The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWetland Delineation 921081012WESTECH COMPANY Environmental Consulting - Site Permitting WETLAND DELINEATION 5003 FLAGLER ROAD NORDLAND, WASHINGTON ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 921-081-012 JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON November 2016 G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. and Charles Tanner Submitted to: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Submitted by: WESTECH COMPANY P.O. Box 2876 Port Angeles, Washington 98362 P.O. Box 2,876' Port Angeles, Washington 98362 N Telephone: (360) 565-1333 email: brad@westechcompany.com WETLAND DELINEATION 5003 FLAGLER ROAD NORDLAND, WASHINGTON ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 921-081-012 JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON November 2016 G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. and Charles Tanner Copyright 2016 by G. Bradford Shea, Westech Company — All Rights Reserved Submitted to: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Submitted by: WESTECH COMPANY P.O. Box 2876 Port Angeles, Washington 98362 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER/SECTION PAGE NO. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 METHODS 7 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS 9 4 3.1 Existing Conditions 9 5 3.2 Description of Wetlands 15 6 3.3 Land Uses and Habitat Values 15 10 3.4 Wetland Types and Buffers 15 19 3.5 Jefferson County Wetland Map 15 4.0 BUFFER REDUCTION 16 4.1 Regulatory Compliance 16 4.2 Field Flagging of Reduced Buffer 17 4.3 Planting Plan and Performance and Standards 18 4.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Contingencies 19 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 5.1 Conclusions 22 5.2 Recommendations 22 6.0 REFERENCES 23 Table 1. List of Plant Species: On -Site Wetland A 11 Table 2. Dominance Test Using 50/20 Rule for Plant Selection Wetland 12 Table 3. Site Soils 14 Table 4. List of Native Plants for Buffer Mitigation and Enhancement 20 FIGURES Figure 1. Location Map 2 Figure 2. Vicinity Map 3 Figure 3. Parcel Map 4 Figure 4. Aerial Map 5 Figure 5. Site Map Showing Septic Design 6 Figure 6. Wetland Map 10 Figure 7. Proposed Planting Areas 19 WW1 484-5003F1ag1erRdWetDe1jn.T0C/1 00416/tjs APPENDICES Appendix A — Site Photographs A-1 Appendix B — Data Forms B-1 Appendix C — Rating Sheets & Maps C-1 WW1 484-5003F lag le rRd WetDeli n.TOC/100416/tjs 1.0 INTRODUCTION This property (Site) is an approximately 1.07 acre parcel located on Flagler Road on Marrowstone Island near Nordland, Washington. The property is in the northeast quarter of Section 8, Township 29 North, Range 1 East. It is listed as Assessor's Parcel # 921- 081-012 located in Jefferson County, Washington (Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4). The Site address is listed as 5003 Flagler Road in Nordland, Washington. The owner of the property is listed with the county as the Ralph Rush Living Trust, C/O Carl Bohley at 180 North Midway Street, Campbell, California 95008. The property is located at the southern end of Marrowstone Island along the eastern shores of Scow Bay in southern Kilisut Harbor. The parcel contains a single family residence, garage, driveway and several storage sheds (near the beach and adjacent to the west side of the parcel). The owner contracted with Westech to conduct a wetland delineation for the property. The owner is planning to place a Glendon septic system on the property which was designed by Creative Design Solutions (CDS 2016) in order to replace the existing system that appears to be failing. The septic design is shown in Figure 5. County Assessor's parcel maps, U.S. Geological Survey maps and Google Earth were utilized as base maps for stream and wetland mapping. Field investigations of the wetland were conducted by Mr. Charles Tanner during June 2016 and confirmed by Dr. Bradford Shea during September, 2016. WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.RPT/111616/tjs 1 A - I O R C US A n N c VCA m AD m Y C C 61 v �m 4 } _O D 3 • tea. , _ c• 4 } Q LU ,x LLI tr M� a � r s U Q, (7 x L lll r G r v. w i > 2.0 METHODS Wetlands were delineated in the field based on field methods recommended in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE 1997). Wetland rating was accomplished according to the Guidelines of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Code (Jefferson County 2016a), and the Washington State Wetlands Rating System (Western Washington) (WDOE 2014). Methods for delineation were essentially those recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Routine On -Site Field Method of delineation of wetlands (U.S. ACOE 1989, 2010). Guidelines and requirements of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Code were utilized as applicable (Jefferson County 2016a, Chapter 18.2). Wetland plants were primarily identified in the field, with subsequent collection and keying when necessary. Plants were identified using the following sources: Pojar and Mackinnon 2004 Guard 1995 Cooke 1997 Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973 Lyons 1997 Taylor 1995 Keying of plants using magnifying lenses and dissecting microscope was used as necessary. Determination of wetland indicator status were based on the Natural Conservation Resource Service Plant Database (NCRS 2016b). Soils were determined through field examination. Soils were dug or augured to depths of up to 18 inches using a wetland shovel and standard augur. Soil consistency was determined by feeling for grain size and texture. Soil moisture was determined at that time by hand and observations. In the event of saturated conditions in the hole, depth to standing water was noted. Soil color was determined through comparison of field samples with standard Munsell Color Charts (Munsell 1994). Soil was also examined for presence of mottles, gley and other indicators of anaerobic soil oxidation. Hydrologic conditions were determined through examination of topographic relief and drainage patterns. Initial field surveys were carried out by Mr. Charles Tanner during June 2016. These surveys included identification of plants, wetland habitats, soils and hydrology. Wetlands were determined based on the Routine On -Site Field Method used by Washington Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands were determined by a combination of vegetation, soil and hydrology indicators. Specific transect and quadrat points were sampled along apparent wetland edges. Various points were sampled for vegetation, soil and hydrology in order to determine wetland boundaries. Appendix A contains site photographs, Appendix B contains data forms and Appendix C contains rating W W1484-5003 Flag lerRdWetDeli n. R PT/1 1 1616/tjs forms for two sample points (one wetland and one upland) from a typical area of the delineated wetlands. Wetlands were staked in the field by 24 and 48 inch wooden stakes, or flagged on trees or shrubs as appropriate. Wetland boundaries were indicated by use of "Wetland Delineation Boundary" flagging tape tied to the wooden stakes or trees. All boundaries were staked and/or flagged every 25-30 feet. The wetland was rated according to Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (WDOE 2014). Buffer sizes were determined according to the Jefferson County Codes. Buffer zones near the proposed construction areas were staked and/or flagged with orange and white striped flagging. W W1484-5003 Flag IerRd WetDelin. RPT/111616/tjs 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS 3.1 Existing Conditions The property is located at the southern end of Marrowstone Island adjacent to the eastern shore of Scow Bay in southern Kilisut Harbor. The parcel sits at sea level on its western edge and rises to about 60 feet above mean sea level (msl) to the east. The parcel contains a single family residence, garage, driveway and several storage sheds (near the beach and adjacent to the west side of the parcel). Jefferson County maps wetlands on the western edge of the property adjacent to Scow Bay (Jefferson County 2016b). Westech's field investigation found a Category I Saltwater Tidal Fringe wetland on the Site in the location mapped by the county. Vegetation The eastern portion of the Site has been cleared and a single family residence and garage were placed on it. The northern edge of the parcel is vegetated with some trees and shrubs, including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The central area of the Site is dominated by the on -Site structure and has been revegetated with a lawn of mixed grasses and ornamental plants. Vegetation has been cleared at the base of the hill and a storage/work shed placed there. Figure 6 shows the wetland boundary and buffer zone, as well as the location of soil pits dug to test for wetland conditions. Wetland vegetation was also examined adjacent to these soil pits and across the wetland because plants were not evenly distributed. The area along the shores of Scow Bay are vegetated with hydrophytes. The dominant plants in the wetland area are pickleweed (Salicornia virginica, OBL) and fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa). The wetland contains no shrub or tree layer. These plants meet the Army Corps of Engineers criterion for hydrophytic vegetation (See Tables 1 and 2). Dominant vegetation in the upland area adjacent to the wetland included Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC) in the shrub layer and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FAC) and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus, FACW) in the herb layer. This vegetation also meets Army Corps criterion for wetland, making soil and hydrology conditions key to delineating the wetland. W W 1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin. RPT/111616/tjs S.- ! 'S f �i L co W 1411 WE TABLE 1. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES ON THE SITE Common Name Wetland Pickleweed Fleshy jaumea Seashore saltgrass Sea plantain Pacific silverweed I• ITITis Nootka rose Scouler's willow Oceanspray Salal Kentucky bluegrass Baltic rush Scientific Name Indicator * Salicornia virginica OBL Jaumea carnosa OBL Distichlis spicata FACW Plantago maritima FACW Potentilla anserina FAC Rosa nutkana FAC Salix scoulenana FAC Holodiscus discolor FACU Gaultheria shallon FACU Poa pratensis FAC Juncus balticus FACW *Indicators: UPL = Upland plant, FACU= Facultative Upland Plant (more upland than wetland), FAC = Facultative (borderline wetland plant), FACW = Facultative Wetland Plant (prefers wetland conditions), OBL = Obligate (only found in wetlands). WW1484-5003FIag1erRdWetDe1in.Tab1/100416/tjs 11 TABLE 2. DOMINANCE TESTUSING 50/20 RULE FOR PLANT SELECTION STRATUM SCIENTIFIC NA ML WETLAND ABSOLUTE DOMINANT? INDICATO PERCENT RSTATUS COVER Herb Jaumea carnos'a 0I31- 40 Yes Salicornia virginica O131- 20 Yes Distichlis spicata FACW 15 No Plantago mantimo Potentilla anserina FACW OBI 3 3 No No Total cover 81% 50%20 ThreshoUs: 50% total cover = 40.5 20% total cover = 16.2 Hydrophytic Total number of dominant species across all strata = 2 Vegetation Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC = 100.0% Determination Therefore, the community is hydrophytic by Indicator 2 (Dominance Test) WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.Tab2/100416/tjs 12 Soils The Natural Resource Conservation Service maps two soils on the Site (NRCS 2016a). These soils include: Whidbey gravelly sandy loam 0 to 15 percent slopes (WhC). These well drained soils have a depth to the water table of about 18 to 30 inches, a very low to moderately low capacity to transmit water (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) and a very low water storage capacity in the profile (about 1.9 inches). These soils have no frequency of ponding or flooding. Tidal Marsh (Td). These very poorly drained soils have a depth to the water table of 0 inches, a moderately low to moderately high capacity to transmit water (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr), and a low water storage capacity in their profile (about 4.4 inches). These soils frequently pond and flood. Field studies found sandy foams and sandy soils in and near the wetland. Table 3 shows the findings from soil test pits dug in and adjacent to the wetland. A soil test pit in the wetland showed sandy soils with a value/chroma of 2/2 (10YR) from 0 to 5 inches and a value/chroma of 2/2 (10YR) with 10 percent redox features (4/6 10YR) from 5 to 18 inches. These soils meet the U.S. Army Corps criterion for hydric soils described as Sandy Redox (5). Soils in an upland pit consisted of charred material from 0 to 3 inches. From 3 to 15 inches the sandy loam soils had a value/chroma of 3/2 (10YR). These soils do not meet Army Corps hydric soils criterion. Hydrology This saltwater tidal fringe wetland receives water mainly from tidal flow, though it likely receives some water from upland runoff and precipitation. Signs of wetland hydrology were observed in a soil pit at the eastern edge of the wetland as well as throughout the wetland. These included surface water in pools and channels in the wetland and saturation in the roots zone in the soil test pit. These features meet U.S. Army Corps criterion for wetland hydrology. An adjacent soil pit in the upland area did not show signs of wetland hydrology (See Figure 6). WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.RPT/111616/tjs 13 Location/Depth Plot # VHS -1 Wetland 0-5" 5-18" Plot # VHS -2 Upland area 0-3" 3-15 TABLE 3. SITE SOILS Type sandy loam sand charred material sandy loam Value/Chroma 2/2 (10YR) 2/2 (10YR) Redox: 4/6(10YR), 10% 3/2 (10YR) W W 1484-5003 Flag IerRd WetDel i n 7a b3/100416/tjs 14 3.2 Description of Wetlands The on -Site wetland is located in estuarine waters along the shore adjacent to Scow Bay. This wetland is part of a much larger wetland that stretches both along the shoreline of Scow Bay and southern Kilisut Harbor. The wetland is densely vegetated and contains both tidal channels and areas of open water in pools within the wetland. The shoreline upland of the wetland is generally well covered with lowland forest vegetation. More than 75 percent of the shoreline adjacent to the wetland has a vegetated buffer of at least 100 feet. 3.3 Land Uses and Habitat Values The property is currently developed with a single family housing unit on the eastern and uphill portion. While the steep hill between the uphill developments and the shoreline is densely vegetated in most areas, runoff from the upland area could reach the shoreline. The wetland can provide additional benefits because of the developed nature of Scow Bay and Kilisut Harbor in which the bay lies. The south end of Kilisut Harbor along Scow Bay has a number of developments including residential bulkheads, staircases, and dock/pier structures. Commercial aquaculture in Scow Bay can also add to the nutrient load in the area (Jefferson County 2008). Because of these potential inputs, the densely vegetated wetland could provide additional filtration and contribute to improved water quality in the bay and larger harbor. Shellfish and fish species utilizing the bay could benefit from this. The wetland also contains channels and pools, providing potential rearing habitat forjuvenile salmonids. While the road connecting Indian Island to Marrowstone Island impairs flow and salmon access to Scow Bay, this wetland could provide important habit for juvenile salmonids that could increase given plans underway to provide passage between Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay (WDOE 2015). 3.4 Wetland Types and Buffers Because of the unique nature of tidal and estuarine wetlands, the Washington State Department of Ecology rates such wetlands based on their special characteristics. Because the wetland had a salinity of 21.1 ppt, at least 75 percent of the shoreline adjacent to the wetland has vegetated buffers of 100 feet or more, and the wetland includes both tidal channels and depressions with open water, this wetland is rated as a Category I Estuarine wetland. The Jefferson County Critical Areas Code requires that such wetlands have 150 foot protected buffers for moderate projects such as that proposed by the property owner (JCC 18.22.330(2)). The buffers have been flagged in the field. 3.5 Jefferson County Wetland Map Jefferson County has mapped a wetland across the western shoreline of the property. The county's mapping appears to be accurate for this parcel. WW1 484-5003 Flag I erRdWetDeli n. R PT/1 11 616/tjs 15 4.0 BUFFER REDUCTION PLAN 4.1 JUSTIFICATION A reduction of the standard 150 foot wetland buffer zone is required to meet Jefferson County requirements for a Glendon Septic System for the proposed Project as designed by the approved Septic Designers (CDS 2016). This system is currently the optimal septic system for properties with limited space, such as the Rush Property at 5003 Flagler Road. These systems have been approved for many rural properties by the Jefferson County Health Department. The required buffer reduction is a reduction of approximately 35 feet. This will accommodate an intrusion of 11.5 feet into the standard buffer zone by Glendon Unit #1 as shown in Figure 5. It will also accommodate the required zone around the Glendon Unit (roughly a 30'x 30' area which is the Glendon absorption area). A new septic tank and pump chamber will be installed. However, the existing septic tank location will be used, and the existing sealed septic line will be retained through the buffer zone. A new line will be installed starting from a point outside of the standard buffer zone, connecting to the Glendon System (see Figure 5). This report outlines Best Management Practices recommended for this work, both within and outside of the buffer zone (this includes soil stabilization and erosion control measures). 4.2 BUFFER REDUCTION AREA The proposed Buffer Reduction area is limited to an area approximately 35' x 40' in size (roughly 1,400 square feet) which includes the intrusion area of Glendon Unit #1 and its absorption area. To offset this buffer reduction, it is recommended that an 800 square foot Planting Area (A) be established and planted with native shrubs and small trees, and that an additional 600 square foot Planting Area (B) be established, to include the absorption areas for Glendon Units #2 & #3, which should be planted with a native grass seed mix and areas between the three absorption areas which should be planted with small shrubs and trees as indicated in Table 4, 4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES AND PLANTING PLAN Two planting areas will be established (see Figure 7), with plant species and sizes to be placed as indicated in Table 4. These plantings will mitigate the intrusion of Glendon Unit #1 and its absorption area into the buffer zone. It will also mitigate the work planned within the buffer zone for replacement of the existing septic tank and any minor work on the existing septic line within the buffer zone. All erosion control measures will be implemented prior to the start of construction and Best Management Practices will be utilized during construction. Once work has been WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.RPT/111616/tjs 16 completed, planting for native grass seed will be carried out as soon as possible, but not more than 30 days following completion construction during the dry season (May 1 through September 30) or no more than 7 days following completion of construction during the remainder of the year (wet season). 1) Erosion Control Erosion control should be in accordance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. All protective measures should be established prior to beginning construction including: a) Placement of a silt fence, located at the downhill edges of the construction zone including the north, west and south sides of the buffer reduction area to the extent of construction. b) Utilizing straw or hay bales as needed during construction to cover soils exposed for more than 48 hours (during the dry season) or 24 hours the remainder of the year (wet season). 2) Species and Number of Plants to Offset Buffer Reduction Impacts Plantings to offset the proposed buffer reduction are shown in Table 4. The Planting Areas (A and B) are shown in Figure 7. 3) Maintenance of Plantings, Performance Standards and Contingency Plantings should be maintained and checked for survival for a period of at least two years. Once plantings are completed, an "As -Built' drawing should be submitted to Jefferson County along with photographs of the planting areas, each taken from a standard location. Follow-up reports should then be submitted each year for two years to document conformance with performance standards set forth below. During the first year following planting (recommended to occur in early fall for best results), plant survival should meet a Performance Standard of exceeding 85 percent for the first year and 90 percent thereafter. This should be documented in an annual report submitted to Jefferson County for approval. In the event of not meeting the Performance Standards following Planting, a Contingency Plan should be prepared and submitted to Jefferson County, The County may require substitution of species, planting additional plants, erosion control, hydrologic modification or supplementation (such as watering during summer months) or other necessary measures to comply with the Performance Standards. VVW1484-5003 Flag I e rRdWet Deli n. RPT/1 1 1616/tjs 17 4.3 CONFIRMATION OF NO NET ECOLOGICAL LOSS Westech Company recommends compliance with the above Planting and Erosion Control measures in order to assure "No Net Ecological Loss" within the wetland and its buffer zone as per the Jefferson County Code. In the event that plant survival is lower than anticipated and does not meet the Performance Standards, Westech Company recommends preparation and implementation of a Contingency Plan prepared by a qualified professional to remedy the situation. WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.RPT/111616/tjs 18 co co V- C)Cc N Ca Q W • o (U �.� 00) J 0 ca N 0) t. cu \\ nL(W } 0 Q F o L A� W L a �S i a, TABLE 4. LIST OF NATIVE PLANTS FOR BUFFER MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT Location S ecies Scientific Name Number Size A Salal Gaultheria shallon 16 1 Gallon A Kinnikinnik_ Arctosta h los uva-ursi 8 1 Gallon A Common juniper Juniperus communis 8 1 Gallon A Vin_ e Maple Acer circinatum 6 1 Gallon A Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosa L _ 8 1 Gallon A Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 6 1 Gallon A Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa 10 1 Gallon A Sword fern Polystichum munitum 10 1 Gallon B ------ Western red cedar Thuja plicata 5 Gallon - B Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis H-451— ------- 1 Gallon Native rass seed — -- Graminae spp. -----_.._B Pounds WW1490-5003FIaglerRdWD&BufferReduction.Tab4 20 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions One wetland exists on the property. It lies on the western boundary of the parcel adjacent to the shoreline of Scow Bay. The wetland is part of a larger wetland that extends around the southern portion of Kilisut Harbor. The wetland is dominated by emergent vegetation and has no tree or shrub layers. The wetland was classified as a Category I estuarine wetland, requiring 150 foot buffers under the Jefferson County Codes for projects of this size. The wetland edge and the buffer zone edge have been staked in the field on the side nearest the proposed organic farming area. 5.2 Recommendations Figure 6 shows locations of mapped wetland and associated buffers staked on the Site. The required buffers are also shown on this figure. Any construction activities on the Site should be conducted outside the buffer zone. Glendon Unit #1 will be inside of the standard buffer zone, however, Chapter 4.0 discusses mitigation measures associated with buffer reduction. A construction fence (silt fence or equivalent erosion control measure) should be placed between the construction area and the buffer zone prior to any grading for the project. Placement of the silt fences should be based on locations of critical areas (wetlands and the associated buffer zones) as delineated and described in this report and as staked by Westech Company in the field. Other standard drainage and erosion control measures should be undertaken in accordance with Jefferson County regulations (Jefferson County 2016a). Such measures would include placement of straw bales or similar control devices at the downhill edge of construction area and spreading straw or jute netting (or similar measures) over exposed soil areas. WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.RPT/111616/tjs 21 6.0 REFERENCES Cooke, S.S. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Creative Design Solutions (CDS). 2016. Site Map with Septic Design. Port Angeles, Washington. Google Earth, 2016. Online mapping software www 0-1 (-,. errtP} .on -i. Imagery date August 13, 2012. Europa Technologies. Guard, J. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing. Renton, Washington. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Jefferson County. 2008. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan Update Project. October 2008. hi:xS:i�l�1 ?!WLL�''C .ln:ag011�22i,f}I`�_�l°?E'c3��lir �C. ilnC?`/_>rY .�!( `CC:7l�E(1 t: Ylt... ijt`U3"Sfsn((f)Si.01" t�orz Ilan pdf. Jefferson County Department of Community Development. _ �� Jefferson County. 2016a. Jefferson County Critical Areas Code. Chapter 18.22. `,i ):1/vvvv v,ccder)(Ablis, .c r l(t rF .J #`rc,r_ U0 11 trirl/J�frcr _> 0.:.7'y.j£3rJ Yf r sonC',ountvlY22.html. Jefferson County. 2016b. Online Map Database. rttp1/\.'v_v_ryv_co.jeffcrscr3.U4K.usiiclrxs!r c;r cx.sl7tlll. Jefferson County, Washington. ._ ._....__._. _ Lyons, C. P. 1997. Wildflowers of Washington. Lone Pine Publishing. Renton, Washington. Munsell Color. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. GretagMacbeth. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016a. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey website. http://websoiIsurvey.sc.egov.usda,gov/App/HomePage.htmAccessed June 25, 2015. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016b. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation Plant Database. Ylt1c�_trfa!ur�ts usd _a v_,',a a/. Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 2004. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing Company. Redmond, Washington, WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.RPT/111616/tjs 22 Taylor, R. 1995. Northwest Weeds. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula Montana. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. U.S. Geological Survey. 1985. Quadrangle Map of Port Angeles, Washington. Published 1961, Photorevised 1985, Scale 1:24,000. Denver, Colorado. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2014. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington. Publication #14-06-029 Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2015. News Release. December 7, 2015. r(It7ctFFt!:i`y ,..7evin,f fi! /c ec()715<.=./. WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.RPT/111616/tjs 23 APPENDICES WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.RPT/111616/tjs 24 �W SITE PHOTOGRAPHS W W 1490-5003FIag IerRd W D& BufferRed uction.APPA/100416/tjs A-1 v �.7N,JA .r F -A ir, ";"PIT",41 l /y1r 4 _ 3) View of stairs and Category I Estuarine Wetland on west side of parcel. 4) On -Site Wetland and adjacent Kilisut Harbor looking southwest. WW1490-5003 Flag lerRdWD&BufferReduction.APPA11004161tjs A-3 APPENDIX B DATA FORMS WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.APPB/100416/tjs B-1 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite: 5003 Flagler Road City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 6/11/16 Applicant/Owner: Ralph Rush Living Trust State: WA Sampling Point: VSH-1 _ investigator(s): Chuck Tanner Section, Township, Range: 8, 29 N 1 E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): .Shoreline Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lot: 48P 1' 8.40" N Long: 122" 41' 53.56"W Datum: Google Earth Soil Map Unit Name: Tidal Marsh NWI classification: E2EM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes -Fv]u- No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes -0.— No Are. Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes -r-,l No OBL species Hydric Soil Present? Yes -Q— No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -2— No within a Wetland? Yes Fyj No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 1. 2. 3. 4. %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAQ 2 (A) = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 X 1 M Total Cover) 1. Salicomia virginica 20 Yes OBL 2. Jaumea carnose 40 Yes OBL 3. Distichlis spicata 15 No FAC 4, Plantago maritima 3 No OBL 5. Potentilla anserina 3 No OBL 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 81 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1, 2. - Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Total Number of Dominant 2 Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Total %Cover of Multiply bw OBL species 66 x 1 = 66 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAC species 15 x 3 = 45 FACU species 0 x4- 0 UPL species 0 x5= 0 Column Totals: 81 (A) 111 (B) 1.37 Prevalence Index = B/A = _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes R No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point. 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 0-5" 2/2 (10 YR) 100 Q Surface Water (A1) Sandy Loam 5-18" 2/2 (10 YR) 90 4/6 (10 YR) 10 Sand 4A, and 4B) Q Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust El 1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lininp, M=Matrix. Hydric Sell Indicators: (Applicable to all _ Histosol (Al) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Thick Dark Surface (At 2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S7) _ Sandy Gleyed Matnx (S4) LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Redox (85) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F7) (except MLRA 1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Not observed Depth (inches): — Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Hydric - Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one required check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Q Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 4B) Q Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust El 1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (35) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) —Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) — Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? Yes n_ No _ Depth (inches): Yes No Fv-1- Depth (inches): Yes _Q✓ _ No Depth (Inches): gauge, monitoring well, Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes R No 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: 5003 Flagler Road City/County: Jefferson Sampling Date: 6/11/16 Applicant/owner: Ralph Rush Living Trust State:WA Sampling Point: VSH-2 Investigatons): Chuck Tanner Section, Township, Range: 8 29 N 1 E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): FfillSlope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 3 Subregion(LRR): LRR-A Let: 4801' 8.40" N Long: 122041' 53.35" W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Whidbey gravelly sandy loam 0-15 NWI classification: E2EM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No __ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil _, or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes —LZ No_ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Fv1 No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No -- 1 FWIS he Sampled Area1Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Nophin a Wetland? Yes No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Observation ) 1. Rosa nutkana 70 = Total Cover Yes FAC _ Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply bv: 2. Salix scouleriana 15 No FAC OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 20 x2= 40 FAC species 135 x 3 = 405 FACU species 15 X4= 60 UPL species 0 X5= 0 Column Totals: 170 (A) 505 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.97 3. Holodiscus discolor 5 No FACU 4, Gaultheria shallon 10 No FACU 5. 100 =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Poa pratensis 50 Yes FAC 2. Juncus belticus 20 Yes FACW 3' Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 4' 5. 6. — ?. 8. 9. 10.. 11. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 70Total = Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes I� No _ 2. _ = Total Cover Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: .—__—_...... __—.__– — _._...__-- indica-ter Profile Description: (Describe to [he depth needed [o tlocwnent the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tyne.. Loc Texture Remarks 0-3" Charred material _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except 3-15" 3/2 (10 YR) High Water Table (A2) _ Sandy Loam 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates S1 3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 'T e: 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 _ Hislosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) (except MLRA 1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): type: Hardpan Depth (inches): 15+" _ Other (Explain in Remarks) -- Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ Nop_ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 46) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates S1 3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) —Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (-RR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? Yes _ No_ Depth (inches): Yes —No Depth (inches): Yes _ No Depth (inches): gauge, monitoring well, aerial Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 APPENDIX C RATING FORMS AND ATTACHMENTS WW1484-5003FIaglerRdWetDelin.APPC/100416/tjs C-1 Welland name ornumber v Name of wetland (or IDN) _' _ . ) -- Date of site visit Rated by_� C ; _ Trained by Geology! '�`(es No Date of training HGM Class used for rating 1t` it � = ^ - � < Wetland has multiple HGM classes _ Y w,k, N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be cornb"Ied), Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY .=-' (based on functionsor special characteristics/l') 1, Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS I - Total score 2.3 - 21 Total score - 20 22 __TCategory III -- Total score - 16 19 ___ Category IV--- Total score 9 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat _ Water Quality Site Poterinai Landscape Potential ...Value _ !Score Based on Ratings._... _....._...... II M I H H M 1, H H M I H C;,C(e the arppropriolr lallings M 1- �.II M 1, M I II M I M I If M I TOTAL fI 2, Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC Estuarine _... _..... _._- Wetland of High Conservation Value Rog _. __ _..._. ........................ _....... Mature Forest...... ........... ..... _............. Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon I nterd a na I None' of the: abuvc Nvclland Rafing Syslen� lin Westrrn WA: 7014 Ilpdafc Rel:inO, 1,20V, CATEGORY t..'' It. tl R 11 I If FII IV Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not naportonf) 9 HjUi �= H,H,L I : KM,M 6 = 1{,M,L 6= M,M,M M, M, I I M,L,L. t f Worland name or number_.._ , 11111111111111 1111, IN! 11"11''11111111111 I'll 111111111111 IN III I �. !tl I�orgties tions 1-7, the cyiteria described must aI)ply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit boring rated, you probably have a unit with multiple IIGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. Are the water levels in till, entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 YES _,the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? N0-7Salt%vAe,-TjdalFringe (Estuarine) YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe �7%your taetlartct can {re classified as a I reshtvater 77dal l'rin,Ile use the jorm.ti jor Riverine wetlands. I] it is SoItw mer (idol /'rinse it is on Estuarine wetland and is not: .scored, This inelhod cannot he used to scorejunctionsJa-esmurine weClands. 'I'Ihe Ootiro WPIIand unit is flat and precipitation is the duly souI-ce (>SrO(/o) of walt cr to it. Groundwater and surface water runoffare NOT sources of water to the unit. NO go to 3 YRS -'flu: wetland class is Flats i/:your wetland can ho classijied as a Fluis wetland, u.ce the/arm for Depressional ivethmds. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on tl c.�urfzrce at ally t ince of year) at least 20 ac (ti ha) in size; At least 30iflo of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO _. „oto 4 YES -'I`ll wetland class is hake Fringe (La custriIle Fringe) h. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope carr he verygraduol), The water Qows through the Fvetland in one direction (unichr ectioual) curd usualty cuwes from ;reps. It miry flow suhsurface, IC sheeiflotw, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO -go to .S YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE:: Surfiue water does not pond in these type oi,wetlands except occasionally in very .small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than I it dccp). `i. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of -the folluwiof, criteria"? Tire unit: is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbanls flooding fi-oro that stream or river, The overhank flooding occurs at. Icast once every ? years. Worland Rating Svlo' r ibr Western ✓`M MH Update Rada~ haler - lit(rrtivc 1a1,,u21y '1, 2015 Veetland name or numher__-___. NO - go to G YES - 9'lle wetland class is Riverine NOTE: E: TV Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled vwth water when the river is not flooding 6. Is Che entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is s auu-ated to the sur`ace, at Seale time during the year? This Means that any outlet, it pu esent, is higher than thr, interrlot- of tile wetland. NO -„oto 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional Is the entire wetland unit located in a very Itat area with no obvluus depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water nwre than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the arca. 'I`he wetland may he ditched, but has Ile obvious nate al outlet. NO-gnInS YHS The wetland class is Depressional £3. Your %netland unit seems w be dil"dealt to cl iS`;Ify and probably contains several different I IGM classes, For example, seeps ps at the base Of a Slope may f*rade into a r iverrnre floodplain, or a small stream ,vithin a Depressumal wetland has a zone of flooding Alun„ As sides. GO HACK AND IIILN I'IFY WHICH 01. 1116 HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DLSCIVIVED IN QUES'PIONS 1-7 APPLY M DIFPhRi N P ARIAS IN THE UNIT (wake a rongi sketch to help you clendej Use the following table to identify the apprapriA e class to use for the rating system if you have several IIGM classes present within the wet9aud unit being; scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 70%, or more of the total area of the, wetland unit bt.rn rated. II the area of etre IIGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10%r Of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 9001 of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated Slope I Rychne _ Slope + Depressional _.__.._.. lope +!Ake tingo Depressional + Rivenne along st.,eam within boundary of depmsdon Depressional t Lake I range Rivenne r I ake I nnge Salt Water I ictal I rngc and .any other class of freshwater wetland HGWI class to use in rating Rivenne _.._ Depu essional_ ._. I ake I tinge _. Dc pressional Depressional Rwenne I real as LSIUARINI Ifyou m e still urruhle to determine which of the above criteria apply to your vaetland, or if you have more than Z 11GM classes within a tvetloiaci boundo, clnSsiJy the wedartd as lleprvssiara(Jor the rating. vMnaad Rating,8yste.:u A W'estarn wi: '7Wll Update Rourgfm 11 - kftecnvv January 1, 2014 Wetland name or number Wetland Type Category Check off any arteria that apply to the wetlovd Curie the category whan Uu epprohrrerle criteria are naet. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Docs the wetland meet the following criteria for f.stuarine wel4ntds? water rrc uric is tidal, Ilie ` 6 doitod,aa,sr Y r ah a saMay g.-eator than OS pot Ies Go to SC 1.1 No Not an estuarine wetland SC ].i. Is the wetland within a National Wildlifo Refuge, owl n 3t Pi r< N 3'101131 Cstu try Rrsena ., Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational. I nvironrnental, nr Sclera Crfie. Reserve designated under WAC 3:p 0 K s Yes Category I No Go to SC t.2,= Cat I SC 12. Is I e wsuhand unit at hast l ac in sett ,and moots at la est two of the following thine atndhrer sv TI e wetland n relatively wldrsiurbrd (hits no dike Ig, dn<hi t,,, hllll,;, cul lv nua n, granng atd has Iess i -Khan 10%covm of non native plant species. (i1 nonrnauve species arc Sportiva, sec page 25) Cat I '— At least V, of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100h buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un s mowed grassland. ,,... _. s'the wetland has at least two of the following fr ttui cs<tidal <hvm s,�c t2 r u_wtlhope n water, or Cat' it j contiguous f,shwster wetlands. Ycs Category 1 No . Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2 5 No the WA ru unn-ont of Natural Resources updated thole website to include the INI of Wetlands of High Conservation Valuu? Ycs —Go to SC 22 , No, Go to SC 2.3 Cat.I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Weiland of High Consmvation Value? `--� Yes - Category I %N6!- Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in aSc; SonTownship/Itangc that containsa Natural Iicrriagc watland? h U 1ww,y9,di r wa i cy/'t ll3!rnfdesk d 1 car icnl 1 err ands p_111. Yes Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 INp- NotaWHCV se L4. Hai VVDNR id0runfmd the Wetland within the 5/ 1/R as a Wetland of lilgh Cons Orvation Val11 esil no listed II on -. tholrwebsoo? Yes= Category I isle= Not aWHCV SC 3.0, flogs l Dims the wethnd (or any part of the unit) meet both the Honda for soils and vogmadon in bogs? Use the key be uw. If you answer YE.5 you will still need to rate the wetland based on Its Junctions. SC 3.3. Does an arca v 1' hen the wetland mmif have organic soil horuons, e et her nears or mucks, t lom compose 16 in or mom of the I r o 3) 'm of the soil peohlo,? "s Go to SC 3.3 - No ' Go to SC 3.2 SC:31. Does an area within Inc weMina snit have organic soils, either seats or mucks, that we less Chan 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as day or volcanic ash, or that aro floating on fan of n lak> or fpond,'' Yes Go to SC 3.3 ;Nis Is nota bog i SC 3.3. Does an area with peau or nruAs have rnor'e than 721 cover of mosses at ground Ievel, AND at least a 301y over Of plant movies listed in Table 4> Yes is a Category I bag No - Go W SC. 3.4 NOTE if you are uncertain aboutthe extent of mosses a the undustay, you may subsie,ile that criterion by mucasm-Ing the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If Ute pH is loss than 5-0 and the pant species in Tahle 4 are numsorit, the wetland is a bog. Cat. I SC 3A, is an any with peau or mucks forested is 30'% coven with Sitka spruce subalpine fir, western red cedar, western heirdocK lodgepok pine, quaking aspen, Iingelmann spruce. or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of vacs) listed in Table 4 provide more than 3011 of the cover under the canopy? Yes is a category I bog No - Is nota bog Wetland Rrlt ing Systedt lite Westenr VVA2014 I.Ipr1aM 1<> Rating i m in hlice'tivo ramitis 1, 207 Wellund flame or dumber SC 1M Forested Wetlands [)no, tho well Incl havr, at I< zst 7 rnnnl`linus acro of fnrnsr That mems one o 'hese crllfit ia for if WA pep atm en? off I,a and Wildlife's forests as prio-its ldbrU15? If you answer YCS you will still need to rate rite wetland based on its functions. - Old-growth forests (went of Cascade crest): Stand: eC at least [wo tree spedes, forming a nwlli-layered canopy rot lh occasional trod II open Ints; with at least 3 trews/ac PO Itees/ha) that arc at least 700 years of age OR have a dlan ,ter at breast hei;;ht (dbh) of 32 in (81 (1n) or more Mature forests (west of the Cascade (:rest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- Zoo years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dohs oxceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I r' Nos Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. i SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Doeb If If, Welid Iin IIICCt III of IIID fullumIlg ll;for d of 11d In a Coastal lacoun! I he .netfaud lios In a drift c9sion adjacent to ma,rne waters that is wholly or par tially separatod from marine watr.r by sandbnno, grovel harks, On lttle or, I .,s fr quontbi, rocks he lagoon In which the v eiland is located d cont I r s pondeo water that is saline or bill Icsh (> 0.5 ppi) daring mod of I try yl,al m 11 least a poi sl of Pv, I1at,ocr jn crik to hf, m. omo,(l twor fits, borlorl) Cat. I Yes Go to 5C 5.1 ;No Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC ii.t. Does the wetland fecet all of the followint; three conditions? The wetland is rolatively Indisturb.d (hal no diking, ditchin , fGlhng, cultivation, grating), and has less list, 10`,%cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (s, e Inst of spar Ira on P. 100). Cat. II --At roast '.G of tho landward offer! of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub. forest, or un -grazed of on mowed grassland. - the wetland is larger than r/rs. a- (11350 ft') Yes = Category I No.= Category it SC G.O. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 188ri mr, (also calla the Western Boundary of Upland ownership or VIlBUO)s If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In is; cerrns that means the fcllowing geographic areas: — Long Beach Pe_ndmula: I ands west of SR 103 — Ceoyland Westport lands west of SR 105 Cat I -- Ocean Shoros Copois: Lands west of Sri t15 and SR 109 Yes Go to SC 6.1 No not an interdunai wetland for rating SC 6, 1, Is the wetland 1 ac of larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (ralcs,6i,H,H or W4,10 Cat. II 1 for ihe three aspects of (unctronl % Ycs :• Category 1 No ;. Go 1'o SC 6.2 SC 6.2.. Is the w>tlaho 1 tic or larger, or S it m it mosaic of H etlands that s I at of larger? Ycs Category 11 No = Co to SC 6.3 r Cat. III r SC G.3. Is rbcs unit beta;", 0.1 and t ac, or is t in a mosaic of wotlancs (hilt is betweeo 0.1 and 1 ac' Yes =Category 111 No== Category IV Cat.IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics I 11 you answered No for of types, enter "Not Applicable" able" on Summary Ibrm WfuL;nd Rating Systenf for Western W1 2014 Update 1 Palms Forel -- Hill, five January 1.7075