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Approximate Project Area and Vicinity. March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Introduction 1-3 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 2 Regulatory Background The USACE regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA. "Discharges of fill material" is defined as the addition of fill material into waters of the U.S., including, but not limited to the following: placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure; impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site- development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines [33 C.F.R. §328.2(f)]. Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341)requires any applicant for a federal license or permit that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the U.S.to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Discharge to an "isolated" waterbody without a State permit may subject the Project proponent to substantial fines or criminal action, and may require restoration of the waterbody to its original condition. "Isolated"waters were determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to not require federal permits (the"SWANCC decision"). Section 404 of the CWA requires approval prior to discharging dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. • Depositing of fill or dredged material in waters of the U.S. or adjacent wetlands. • Fill for residential, commercial, or recreational developments. • Construction of revetments, groins, breakwaters, levees, dams, dikes, and weirs. • Placement of riprap and road fills. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires approval prior to any work in or over navigable waters of the United States, or which affects the course, location, condition or capacity of such waters. Typical activities requiring Section 10 permits are: • Construction of piers, wharves, bulkheads, dolphins, marinas, ramps, floats intake structures, and cable or pipeline crossings. • Dredging and excavation. Any person,firm, or agency(including federal, state, and local government agencies) planning to work in navigable waters of the United States, or dump or place dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, must first obtain a permit from the USACE. Permits, licenses, variances, or similar authorization may also be required by other federal, state and local statutes. 2.1 Waters of the United States Waters of the United States include essentially all surface waters such as all navigable waters and their tributaries, all interstate waters and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all impoundments of these waters. Navigable Waters of the United States are defined as waters that have been used in the past, are now used, or are susceptible to use as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce up to the head of navigation. Section 10 and/or Section 404 permits are required for construction activities in these waters. Boundaries between jurisdictional waters and uplands are determined in a variety of ways depending on which type of water is present. Methods for delineating wetlands and non-tidal waters are described in Chapter 3. Wetlands are defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)]. Presently, to be a wetland, a site must exhibit positive indicators of three wetland criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Regulatory Background 2-1 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project soils, and wetland hydrology existing under the"normal circumstances"for the site.The lateral regulatory extent of non-tidal waters is determined by delineating the ordinary high water mark(OHWM) [33 C.F.R. §328.4(c)(1)].The OHWM is defined by the USACE as"that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris,or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas" [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)]. 2.2 The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) Decision The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), is more commonly referred to as the SWANCC decision. SWANCC involved a challenge to CWA jurisdiction over certain isolated, intrastate, non-navigable ponds in Illinois that formerly had been gravel mine pits, but which, over time, provided habitat for migratory birds.Although these ponds served as migratory bird habitat, they were non-navigable and isolated from the tributary system of other waters regulated under the CWA. In SWANCC, the Supreme Court held that the USAGE had exceeded its authority in asserting CWA jurisdiction pursuant to§404(a)over the waters at issue based on their use as habitat for migratory birds, pursuant to preamble language, commonly referred to as the Migratory Bird Rule (51 Fed. Reg.41217(1986)). SWANCC eliminates CWA jurisdiction over isolated waters that are intrastate and non-navigable,where the sole basis for asserting CWA jurisdiction is the actual or potential use of the waters as habitat for migratory birds that cross state lines in their migrations. CWA jurisdiction extends to waters, including wetlands,which are adjacent to navigable waters pursuant to the Supreme Court holding in Riverside Bayview Homes, which was endorsed in SWANCC as controlling law. The USACE and Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)regulations currently define the term adjacent as"bordering, contiguous, or neighboring"33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b).The case law is still developing on the precise scope of federal CWA jurisdiction since SWANCC. 2.3 The Rapanos Decision The consolidated cases Rapanos v. United Sates and Carabell v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2208(2006) are referred to as Rapanos. The Supreme Court's decision in these consolidated cases addressed where the federal government can apply the CWA, specifically by determining whether a wetland or tributary is a "Water of the United States."The justices issued five separate opinions in Rapanos, with no single opinion commanding a plurality of the Court. The plurality of the Court concluded that the agencies' regulatory authority should extend only to "relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water"connected to Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs),and to"wetlands with a continuous surface connection to" such relatively permanent waters(U.S.Army Corps and U.S. EPA, 2007). Justice Kennedy concluded that wetlands are "waters of the United States""if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as navigable.When, in contrast, wetlands'effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term navigable waters" (U.S. Army Corps and U.S. EPA, 2007). When there is no majority opinion in a Supreme Court case, controlling legal principles may be derived from those principles espoused by five or more justices.Thus, regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA exists over a"water"if either the plurality or Justice Kennedy's standard is satisfied (U.S. Army Corps and U.S. EPA, 2007). As a result of the Rapanos decision, the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: • Traditional Navigable Waters; 2-2 Regulatory Background Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project • Wetlands adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters; • Non-navigable tributaries of TNWs that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally(e.g., typically three months); and • Wetlands that directly abutt such tributaries. The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a TNW: • Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; • Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and • Wetlands adjacent to but do not directly abutt a relatively permanent nonnavigable tributary. The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features: • Swales or erosional features(e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); • Ditches(including roadside ditches)excavated wholly in and draining only uplands; and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows: • A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream TNWs.A significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors. 2.4 Waters and Wetlands of the State States'definitions are nearly always broader than those of the CWA. State definitions often include phrases like"all surface waters," or they may exclude certain waters (i.e., "waters within the territorial limits of the states but not in private lakes or ponds"). Most states include"groundwater"as well. Washington State's wetlands laws and regulations are a multifaceted approach to water resource management and protection. The state has passed numerous laws that affect wetlands and involve a suite of different state agencies.While much of the focus lies on enabling local municipalities to oversee land use and development activities and to regulate wetlands locally, the state also plays an active role in regulating wetlands and water resources. The state's primary role in wetlands regulation and protection involves filling gaps in federal jurisdiction over wetlands by using authorities in the State Water Pollution Control Act. Washington's Growth Management Act plays a significant role in wetlands regulation through its requirement for local governments to protect critical areas, which include wetland habitats.The state assists local governments in the development of comprehensive growth management plans, shoreline master programs, regulations, and ordinances. The State of Washington provides wetlands protection under numerous state laws, none of which provide wetlands protection as their primary purpose: State Water Pollution Control Act; Growth Management Act; Shoreline Management Act; State Hydraulic Code; and Forest Practices Act. In general, the state emphasizes a local approach to wetlands protection and regulation. Most state laws authorize local municipalities to plan and regulate their lands, including wetlands, with state agencies often playing an advisory role.The largest state role in regulation falls under the water quality provisions of the State Water Pollution Control Act, described below. However, the most influential wetland-related regulation in the state comes at the local level, as land use management is generally perceived as the most effective mechanism for protecting wetland functions and values.The State of Washington defines'Waters of the March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Regulatory Background 2-3 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project state"to include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground water, salt waters, estuaries, tidal flats, beaches and lands adjoining the seacoast of the state, sewers, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington. While the Federal Clean Water Act focuses on waters of the United States, navigable surface waters and their tributaries,the term"Waters of the state"under Section 90.56.010 is broader. "'Waters of the state" means any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." Also included are surface waters that are not tributary to navigable waters. The State of Washington has water quality standards that apply to all of these waters. In general,Waters of the state are defined much more broadly than WOUS. Projects that do not require a federal permit may still result in dredge or fill in Waters of the state. In such an event, such projects may be regulated by Ecology in conjunction with the local municipality. 2.5 State of Washington Wetlands Rating Method The Washington State Wetlands Rating Method is a rapid functional assessment process used to quantify, describe, and categorize wetlands affected by proposed development projects based on a four tier scale. This state function and value assessment is also used to evaluate the applicability and scale of mitigation,when mitigation is deemed necessary and appropriate. Wetlands were classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington developed by Ecology (Hruby 2004). Cowardin classification assists in the functional assessment for the Project Area's marine intertidal persistent emergent wetland using the Washington State Wetlands Rating Method. This assessment method is used to assess the function and value of wetlands based on their value to wildlife, flood attenuation, sediment removal, human use, import and export of organic matter, removal of nutrients and toxic materials, and numerous other wetland functions. Appendix C includes the Western Washington Wetland Rating Form for the marine intertidal persistent emergent wetland (low and high salt marsh mosaic)surrounding the proposed construction impact area. For each function and value, a rating of low, moderate, high, exceptional, or not applicable was assigned based on observations and responses to questions. Scores for each function or value were applied on a scale of functional points. Once the total functional points for each wetland were calculated, each wetland was assigned to one of the following four categories: Category I wetlands include wetland of exceptionally high quality which provide primary value a rare wetlands, special wildlife habitat, exceptional ecological functions, and exhibit value for flood attenuation capability. Category I wetlands are unique and rare types of wetlands and they exhibit functional points greater than 70 percent of total possible functional points. Category II wetlands are considered unique and also function as exceptional wildlife or fish habitat. Wetlands scoring between fifty-one (51) and sixty-nine (69) points on the Western Washington Rating System form are Category I I wetlands. Category Ill wetlands are more common wetlands and generally isolated or smaller in function and size. Wetlands scoring between thirty(30)and fifty(50)points on the Western Washington Rating System form are Category III wetlands. 2-4 Regulatory Background Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Category IV wetlands are generally smallest, most isolated, exhibiting the least amount of biological diversity. Wetlands scoring less than thirty (30) points on the Western Washington Rating System form are Category IV wetlands. 2.6 Jefferson County, WA: Chapter 18.22 - Critical Areas Ordinance Requirements and Permitting The county jurisdiction will require an iterative review of the site and engineering plans throughout the course of their development. Particular focus often rests with the Project's potential affect to zoning and Critical Areas Ordinance requirements. These requirements consist of wetland and habitat buffer requirements, including the consideration of adjacent land use intensity to water quality or habitat functions. The information and conclusions represented in this report will assist in that permit related review and approval process associated with Jefferson County Code of Ordnance Chapter 18.22. March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Regulatory Background 2-5 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 3 Methods On February 25, 2014, Cardno ENTRIX staff collected field data to identify the boundaries of potential jurisdictional wetlands and other WOUS located in the Project Area. Data on vegetation, soils, and hydrologic characteristics of features were recorded in the field on data forms for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Appendix A).The area surveyed included the approximately 28.6 acre Project Area comprising all features within the Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Area footprint. This wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 USAGE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook(May 2007), and the Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 (May 2010).A Level 2 Onsite Inspection was conducted (as defined in the Wetland Delineation Manual), evaluating three parameters that identify and delineate the boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands, including (1)the dominance of wetland vegetation; (2) the presence of hydric soils; and (3) hydrologic conditions that result in periods of inundation or saturation on the surface from flooding or ponding.The National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands for Washington State (Region 9)was used to determine the wetland indicator status of plants observed in the Project Area.The U.S. Department of Agriculture NRCS Web Soil Survey for Jefferson County and the National List of Hydric Soils were used to identify soil types within the Project boundary. Lastly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's National Wetland Inventory map and the Jefferson County Critical Areas GIS map database were also reviewed for information pertaining to known wetlands in the Project Area. A number of sampling plots were selected based on site topography and habitat. For each sampling plot, the site location was recorded and the geographic coordinates(longitude and latitude)were collected. A handheld Global Positioning System (GPS)unit capable of sub-meter accuracy was used to digitally record the boundaries of each potential jurisdictional wetland identified in the Project Area. GPS data were subsequently downloaded from the GPS unit, differentially corrected and converted to GIS shape files and CAD coordinates. These shape files were then overlaid on CAD generated base maps of the Project Area and the acreage of each wetland habitat or WOUS in the Project Area was calculated. For potential jurisdictional WOUS that were not accessible during the field delineation, aerial imagery was used to delineate features or extend the length of a feature (i.e., stream)that were recorded in the field. Features outside of the Project Area were also recorded where the features were thought to be hydrologically linked to wetland habitats found within the Project Area. 3.1 Vegetation A visual assessment was made of all plant species in a sample plot positioned in specifically selected locations within the Project Area. Plot size diameters were five foot for the herb stratum, ten foot for the shrub stratum and thirty feet for the tree stratum. Plants were identified to species level wherever possible using A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon (Cooke 1997),Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington (Guard 1995), and the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region 9 (Washington State).This protocol determines the presence or absence of hydrophytic vegetation. The procedure for determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation followed that identified in the Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Regional Supplement. Specifically, it involved the following assessment for each sample plot: March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Methods 3-1 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 1. Apply Indicator 1 (Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation). a. If the plant community passes the rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation,then the vegetation is hydrophytic and no further vegetation analysis is required. b. If the rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation is not met, then proceed to step 2. 2. Apply Indicator 2(Dominance Test). a. If the plant community passes the dominance test,then the vegetation is hydrophytic and no further vegetation analysis is required. b. If the plant community fails the dominance test, and indicators of hydric soil and/or wetland hydrology are absent,then hydrophytic vegetation is absent unless the site meets requirements for a problematic wetland situation. c. If the plant community fails the dominance test, but indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are both present, proceed to step 3. 3. Apply Indicator 3(Prevalence Index).This and the following step assume that at least one indicator of hydric soil and one primary or two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology are present. a. If the plant community satisfies the prevalence index, then the vegetation is hydrophytic. No further vegetation analysis is required. b. If the plant community fails the prevalence index, proceed to step 4. 4. Apply Indicators 4 (Morphological Adaptations)and/or 5 (Wetland Non-Vascular Plants). a. If either indicator is satisfied, then the vegetation is hydrophytic. b. If none of the indicators is satisfied, then hydrophytic vegetation is absent unless indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present and the site meets the requirements for a problematic wetland situation. Wetland indicator species include those listed as Obligate(OBL), Facultative Wetland (FACW), or Facultative(FAC)in the Region 9 List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:Washington State(Reed 1988). Vegetation was described in terms of both species and percent coverage per strata. Sample plots with vegetation that met the above requirements were identified as hydrophytic. 3.2 Soils The U.S. Department of Agriculture NRCS Web Soil Survey for Jefferson County,WA and the National List of Hydric Soils (NRCS 2013)were used to identify soil types within the Project Area. The Web Soil Survey of Jefferson County,WA was examined to identify the soils(map units)presently mapped in the Project Area. Soils were examined on-site by digging a test pit to a depth of 18 inches below ground surface (bgs)or less depending on soil conditions, to determine if the soils exhibited hydric characteristics. The determination of hydric soil indicators was based on soil texture, matrix color and the presence of redoximorphic features such as oxidized iron (Fe2+)concentrations and iron (Fe31)depletions expressed within a low chroma colored matrix. Soil matrix colors were classified according to the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color 2009). 3.3 Hydrology Hydrological conditions were determined through the presence of primary hydrologic indicators such as direct observation of inundation, soil saturation in the upper 12 to 18 inches, oxidized rhizospheres, and 3-2 Methods Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project the presence of water marks or drift and sediment deposits. Secondary hydrologic indicators such as water-stained leaves were recorded if present. 3.4 Waters of the U.S.: Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) The lateral boundaries of jurisdictional waters are indicated by the OHWM. Cardno ENTRIX field staff measured and recorded the width between the OHWMs of the tidal slough distributary channel(s) encountered during the field assessment. The OHWM is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3(e) as "the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics including a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." Calculations for the length and area of all the intertidal slough channels encountered and recorded in the field are provided in the Results section of this report. March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Methods 3-3 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 4 Project Area Oak Bay and Kilisut Harbor are located in the North Puget Sound Subbasin between Marrowstone and Indian Islands in northeastern Jefferson County,WA.This area is designated as Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) 17, representing the Quilcene River and Snow Creek, which drain the northeast corner of the Olympic Peninsula. The Project Area is located in a tidal slough and salt marsh/mud flat complex enclosed by an aggrading beach spit(berm)located on the southside of the road causeway (Route 116)connecting Indian Island to Marrowstone Island. Two distinct intertidal slough channels formerly passed through the area where the road is now located. These channels historically connected Kilisut Harbor(Scow Bay)in the north to Oak Bay in the south. A large salt marsh was known to be present under the middle section of the State Route 116 causeway. A barrier beach with overwash fans and salt marsh were known to exist south of the road,with a tidal slough channel that extended through the south beach and to the west. Extensive wetlands were present below the approximate Mean High Water(MHW)line, between the causeway and the south side spit. Much of the southern end of Kilisut Harbor(Scow Bay)was also below MHW,with salt marsh wetlands occupying the area between MHW and the Mean Higher High Water(MHHW)lines. Reduced tidal flushing appears to have caused partial filling of the tidal slough channels located south and north of the road. The historic tidal channels that connected Scow Bay to Oak Bay have completely closed,which constrains the tidal exchange between Kilisut Harbor and the intertidal wetlands located south of the road, as well as to Oak Bay. Saltwater exchange from Oak Bay to the marsh system in recent decades has been limited to waves overtopping the beach berm during storm events. The through-fill road and twin five foot-diameter culverts built for State Route 116, have also repressed the natural tidal exchange between Kilisut Harbor(Scow bay)and Oak Bay even though a salt marsh and intertidal slough channels exist on both the north and south sides of the State Route 116 causeway. The proposed restoration action intends to remove these structural and hydraulic barriers in order to facilitate a more robust tidal exchange, and reconnect the salt marsh and southern Kilisut Harbor(Scow Bay)to Oak Bay.This restoration is designed to increase flushing and improve water quality, and to recreate connectivity during high tide periods. 4.1 Existing Conditions: Marine Intertidal Persistent Emergent Wetlands The wetland complex occupying a majority portion of the Project Area can be accurately referred to as a marine intertidal slough and salt marsh wetland complex.This habitat is a small,tidally influenced, hydrologic subbasin contained behind an aggrading longshore spit(beach berm)located on the south side.This setting is somewhat typical of a terminal inlet bay with intertidal emergent saltmarsh interspersed with un-vegetated mud flats and distributary slough channels. These marine intertidal slough and salt marsh habitats experience fluctuating salinity levels that vary throughout the diurnal range of tides. The increased hydraulic connectivity expected through the implementation of this Project could provide unique and valuable rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids, other migrating fish, and bird species. As seen in the image on the left below,the Scow Bay intertidal slough channel /salt marsh complex formed the low-lying connection between Indian and Marrowstone islands. The 1871 historical map indicates this tidal marsh was open to tidal exchange between Kilisut Harbor(Scow Bay)to the north and Oak Bay to the south. The tidal salt marsh habitat area has not changed much since 1871; however,the hydraulic connectivity has been severely impaired by the road causeway positioned through the middle of the marsh.An aggrading longshore spit or barrier berm has physically severed the connecting slough channel that historically allowed for tidal exchange between Scow Bay and Oak Bay. Removal of the March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Project Area 4-1 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project SR116 road fill dike would restore an open coastal inlet by removing the artificial barrier and re- establishing historical saltwater passage, tidal flow, and sediment transport processes at the Project site. kA P 4.'r iR ,*4 R tea• s ` '* Y* 7 /4I yr{ 4 •° - y ■ Figure 4-1: 1871 map (left) and 2000 WDNR orthophoto (right) showing changes at the Scow Bay habitat complex. As seen in the Figure 4-2 below, the Project Area has no freshwater inputs and should not be referred to as an Estuarine, Intertidal, Emergent, Unconsolidated Shore, Regularly Flooded (E2EM/USN)wetland and Estuarine, Subtidal, Unconsolidated Bottom (El UBL)wetland. Only the tidal connection to the north exists today where it was open to the south and north historically. 4-2 Project Area Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Sp+UMar"ah&tirrace Connec1wity 0 Historical&Current Connectivity ' Hgonte+ConnodtvM&No Known Current CannertahN ` A current Connoopxoy&NoRrxwn „�, Historcai Cmnactivay 1 Nc Knwtn litdoricel or Ctrreae Conntactr✓iry t : , Me.Known Freshwater Pimar ,.. • Red No I w vn Freshwater Input A t f ?{ kab<at Complor Scaie(na) r� �t.an 0 tot.1003 Cmat-tmw *' rte, ,:.. i A00 01 °fv rl ,•, 0s t t Figure 4-2: Spit and salt marsh habitat complexes of the Kilisut Harbor(Scow Bay)and Oak Bay region. This NSERP map includes the status of surface water connectivity with marine waters. As indicated, no freshwater input occurs today in the Project Area,which is located at the southern end of Scow Bay. 4.1.1 Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Floodplain Map The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) is responsible for the Flood Insurance Study(FIS) for Jefferson County. Figure 4-3 shows the Project Area as being assigned to Zone A. Zone A flood hazard areas are subject to a one percent or greater annual chance of flooding any given year. Base flood elevations are derived from detailed hydraulic analyses. Tides are the dominant mechanism for flooding and inundation in the Project Area. Tidal overbanking and upwelling groundwater tables in the adjacent uplands are well documented in the vicinity. March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Project Area 4-3 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 61 .z 1 1 1 Figure 4-3: FEMA Floodplain Map for Scow Bay and Oak Bay,WA(Map Panel Number 53006901908) 4.1.2 USFWS National Wetland Inventory Maps The USFWS maintains a national inventory of known wetlands for the United States. The National Wetland Inventory wetland and riparian maps are graphic representations of the type, size, and location of the wetlands, deepwater, or riparian habitats in the United States. These maps have been prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery in conjunction with collateral data sources and field work. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery, thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site will often result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through photographic image analysis.The USFWS uses the Cowardin et al. (1979)definition of wetland. This definition is the standard for the agency and is the National Standard for wetland mapping, monitoring, and data reporting as determined by the Federal Geographic Data Committee in 1996. For the purposes of adapting the wetland classification system to map form, a series of letter and number codes has been developed.These alpha-numeric codes correspond to the classification nomenclature that best describes the habitat. 4-4 Project Area Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project .. E22EM,USN . i . ,.. 1,1 . : * r k* r ' R 1 E Flo. t U Wyk# • i r t c E2EM'L_I.N ;?` _j ""-fir �. Y ... '• -At:'. ' , . I ' .,- ,.may,.,_• Figure 4-4: National Wetland Inventory Map showing wetlands in the vicinity of the Project Area 4.1.3 Cowardin Classification The Cowardin system is a comprehensive hierarchical classification system of wetlands and deepwater habitats with several layers of detail for wetland classification including: a subsystem of water flow; classes of substrate types; subclasses of vegetation types and dominant species; and flooding regimes and salinity levels for each system. As seen in Figure 4-4 above, the USFWS mapped the Project Area as being comprised of Estuarine, Intertidal, Emergent, Unconsolidated Shore, Regularly Flooded (E2EM/USN)and Estuarine, Subtidal, Unconsolidated Bottom (E1 UBL). However, as this area has no freshwater input or riverine connection it is not an estuary; it is a marine-sourced, intertidal slough channel network embedded within an abutting salt marsh and mud flat complex. Cardno staff classified this setting as a Marine, Intertidal,Aquatic Bed and Unconsolidated Shore, Regularly Flooded, Hyperhaline to Euhaline wetland (M2AB/US3). 4.1.4 Hydroaeomorphic Classification The Hydrogeomorphic(HGM)term Tidal Fringe Wetlands applies only to vegetated habitats occupying the intertidal zone of marine, estuarine, or riverine systems. Specifically,these wetlands occur along the fringe of bays, harbors, lagoons and other coastal waterways; receive their water primarily from marine sources; and are affected by astronomical tidal action. Included in this category are wetlands commonly referred to as intertidal salt marshes and mud flats. These habitats correspond to the emergent, scrub- shrub, and sometimes forested wetland designations used by Cowardin et al. (1979).The dominant hydrodynamic function is bidirectional water flow generated by tidal action. Additional water sources may be riverine, groundwater and precipitation. Tidal fringe wetlands lose water by tidal exchange, saturated overland flow to tidal creek channels, and evapotranspiration. March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Project Area 4-5 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Tidal fringe wetlands occur along coasts and estuaries and are under the influence of sea level. They intergrade landward with other wetlands where tidal current diminishes and river flow or near surface groundwater become the dominant water source. The interface of the tidal fringe salt marsh is where bidirectional flows from tides dominate. Because tidal fringe wetlands frequently flood and water table elevations are controlled mainly by sea surface elevation,tidal fringe wetlands seldom dry for significant periods. Tidal fringe wetlands lose water by tidal exchange, by saturated overland flow to tidal creek channels, and by evapotranspiration. Organic matter normally accumulates in higher elevation marsh areas where flooding is less frequent and the wetlands are isolated from shoreline wave erosion by intervening areas of low marsh. Tidal marshes are persistent herbaceous emergent wetlands whose salinity may range from fresh (>0.5 ppt salt)to saline(up to—35 ppt salt).These settings encompass those emergent wetlands that are regularly inundated by tides. These habitats often have narrow tidal channels that exist within flanking tidal wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979). In contrast, intertidal estuaries form a transition zone between river environments and maritime environments and are subject to both marine influences, such as tides, waves, and the influx of saline water; and riverine influences, such as flows of fresh water and sediment. The Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project Area is classified in HGM as a marine tidal fringe, regularly flooded bidirectional saltwater low marsh and high marsh.These systems extend from the outer edge of the continental shelf(deepwater habitat)to one of several possible shoreline features, such as the terminal headland and inlet bay.These wetlands generally extend to the landward limit of tidal inundation defined as the mean higher high waterline(including the swash zone from wave run-up). 4.1.5 Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (Wetlands) The purpose of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Code is to identify and protect critical areas as required by the Growth Management Act(1990)and to implement the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Master Plan. The prime objective of the Code is to protect public health and safety while maintaining the biological and economic resources of the County and respecting legally established private property rights. In the administration of Chapter 18.22, Jefferson County will consult with regulatory agencies and utilize best available science as appropriate. Provisions of Critical Areas Ordinance were crafted to protect regulated critical areas that have been identified in the county. The Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance and Code applies to all development activities proposed within the jurisdiction for a regulated wetland. The intent of this section is to: (1)Maintain and protect regulated wetland acreage and increase the quality,function, and values of regulated wetlands within Jefferson County; (2) Identify hydrologic functions of wetlands and their role within a watershed, and provide needed protection of the role of wetlands from a landscape ecology perspective; (3) Preserve natural flood control, storm water storage, and drainage or stream flow patterns; and (4) Prevent turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish or shellfish-bearing waters, and maintain wildlife habitat. 4-6 Project Area Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project S wYIrY#F, Figure 4-5: Jefferson County Critical Areas Map. The green highlighted areas represent wetlands that have been mapped as part of the County's Critical Areas Wetland Inventory. 4.2 Vegetation The presence and type of wetland vegetation across the Project Area has been confirmed to be strongly elevation dependent, with differences of approximately 2 ft. being locally significant in regard to the type of vegetation community or habitat that occurs. Much of the subsurface deposits in the vicinity are sandy organics with some silt providing for low to moderate rates of hydraulic conductivity. There are no freshwater inputs from any terrestrial source and this salt marsh is maintained by the daily and seasonal cycles of tidal inundation.This possibly explains why the Project Area expresses such a predictable pattern of high and low saltwater marsh driven by the subtle micro-topographic changes occurring throughout the site. The wetland delineation map attached to this report shows the demarcated vegetation habitats associated with discreetly surveyed elevation bands.The mapped vegetation habitats are accurately delineated along elevation bands controlled by the most recently derived topographic survey. The wetland delineation field work further confirmed the demarcation of these plant communities to these discrete elevation bands.The wetland delineation map is a field refined representation of the observed associations between vegetation communities and elevations relative to sea level.The following floristic communities and their associated species were recorded during the wetland field survey: Intertidal Slough Channels (Ocean Level to 7.2 ft. elevation band): Intertidal channels as delineated by the OHWM in the field and the modeling of the MHWM elevation line. The top of the bed and bank channel morphology represents the bottom elevation line of the Low Marsh Floristic Habitat. Low Marsh Floristic Habitat(7.2 ft.to 8.4 ft. elevation bandl: Distichlis spicata(saltgrass), Salicornia virginica(pickleweed), Plantago maritima(goose tongue), Rumex maritima (golden dock), Triglochin maritimum (seaside arrow-grass). High Marsh Floristic Habitat(8.4 ft.to 9.5 ft. elevation band): Grindelia integrifolia (gumweed);Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bentgrass); Phalaris arundinacea(reed canary grass); Rosa pisocarpa(swamp rose) and Rosa nutkana (bristly rose). March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Project Area 4-7 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project n Pr ' 9 o Slope Palustrine Forest Floristic Habitat(positioned adjacent to salt marsh but outside of the Project Area):Alnus rubra(red alder), Gaultheria shallon(salal); Rosa pisocarpa(swamp rose)and Rosa nutkana (bristly rose) and nonnative: Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass). Upland Floristic Habitat(above 8.0 ft. elevation): Upland vegetation habitat representing a mixture of dry upland and riparian species; Psuedotsuga menziesii(douglas-fir),Arbutus menziesii (pacific madrone), Gaultheria shallon(salal); Phalaris arundinacea(reed canary grass),Alnus rubra(red alder) and Pteridium aquilinum(bracken fern)and nonnatives: Ilex aquifolium (English holly), Cytisus scoparius (scotchbroom). 4.3 Soils The NRCS (1987) identifies two major soil types in the Project Area, Soil Map Unit Td -Tidal Marsh and Soil Map Unit Co-Coastal beaches. Figure 4-6 shows the distribution of the mapped soil type(s)in the study area.Tidal Marsh soils are also known to be hydric soils(NRCS 2011).This setting represents a mostly subaqueous soil typical to tidal mud flats, slough channels associated with terminal headlands of inlet bays. Typically, saltwater marsh soils have a slightly fluid, black, silt loam surface layer, 10 to 20 cm thick, derived from estuarine and marine silts. The subsoil is dark gray sand down to a depth of 1 meter or more.The subsoil may contain buried black horizons or lenses representing old soil surfaces.A lithologic discontinuity is typically observed in these soils at a depth of 1 to 2 meters below the soil surface representing a buried soil or un-conforming strata and there may be concentrations of shell fragments, macro algae and diatoms found in parts of the soil profile. Tidal Marsh soils are described in the soil survey as having moderately slow permeability with a tidally influenced,fluctuating water table. The NRCS delineated one soil map unit and one miscellaneous map unit as within the boundaries of the Project Area. General characteristics and properties associated with the predominant Td -Tidal Marsh soil map unit, as described by the NRCS (2013)and confirmed by the Cardno ENTRIX wetland field assessment, are provided below. 4-8 Project Area Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project r 4y $ 4 $,,CP !; .i1 f ii"itt '' ' I£ ' rr a std v t *.'t ' }'ant 1t '. . .h• D S _ y °§#'yam :j , 'A\IlitINtx: Figure 4-6: NRCS Soil Web Survey image depicting two map units as being associated with the Project Area: Td -Tidal Marsh and Co -Coastal beaches. The Soil Map Unit Td -Tidal Marsh is the more predominant soil type and is rated as having a 100 percent probability of being a Hydric Soil. 4.3.1 Miscellaneous Map Unit Co -Coastal Beaches Landform:Terraces, intertidal flood plains Parent material: Freshwater alluvium and marine deposits TAXONOMIC CLASS: Sandy, mixed, mesic Quartzipsamments Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Hydraulic Conductivity(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 48 inches Frequency of flooding: frequent Available water capacity: Low(about 1.0 inches) Land capability (nonirrigated): 8 Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Project Area 4-9 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 4.3.2 Soil Map Unit Td -Tidal Marsh Landform:Terraces, intertidal flood plains Parent material: Freshwater alluvium and marine deposits TAXONOMIC CLASS: Sandy, mixed, mesic Histic Sulfaquents Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Hydraulic Conductivity(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 inches Frequency of flooding:frequent Frequency of ponding:frequent Available water capacity: High (about 9.5 inches) Moderately low to moderately high(0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Land capability(nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Typical profile Oe-0 to 9 inches: mucky peat to silt loam/dark brown (10YR 3/2) Cg1 -9 to 40 inches: Stratified very fine sandy loam to silty loam/dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/1) Cg2-40 to 60 inches: Stratified very fine sandy loam to silt loam/very dark gray (5YR 3/1) 4.3.3 Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh: Hvdric Soil The NRCS provides a rating indicating the proportion of map unit(s)that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more soil series, each of which is rated as hydric soil or non-hydric. Map units made up of dominantly hydric soils may have small areas of non-hydric soils in the higher positions on the landform. The following Figure and Table identify the Soil Map Td-Tidal Marsh and its respective probability for being a hydric soil. 4.4 Hydrology Kilisut Harbor has a moderate Mediterranean climate with damp, chilly(though not severe)winters and warm, dry summers.The Project Area lies in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains and receives an average of only 18.75 inches(476.2 mm) annual precipitation, which is considerably less than the regional average.Year-round temperatures in this locality are mild with average winter temperatures ranging from 35 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit and summer temperatures ranging from 45 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit. However,the environment is not as dry as the mean yearly total would suggest; cool breezes and fogs from the Juan de Fuca Strait provide high humidity to this area. 4.4.1 Tidal Hydrology Water surfaces within the Project Area are directly influenced by an influx of sea water. The highest tides typically occur in December and June(BOR, 2002). Accurate estimates of site specific tidal elevations are essential for predicting the location of low and high salt marsh habitat. This modeling also forecasted the extent of inundation because salt marsh habitat commonly establishes above frequently inundated areas as correlated to the local tidal cycles (i.e.tidal"datums")known as mean high water(MHW)or mean higher high water(MHHW). Cardno ENTRIX has estimated tidal datums for the Project Area by researching data from existing published NOAA gauges. The regional estimates provided by the NOAH data were then refined for the Project Area by the collection of onsite tidal elevation monitoring data. 4.4.2 Tidal Analysis Calculations to determine the MHHW and MHW for the Project Area followed the direct method using the tide by tide comparison approach (i.e. TBYT). Statistics were calculated based on the Project tidal probes 4-10 Project Area Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project installed at the southern side of the spit in Oak Bay and the north side in Scow Bay versus the Port Townsend NOAA harmonic station. The maximum tide recorded during this monitoring period at the Project Area should not be confused with the average maximum tide expected at this area. March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Project Area 4-11 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 5 Results 5.1 Waters of the U.S and Jurisdictional Wetlands Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are classified into multiple types based on topography, soils, vegetation and hydrologic regime. Primarily, the USACE establishes two distinctions:wetland and non-wetland WOUS. Non-wetland waters are commonly referred to as"other waters of the U.S."The areas determined by Cardno ENTRIX to meet the criteria for potential WOUS are distinguished and delineated in Figure 5- 1.The corresponding sheet contain the preliminary jurisdictional determination and delineation at a scale of 1" =200' with solid black hash-mark lines identifying the perennially flowing distributary slough channels,the Low Marsh Habitat is shown in solid green hash-mark lines and the High Marsh Habitat is depicted as an area of solid red hash-mark lines.The areas delineated as subtidal persistent emergent marsh embedded with interstitial mud flat are shown as a red and green color with diagonal hash marks. When combining the two(2)high and low marsh wetland habitats delineated on both the north and south side of the Route 116 causeway, it represents a total Project Area wetland and WOUS of 23.1 acres (1,007,348 sq.ft.). This figure does not include the slough channels counted as WOUS and the adjacent slope wetlands positioned outside the Project Area on private parcels. The sampling points identified on the wetland data sheets (Attachment A)are complemented by corresponding photographs found in Attachment B. The completed Washington State Wetland Rating Form is provided in Attachment C. Descriptions of the features delineated within the Project Area are summarized below. 5.1.1 Scow Bay Intertidal Slough: Perennial Distributary Channels WOUS (7.9 acres) One hydrologically continuous slough channel network meanders through the Project Area. The channel widths range from three to twenty feet. Scow Bay Slough experienced daily bi-directional ebbs and flows as witnessed during the course of the delineation.The Scow Bay Slough channel bifurcates and meanders through the majority of delineated salt marsh wetlands and mudflats associated with the Project Area. This marine intertidal network collectively represents 7.9 acres(345,936 sq.ft.)of area as delineated by the OHWM on both banks.The slough channels are flanked throughout their course by an abutting intertidal emergent salt marsh habitat.This channel network has sandy and mucky substrate and a thick band of wetland vegetation present along most of their banks.The Ordinary High Water Marks were characterized by the wracking of vegetative debris and the exposed roots and shelving associated with the bed and bank morphology. 5.1.2 Low Marsh Wetland Habitat (11.8 acres) The area of Low Marsh Floristic Habitat is reliably delineated between the elevations of 7.2 ft. to 8.4 ft. (NAVD 88). These collective areas represent 11.8 acres (513,866 sq. ft.)and are distributed throughout the Project Area on both the north and south side of the State Route 116 causeway.These wetlands can be classified as marine, intertidal, persistent emergent salt marsh wetlands. The wetland determination forms found in Appendix A describe these habitats as being mostly comprised of the following facultative and obligate plant species: Distichlis spicata(saltgrass), Salicornia virginica (pickleweed), Plantago maritime (goose tounge), Rumex maritime (golden dock), and Triglochin maritimum (seaside arrow- grass). Soils underlying these low elevation salt marsh wetlands include gravelly, sandy loamy and loamy sands expressing a variety of hydric soil indicators. Sample locations recorded: Sandy Redox(S5), Hydrogen Sulfide (A4), and Sandy Gleyed matrix(S4). Soils ranged in color from very dark brown to brown to very dark grayish brown (10YR 2/2, 4/3 to 3/2).These are fine sandy barns to gravelly, coarse loamy sands with values of<5 and chroma 22.When these soils are Hydric,the gley colors(4/N)and high value, low March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Results 5-1 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project chroma colors of?7/1 are typical. Redoximorphic features were documented as oxidized and reduced iron concentrations occurring within the matrix, along pore linings and through the staining of sand grains. The Primary Hydrologic Indicators observed and recorded in the sampling plots were:A2-high water table; A3-saturated soils; B1 -water marks; B2 -sediment deposits; B3-drift deposits; B7- inundation visible on aerial imagery; B8-sparsely vegetated concave surface. 5.1.3 High Marsh Wetland Habitat(7.6 acres1 High Marsh Floristic Habitat is reliably delineated between the elevations of 8.4 ft.to 9.5 ft. (NAVD 88) and represents 7.6 acres(331,435 sq.ft.)in the Project Area. These wetlands are distributed throughout the Project Area and are also classified as marine, intertidal, persistent emergent, regularly flooded salt marsh wetlands. The wetland determination forms,found in Appendix A, describe these habitats as being comprised of the following facultative and obligate plant species: Grindelia integrifolia (gumweed); Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bentgrass); Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass); Rosa pisocarpa (swamp rose)and Rosa nutkana (bristly rose)and Achillea millefolium (common yarrow). Soils underlying these wetlands included inundated gravel, fine to coarse loamy sands, with variety of hydric soil indicators, depending upon sample location including: Sandy Redox(S5), Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)and Sandy Gleyed matrix(S4). Soils range from very dark-brown to dark grayish brown (10YR)with values ranging from 2 to 6 and chroma <_3. Redoximorphic features were documented as oxidized and reduced iron concentrations occurring within the matrix, along pore linings and through the staining of sand grains. The primary hydrologic indicators observed during the field investigation were high water table and saturated soils.The Primary Hydrologic Indicators recorded in the sampling plots were:A2-high water table;A3-saturated soils; B1 -water marks; B2-sediment deposits; B3-drift deposits; B7-inundation visible on aerial imagery; B8-sparsely vegetated concave surface. 5.1.4 Palustrine Forested Slope Wetland Habitat(1.2 acres) Four small patches of palustrine forest slope wetlands are situated adjacent to the outer boundaries of the high salt marsh and outside of the limits of the Project Area (on private parcels).These wetlands were described at the point in which they contacted the border of the high marsh but were not fully delineated as they are located on private parcels and not part of the Project Area. These forested slope wetlands represent approximately 1.2 acres (-52,664 sq.ft.)and are comprised of plant species such as: Alnus rubra (red alder), Gaultheria shallon (salal); Rosa pisocarpa (swamp rose)and Rosa nutkana (bristly rose)and nonnative Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass). They are classified in Cowardin as PFO Broad-leaved Deciduous wetlands. The topsoil's underlying these groundwater supported wetlands included saturated loamy muck and sand to depths z 6 inches bgs. Soil colors ranged from dark-brown and black (7.5YR and 10YR 2/1)to low chroma grey(10YR 7/1)and gley(6/N). These soils were documented with variety of Hydric Soil Indicators, depending upon sample location including: Sandy Redox(S5), Hydrogen Sulfide(A4)and Sandy Gleyed matrix (S4). Redoximorphic features were documented as oxidized and reduced iron concentrations occurring within the matrix, along pore linings and through the staining of sand grains. The primary hydrologic indicators observed during the field investigation were high water table and saturated soils.The Primary Hydrologic Indicators recorded in the sampling plots were: A2-high water table;A3-saturated soils and C3 -Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots; including the Secondary Hydrologic Indicators B9-Water Stained leaves. 5-2 Results Cardno ENTRIX March 2014 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 5.1.5 Upland Habitat The upland vegetation habitat that surrounds the Project Area and is dispersed along topographic high points exceeding 9.5 ft. (NAVD 88)form a mixture of riparian and upland species including: Psuedotsuga menziesii(douglas-fir),Arbutus menziesii(pacific madrone), Gaultheria shallon (salal);Phalaris arundinacea(reed canary grass),Alnus rubra (red alder) and Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fem)and nonnatives: Ilex aquifolium (English holly), Cytisus scoparius(scotchbroom). March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Results 5-3 I, .. a g 2 s m z = pyya�C W 9& u�{ Fpxwuosra♦ar 1olts a i waNai 77s6cm9 f °f �+ NO1103v1�014111.34A e y vt �.. - ryty r 1.7 dk: �°P` —'! • )..„.....-44.:, t a ,11"i."1%, `1- $..,,,t,. .,-.. . st1' 2'^l 1'41-* of , '"W a�+ '1..2/4/ r *��,,y �+ '••` :°R 0. '�' k� �y�,` � Y '�, w '. 24p • "a a 1 ` � I iG F+t Niks\ \\ \ \ ., Fp , i , nt +ffi 8� }T • p i Y C 4 al u4 J .+• '� y " sr C ;2,,,,,,,,,,„ 2 f A y ✓ ,.. �' 1 , . '�: �` k a �# 3'• * (� ri " t a:v aso ao 3. Z $' Sy' 3 ei. `o yt pi Is' try vxxr da lF a 3 $< g g n 'ra a a r 1< •• .. S "'3 `i.`: i : o• ° S 5 QW a a iR = 'k• .y*�A-�`;y. ak it gy q' !g e r 'd.. it Y yyysy B•° � � d '' ?_yg.>• y�� 'n5 c G pvtl 3 1 a'� 6 E tY pj• {{D jam+rya '6. * au . 1 C'!3 GG 0 N 7 y W m L n c C 0 0 $ rc C C N m N C O C N C K J J 01 CO E C w F e i N 2 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 5.1.6 Washington State Wetland Rating Summary The Wetland Rating score for the Project Area wetland in this report is calculated as follows: Marine Tidal Fringe Wetlands Water Quality Function: 32 points Hydrologic Function: 26 points Habitat Function: 18 points Total = 76 points (Class I) Characterization Based on Special Conditions (Marine Intertidal Wetlands) Dual Rating Class I/II Result: These are Class I/ll Wetlands,which are described as wetlands that provide high levels of some critical functions which are difficult to replace. Table 5.1: Tabular Summary of the Wetland Types described within the Project Area. Wetland Jefferson Wetland Cowardin HGM Class Ecology County Area Type Class Rating Prescribed Buffer (acres) Low Marsh M2AB/US3 Marine tidal fringe, II 100 to 150 ft. 11.8 regularly flooded bidirectional saltwater low marsh and high marsh Terrestrial groundwater is a diminutive secondary seasonal source. Hydrodynamics is bidirectional High Marsh M2AB/US3 same as above II 100 to 150 ft. 7.6 Intertidal N/A same as above WA DNR 100 to 150 ft. 7.9 Slough Type F Channels (WOUS) March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Results 5-6 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 6 Findings 6.1 Potential USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. As shown in Figure 5-1 and as described in Chapter 5 above, approximately 19.4 acres of intertidal marine wetlands were delineated in the Project Area. These aquatic features met the USACE three parameter wetland criteria, and thus are potentially subject to USAGE jurisdiction pursuant to the CWA. As also shown in Figure 5-1 and Chapter 5, approximately 7.9 acres of potential Waters of the U.S.were delineated in the Project Area. The Scow Bay salt marsh slough channels are all non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent waters, and thus subject to USACE jurisdiction. Therefore, a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a designated Traditional Navigable Water may not be required. As such, these features are interpreted to potentially be jurisdictional waters of the U.S. 6.2 Non-USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. No surface water features or wetlands were described, in the Project Area, that are likely not subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to the CWA. However, based on the Rapanos decision, the USACE generally does not assert jurisdiction over roadside stormwater conveyance ditches excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water, as is the case along State Route 116. March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Findings 6-1 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 7 Supplemental Information 7.1 Directions to the Project Area From Seattle, WA take the Bremerton Ferry and, upon arrival, exit into the town of Bremerton, WA.Take Route 3 North for 22.6 miles and turn right at the junction of Route 104 west. Take Route 104 west to its intersection with Jefferson County Route 19 (Bear Valley Road). Follow County Route 19 north for 9.6 miles to Port Hadlock-Irondale, WA.Take a right onto State Route 116 east for 2.8 miles to the Indian Island to Marrowstone Island causeway. 7.2 Contact Information Client Contact Information: Mr. Kevin Long North Olympic Salmon Coalition 104 N Laurel Street, Suite 121 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Phone: 360-504-5646 Cardno ENTRIX Project Manager: Mr. Jack Bjork PE, D.WRE Cardno ENTRIX 801 Second Avenue Suite 700, Seattle,WA 98104 USA Phone (+1)206-239-0277 Fax (+1)530-542-4401 Mobile (+1) 206-697-6471 email:jack.Bjork @cardno.com March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Supplemental Information 7-1 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 8 References Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experimental Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). 2001. Clallam County Flood Insurance Study(FIS) Unincorporated Areas. Community number 530021. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington & Northwestern Oregon, Sarah Cooke, May 1997. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington by B. Jennifer Guard, April 2010. Jefferson County Website: Critical Areas Ordinance for Wetland Resources, accessed March 2014. Munsell Color. 2009. Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. New Windsor, New York. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:Washington Region. (Biological Report 88). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, Colorado. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013a.Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Water and Climate Center. 2013b. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. National Hydric Soils List by State: Washington State. Website (http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/wa) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). May 2010. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007 Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Clean Water Act Guidance to Implement the U.S. Supreme Court Decision for the Rapanos and Carabell Cases. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Thomas Hruby, PhD, Ecology Publication# 04-06-025, Annotated Version August 2006. Cereghino et al, Technical Report No. 2012-01, WDFW and USACE: Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound (NSERP), March 2012. Cowardin et al., United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, 1979. March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX References 8-1 APPENDIX A WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS Appendix A Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project This Page Intentionally Left Blank March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX A-1 • WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kiiisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 1A Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform(hillslope,ten-ace,etc.): intertldlfwatPr ai slough s and Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope-concave Slope(%): 2 ca mare Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: 46°01'06.54°N Long: 122'042'10.90°w Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant or dominant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. 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 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: .',10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Distichlis spicata 50 Y FACW 2. Grindelia integrifolia 10 N FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. Agrostis stolonifera 30 Y FAC 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. Hydrophytic =Total Cover Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <10% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 1A 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks Sapric w/fine 0 to 5 10YR 2/1 95 (mucky)fSdL sand and silt Sapric w/fine 5 to 12 10YR 2/2 95 (Mucky)SdL sand and silt 12 to 18 10YR 4/1 80 fSdL 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol(Al) — Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) Black Histic(A3) X Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) X Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(Al) (except MLRA 1,2,4A,and 48) _ 4A,and 4B) X High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along X Sediment Deposits(B2) Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(B3) - Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) - Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(B5) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) - Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 5"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 3°bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 1B Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(WRIA 17) intertidal slough and Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): wntitPrma�h Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope-concave Slope(%): 2 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: 46°o1'07.04'N Long: 122°042 ia.so°w Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics. Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant or dominant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Pseudotsuqa menziesii 10 N FACU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Arbutus menziesii 25 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3. lex aquifolium 5 N NI Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 s (A/B) 40 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Gaultheria shallon 25 Y FACU Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Rosa nutkana 5 N FAC OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 30 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Pteridium aquilinum 5 N FACU 2. Mahonia nervosa 5 N FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. 3-Prevalence Index is 553.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <20% Present? Yes No X US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 1B 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks Sandy loam 0 to 4 10YR 4/2 95 SdL w/some silt Sandy loam 4 to 9 10YR 4/3 95 SdL w/some silt 9 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 SdL '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 Soils': _ Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, — Surface Water(Al) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) — 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) — Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living _ Sediment Deposits(82) — Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite: Kiiisvt Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 2A Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landforrn(hillslo P I e,terrace,etc.): IntaCAIIWrcfdal P[smugh KA and Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope-concave Slope(%): 1 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat. UTM E5220520 Long: UTM N5318406 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) °o Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC 61904r,i, (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 =- 3. FACW species x 2= 4• FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' $ ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Elymus mollis 80 Y NI 2. Achillea millefolium 10 N FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 8. X'! 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9, data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10• 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. = Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <10% Present? Yes No X US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks:Vegetation was somewhat inconclusive but the geomorphic landscape position and geomorphic s surface signatures present,as well as the topographic elevation of the sampling point in relation to the MHW and MHHW lines of the intertidal floodplain indicates this position is inside of the wetland boundary. SOIL Sampling Point: 1A 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) % Type' Loa' Texture Remarks gravelly loamy 0 to 6 10YR 4/3 95 Gr LoS sand Low chrome sand 6 to 13 10YR 5/1 95 Gr LoS grains Low chrome sand 13 to 18 10YR 511 90 SdL grains 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) X Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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(54) _ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes €,, No 'Ate-' Y1 Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(A1) _ _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) X Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along X Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(85) _ (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site. Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 • Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 28 Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform hillslo e,terrace,etc.): ntertiaa�slouyn and Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope-concave Slope(%): 2 ( P ) irPr mean Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: UTM E5220520 Long: UTM N5318406 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION— Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Ilex aquifolium 5 N NI That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Arbutus menziesii 25 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3. Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 N FACU Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A/B) 40 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Gaultheria shallon 25 Y FACU Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Rosa nutkana 5 N FAC OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 30 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5f: : ) 1. Pteridium aquilinum 5 N FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Mahonia nervosa 5 N FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4• Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6• X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7• ' 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting g. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 10 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <20% Present? Yes No X US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL ~�=a; 4 ` 2B 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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks coarse loamy 0 to 4 10YR 412 95 Co LoS sand gravelly loamy 4 to 10 10YR 4/3 95 Gr LoS sand 10 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 Gr LoS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) — Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(MO) _ 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(All) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(89)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(A1) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(B10) _ _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living _ Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) _ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projecusite: Kiilsut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 3A Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform hillslo e,terrace,etc. : nterttla slough and Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): 2 ( P ) Intel- al march Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: UTM E5220590 Long: UTM N5318373 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances°present? Yes X No Are Vegetation _ , Soil _ ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size ;d ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. 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 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (NB) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3, FACW species fi*"' x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species ,) x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals. ,:, (A) (B) 1. Distichlis spicata 40 Y FACW 2. Salicomia virginica 50 Y FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7, 3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <10% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks:vegetation inconclusive but the geomorphic position and surface signatures present,as well as the topographic elevation of the sampling point in relation to the MHW and MHHW lines of the intertidal floodplain indicates this position is inside of the wetland boundary. SOIL Sampling Point: 3A 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) °/, Type' Loc` Texture Remarks Organics and Low 0 to 6 10YR 6/1 95 Gr Co LoS u1D1sa sans grans Low chroma sand 6 to 13 10YR 5/1 95 Co LoS grains Low chrome sand 13 to 18 10YR 5/1 90 Co SdL grains 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) X Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _- Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes C=f No s� ,i1'f"='''! Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, _ Surface Water(Al) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(61) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along X Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) X Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 16"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 18"bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Protect City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 3B Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): mtemdai sough and Local relief(concave,convex, none): Slope-concave Slope(%): 2 ( P caiwara.ma.�n Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: UTM 55220590 Long: UTM N5318373 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances'present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 50 (NB) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Carex macrocephala 50 Y FACU 2. Grindelia integrifolia 15 N FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. Armeria maritime 25 Y FAC 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is:53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total over Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <10% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point{ 3B 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 0 to 4 10YR 4/2 95 Gr LoS redox or depletion gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 4 to 11 10YR 4/3 95 Gr Co LoS redox or dep etion 11 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 Gr Co LoS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) — Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) — Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, _ Surface Water(Al) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Roots(C3) _ — Geomorphic Position(D2) _ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 4A Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform Intertidal slough and ( P hillslo e,terrace,etc.): ,,,a«n Local relief(concave,convex, none): concave Slope(%): 2 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: UTM E5221570 Long: UTM N5318278 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. 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 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (NB) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Carex macrocephala 5 N FACU 2. Agrostis stolonifera 5 N FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. Armenia maritima 30 Y FAC 4. Plantago maritima 25 Y FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Rumex acetosella 5 N FACU 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. Rumex maritima 5 N FACW X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 75 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <25% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks:vegetation inconclusive but the geomorphic position and surface signatures present,as well as the topographic elevation of the sampling point in relation to the MHW and MHHW lines of the intertidal floodplain indicates this position is inside of the wetland boundary. SOIL Sampling Point: 4A 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) % Type' LOCI Texture Remarks Organics and Low chroma sand 0 to 6 10YR 3/1 95 Gr Co LoS grains Low chroma sand 6 to 13 10YR 5/1 95 Co LoS grains Low chrome sand 13 to 18 10YR 5/1 90 Co SdL grains '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 Soils': _ Histosol(Al) Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) X Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): N/A Remarks:Low chroma colors approached Gley page 1- 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(A1) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) - High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) - Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) - Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along X Sediment Deposits(B2) Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) X Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 11"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 14"bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kiiisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 4B Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) ntough and Landfonn(hillslope,terrace,etc.): i„ertidal sl,„ h Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): 2 Subregion(LRR): 'A(Region 9) Lat. UTM 55221570 Long: urns N5318278 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil _ ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the south side of Scow Bay inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (NB) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5' FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Rumex acetosella 15 N FACU 2. Agrostis stolonifera 10 N FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. Armeria maritime 55 Y FAC 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. 3-Prevalence Index is s3.0' 8. 4-Morphological p ogical Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9, _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 80 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <20% Present? Yes X No • US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 4B 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 0 to 4 10YR 4/2 95 Gr LoS redo■ gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 4 to 11 10YR 4/3 95 Gr Co LoS redox 11 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 Gr Co LoS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol(A1) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(89)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, _ Surface Water(Al) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _- Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living _ Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _- Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Prolect City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner. North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 5A Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(WRIA 17) intal slough and Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Ul ertid,,, Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): 1 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: UTM E5224270 Long: UTM N5318132 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ Naturally problematic? (If needed,bxplain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:Please see attached PAD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1• That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2• Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 50 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3' FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: °, ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Agrostis stolonifera 50 Y FAC 2. Elymus mollis 40 Y NI Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4• Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7' 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9. _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ■lA ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <10% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks:vegetation inconclusive but the geomorphic position and surface signatures present,as well as the topographic elevation of the sampling point in relation to the MHW and MHHW lines of the intertidal floodplain indicates this position is inside of the wetland boundary. SOIL Sampling Point: 5A 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) % Type' Loc` Texture __ Remarks Organics and Low chroma sand 0 to 5 10YR 4/1 95 Co Los grains Low&Troma sand 5 to 13 10YR 5/1 95 Co LoS grains 13 to 18 10YR 5/1 90 Co LoS '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 Soils': _ Histosol(A1) Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) X Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes '',"'X ' No � ,.i Depth(inches): N/A Remarks:Low chroma colors approached Gley page 1- 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(Al) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B) — _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along X Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) X Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquilard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 10"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 12"bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 5B Investigator(s): Tim Hagan I Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) rtd Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): cuaid0U9nand Local relief(concave,convex, none): Slope-concave Slope(%): 2 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: uTM E5224270 Long: UTM N5318132 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics. Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species _it x 1 = 3. FACW species { x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals (A) (B) 1. Taraxacum officinale 10 N FACU 2. Plantago lanceolate 10 N FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. Elymus mollis 50 Y NI 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9, _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 70 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <30% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 58 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks gravelly coarse loamy redox and—no 0 to 5 10YR 4/2 95 Gr LoS redox gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 5 to 9 10YR 4/3 95 Gr Co LoS redox 9 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 Gr Co LoS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes ;i€? P. No ,, ,X- Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, _ Surface Water(Al) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living _ Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) _ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kitsut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 6A1 Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township, Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): n[e tldal slough and Local relief(concave,convex, none): concave Slope(%): 1 ( P ) nai„ tat ma,an Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Let: 48°0o5843'r Long: 122°41'58.76'W Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: PSS/PEM—M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 50 (NB) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Plantago maritima 15 Y FACW 2. Distichlis spicata 55 Y FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. Salicornia virginica 25 Y FACW 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting g_ _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10 _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 95 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <5% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 6A1 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks 0 to 5 10YR 5/1 95 LoS Organics Low chroma sand grains with Fe 5 to 13 10YR 611 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains Low chroma sand grains with Fe 13 to 18 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains '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 Soils': Histosol(Al) X Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): N/A Remarks:Low chroma colors approached Gley page 1- 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, _ Surface Water(A1) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) X High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along X Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) X Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): +1" Water Table Present? Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 2"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No Depth(inches): 0"bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 6A2 Investigator(s): Tim Hagan!Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform hillslo e,terrace,etc.): ntemdal slough and Local relief(concave,convex, none): concave Slope(%): 1 ( P ) e tertda.nUrch Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat. 48°00"590 27"N Long: 122°41'56.34"✓ Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: PEM2/PSS1-M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. 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 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rosa pisocarpa 80 Y FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3• FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species 1 x 4= 80 =Total Cover UPL species ' x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) 1. Grindelia integrifolia 20 N FACW Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Agrostis stolonifera 40 Y FAC Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting g_ _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 80 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <5% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL `,_ ,s E''T:4-'::: 6A2 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks 0 to 5 10YR 4/3 95 LoS Low chrome sand grans with Fe 5 to 11 10YR 611 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains Low chrome sand grains with Fe 11 to 18 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 516 20 CS M LoS stains 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(A1) X Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — Thick Dark k Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present'? Yes X No Depth(inches): N/A Remarks:Low chrome colors approached Gley page 1- 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(A1) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) — 4A,and 4B) X High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) — Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2)— Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along _ Sediment Deposits(B2) — Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) _ Drift Deposits(B3) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No _ Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 9"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No - Depth(inches): 12"bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: KiisutHarbor Restoration Protect City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 6A3 Investigator(s): Tim Hagan I Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform p e,(hillslo terrace,etc.): interddcalhuataa slough mawh and Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope-concave Slope(%): 6 1 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: 49°00.59.96°N Long: 122°41'55.86'W Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: PEM2/PSS1 -M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:This plot was positioned directly on the intertidal wetland boundary, located just upland of the intertidal boundary and into the lower portion an adjacent slope wetland.Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 15 N FACU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Arbutus menziesii 5 N FACU Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 66 (NB) 15 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: rt10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Gaultheria shallon 25 Y FACU Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Rosa nutkana 30 Y FAC OBL species 0311104 x 1 = ,t 3. Rosa pisocarpa 35 Y FAC FACW species „' ;"( x 2= 4 FAC species -,x < x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 60 =Total Cover UPL species 77117."" x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) t , { Column Totals rye q" (A) (B) 1. Elymus mollis 20 N NI 2. Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9_ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 20 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <10% Present? Yes No X US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 6A3 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks 0 to 4 10YR 5/1 95 LoS organics Low chrome sand grains with Fe 4 to 10 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains Low chrome sand grains with Fe 10 to 18 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) X Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) — Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(A1) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) X High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) X Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along _ Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mal or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No _ Depth(inches): +1" Water Table Present? Yes X No X Depth(inches): 2"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No X Depth(inches): 0"bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 7A2 Investigator(s): Tim Hagan!Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): mterhda slough-saltwater Local relief(concave,convex, none): slope Slope(%): 7 marm_clnnn na<lt ater Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: UTM 5221340E Long: UTM 5318398N Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: PSS1 —M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:This plot is positioned on the northwest side of road in a scrub/shrub slope wetland located immediately adjacent(above)the intertidal estuarine wetland.Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION— Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) =Total Cover Saolino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ;1A` ! ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rosa pisocarpa 80 Y FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 80 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 51_ ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Polyslchum munitum 5 N FACU 2. Mahonia nervosa 5 N FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. t(' 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 10 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum < 10% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks:Unknown bryophyte is dominant in area. SOIL Sampling Point: 7A2 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks 0 to 5 10YR 4/3 95 SDL Dark Organics Low chrome sand grains with Fe masses on internal 5 to 11 10YR 4/1 95 7YR 5/6 10 CS M Gr LoS ped fare Low chroma sand grains with Fe masses on internal 11 to 18 10YR 5/1 95 7YR 5/6 15 CS M Gr LoS ped face '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 Soils': _ Histosol(Al) X Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) — Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) — Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): N/A Remarks:Low chroma colors approached Gley page 1- 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(89)(MLRA 1,2, _ Surface Water(A1) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) — 4A,and 48) X High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) — Drainage Patterns(B10) X Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along _ Sediment Deposits(B2) — Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) _ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) — Iron Deposits(B5) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) — Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 13"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No Depth(inches): 11"bgs US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Data 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 7B Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc. : "r"rtidai sough-saltwater Local relief(concave,convex, none): slope Slope(%): 8 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: UTM 522640E Long: UTM 5318398N Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: PSS1 -M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ , Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil _ ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X I Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Photo placard says 7A for this plot.This plot is positioned on the northwest side of road on the boarder of a scrub/shrub slope wetland located immediately adjacent(above)to the intertidal estuarine wetland/project area.Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Ilex aquifolium 10 N FACU 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 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) 10 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rosa pisocarpa 20 Y FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. _ FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 20 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW 2. Mahonia nervosa 10 N FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <5% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 7B 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) % Type' Lot' Texture Remarks gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 0 to 5 10YR 4/2 95 Gr SdL redox gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 5 to 9 10YR 4/3 95 Gr Co LoS redox 9 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 Gr Co LoS '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 Soils': _ Histosol(Al) — Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) — Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(P1)(except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Remarks:Low chroma colors approached Gley page 1- 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, — Surface Water(Al) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(911) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits(82) _ Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) _ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(84) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(05) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 8A Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform(hillslope,terrace, intertidal ace,etc.): m slou„gh h and Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): 1 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: 48°O1'56.00"N Long: 122°41'56.76"w Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil u ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. 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 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Distichlis spicata 10 Y FACW 2. Salicornia virginica 85 Y FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is s3.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10 _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. ` Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 95 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <5% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 8A 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks 0 to 5 10YR 5/1 95 LoS Organics Low chroma sand grains with Fe 5 to 13 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains Low chroma sand grains with Fe 13 to 18 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains '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 Soils': _ Histosol(A1) Sandy Redox(55) _ 2 cm Muck(Al0) Histic Epipedon(A2) X Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) Black Histic(A3) _- Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ X No Depth(inches): N/A Remarks:Low chroma colors approached Gley page 1- 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, _ Surface Water(Al) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) — 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) X Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A" Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Killsut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 8B _ Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Inmredal sbugbana Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope-concave Slope(%): 10 ( P ) �auwA,a.maFn Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: 48°01'05.81"N Long: 122°41'0o.02w Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks:This plot is positioned on the north side of road causeway. Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. f .a Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: $ la ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (NB) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Gaultheria shallon 70 Y FACU Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Cytisus scoparius 5 N NI OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 75 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5:, O Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Rumex acetosella 5 N FACU 2. Rumex maritime 5 N FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is s3.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 10 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2• =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum < 10% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 88 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) % Type' Lac' Texture Remarks gravelly coarse loamy sand-no 0 to 4 10YR 4/2 95 Gr SdL redox gravelly coarse loamy Sand-no 5 to 8 10YR 4/3 95 Gr Co LoS redox 8 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 Gr Co LoS '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 Soils': _ Histosol(A1) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) — Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _- Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) I Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, _ Surface Water(Al) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _- Salt Crust(811) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(05) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _- Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 9A Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) intenidal ugh Landform(hillslope,terrace, etc.): ,, ,,,slom,rc and Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): 1 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: urM 522336E Long: UTM 5315358N Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:This plot is positioned on the south side of road causeway. Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1• That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3, Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) q. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) =Total Cover Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size. ;;'.40:'i ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5','_ " ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Distichlis spicata 10 N FACW 2. Salicornia virginica 70 Y FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. Plantago maritima 15 N FACW 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 53.01 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9. _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants" 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation"(Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <5% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 9A 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) o/a Type' Loc` Texture Remarks 0 to 4 10YR 5/1 95 LoS Organics Low chrome sand grains with Fe 4 to 10 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains Low chrome sand grains with Fe 10 to 18 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains '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) X Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): N/A Remarks:Low chroma colors approached Gley page 1 - 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(89)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(A1) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ — 4A,and 4B) High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) — Drainage Patterns(B10) X Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) — Dry-Season Water Table(C2) - Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) X Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No '_ Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes X No 44 Depth(inches): 14"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? '" (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No ,;,z Depth(inches): 11"bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 9B Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North,Range 1 East(WRIA 17) it Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc. : intertidt slout and Local relief(concave,convex,none): slope Slope(%): 8 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: UTM 522336E Long: UTM 5318358N Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks:This plot is positioned on the south side of road causeway. Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) q Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (NB) 10 =Total Cover Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rosa pisocarpa 20 Y FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species vex x 1 = 3• FACW species , of _ x 2= 4. FAC species 11ii x 3= 5' FACU species .„,t x 4= 20 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'.' ) —T r 1. Phalaris arundinacea 40 Y FACW Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Elymus mollis 5 N NI Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. Agrostis stotonifera 40 Y FAC 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological p ogical Adaptations(Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <5% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 98 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) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 0 to 4 10YR 4/2 95 Gr SdL redox gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 4 to 10 10YR 4/3 95 Gr LoS redox 10 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 Gr LoS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes ; leg ,tl€ No Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(Al) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(810) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living _ Sediment Deposits(82) _ Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) _ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: KilisutHarbor RestoretiorProject City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner. North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 10A Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(W RIA 17) Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): intertidal slough-saltwater Local relief(concave,convex,none): Slope Slope(%): 1 march clnnP wPtlaM Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: 4e°o1'o5.92'N Long: 122°41'55.14'W Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: PFO1 -M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No — Remarks:This plot is positioned on the south side of road causeway. Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 70 Y 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 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (AB) 70 =Total Cover Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rosa nutkana 60 Y FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 60 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting g, _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: `N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <10% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 10A 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks Organics(color 10YR 511 inside dry pad 0 to 4 (3/1) 95 LoS face) Low chrome sand grains with Fe 4 to 9 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains Low chrome sand grains with Fe 9 to 18 1 0YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) X Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X V ),'4"` Type: N/A Y No f„. , r� Depth(inches): N/A Remarks:Low chroma colors approached Gley page 1 - 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(A1) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) X High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) X Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) _ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes X No _ Depth(inches): 2”bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No Depth(inches): 0"bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County. Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 10B Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(W RIA 17) intertidal slough-saltwater Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): K _ ,„ Local relief(concave,convex, none): slope Slope(%): 8 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: 48t1'05.72'N Long: 122°41'55.18'W Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: PFO1 -M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks:This plot is positioned on the south side of road causeway. Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the westem and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 93'= ":' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) q Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (NB) 10 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: j10`. ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rosa pisocarpa 20 Y FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 20 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 40 Y FACW 2. Elymus mollis 5 N NI Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. Agrostis stolonifera 40 Y FAC 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological rp ogical Adaptations'(Provide supporting 9, _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: NIA ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <5% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 10B 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) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 0 to 4 10YR 4/2 95 Gr SdL redox gravelly coarse loamy sand—no 4 to 10 10YR 4/3 95 Gr LoS redox 10 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 Gr LoS 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) — Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) — _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if present): r sip '1;v4 „∎a;, Type: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes stl1 No m;.,; Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(Al) _ — MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits(B2) _ — Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(86) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ; No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: KiIisutHarbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 11A Investigator(s): Tim Hagan/Dan Elefant Section,Township, Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): interodaisiou9h-saltvreter Local relief(concave, convex, none): Slope Slope(%): 1 ( P ) ran-��°�urPna°n ennr Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: 48°01'08.69-N Long: 122°41's4.78"w Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: PSS/PF1 -M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks:This plot is positioned on the south side of road causeway. Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics. Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION— Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 40 Y 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 That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) 40 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rosa nutkana 60 Y FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Symphoricarpos albus 15 N FACU OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 75 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting g _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <10% Present? Yes X No • • US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 • SOIL Sampling Point: 10A 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) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 10YR 5/1 organics(color Inside dry ped 0 to 4 (311) 95 SdL face) Low chroma sand grains with Fe 4 to 9 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains Low chroma sand grains with Fe 9 to 18 10YR 6/1 95 7YR 5/6 20 CS M LoS stains 'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(Al0) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) X 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(All) _- Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): N/A I Remarks:Low chroma colors approached Gley page 1 - 5/N HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(A1) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) X High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) — Drainage Patterns(B10) X Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(813) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along — Sediment Deposits(B2) — Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(B3) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) — FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present'? Yes X No Depth(inches): 12"bgs Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes =+ di No4' *f. Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No Depth(inches): 10"bgs Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 02/25/2014 Applicant/Owner: North Olympic Salmon Coalition State: WA Sampling Point: 11B Investigator(s): Tim Hagan I Dan Elefant Section,Township,Range: Section 7,Township 29 North, Range 1 East(WRIA 17) Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): inte rtial slough- d, ,,sa,„,,ltw,a,,ter„,. Local relief(concave,convex,none): slope Slope(%): 8 Subregion(LRR): A(Region 9) Lat: 48°01'08.52'N Long: 122°41'55.lO'W Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Soil Map Unit Td-Tidal Marsh NWI classification: PSS1/PFO1-M2AB3 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology X Significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances”present? Yes X No Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ Naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)Please SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks:This plot is positioned on the northeast side of road causeway. Please see attached PJD report for description of altered the hydrology along the constrained south side of Scow Bay Inlet due to the historic channel dredging and the existing undersized culverts that are affecting tidal hydraulics.Disturbed Vegetation refers to the significant presence of Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea)found in some adjacent sloping wetlands positioned along the western and northeastern boundaries of the Project Area. VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100 (NB) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2= 4. FAC species x 3= 5. FACU species x 4= 20 =Total Cover UPL species x 5= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 75 Y FACW 2. Pteridium aquilinum 15 N FACU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 5.3.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11 _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: N/A ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Bare Ground in Herb Stratum <10% Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Remarks: SOIL Sampling Point: 11B 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) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks Sandy loam—no 0 to 4 10YR 4/2 95 SdL redox coarse loamy sand 4 to 9 10YR 4/3 95 LoS -no redox 9 to 18 10YR 3/3 95 LoS '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 Soils': _ Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) 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: N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yes P*j t ? No , ;Xt" f,d'a Depth(inches): N/A Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(89)(except Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, _ Surface Water(A1) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 4B) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(610) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Water Marks(B1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living _ Sediment Deposits(B2) _ Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) _ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(B5) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes _ No X Depth(inches): N/A Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No X Depth(inches): N/A Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 APPENDIX REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT AREA Appendix B Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project This Page Intentionally Left Blank March 2014 Cardno ENTRIX B-i Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project C t ms Z M h dr F Figure 1: Figure 2: k 1 s ., s i'f +r N. •L Gi, e h ti n 1� it. , . Figure 3: Figure 4: B-1 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Pro ject 71k.... t t / x . o li r TM —""--mot- , J- ,r �.' f .fir rYry */,A. l �'� T Figure 5: Figure 6: X43 d�-^ �# Z tit x `" .,., . , , i „, ,,, . , ,-----,-., yE . I/1*k..Figure 7: Figure 8: ..:f1) } -- .. " ... .. 4. a �... - x3 ti .aa+ a� 4 . „ f... .,,,, P .„. .. Figure 9: Figure 10: B-2 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 3 jq p,a �' x n eF+� ._ ` ; ' t Ewa,.-,a� rt me wF {. _, C in f. Figure 11: Figure 12: ■., 4 i y. rr.' 'IY'. ✓ j f r , Figure Figure 14: igure 13: B-3 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project o- - • • Figure 15: Figure 16: ,. Figure 17: Figure 18: »r,L4a&'v4} •? ��.emn..�...»...»,,.,..--a.+�.........w.,..-.....»....a-m�c s Figure 19: Figure 20: B-4 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 0. ,.. I .. ., . , ,,,,) 1 A 1 .....„.„,..-- _... ...,. .. ;,..17,..,.. ....::.. .....,,s ...,.........v...._. _ X _ ___ -..,..,..1.,- , .... . . . ___:....._,, \ . ... g . 40 . . , e ar MI °> a S Lv Figure 21: Figure 22: N 0 , et 0. +4 I n Ill r 1 gip: 41.sr It' Figure 23: Figure 24: B-5 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project 11\ r ilti, . Figure 25: Figure 26: 4 mmill Frkky` Vim` ', d 6114111' t t t . * t m Al,... , . \,,,, j , ....,....:, ...,,,,r.i.„-.— . . \, ,,,,i.,_,,:::,4t,„..4.;:t',„t„,,.Nrsi...,,,,,N,r,c!,,,,,,:i2s,,' N',, ‘,1,0‘ \‘ ' k r . t °"`.—.,. I 1 { ; t 5 kfo f � e ..! Figure Figure 27: 2L B-6 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project x ;r ' •. S d * . aY F .'l. may x r JY, q.•.`^ 3' -. t a = u -›gy'r aerF1 -.y'G`'r.z,.' +n 1 r rM —'� Figure 29: Figure 30: _ *7... Fir 1 `lP e r rff n ^i i qy r P L} � a ', T• �j wra.n ' m x + Figure 31: Figure 32: B-7 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project a 1. i ., . L u a," , , ..„--1°.:_. e* - Figure 33: Figure 34: h %�t ltd µjr, § l'i rill I. � yyyt j\ 4,1 t ,Q ,+ iii +.`i"i " '�.4` 1 �,�Y{t�yM`,,-1 ,. A t 4 a l ap e j s s ±` er. e, R ; e av5ram v o< 4 " o. , Figure 35: Figure 36 B-8 .,. Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project ,,. ,,q, ' .,' 73''' ... .,...., . , . ..„, , ' ,.. ..'4.:,,.,'''.-'' ' ''''','''''''...:7Er'5';,e-'-'••-•'-:' •• - .. ....,... ,,,, , . ... .. , .. ---. . . ..... , • 'i, .-' • , . , . .•- . - ... .. , 4.,..., :'":".'"•':;":"1111:,,,,- •-.-'-'.'*..- . . f . '-ff7"..'''.'*..-'...-4:"1:. . . .... . , ., . ,.. . , ....„. „..... . , •i , ,,.... , ,2..t• . .. ,. ., .. . . .., , .. .. . .... . . .... .. .. . . ., , .. ,... , .. _ . ..„ . . „.„ , . .. ,•. •.-.-_,..-,.....2,..:- ::. „ . ... -, ..., ...,...„ . „4„. -41' Figure 37: 4 - Figure 38 8 , . . 0 i...„ •-,... , :' :‘,.... -..;,.. : \i,•:'''':: --. . •- \ ..- .., , r • ... .. ,.., . .., . ..- .E, ..- ,....,,.., F • • Figure 39 Figure 40 B-9 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project is may .mot 4. .• 1, 4 CYO 44 ' M ,v- ... J ,� Ya r } . r 4!"l? .11h- � • "- / T:.' £ f � \ f , 1ti t �z , j 1` .�y .f_... ( Kam•«''max_.$ h / 1i: r \ , ,,,, 1,:,,,./;,,s,.. ,t. 1 e. Figure 41: Figure 42: t ` r' t: tU d' ti . .::' 4' Ch * S i ^ , ,. Figure 43: Figure 44 B-10 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project <. - - ' ,fib R ., , `'. 1 , . 1 7 Sys' the - 1 01 r,- s✓ -... 4• } 'M r to ,,. l r. y 0l IA Figure 45: Figure 46: ran a 'M^ Figure 47: Figure 48: B-11 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project ,';:i.'." ''. ... 1 4 , ,;,,,iii1V, ''i - Q I t of ' .� .. , ' ' * —41'') ;- s. „ i F e fe tr (ri m '.a �' 4 f•� r r C A Figure 49: Figure 50 • t tt; ,'t< 'tea c-«« z° F ;, ' 5 F : a .,,1 • ' > } 'FF.Tr -11 • aF y E F • Figure 51: Figure 52: B-12 Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project ,,, g. Il 1 t yj a yt i,s^y 'psi I #r � '- gag '1� � f tiN R 3b 2t 2L yv: ti -1 ,�', ksd rj.. . At Figure 53: Figure 54: 1,i tu we r;] N Figure 55: B-13 APPENDIX WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND RATING FORM This Page is Left Intentionally Blank Wetland name or number WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2—Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct.2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland(if known):Kilisut Harbor- Scow Bay salt marsh and spit Date of site visit: February 25,2014 Rated by:Tim Hagan /Dan Elefant Trained by Ecology? Yes EI No ❑ Date of training: SEC: 07 TOWNSHP: 29N RNGE: IE Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes❑ No❑ Map of wetland unit: Figure Figure 5-4 Estimated size—28.6 acres SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: ® I ® II ❑III El IV Category I= Score> 70 Score for Water Quality Functions 24 Category II= Score 51 -69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 13 Category III = Score 30—50 Score for Habitat Functions 18 Category IV= Score <30 TOTAL Score for Functions I 55 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland ❑ I ❑ II ❑Does not apply Final Category(choose the "highest"category from above") I/II Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics " used for Rating Estuarine ❑ Depressional ❑ Natural Heritage Wetland ❑ Riverine ❑ Bog ❑ Lake-fringe ❑ Mature Forest ❑ Slope ❑ Old Growth Forest ❑ Flats ❑ Coastal Lagoon ❑ Freshwater Tidal ❑ Interdunal ❑ ❑ None of the above ® Check if unit has multiple ❑ HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands that Need Additional Protection YES NO (in addition to mil ' "': ;_s category) SP I. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? ❑ For the purposes of this rating system, "documented"means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the ❑ wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? ❑ SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or ® ❑ in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hvdrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomotphic c]assifieation groups wetlands in to those that function in sinn1arways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions.The Hydtogeomorphic Class ofa wetland can be determined using the key below! See p.24 for mom detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 1 of 12 Wetland name or number Classification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the 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. I. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? El NO—go to 2 ®YES—the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes,is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt(parts per thousand)? El YES—Freshwater Tidal Fringe ®NO—Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) Ifyour wetland can be classed as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms jar Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions,and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions,the term"Estuarine"wetland is kept. Please note,however,that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed(see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source(>90%)of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ®NO—go to 3 El 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 meet both of the following criteria? ❑The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water(without any vegetation on the surface)where at least 20 acres(8ha)in size; ❑At least 30%of the open water area is deeper than 6.6(2 m)? NO—go to 4 ❑YES—The wetland class is Lake-fringe(Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? El 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? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). ®NO—go to 5 ❑ YES—The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. El The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. ®NO—go to 6 ❑YES—The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds,or is saturated to the surface,at some time of 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 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. ®No—go to 8 El YES—The wetland class is Depressional 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 your wetland. 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 class listed in column 2 is less than 10%attic unit,classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90%of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope+Depressional Depressional Slope+ Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional+ Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional+ Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special freshwater wetland characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 2 of 12 Wetland name or number tii.A l I R Ql ALI CY FUNCTIONS— Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only I score per box) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it(no outlet) points=3 Figure • Unit has an intermittently flowing,OR highly constricted,permanently flowing outlet...points=2 • Unit has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet(permanently flowing)..points= I • Unit is a"flat"depression(Q.7 on key),or in the Flats class,with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 El (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Provide photo or drawing D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface(or duff layer)is clay or organic(use NRCS definitions) YES points=4 NO points=0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation(emergent, shrub,and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent,ungrazed vegetation>=95%of area points=5 Figure II • Wetland has persistent,ungrazed vegetation>= 1/2 of area points=3 • Wetland has persistent,ungrazed vegetation>= 1/10 of area points= 1 • Wetland has persistent,ungrazed vegetation< 1/10 of area points=0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently Figure II ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. _ • Area seasonally ponded is> 1/2 total area of wetland points=4 _ • Area seasonally ponded is> 1/4 total area of wetland points=2 • Area seasonally ponded is< 1/4 total area of wetland points=0 _ Map of Hydroperiods Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above/ D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality'? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams,lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit nag have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft.of wetland _ A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas,residential areas, farmed fields,roads, or clear-cut logging Residential,urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Multiplier Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen P Other ❑YES multiplier is 2 El NO multiplier is 1 ♦ TOTAL—Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Dl by D2; then add score to table on p. 11 I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS—Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it(no outlet) points=4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing,OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet....points=2 • Unit is a"flat"depression(Q.7 on key)or in the Flats class,with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 ❑ (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") • Unit has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted, surface outlet(permanently flowing) points=0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface ofpermanent water or deepest part(if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet points=7 • The wetland is a"headwater"wetland points= 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft.to<3 ft.from surface or bottom of outlet points= 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft.to<2 ft.from surface or bottom of outlet points=3 • Wetland is flat(yes to Q2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water.points= 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points=0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. _ • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points=5 _ • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points=3 _ • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points=0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class points=5 - Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above r me am a Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 3 of 12 Wetland name or number D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage,or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate,tide gate,flap valve,reservoir etc.OR you estimate that more than 90%of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems _ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Multiplier ❑ Other ❑YES multiplier is 2 ❑ NO multiplier is I • TOTAL—Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4;then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 4 of 12 Wetland name or number WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. fonly i score . .. - -. per box) R 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: • Depressions cover>3/4 area of wetland points= 8 Figure Q • Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland points=4 e Fi ore (If depressions> 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) • Depressions present but cover< 1/2 area of wetland. points=2 D o • No depressions present points=0 Lii R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit(areas with>90%cover at person F eight): • Trees or shrubs>2/3 area of the unit points= 8 Figure Q • Trees or shrubs> 1/3 area of the wetland points=6 • Ungrazed,herbaceous plants>2/3 area of unit points=6 • Ungrazed herbaceous plants> 1/3 area of unit points= 3 6 • Trees,shrubs,and ungrazed herbaceous< 1/3 area of unit points=0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types I Add the points in the boxes above 6 R 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams,lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas,residential areas,farmed fields,roads,or clear-cut logging ® Residential,urban areas,golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised Multiplier levels of sediment,toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality. ❑Other 4 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I • TOTAL—Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from RI by R2: then add score to table on p. 1 24 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. R 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel(distance between Figure El banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width of stream between banks). • If the ratio is more than 20 points=9 • If the ratio is between 10—20 points=6 • If the ratio is 5-<I0 points=4 • If the ratio is 1-<5 points=2 6 • If the ratio is< 1 points= 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have>90% Figure El cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): • Forest or shrub for> 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants> 2/3 area points=7 • Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area points=4 7 • Vegetation does not meet above criteria points=0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types r_ __ Add the points in the boxes above 1 13 1 R 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage,or reduction in water velocity,it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. ❑There are human structures and activities downstream(roads,buildings,bridges, farms)that can be damaged by flooding. BThere are natural resources downstream(e.g. salmon redds)that can be damaged by flooding Other Multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) I ❑YES multiplier is 2 ® NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL—Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R3 by R4; then add score to table on p. I I l 3 Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 5 of 12 Wetland name or number _, ° r UNCTIONS—Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality, _ (only 1 score L 1 Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) per box) L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore(use polygons of Cowardin classes): • Vegetation is more than 33 ft.(10m)wide points=6 Figure • Vegetation is more than 16 ft.(5m)wide and<33 ft points=3 • Vegetation is more than 6 ft. (2m)wide and< 16 ft points= 1 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft.wide points=0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points,and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the Figure f dominant form or as an understoty in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit,but it can be in patches. NOTE:Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. • Cover of herbaceous plants is>90%of the vegetated area points=6 • Cover of herbaceous plants is>2/3 of the vegetated area points=4 • Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area points=3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers>2/3 of the unit points=3 • Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in> 1/3 vegetated area points= 1 • Aquatic bed cover and open water>2/3 of the unit points=0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types ____ Add the points in the boxes above r J L 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water,or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit ma y have pollutants coming from several sources,but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards _- Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft _ Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland _ Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft. of wetland Multiplier _ Parks with grassy areas that are maintained,ballfields,golf courses(all within 150 ft.of lake shore) _ Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake - Other ❑YES multiplier is 2 ❑ NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL-Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Ll by L2; then add score to table on p. I I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS—Indicators that wetland functions to reduce shoreline erosion. L 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.62) L 3 Average width and characteristics of vegetation along the lakeshore(do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) Figure❑ • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m)wide points=6 • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2m)wide. points=4 • 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft. (10m)wide. points=4 • Vegetation is at least 6 ft. (2m)wide (any type except aquatic bed) points=2 • Vegetation is less than 6 ft. (2m)wide(any type except aquatic bed) points=0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Record the points in the boxes above I I L 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p. 64) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. ❑There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland(buildings,fields)that can be damaged by erosion. Multiplier ❑There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland(e.g.mature forests, other wetlands)that can be damaged by shoreline erosion. ❑Other ❑YES multiplier is 2 ❑ NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL—Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L3 by L4;then add score to table on p. I I I Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 6 of 12 Wetland name or number is -., 1,. ._ .-. r S 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? 1 .AO S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: • Slope is 1%or less(a 1%slope has a 1 ft.vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft.horizontal distance)....points=3 • Slope is 1%-2% points=2 • Slope is 2%-5%. points= 1 • Slope is greater than 5% points=0 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface(or duff layer)is clay,organic(Use NRCS definitions). ❑YES =3 points ❑NO =0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you Figure❑ have trouble seeing the soil surface(>75%cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. • Dense,uncut,herbaceous vegetation>90%of the wetland area 1 points=6 • Dense,uncut,herbaceous vegetation> 1/2 of area points=3 • Dense,woody,vegetation> 1/2 of area points=2 • Dense,uncut,herbaceous vegetation> 1/4 of area points= 1 • Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points=0 Aerial hoto or ma with ve etation of ons Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above S 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit ma have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would)qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Multiplier Tilled fields,logging,or orchards within 150 ft.of wetland Residential,urban areas,or golf courses are within 150 ft.upslope of wetland Other ❑YES multiplier is 2 ❑ NO multiplier is 1 • TOTAL—Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2; then add score to table on p. 1 I HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS—Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion. S 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.68) S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland(stems plants should be thick enough (usually> 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface jlo ). • Dense,uncut,rigid vegetation covers>90%of the area of the wetland points=6 • Dense, uncut,rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland points=3 • Dense,uncut,rigid vegetation> 1/4 area points= 1 • More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed,tilled, or vegetation is not rigid points=0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows. The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. ❑YES =2 points ❑ NO =0 points J r,......-- .1,Add the points in the boxes above J S 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir(e.g. wetland is a seep that is on Multiplier the downstream side of a dam) ❑YES multiplier is 2 ❑ NO multiplier is I • TOTAL—Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4;then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 7 of 12 Wetland name or number HABITAT FUNCTIONS—Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. (er1Y 1 score per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? Fl 1.1 Vegetation structure(see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present(as defined by Cowardin)—Size threshold for each class is Figure❑ 1/4 acre or more than 10%of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub(areas where shrubs have>30%cover) Forested(areas where trees have>30%cover) Ithe 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. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. I ou have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 1 4 structures or more oints=4 3 structures points=2 2 structures points= 1 1 structure points =0 8 H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes(hydroperiods)present within the wetland. The water regime has to Figure cover more than 10%of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points=3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present points=2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present points= 1 Saturated only 1 type present points=0 Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland Lake-fringe wetland =2 points a Freshwater tidal wetland =2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75): 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) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species points=2 5— 19 species points= 1 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species points=0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats(seep. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation(described in H1.1),or the classes and unvegetated areas(can include open water or mudflats)is high,medium,low,or none. CD(CD (.,..._ Cidlipll Figure❑ Nana -n taunt.: Lou. I paw Moderate 7 point:, ...'7::1;:r4. .1 p$�+,�p % L • \ Nip/aim braided clamor la] High 3 mutts 3 Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water,the rating is always"high". Use map of Cowardin classes. H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points fz=1 ou put into the next column. Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland(>4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags(diameter at the bottom>4 inches)in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m)and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft.(lm)over a stream(or ditch)in, or contiguous with the unit,for at least 33 ft. (10m) ❑ 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 turned grey/brown) ®At least 1/4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation 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 each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20%stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. 3 H 1 TOTAL Score—potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column uhove 1 _ 8 _j Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 8 of 12 Wetland name or number H 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (op1 r box)re H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring Figure ❑ criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of"undisturbed". ❑ 100m(330 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water> 95%of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing,no landscaping,no daily human use) points=5 ( Y !� S ❑ loom(330 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas, or open water> 50%circumference points=4 ❑50m(170 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water >95%circumference points=4 ❑ loom(330 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water> 25%circumference points=3 ❑50m(170 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas,or open water for >50%circumference points=3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: ❑No paved areas(except paved trails)or buildings within 25m(80 ft)of wetland>95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points=2 ❑No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for>50%circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK points=2 ❑Heavy grazing in buffer points=1 ®Vegetated buffers are< 2m wide(6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g.tilled fields,paving,basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) points=0 ❑Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above points= 1 0 Arial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections(seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor(either riparian or upland)that is at least 150 ft.wide, has at least a 30%cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie,that connects to estuaries,other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads,paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). ❑YES=4 points(go to H 2.3) ❑ NO=go to H 2.2.2 H.2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor(either riparian or upland)that is at least 50 ft.wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest,and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland,if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? ®YES=2 points(go to H 2.3) ❑ NO=go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: • Within 5 mi(8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR • Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture(>40 acres) OR ®YES= 1 point 3 • Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? ❑ NO=0 points Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 9 of 12 Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW(see p. 82): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats,and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http:Uwdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslisthlm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft.(100m)of the wetland unit? NOTE:the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. ❑Aspen Stands:Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha(1 acre). ❑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 p. 152). ❑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 20 trees/ha(8 trees/acre)>81 cm(32 in)dbh or> 200 years of age.(Mature forests)Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm(21 in)dbh;crown cover may be less that 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:Woodlands 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). ®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). ❑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:pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). ❑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 7.6 m(25 ft)high and occurring below 5000 ft. ❑Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15-2.0 m(0.5-6.5 ft),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>51 cm(20 in)in western Washington and are>2 m(6.5 ft)in height.Priority logs are>30 cm(12 in)in diameter at the largest end,and>6 m(20 ft)long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats=4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats=3 points If wetland has I priority habitat=1 point No habitats=0 points 4 Note:All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits(seep. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile,and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed(light grazing between wetlands OK,as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads,fill,fields,or other development....points=5 ❑ • The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points=5 ❑ • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile,BUT the connections between them are disturbed. points=3 CO • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points=3 ❑ • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile points=2 ❑ 3 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile points=0❑ 11 2 TOTAL Score—opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 1 10 1 TOTAL for H I from page 81 8 � • Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. I I 18 Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 10 of 12 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type-Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SCI Estuarine wetlands? (see p.86) Does the wetland unit 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 SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge,National Park,National Estuary Reserve,Natural Cat. 1 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 at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following conditions? ❑YES =Category I ® NO=Category II Cat.I ❑The wetland is relatively undisturbed(has no diking,ditching, filling,cultivation,grazing,and has ❑ less than 10%cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp,. are only species Cat.H that cover more than 10%of the wetland,then the wetland should be given a dual rating(I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not,however, exclude the area of Spartina in Dual determining the size threshold of 1 acre. ❑At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft.buffer of shrub, forest,or un-grazed or Rating un-mowed grassland I/II ®The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels,depressions with open water,or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritaee Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened,Endangered,or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) ❑ S/T/R information from Appendix D El or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site El YES Contact WNHP/DNR(seep. 79)and go to SC 2.2 ® NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened Cat I or endangered plant species? ❑ ❑YES =Category 1 0 NO not a Heritage Wetland SC3 BOltg (seep. 87) Does the wetland(or any part of the unit)meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons(i.e.layers of organic soil),either peats or mucks,that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? ❑YES=go to question 3 El NO= go to question 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils,either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on a lake or pond? ❑YES=go to question 3 ❑ NO=is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND other plants,if present, consist of the"bog"species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30%of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? ❑YES=Is a bog for purpose of rating El NO=go to question 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"deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the"bog"plant species in Table 3 are present,the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested(>30%cover)with sitka spruce,subalpine fir,western red cedar,western hemlock, lodgepole pine,quaking aspen,Englemann's spruce,or western white pine. WITH any of the species(or combination of species)on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30%coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? Cat. I ❑YES=Category I ►,1 NO=Is not a bog for purpose of rating ❑ Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 11 of 12 Wetland name or number SC4 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the 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 function. ❑Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/acre(20 trees/hectare)that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height(dbh)of 32 inches(81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and"OR"so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. ❑ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80—200 years old OR have an average diameters(dbh)exceeding 21 inches(53 cm); 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. Cat.1 ❑YES=Category I ®NO=not a forested wetland with special characteristics ❑ SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons(see p. 91) 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 surface 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 invasive plant species(see list of invasive species on p. 74). ❑ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest,or un-grazed or Cat.I un-mowed grassland. 11 The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre(4350 square ft.) Cat. II ❑YES=Category I ❑ NO =Category II ❑ SC6 Interdunal Wetlands(seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line(also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? ❑YES=Go to SC 6.1 ❑NO not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its 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 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger,or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? Cat. II ❑YES=Category II ❑ NO =go to SC 6.2 ❑ SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? Cat.III ❑YES=Category III ❑ Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics • Choose the "highest"rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter"Not Applicable"on p. 1 Comments: Wetland Rating Form—Western Washington,Version 2(7/06),updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008 Page 12 of 12 Cnrdno ENTRIX Shaping the Future R.. ■tir.t A • Down to Earth. f F „, Down to Business." Toll-free 800 368 7511 www.cardnoentrix.com Australia•Belgium•Canada•Ecuador•Indonesia•Kenya•New Zealand•Papua New Guinea www.cardno.com Peru•United Arab Emirates•United Kingdom•United States•Operations in 70 countries A W N ! n. Z f ^`t` O m < cx m >2°0 °v - z M IR2 r c� ` c m0 – � i -qj O ._tisx '' " ".. q i st fi.r= h CO C P .,. i fu', Y` oD D rs \ • , o - p 4 -i D _. t�`(� - 7 - -a N A m ?I;I,v I r .fi r- V V Lt.–fl � -�! A z = z pi 1 r; "I L___ 0 O I r �— d 2 711 N Q m Z O P ? v+ > m w m n;!��I m 70 a 7.yo n gA fn `,QQl PL)� A x W Z Ili x.rrIEW rInamDOZz CyC ayy L ;o NI�ITONI�I� _ X z '+3'. A N Ay f , 12,PI Z9 wanton p2a ��tiAm 2x22 m� A'f om41 ya yD GT UrN 1\ \ D maz <:: qv, Mfa_ a'E SDy Ooy 6,.!'‘69 0' 1. �y T / / x FS; a .. i aII T j 2 " % OJ D / / / 't / omx ( . L s'>,' n Do0N - aD zz m zca onx '�' ao z < �� ,g; ., zm c -n A o - •z <_ r t w c. xia / ]r: C I _ _ _ ..., . :– j I / A t. j _ '7'- .. 71 -°J a cx vamrppz K i ,--p F= - 2622£ D. Ly ;.Jim -- r -1 *mu., 1, n O -y 0 o .. ,� 4 it _, , r 0MORTH OLYMPIC i x i i m c PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN _ ` / ( arij ra son, ; E,,,, COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES ENTR/X m Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project r SEATTLE 200 RSTA UE W EST.SU�� ` m A r 1 SEATTLE,WA 98179 `m o k f TEL(208)2990104 FAX(206)26980 88 Jefferson County, Washington SA LMON v II/Kw" '""W" N.'Z I 0 -I 1 m-I m m n 0( z U Dr m Ri ti OZ m o ZO - ➢Z - _ n CPC ii Z m 11-10%:- m ➢ Z Z o ➢ Z p l i O co Z 0 m� ' m p o I J m co �/ m ➢ U yr F6 m M 0 0 I 73 1 - 0 Z _ M z 0 CA z M ire; C� -0-0 D 0 0 / V.,---- S. � (� -la 0 —� 1 y o o r- Z _". m m r O D O m M v7 ➢ _ w -_ 70-00XX -s-- m = O nm 000r➢ < I D i O ➢- m D Z➢m<OF O ZLA(n➢= N rn DO-1 DOm0 -:`_ 00M>➢ 0 ZOCmm ` FN < D 0 - Z - ➢V)➢ mm 1— oLMT1m00Z( I O 3 = O ( = A I: M ` m ➢ M 1 r x 1 \ m III( 0. KI ? y r o 1 \NI: a I\ N O Z Z '-C CJD l. a 0 at17 1. 1b a p e W 0 4NDRTX OLYMPIC ` ^� ii $1 m m PRELIMINARY CONCEPT SECTION V J Cardnv O m p ENTR/X "fa COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES Kilisut Harbor Restoration Design Project sEAiSTA 2LnF�sravEnLUeWEST,SUITE 500 J/ n SEATTLE.WA 09119 `m `m g - - -_ "SALMON k !- f f , TEL(206)2590700 FAX(2f16)269 098 . Jefferson County, Washington COALdTION mtw `i°0C� / 'fix Tat i It x i at ' /..d 1 Y 1 : " + / / .. 4 i4 . x at aft +` 4 z / 4 4.1 / '� N_-4----;,_ ��y ) , '� 1 I /414 Xy i t 0,-• �,' 4' 4. r 4'• �. �, $ ot —I 4 RL , \.J it 0 r T 30 74 m t ili: * **4 ! I 4•a .. 4 ,. C A, 4 \ I n r J 0° C. J t0 �' , ri i �, ; 1 i a CP i (I) it 4 0 0 0.- `y ,i W, I C 'p A i`*Pit ii-A r E i I m z 1 �✓■ <�M I c$ ' gi ,� . z .� a n a ■ ■ 4 a 1 ii .1 * ' r— • o'--'------------------, v 4 v r z RNN4 ' d ' .� b oti e� t '''t 1 A . \ g �\ \ � - Ie yE 44 �\ L �y -- ifs Z 6.iits,,L.,0eitnilsitc_ 44_____4,6 /Si. ' __\_. , v to, ,_ ___,_ ___4 16, it , e '3 Y� f it ziqh I x\' \ O t 1. \ d° \. if Z a ,. C l C } o 0 Z z 8 II ga y ,0 ''-2—% 2,7h- to 1m A, +. �- � � -°i- _ �_ T T fo O\ e 4 G]Proo1G.vO1.2gbO./3SCiU 1 W 0.9C13gt.dng I' SYM. REVISION DATE DATE: 02A7r14 NTI ENGINEERING KILISUT HARBOR -' SCALE: 1"=90' GESIGNE°SY. & SURVEYING GRAVM 9V: DR ` 7117:TOTH BODYS ZT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ` - -- VMWNTI411COM P CHECKED:TOR ��, F I3fi0I 652-84999 REVIEW„oR FOR NOSC 1 _� / : o 0s1 • o 0 0 0 —� z a / m� 1 Mm ,D I O °° ° v m /I XI k 11 '0�' oZ //`/. /� 1 DZn ( % ;� 1 1- c ^ / `/// % •1 �' Z m I / m / b m / Z Z O z Z I Z 3 7' ///' / c, 1 I ////' ' / m I N / // / y /fI u j / a / i ' / -�.. \ H, I ,I,gi r I . g$ I I � rn r ° o o 8 ( 1 C -I- I - I n —I z ; rn >T . Ii 7J 7D Z ° ° N° D o w c rn A -- - - Ira: \ i \` �' ' \_ / 1 / N `11�1 9-� fV f ! I :. I I iII / \i\J4i - 11 \ ._ 11VHdSV 30 3903 ln ■ �I 1 Z 1 i�, w j=A '�4M 30 1H9RI ,09 1 I _... / N I go 1 �1 IT : 1 it : I E g 8 ■ I \ m O 1 w ° I o' 0 8 Lrl N O N A Mr 2t.2014-92aam DemT V0114003(Must Harbor RetoreUon)wrelmkmyYCM.SOVawa Layout Name:Layout -111 11 g 3.m.< i ,q • fr j / 1 x� � !L e 4' ■ 1 1 r I Lk w e 4, ID/ y ! ; a s H / Nn r' V^ ;11 r I SACK 10F PAVT SEAT / T I JI ? A' g `/-Al STA.N•86.72 I EL T7.70 / 1 I /ii ' I ! I • I ( m3 I 4 1 1 I 1 I I 113 I j c f I N o of I 12.0• 1x00 LANE . - -1-- I _ A EL/7.97 I + 10 1 I i 0 1 b I I p I .' NI I I Si I I to 1 1 it y o p m... 1 ! ?c- i r- PIERS c 1 I. I ::"..r41.7'.::: �' �___ =_ — - STA.Aw2L01 P I ` I ' �� " EL 16.4$ Z i 11 11 I Z 1 ---i 1 \i/ I I I w.44 /[1, 1 l 1 121 tb- ti 0 I 1 \ g .ag I �1 o I 4I I 1 I I III I I ' Y i C___. , Piet4 1 (,'l', ___ -__ /ice • Z STA 16.36.16 ' i /EL 18.92 1 it J1, s/?,./ \ rrt i \ , 1 � I 1 i lr i C c» o 73 O -� N r XI KO 7, 1 1'. . I �! 1. 1,i. 1,,i 1 . ii ?. 0 1I w.21.2014-11:44nn DWI ' t1143(Mut Harbor 0w Lard Nome:Sections 11111111 Npf, i t �, s. ■ i Al 1 1 1 C I 1 1 ____ 1 . t___ _ I i 1 1 g 1 m .O O t r � F I 11 I c ti I 1 I I I . 1 1 N �. "• 11 N i 1 y q § 8 III 0 GI i i ■ Z z I 1 \\111\1141 , i 0— II V I I O . 1 I ; 1 ga , N. \1 `I igE 1 1 I ` I 1 1 t .r H1 t we HI t Ns N go , I R iN t p . Il (1) I 0 t � t e t .. H cr) D t H t 1--r t N I11 • 1- 4.") �.ap_ m th C31 I O © - u uI $ \, y y ` Z i Z Z 1 p o ; 1 t' il 0 70 A i i ' • OA ). i i I I z 1 _ -< IA— . C O � N = Z I I 0 2 ' m N 1 i I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ' I 1 CPU 1 I MK 21,2014-L45em DNmT V:1114033(Mart Hilbor Rwtm.tlollpnamI8y1101SOa0M9 Layout Name:OcMt Sequence 1 UHUI' m mZ s ! = H` 1 C Z . pQ -- /., s A cK of rn BACK OF rnvr sear c A ABUTMOIT 1 vr seer ? ne roexr I % 57/L14488.72 E. (1 1 P4 i 00 i 2 g T c • H a ( I v o lo if c PIER 2 r PIER c_ ___ e, PIER2 y �� STA.16.05.35 i A i EL 0 a i g g 0000 ! ' 00 00 00 • 6 i m 6 � i4 m O • A m f z) ' y O -�1 I m O c3Q 6 •s S > --Ii m r L H rum 9 - m r____ PIER 3 m c- --- '1 srA.77+21.01 St T ■ 2 5 N 0. s `9kT' is 1 1 lot 0 0 m °� /I i glu• v ro m ,..II I �` °� ' 1'-1.tt VA Vi 1 o VA 21 a ■■ r1ER 4 c ,I \4\ 1© ' i if I %r s .. p c� e! if m ' c " m co 0 e)▪ O -I 713 r •BALK OF PAYT SEAT enLK OF PAY-SEAT ▪ Z ' PIER 5 ,STR 5 O z Z O xi z C N 3 a 3 a on Mr 21,2014.9:4 20/4-9:403401 OMrnT V:1114033 Mast Harbor Hattoretlan)WretlmindyIKHSO4.erg Layout Herm Cons Sa4aa,ca 2 UUh1! f !T:44°14' 4 �`z , / y G")ui ri / I g �' i i��11`�"g— ne 1 1/' '!'. AST 1 I '� z il i I o ;' I I �_ 1 D I I I i i 1 M I I IjJ0 m I}2 qq # -4 1 -..-40:!...;-40-,. rem 2 i 10 o 1 o f IIER 2 1 a I I 1 , I I li , I 1 N 1 1 a I I I I I 1 H 1 1 74 III s [ 1 4 Z y [' 1 / GI1 10 10/Wil qEx s I al I I t ul gill I g 1 1 iI R is I I t`. • 1 I z 1 I I I J • I I i 1 ,wg 4 I ie rte}tom- ris 4 e i I . I 1 I CI I 0 I 4 = 1 it g —I i --,z \\\ 4 \\\0 0 O : I Ii ,CA 1 c p 21 1 1 I = z0 —< 1 � © i W m 1 I1r.UC11.•_11_—.._- 1 .wwww..w ACTS I ^ I Q I I AB7 5 Z I 3T 1 r 1 1 I , 4 2 Pli I 1 1 1 t o 1: P $ // // lit , jtt .1 ; 2 , F- ! )\ N I / P4C •A 12+50.00 / `� ■-18+5 6 / / 1 $ it d, I'' /. 1 / i ///////.:I 1 24 GI 1 Z I A �S " �- \ D8 . 1 rn I o. I Mc Z , -, 1 &n ' 'I it rn 70 1 Z 1. D1 PVT TA 18+00.00 I-.ill PT +07.16 1 =17115 + MI 7C N r' co te) T C ill 70 Z p _ D' _ - n 1 (111 7v 7o rrn PVC A. 18+2100 _< 1 i- 1865 + \� ii ' a ap i_ . Z kr+ 1 Z It N 1n0 ANI 1-1,.. .„,...„.1,....l4`9 S NI ANI Q i I J Awn° „o9 p - i S N lno ANI :I 1 t+ SSSNIu09 �:1 , 11 1213A1n0 u09 ■ rnP I '1 'r. S O. \ A 1 I 11VHdSV JO 3903 ` I O/ V y HS - M JO 1H9121 ,09 . 10� Iii H! *9 _ !. PYf BEL 0.51 00 1. a-ws1 >: - 1 1 1 \ ,.. CD 0 m 1 s I CI N '1 _i_ I \�, 4 a 1 NJ T 8 s I 1 \ 1 \ Map Output Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map ..•' z,0810;1_92,092,,73 - 081091 421087001 i. (.1\:- '- - 921087015 I 921081016 921062009 t--; ii _ 1... ! ____921i1013 821081011 921081004 921081004 9270$1025 1 --1-� 921002007 i ?2'081026 321081095 ro 921081028 Gybe Legend .2. 18. '8 J Y 1102? 9210920• _• Selected Features OC 921081027 :'_s<1�xfar».,. 70_.— JC_Roads 921084002 921084035 r Parcels-H . 921084009 _ Shoreline Designation- --1. I Poly ~` '-- I 921084019 921084036 1 \k 4211 1 1 --- `'---- Natural --921093004 ■ 921084008 921084424 921084018 ■ Conservancy •�� 4, J L 921084015 _) 921084017 -, - :i- -- - - II 921084026' r --- -- 921084010 921084016.921084028 92108400! Carver ` �Lr M 921064004 921084006 �(�92,084003 921054'< 92.084011 1,17-952500301 , --Robbing Rd�" 1084073 ..._... '~� -.`... A -_-921064031 �. . '% 921064013-._.921084032 .c 384012 �,....;- 921084033 421093025 ∎- 927084039 .::4400001 952500007 S22 ?13951500008 . M413 1'V.:JCV:. .:,_,.t w 1 Curet Carta o--.-.u- :: -� -- WO 921084022 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Tue Jun 10 09.33.57 2014 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientV ersion=4.... 6/10/2014 Map Output Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map z 1081011 _.921081011_.921092U?'. . 1 ; t 27081011 92108,016 92108104' 921 a'_'S va v2 b — re -` `•9 921061016 t i `'2"='-••-• I .,1081012'______. 921061013.1017 1 I i 921081025 .9 1081904'-11 I �. 921092007 Lsgsnd 92^081005 n 921081026 921081028 F_.—, 0 Selected Features 92'06100 92'ta.cC' r^Gybe Ho Rd- ' /v/ JC Roads Z r.8•∎•∎ • �921081027 l 921092011 92'0.10'. - _ Parcels.) r- I ONR FP Stream ;:�53r.A i 921084002 921084035 Classification 92` 921064009 IL I _1 921064019 F Fran Ilatrnat (MOOT ._ - 92108403E 92'0+_C N•Non 4e11 Mama) 9210RCa'14 ^921093004 No•Non-fen Ilseaal-Perennal 921084008 t—. _921084018 i 921084015 —_..1 q! Ni-Nam fist,Ilaonaf-Seasonal _ - 921084017 I ����--�. j S.Invanlorioe Sim-reline 5-21084010 921084016;921084028 921084007 + -). - DF NR Water Bodies 92106404 92108405 ' t :_—.4., --Ii.„,9Qt064003 '921084017 -+ � -iRobbets Rd 1. „ 952500001 921084013 1 ■ N "- ._.711084031 0 921084013_._ I.__.921084032 S I '2'1694012t)50, ,9a108403.n 921093025 n No 00sgnalnn .i.0 tt1 962500007 921064039 _•t e t to 952500008 ----__-, t.la'r.:corded ea Jtlmsm Carey Centro SSe'- aGiS .- Yt , 921084022 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- efferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its ollection. Tue Jun 10 09:35:01 2014 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.... 6/10/2014 Map Output Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map 1081011 _ 921081011, 92,092073 *'1061011 92'08'011 921081001 I 1 9210810'' .. 921081015 ___ . i 921081013 - - - ?tl° 921081025 Wilikirrig , 9.2"081C.:,1 921092007 92'08'00 '-'2081026 921081028 k 5 c= -- 7 Gybe Ho Rd -",, Legend 92-0&3001 92165'005 92109201' JC Roads 921061027 _ 92408400' 1 ' Parcels-H 1 L ______ ----:::::--1 114111141111114111%r"--- ,,.'....1 021008301 921084009 L r 921084019 I 921084035 i 921084036 -1 Ell Wetlands I . I 921084024 ---'0210030*4 921084008 921084018 I _ 921084015 i — 921084017 . r 921084026 r ---..--, 9211.-00 921084016 921084028 2210840071 906 I 0 --_, 921084004 210840 92'084003. E 921084006 --- ' -1- ---___ ,,,. , - 921084031 921084013____92101146" 401244 921084033 921093025 _ _ 921084039 ..,0.,2200001 952500007 Max XCI.Ided Crf..cterson Carry Cent:0 Sr.',a.S, 0 8441 921084022 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- efferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its ollection. Tue Jun 10 09:39:25 2014 http://gisserveriservleticom.esri.esrimap.Esrirnap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.... 6/10/2014 Map Output Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map % 1 08,01,___22,0111011_021092073 , •-- 2011 921081011 921841 001- . I ( )21081011 II 9121061015 — i# 9210810 .1--- . 921092009 1. 18 1 — 921081013 92_1_°81°11 -I— W ,i 927081026 11111111&VP. ;2'081004f — 92709200t i . 11 „2.081005 , 921081028 921081026 -- [ Legend := Gybe 1-10 Ril ' ft 921081027 L 92109201, , JC_Roads o _ - L Parcels-H I 921064002 921064015 all Seismic Hazard (921084009 4 92. i''' ; .,:., :i _____,..;i 921084019 921084036 i• — — _ I . 921093004 921084024 fillik0840la 08 _ f_ 921084018_: li k921084015 1 „ 9210840t7 921084026-- ---,---__ 92°0840% 927084076 921084028 021084007 921064006 I 921084804 921084005 921084003 962500001 921084013 I 921084031 A -----\, 921084013 _921084032 _," 93„, , ' "- '- - CA 921084033 021093025 W11084039 95220000 952500637 \,,0522YX02 952500008 ....r-0 50 r. r...a foct....c-, 0 '.4ili 9;1'ca4022 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Tue Jun 10 09:40:05 2014 http://gisserveriservlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServieeName=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.... 6/10/2014 Map Output Page 1 of 2 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map r i ) . 111) / ff. ..... . 921404000 r u 92 /i,2+_., II t 92C:4BY. ',+.2'Cti'CC ,_ Gybe Ho Rd _rretxg� � W ~�. 2iT2 5['C a 3S d s �t r_� 927400001 ,821014024 .s 92100004. -av�'' 92'oaau d 82108401: ----\ - 921084015. 92100/0/ 7 921000001 ~ '921084010 921084076A921084028 :921084007 111192" 10e4044,921084006 708403 ' 9Q10'89006, 92.0801 't 982S000Ot.. . Robbins Rd A- 92 Cvl! 3 N 92':vli'2, 92',.:.84032 � C'L ' '[ f�/� _ 22!Y.X_�" 552Y_X_:r 11SY:I'J:• J:.e'C':4'I'CeJTi=et'.3 X':cat lGS 0 :Y.RJ1i 92'•..84022 I http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientV ersion=4.... 6/10/2014 Map Output Page 2 of 2 Legend JC_Roads Parcels-H County Zoning NPR-SF Tracts Rural Resident ui 1:5 Rural Resident al 1:10 Rural Resident;at 1:20 M PR-Single F amuy ■ MPR Mud dainty M PR.Ram.t CeTO= Parse and Recreation ■ MPR-Open Some dia Rural Forest ■ Commercial Foram to holding Forest Heavy industrial ■ Airport CPF ■ IN PR•Vilage Confer ■ AP1:20 ■ Rural Vii lade Center ■ Resource Rased Ind. Light Indus-trial *APR Recreation name Mgmt CPF LOA ■ Crossroads.GC . Crossmaus-CC ■ Crossroads•NC ■ AL 1:20 uGA-u roan Commercial UGA-urban Light Industrial UGA MDR UGA HDR UGA-Public UGA-LDR hr,# UGA Vader Oriented Commercial MPR-RRN lire non C F•61111 RLO Commercial Forest Mineral Resource Overlay FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Tue Jun 10 09:41:12 2014 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.... 6/10/2014 Map Output Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map 'y 92Lil9lGaiOi: 9a1o92 073 7 : r� c '01'f 921087077 921087001 �. • il 21081011 �-� 929481475 � � 9210810'6 '2,.'� : 7 .....-921081013 9 I' - I - 921081025 i 92109200) \'' l '_ 921091028 921081028 � _. Legend /. } Gybe Flo Rd"� JC_Roads = \\`. f 02'04',_27_ ( 92,0920.. .--,, - a r Parcels-H / ,° 92t084iA2 9210840.Yi 5MP_Shoreline Environmental :.. I --- Designations _ 921084019 921064036 ---, r' O Aquatic+ -,.! - 921093001 Conservancy 21064006 921084024 921084018 ■ ‘.. / 921084015 -----i High fnfensny _... ,- 921464011 l 921060026 ---_- Natural r-C54010 921084016;521084028 108400' NA • 927084043 pp�'���� p�S21084_`.._ p*corny A4aa1K Lt .7q 192J'-L. 1 � i18 RA••••c- 921084013 , Sherehnc Resden1 se N .... �p 927D84039 b0 927084413.__._.927084032 108407 921084033 921093026 :..s ttoe 3,962600007 92108403! :... `952500008 Y 921064022 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Tue Jun 10 09:42:08 2014 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientV ersion=4.... 6/10/2014 Map Output Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map 921081011 9c •.,41092013 13 . , t0920T3 921061011, .,.•;._.. . .. 921061001 � 921081011- - "' 92°81011 =..:',38i015 921081015: 921081016 rirr.TrIn aft 921081013 92tO8t012' r106f01 10610.1 MIMI 9 081 f 4 �.,. '",a,•. 921081026. *s } - ` ,Z n, Legend _� 7 GYbe Ho 92,.isia JCRoads rn .92^08102 Parcels-H 4 2011 Aerial Photos 92100000 . rs, ►^ - d '-'64°24 2 s_u� 92€064006 � 921064v 5 "_ - _ 92 , •1 9210840.1. 22.00000 - ., _[:921084026 _... .____ 921084010 921084016;.921064028 92'081 + - . : r 1084004 9e d921•. ...�10,• a.f +1. -Rob bmsRd -�°..-.. . ,� - ----- c•c&to13 F.- ' Alt,p9�210&l'-'29.2"1084(.,32 it_ o 52':4013 1 4< C64∎...,`z ''.71084033 92109.3∎J2'_. �.[�, 1 952200003:- - Alaps arardad M ratersal Cary Caota Sawoa CYS t FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- efferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its ollection. Tue Jun 10 09:43:03 2014 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClidntVersion=4.... 6/10/2014 Onsite Pre-Application Conference Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project North Olympic Salmon Coalition June 11, 11:00-12:00 Case No. PRE14-00008 Attendees: Applicant: North Olympic Salmon Coalition, Kevin Long Fla.( 4 0.Q Jefferson County Department of Community Development: Joel Peterson J f y Department of Natural Resources: Bridget Kaminski-Richardson— n .,�y y� ► � (4051...p 1= 46, Department of Fish and Wildlife: Margaret Bigelow SJrppl US Fish and Wildlife Service: Ginger Phalen -- zt c�--�tirL� Lar—) • WDFW Estuary&Salmon Restoration Program:Jay Krienitz LNaval Magazine Indian Island: Don Zimmerman, Bill Kalina (1 ,Naval Facility Bangor: Eugene King,Tammy Lee, Gregory Garnett I. Description of Proposal: Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project will replace the earthen causeway connecting Indian Island and Marrowstone Island with a 450-foot multiple span bridge. Sediment-filled tidal channels will be excavated as part of the project. Z,-i-.1 (z t1 II. Agency Evaluation of Proposal � ' P• d,41 III. Jefferson County Development Review Division: WS9'1. "`2` Ely S_b ` Y' y Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.25 JCC) • Shoreline Environment Designation: Natural _ L • Restoration and Enhancement may be permitted in all shoreline Environment Designations subject to policies and regulations of program. May require shoreline substantial development permit or statement of exemption approval. • Shoreline Development Permit exemption for Watershed Restoration Project 18.25.560 (16)(c) JCC; and exemption for public or private project,the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage. o Project approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife o Project received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife o UDC Administrator determined project is consistent with Shoreline Program • Statement of Exemption Approval for Shoreline exemption at 18.25.570(1)et seq. o Recommended Restoration Action, Marrowstone and Kilisut Harbor, Final Shoreline Restoration Plan,Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Project, October 2008, pp.5-42—5-44. Assurances are unavailable. Discussions at the Pre-Application Conference are not binding,and no statement made by county representatives shall in any way relieve applicant of the duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant regulations and requirements. Critical Areas (Chapter 18.22 JCC) 2iD Wetlands 18.22.340 JCC-- Noncompensatory enhancement,Type 1 Noncompensatory enhancement—requires Enhancement Plan review. Archaeological Resources—contact State Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation Stormwater Management Plan—"Large Project" (>7000 s.f. land disturbance); Construction Stormwater(M Pollution Prevention Plan and Permanent Stormwater Control Plan. SEPA— Environmental Checklist required as project does not meet exemption: 197-11-800 (1)(i) Lands Covered by Water OTHER REGULATORY/LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS Contact Washington Department of Archaeological and Historical Preservation (DAHP)for cultural resource review. /� 3 r r, Application and Fees: P7rv2 . S / ZO /" / Cr '"1 i Complete Application includes : I —p 13,211 big • Master Permit Application /3 \„�," T • SEPA Environmental Checklist 2a �1A' A � • JARPA • Development Drawings '9 (11-eD6 • Site Plan �`S�^O a'"•'"� �� • Stormwater Calculation Worksheet °'� S lam - t • Stormwater Management Permit Application -4- Irxr'1``° °T tir•t� • Engineered Stormwater Management Plan 6"•I1- r \h 542P CO l 4,„./ • Wetland Report • Enhancement Plan prepared by qualified wetlands consultant or accepted in writing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serve,the Washington Department of Fish and wildlife,or the Washington Department of Ecology. AL4lity 1 1nA • Statement of Exemption Approval form Fees due at time of application: 4 C J/.yl� lleg • Shoreline Development Permit Exemption Approval--$532.00 • Stormwater Management Permit--$380.00 1,41.4. '3,ny�6-N-k atfry • SEPA Review $919.00 I / 5\c-1 Assurances are unavailable. Discussions at the Pre-Application Conference are not binding,and no statement made by county representatives shall in any way relieve applicant of the duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant regulations and requirements. _ — 11-7 - (1 - g°c_ C ar(za! p 1 C 4 vi nvur-11.0 ,� cnln�( y or n6r-411 A-45 C 1 () ca I Iy woi 4-e IN ) c+✓17 t( 1Or7 cti, y�Ps - a n�Q cry C', 1( A2,c,1 /4rAd" F 5-)&"1-7514 :?-1 f �'C.C/I (V/'///X--� •-b1 �i/t4 / GYT Y1'V4 lr Y'1 60414._ U-L. 9IA-A . �� C I c 64-/v",'"" 3 07-1 ) 1 i{ I1 jlMc(1ct tA ( ' cvur tir rAc„ „ ta.-1 Owiweot,h '17'3 -rt,lon , 1D so r4 , r3ti, � (J�-cn-4 3k, ws Pic). TS1n4 N/���, �� �lt», �.v (0. . Yo fi (ADC- . yu tivt s--)` tbcArr-cr$ ? mac. ( 69i t, l C1 ( / it /ntJ o N R F3 clogg-z` k.,.r,^li —622) u Al — 53;rl )G;:x1 , " Z) \4t c D FMS -, 6P, -(5)-1" -t" (^)5()67. Jdtic Dak N1Amy IrAcAinfil L Joel Peterson From: Kevin Long [projectmanager©nosc.org] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:22 AM To: Kaminski-Richardson, Bridget(DNR); Joel Peterson Subject: RE: Section 9 of Aquatic Land Lease 20-B13279 Bridget, Thank you for looking into this some more. No JARPA has been filed yet. It will be a month or two. Thanks, Kevin From: Kaminski-Richardson, Bridget(DNR) [mailto:Bridget.Kaminski-Richardson @dnr.wa.00vl Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 9:45 AM To: Joel Peterson (JPeerson @co.iefferson.wa.us); Kevin Long Subject: FW: Section 9 of Aquatic Land Lease 20-B13279 Joel and Kevin, After discussing this further with my Assistant Division Manager last Friday, he explained that because the "Use" of Lease 20-B13279 to Jefferson County being "A public park available to the general public on first-come, first-severed basis" does not meet the "Use" of NOSC being"restoration" then an Assignment/Sublease will not work. Instead we will write an authorization for NOSC to enter the land and do a restoration project.This authorization will probably be in the form of a conservation right of entry similar to the Discovery Bay Restoration authorization. Kevin, I don't think we have received the JARPA for this project yet, correct?Once we receive the JARPA and $25.00 fee, then I can start the authorization process. Bridget From: Kaminski-Richardson, Bridget (DNR) Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:57 PM To: Joel Peterson (JPeterson@co.jefferson.wa.us); proiectmanager @nosc.orq Subject: Section 9 of Aquatic Land Lease 20-B13279 Joel and Kevin, Please see attachment for the Aquatic Land Lease Section 9 Assignment and Subletting. I will be looking into this more on Friday to see if these are the only 2 (Assignment and Subleasing) ways for NOSC to enter onto this property to do work, or if there are other options. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Bridget 1 Joel Peterson From: Kevin Long [projectmanager @nosc.org] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:33 PM To: Joel Peterson Subject: RE: Preapp conference meeting outline Joel, Go ahead and invoice us for work to date over the base fee. Does this take into account the fee charged for Environmental health to look at the pre-app and DID they look at the pre-app or did you apply that time to the preapp meeting? I would like you to wait on consultation with your attorney until DNR has done some more legwork on the topic. Thanks, Kevin From: Joel Peterson [mailto:JPeterson(&co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:36 AM To: Kevin Long Subject: RE: Preapp conference meeting outline Kevin, I'm glad I could be helpful. I've attached a PDF of the outline from yesterday. I need to ask how you want to proceed with the Pre-Application work. At this point, DCD has 3.75 hours logged over the base fee already paid, and so you will be receiving a follow-up invoice for$285.00. There is a follow-up task for me to confer with our Prosecuting Attorney about the County lease with DNR. I want to be sensitive to your budget, but that may need an additional 1 or 2 hours at$76.00/hour. I'm glad to go forward with it, or I could wait for the results of DNR's review of the question. Let me know how you want to move forward. Thanks. Joel Joel Peterson Associate Planner,Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4457 * Fax 360-379-4451 jpeterson p co.iefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW INA SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary 1 6fi7/iy 0 Ce firun5 r fee: (0r uee4 , rtJ v hLt r'eU,,e,` ) C D coo EN r-‘ 1)\-4-14) , LE/11. uc 4 bct P uxe.e '1Avr)l CZ 1 osc *D_.`ciS', 67° qc 3 .`IS' hour °LAC 9', w& pAiA• 711 a v 1 Fees 4s,ccia1ede+eith PRE14-30008 ro11 U1 2 ,.. ;.Feelyye . .,,Revenue1GLAccount „ Fee Amount Amount Due Updated By S3811.11 so tit 0.5106/201411:33-28 MEB a Health Dept Review-11.54oa ) S158 GO SO 00 QEJeo,2014 11 3320 11E13 1-N4 nbaL`1)/D.n u4" 1 me, pi1Vrh � Associated fees C' Paid hkstary Totals: $538.00 50.00 MCI Roll together fees for DCD time exclusively. No health review. Paid: $538.00=7.08 hours Spent: 650 minutes= 10.83 hours Difference: 10.83—7.08=3.75 hours X$76.00 $285.00 Case Review Time Tracking: DCD Review from 4/2/2012 to 6/11/2014 for PRE14-00008. (Hourly Rate = $76.00) PRE14-00008 LONG 05/12/2014 60 Review 2014-05-12: case review, initial contact with applicant--jmp Joel Peterson 05/13/2014 30 Review 2014-05-13: coordination with Kevin Long, NOSC re: attendees & Joel Peterson addtnl info--jmp 05/14/2014 30 Review 2014-05-14: coordination with applicant/agencies--jmp Joel Peterson 05/21/2014 30 Review 2014-05-20: created applicant's distribution list, spoke to I.T. re: Joel Peterson Doodle Poll--jmp 05/21/2014 60 Review 2014-05-21: scanned attachments, emailed to meeting participants, Joel Peterson Doodle Poll setup--jmp 05/22/2014 10 Review 2014-05-22: email to K.Long requesting on-site meeting Joel Peterson logistics jmp 05/23/2014 20 Review 2014-05-23: call to Kevin Long, doodle results & meeting Joel Peterson anouncement--jmp 05/28/2014 20 Review 2014-05-28: email correspondence to attendee and Kevin Long Joel Peterson regarding participant list--jmp 06/09/2014 20 Review 2014-06-09: Site meeting update email--jmp Joel Peterson 06/10/2014 100 Review 2014-06-10: Project review& Meeting Outline—jmp Joel Peterson 06/10/2014 70 Review 2014-06-10: project review& meeting outline--jmp Joel Peterson 06/11/2014 100 Review 2014-06-10: consistency review& Pre-App meeting materials--jmp Joel Peterson 06/11/2014 100 Review 2014-06-11: Pre-app conference, 60 minutes +40 minutes RT Joel Peterson travel jmp 650 minutes (10.83 hours) $823.33 Total 650 minutes (10.83 hours) $823.33 1 6/11/2014 \\tidemark\data\forms\r DCD ® Fee:. th PEF14 I030 r i rqi ...., Fee Type Revenue/GL Account Fee Amount Amount Due Updated By SOP Pre-Application 345.81.20 SO. , 4rfl33 p NES Health Dept Review 346.23.11.5400 5158.00 SO GC C`+0€512014 11.33:20 MEE G' Associated fees n Paid history Totals: S538.00 5000 Roll together fees for DCD time exclusively. No health review. Paid: $538.00= 7.08 hours Spent: 650 minutes= 10.83 hours Difference: 10.83—7.08 = 3.75 hours X$76.00=$285.00 6.11.2014 11:00-12:30 Onsite Kilisut Harbor Applicant:North Olympic Salmon Coalition-Kevin Long Cardno:Jack Bjork,Melissa Klungle DNR:Sean Carlson,Bridget Kaminski-Richardson Attendees Jefferson County:Joel Peterson Navy: Quincy Correa,Greg Garnett,Bill Kalina,Tammy Lee,Julia Stockton,Don Zimmerman WDFW:Margaret Bigelow,Jay Krienitz USFWS:Ginger Phalen Description of Proposal Discussion Kevin provided an overview of the Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project. Construction expected to start Spring 2016. Discussion Group discussion on permits needed for the project. • The Tribes are supportive.The Jamestown s'Klallam Tribe did the Initial archeological inventory done,no significant resources found • JARPA and SEPA needed. County will be the lead agency. • Jefferson County Permits-anticipate 3 month to approve o Exempt from Shoreline Development Permit but application still needed o The project was part of the adopted 2008 Shoreline Master Plan o Critical areas-code does not require compensatory mitigation for enhancement projects o Temporary and permanent stormwater control plans needed • WDFW needs SEPA for HPA • USFWS will do the ESA consultation. Their work may cover this for the Navy as well. • DNR-county parks has lease on southern area.Sub-lease though Jefferson County may be possible for the project. • Confusion exists over land ownership(DNR/Navy),additional survey /title report work may be needed.Also potential North/south trending gap between properties.NOSC,DNR and Navy surveyors and real estate staff will coordinate. • PUD does not have an existing easement for power lines on Navy land • The Navy Is supportive. Approvals from the Navy must come from the commanding officer. • Navy contaminant survey is not required-site has been cleared off the superfund list Action Items Person Responsible Deadline Navy to provide letter outlining process and timeline Garnett PUD power line easement on Navy land Garnett Provide all background data to Navy- upload to FTP site Bjork/Long Provide letter to Navy stating USFWS will cover Section 7 Phalen Provide DNR landownership map and titles Kaminski-Richardson Provide additional direction to Applicant on approach to DNR land lease Kaminski-Richardson JARPA/SEPA Klungle Section 7 compliance Phalen Coordinate Section 106 with USACE Long North Olympic Salmon Coalition - Kevin Long- Navy: projectmanager@nosc.org Quincy Correa- nicomedez.correa @ navy.mil Greg Garnett-gregory.garnett@navy.mil Cardno: Bill Kalina-william.kalina @navy.mil Jack Bjork-jack.bjork @cardno.com Tammy Lee-tammy.lee @navy.mil Melissa Klungle-Melissa.klungle @cardno.com Julia Stockton-julia.stockton @navy.mil Don Zimmerman-donald.zimmerman @ navy.mil WDNR: Bridget Kaminski-Richardson-bridget.kaminski• WDFW: richardson @dnr.wa gov Margaret Bigelow- margaret.bigelow @dfw.wa.gov Sean Carlson Jay Krienitz-jay.krienitz@dfw.wa.gov Jefferson County: USFWS: Joel Peterson-jpeterson @co.jefferson.wa.us Ginger Phalen- ginger_phalen @fws.gov Joel Peterson From: Kaminski-Richardson, Bridget(DNR) [Bridget.Kaminski-Richardson @dnr.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:58 PM To: Joel Peterson; projectmanager @nosc.org Subject: Section 9 of Aquatic Land Lease 20-813279 Attachments: 2894_001.pdf Joel and Kevin, Please see attachment for the Aquatic Land Lease Section 9 Assignment and Subletting. I will be looking into this more on Friday to see if these are the only 2 (Assignment and Subleasing) ways for NOSC to enter onto this property to do work, or if there are other options. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Bridget rI D NP b1, 5 t e�.kd Jo�nGt n b v 2 cz v v14 y cv r- P,r s tie(Qec r6a4^9/ Do 1q4.9 v12tot " SLAM-a e k b 1\1 e' "l.i- p 714(4"/ Foc- rut 54ora4',,,n ,n,F9rk, '•_� /� a� or 4v.Q-.M`�'�wt. .,l).�f,.w.cn9 ,} 170\r4.. , "`�CJ'Y+e(,•t,s�`�^�i/1 I�l� 0 55 14\i'15 do y G¢9✓1`-r )( d LAIC ra J L tA' 1 (c) In nonemergencies, Tenant is entitled to obtain split samples of Test samples, provided Tenant gives State written notice requesting split samples at least ten (10)calendar days before State conducts Tests. Upon demand,Tenant shall promptly reimburse State for additional cost, if any,of split samples. (d) If either Party conducts Tests on the Property,the conducting Party shall provide the other with validated final data and quality assurance/quality control/chain of custody information about the Tests within sixty(60)calendar days of a written request by the other party,unless Tests are part of a submittal under Paragraph 8.6(c)in which case Tenant shall submit data and information to State without written request by State.Neither party is obligated to provide any analytical summaries or the work product of experts. SECTION 9 ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING 9.1 State Consent Required. Tenant shall not convey,transfer, or encumber any part of Tenant's interest in this Lease or the Property without State's prior written consent,which State shall not unreasonably condition or withhold. (a) In determining whether to consent,State may consider,among other items,the proposed transferee's financial condition, business reputation and experience,the nature of the proposed transferee's business,the then-current value of the Property,and such other factors as may reasonably bear upon the suitability of the transferee as a tenant of the Property. State may refuse its consent to any conveyance,transfer,or encumbrance if it will result in a subdivision of the leasehold.Tenant shall submit information regarding any proposed transferee to State at least thirty(30)days prior to the date of the proposed transfer. (b) State reserves the right to condition its consent upon: (1) changes in the terms and conditions of this Lease, including,but not limited to,the Annual Rent;and/or (2) the agreement of Tenant or transferee to conduct'i"ests for Hazardous Substances on the Property or on other property owned or occupied by Tenant or the transferee. (c) Each permitted transferee shall assume all obligations under this Lease, including the payment of rent. No assignment,sublet,or transfer shall release,discharge,or otherwise affect the liability of Tenant. (d) State's consent under this Paragraph 9.1 does not constitute a waiver of any claims against Tenant for the violation of any term of this Lease. 9.2 Rent Payments Following Assignment. The acceptance by State of the payment of rent following an assignment or other transfer does not constitute consent to any assignment or transfer. 9.3 Terms of Subleases. (a) Tenant shall submit the terms of all subleases to State for approval. (b) Tenant shall incorporate the following requirements in all subleases: Aquatic Lands Lease Page 15 of 33 Lease No.20-B13279 (1) The sublease must be consistent with and subject to all the terms and conditions of this Lease; (2) The sublease must provide that this Lease controls if the terms of the sublease conflict with the terms of this Lease; (3) The term of the sublease(including any period of time covered by a renewal option)must end before the Termination Date of the initial Term or any renewal term; (4) The sublease must terminate if this Lease terminates for any reason; (5) The subtenant must receive and acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Lease; (6) The sublease must prohibit the prepayment to Tenant by the subtenant of more than the annual rent. (7) The sublease must identify the rental amount subtenant is to pay to Tenant; (8) The sublease must provide that there is no privity of contract between the subtenant and State; (9) The sublease must require removal of the subtenant's Improvements and Personal Property upon termination of the sublease; (10) The subtenant's permitted use must be within the scope of the Permitted Use;and (11) The sublease must require the subtenant to meet all obligations of Tenant under Section 10, Indemnification, Financial Security,and Insurance. 9.4 Short-Term Subleases of Moorage Slips. Short-term subleasing of moorage slips for a term of less than one year does not require State's written consent or approval pursuant to Paragraphs 9.1 or 9.3. Tenant shall conform moorage sublease agreements to the sublease requirements in Paragraph 9.3. SECTION 10 INDEMNITY,FINANCIAL SECURITY,INSURANCE 10.1 Indemnity. (a) Tenant shall indemnify,defend,and hold State, its employees, officers,and agents harmless from Claims arising out of the use,occupation,or control of the Property by Tenant,its subtenants,contractors,agents, invitees, guests, employees,affiliates, licensees, or permittees. (b) "Claim"as used in this Paragraph 10.1 means any financial loss, claim, suit, action,damages, expenses,fees(including attorneys' fees), penalties,or judgments attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, death,and damages to tangible property, including, but not limited to, land,aquatic life,and other natural resources. "Damages to tangible property"includes, but is not limited to, physical injury to the Property and damages resulting from loss of use of the Property. (c) State shall not require Tenant to indemnify,defend,and hold State harmless for claims that arise solely out of the willful or negligent act of State or State's elected officials,employees,or agents. Aquatic Lands Lease Page 16 of 33 Lease No.20-613279 Joel Peterson From: Joel Peterson Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:29 PM To: 'Phalen, Ginger' Cc: Kevin Long Subject: RE: Killisut Harbor site visit on June 11 Ginger: Yes,that sounds great. I've copied Kevin Long, Project Manager,on this email so he is also aware. Since we're meeting on site, we don't have any space limitation that I'm aware of. I assume you'll be carpooling together if possible. Thanks for your participation. Joel Joel Peterson Associate Planner,Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend,WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4457 * Fax 360-379-4451 jpeterson(a?co.iefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW `A SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary From: Phalen, Ginger [mailto:ginger ohalen@ fws.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:05 PM To: Joel Peterson Subject: Killisut Harbor site visit on June 11 Hi Joel, hey, just wondering if it would be OK for me to bring along some WDFW Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program representatives on our site visit? That program is providing some of the funding for the project design. I am specifically thinking of Jay Krienitz - he is the brand new ESRP Program Manager, and is looking for opportunities to get out and see project sites, learn, and meet people, and I thought this might be a good opportunity for him to come along. Can you let me know if that would be OK with you? Thanks much, Ginger Ginger Phalen t USFWS Habitat Restoration Programs 510 Desmond Drive SE Lacey WA 98502 360-753-5819 ginger_phalen@fws.gov 2 Joel Peterson From: Tong, Kristina G NWS [Kristina.G.Tong @usace.army.mil] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 12:53 PM To: Joel Peterson Cc: Gardiner, Joanne L NWS Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Request:Attendance at Kilisut Harbor Restoration Pre-Application Meeting (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: Project Documents.pdf; Application.pdf; Kilisut Harbor Wetlands Report.pdf Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Joel, I forward this email to Ms.Jo Gardiner who is the Corps pr 'ect manager for Jefferson County. Thanks,TinaL Kristina Tong, Senior Scientist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, Regulatory Branch 206-764-6913 From: Joel Peterson [mailto:JPeterson@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:11 PM To: Bridget.Kaminski-Richardson @dnr.wa.gov; Commander Yesunas; Donald Zimmerman; Ginger Phalen; Joel Peterson; Kevin Long; Tong, Kristina G NWS; Margaret.BigelowSchirato @dfw.wa.gov; Rick Mraz; Stacie Hoskins Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request: Attendance at Kilisut Harbor Restoration Pre-Application Meeting You have been requested by North Olympic Salmon Coalition (NOSC)to attend their Pre-Application Conference with Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project plans to replace the earthen causeway connecting Indian Island and Marrowstone Island with a 450-foot multiple span bridge. Sediment-filled tidal channels will be excavated as part of the project. I've attached the application, project concept, and a wetland report. Please let us know about your availability for a meeting on-site by responding to two proposed dates and start times at http://doodle.com/4f4n7z2cipn7gh6n The poll is for June 10th or June 11th, at 10:00 a.m or 11:00 a.m. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE POLL BY THIS FRIDAY, MAY 23RD. The meeting will last approximately one hour. Directions to the project site will be provided in a subsequent email. Contact me if you have any questions.Thank you. Joel 1 Joel Peterson From: Joel Peterson Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:10 PM To: Brid.et.K.o . i-Richardson @dnr.wa.gov • - =er Yesunas';'Donald Zimmerman'; oe 'eterson; 'even Long; Kristina Tong; r - .- ]Lla1•lv'n11•i1viar 17!t• - . Rick Mraz; Stacie Hoskins Subject: Request: Attendance at Kilisut Harbor Restoration Pre-Application Meeting Attachments: Project Documents.pdf;Application.pdf; Kilisut Harbor Wetlands Report.pdf You have been requested by North Olympic Salmon Coalition (NOSC)to attend their Pre-Application Conference with Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project plans to replace the earthen causeway connecting Indian Island and Marrowstone Island with a 450-foot multiple span bridge. Sediment-filled tidal channels will be excavated as part of the project. I've attached the application, project concept, and a wetland report. Please let us know about your availability for a meeting on-site by responding to two proposed dates and start times at http://doodle.com/4f4n7z2cipn7gh6n The poll is for June 10th or June lit", at 10:00 a.m or 11:00 a.m. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE POLL BY THIS FRIDAY, MAY 23•D. The meeting will last approximately one hour. Directions to the project site will be provided in a subsequent email. Contact me if you have any questions.Thank you. Joel Joel Peterson Associate Planner,Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4457 * Fax 360-379-4451 jpeterson O,co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary 1 Joel Peterson From: Joel Peterson Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:46 PM To: Kevin Long Subject: Responses to Outlook Invitation--NOSC Pre-App Hello Kevin: Below are the respondents to our meeting request. When you and I last spoke on the phone, I thought Melissa Klungle represented USACOE, but have learned that she is with Cardno. FYI, Kristina Tong of the Corps had forwarded the invitation to Jo Gardiner of the Corps,who declined the meeting. Therefore,that agency will not be represented at this point. I'll let you know of any subsequent changes to the attendees. Joel Attending: .Ginger Phalen, USFWS Jay Krienitz--WDFW Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program Don Zimmerman, Naval Magazine Indian Island y�� C ) Gregory Garnett, LCDR NAVFAC NW �i111Ow) �cj,l ',NON NA tq/ Bridget Kaminski-Richardson, DNR 1t>,rY1ra-V1 IX,iFAC K^ / Jack Bjork, Cardno W Melissa Klungle, Cardno Declined: Joanne Gardiner, USACOE Rick Mraz, Ecology Tentative: cZ- " Dan Dafoe, WDFW WeLO. 101/M, ii•V Joel Peterson Associate Planner,Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4457 * Fax 360-379-4451 jpeterson@ico.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW `" SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary 1 Joel Peterson Subject: NOSC Pre-Application Conference Kilisut Harbor Restoration Location: On-Site, Details to Follow Start: Wed 6/11/2014 11:00 AM End: Wed 6/11/2014 12:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: Joel Peterson Required Attendees: Bridget.Kaminski-Richardson @dnr.wa.gov; Daniel.Dafoe @dfw.wa.gov; Donald Zimmerman; Ginger Phalen; Jack Bjork; Joanne L. Gardiner; Kevin Long; Margaret.BigelowSchirato @dfw.wa.gov; Melissa Klungle; Rick Mraz; Stacie Hoskins Thank you for your responses to the meeting poll. We will meet on-site Wednesday,June 11th, 11:00 a.m.to Noon. North Olympic Salmon Coalition,Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project On-Site Pre-Application Conference Jefferson County Department of Community Development Please contact me (Joel) if you have any questions or need special accommodations. I'll send a follow-up email regarding the site visit details. Joel Peterson Associate Planner,Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4457 * Fax 360-379-4451 jpeterson(a?co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW `A SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary 1 Q Y Y Y Y Y O O O O O T ai 77- Q Y Y Y Y Y ( 0 0 0 0 0 O � o r N o O O 0 O O "' O a) H o O O 0 0 O Cr) O 0) C i m a Ca C CSC 0 N a) - Caa d - = ❑ U U Y C ( 0 Ca ca " cn 0) ❑ 0 c C O U E as Q Y Q C) a N m` 0 0 0 z 0 a_ Doodle: NOSC Pre-Application Meeting Page 1 of 1 NOSC Pre-Application Meeting Where: Jefferson County at project site(http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Jefferson% 20County%20at%20 p roject%20site) .tvi t Most popular date:several June 2014 ./ )7 1 Tue 10 Wed 11 6 participants 10:00AM 11:00 AM 10:0D AM •.AM \\ l O ? Joel Peterson 4 4 1 _ J C�, b J car k, C 4 di) Jack Bjork lit 4 of 4 (31) rr 9.\� Bridget Kaminski-Ric 4 �a r e r- vls T ▪s Ginger Phalen +of j yf J - v! l E�� ,'% Rick Mraz 'r uSK Melissa Klungle P '/ J J i • 1' 1 4 4 5 5 b J Comment )iertiy .-, 2 > 1 36) ( , 1 ktt s' '1„v, -ra n9 — Vv(s-• Ta Ga r^c iwr 1 ?-19J-itti 1)1 (3-44 (cam. LAsAceo 1 1 �6dn AIL , L , c-641)/1.9( ?USgC� . ACI )yJ (1'') http://doodle.corn/4f4n7z2cipn7gh6n3kiewkh4/admin 5/23/2014 Joel Peterson From: Kevin Long [projectmanager @nosc.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:13 AM To: Sarah Doyle; Joel Peterson Subject: RE: Pre-Application Conference, Kilisut Harbor Restoration Attachments: Mike Yesunas.vcf; Ginger Phalen.vcf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: CASE ACTION Joel, It would also be good to invite Ginger Phalen from the USFWS as they will be doing the Section 6 work. And Sarah missed including Commander Yesunas from Indian Island. Both are included here. Mike Yesunas Ginger_Phalen Indian Island Commanding Officer (360)753-5819 Work Ginger_Phalen @fws,gov (360J 396-5227 Work (360)340-6609 Mobile michael.yesunas@navy.mil So far the 28th appears to be better for my engineering firm, but will know more next Monday. Thanks, Kevin From: Sarah Doyle Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:07 PM To: loeterson(a co.jefferson.wa.us Cc: Kevin Long Subject: RE: Pre-Application Conference, Kilisut Harbor Restoration Hi Joel, Kevin is in the field managing a construction project so I am responding to your request. The contacts for each agency are embedded in your email below.Attached is the Kilisut wetland delineation report. Cheers, Sarah Doyle Stewardship Coordinator North Olympic Salmon Coalition 205 B W. Patison St. Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Phone: (360) 379-8051 1 From:Joel Peterson<JPeterson @co.jefferson.wa.us> Date: May 13, 2014 at 12:06:09 PM PDT To: "projectmanager @nosc.org" <projectmanager @nosc.org> Subject: Pre-Application Conference, Kilisut Harbor Restoration Mr. Kevin Long: Good to speak with you this morning. I'll summarize some of the things we talked about: 1. In your application materials you requested several agencies to attend. Please provide contact information to me so that I can facilitate this. DNR:Bridget Kaminski-Richardson bridget.kaminski-richardson @dnr.wa.gov (360)732-0934 DOE:Rick Mraz rmra461 @ecy.wa.gov (360)407-6221 WDFW: Margie Shirato, Dan Dafoe Margaret.Bigelowschirato@dfw.wa.gov (360)427-2179 USACOE: Kristina Tong,Seattle Kristina.G.Tong @usace.army.mil (206) 764-6913 Navy: Don Zimmerman, public affairs Liason;commander Yesunas (360) 396-0205 donald.zimmerman@navy.mil 2. Please provide additional project background information that may assist the agency review of the proposal. Potentially, the amount of fill and the footprint area of the Maintenance of Traffic area,wetlands delineation information, et cetera. We decided to defer circulating the geomorphologic report, but it may be helpful to bring your copy to the meeting. 3. Scheduling: because of the extended invitation list, it may be helpful to schedule the meeting after May 26 (Memorial Day). I propose an hour between 1:00 to 3:00 on Wednesday, May 28 or Tuesday,June 3. You have the option of paying an additional fee ($152)for having the Pre-App meeting on-site if you choose. Thanks, Joel Joe1 Peterson Associate Planner,Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4457 * Fax 360-379-4451 jpeterson @,co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. 2 Joel Peterson From: Sarah Doyle [SDoyle @nosc.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:27 PM To: Joel Peterson Subject: Pre-Application Conference, Kilisut Harbor Restoration Attachments: Appendix A- Kilisut Harbor Wetlands Report DRAFT.pdf Hi Joel, Kevin is in the field managing a construction project so I am responding to your request. The contacts for each agency are embedded in your email below.Attached is the Kilisut wetland delineation report. Cheers, Sarah Doyle Stewardship Coordinator North Olympic Salmon Coalition 205 B W. Patison St. Port Hadlock,WA 98339 Phone: (360) 379-8051 From:Joel Peterson <JPeterson @co.jefferson.wa.us> Date: May 13, 2014 at 12:06:09 PM PDT To: "projectmanager @ nosc.org'<projectmanager @ nosc.org> Subject: Pre-Application Conference, Kilisut Harbor Restoration Mr. Kevin Long: Good to speak with you this morning. I'll summarize some of the things we talked about: 1. In your application materials you requested several agencies to attend. Please provide contact information to me so that I can facilitate this. DNR:Bridget Kaminski-Richardson bridget.kaminski-rchardson @dnr.wa.gov (360) 732-0934 DOE:Rick Mraz rmra461 @ecy.wa.gov (360)407-6221 WDFW: Margie Shirato, Dan Dafoe Margaret.Bigelowschirato@dfw.wa.gov (360)427-2179 USACOE: Kristina Tong, Seattle Kristina.G.Tong @usace.army.mil (206) 764-6913 Navy: Don Zimmerman, public affairs Liason;commander Yesunas (360) 396-0205 donald.zimmerman @navy.mil 1 2. Please provide additional project background information that may assist the agency review of the proposal. Potentially,the amount of fill and the footprint area of the Maintenance of Traffic area,wetlands delineation information, et cetera. We decided to defer circulating the geomorphologic report, but it may be helpful to bring your copy to the meeting. 3. Scheduling: because of the extended invitation list, it may be helpful to schedule the meeting after May 26 (Memorial Day). I propose an hour between 1:00 to 3:00 on Wednesday, May 28 or Tuesday,June 3. You have the option of paying an additional fee ($152)for having the Pre-App meeting on-site if you choose. Thanks, Joel Joel Peterson Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend,WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4457 * Fax 360-379-4451 jpeterson@ co.iefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary 2 . • — , 1 .. PI - cr• El 1 •:1..' n. 1 __.1 x■1 .f. < 171 Ne . t,) 1 0 U LA 8 • x te — 1..:. . a i I 4 ' ° ...- u ----, V g re - 0 .= i k 'A cc, t in_ ------ 0 = 1 E ....,.. to „ v.. ... . ..„, oa . CA 9 • n Cr 0 L d I-= 4 1-,-) z 1-- 4..I7„, ., . , Als c.. a Ct L__. 4. o _ o 00 ' c, f 04 o II LU a ta. v, it ..., Q 1 ol 1 o ,z. , co co ,., ..„ I <=) , 1 , L Ls.,:i.„. 0 , — 0 ._ EC 1^,1 py 0 -, H. , ,.. i = .;"( f■I . :c,3 7.5 E --I C- co ,.., --I ....... c ...- CD CO'I) E E - u... Lel m 0_ __I ;a; (f) : .-E, = a_ cS e- -9, .__. 0 ••i