Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Report (002)Nolan Creek Bridge 101/214 Replacement/Realignment Project SR 101 MP 170.12 to 170.82 XL 1197 Federal Aid Number ER-0001 (104) Wetland Biology Report and Environmental Mitigation Plan Prepared by Eric Russell Washington State Department of Transportation Environmental/Hydraulic Services Office Olympic Region January 2002 Nolan Creek Realignment Milepost 170.12 to 170.82 SR 101 Wetland/Biology Report PROPOSED PROJECT This report identifies the locations of wetlands that may be impacted by the proposed State Route (SR) 101 Nolan Creek Realignment Project. The project is located on SR 101 in Jefferson County, Washington, between MP 170.12 and 170.82, (Figure 1, vicinity map). The purpose of the project is to replace the existing bridge over Nolan Creek with a new bridge. The new bridge will be constructed upstream of the existing bridge, and the roadway both north and south of the existing bridge will be realigned to the east. Work will involve purchasing new right of way along the east side of the existing SR 101 alignment (Figure 2, project plan sheets). Principal items of work will include the following elements: · Clearing and grubbing of vegetation within the new alignment · Construction of new bridge and new roadway sections · Paving with asphalt concrete · Removal of the existing bridge and ahgrument · Mitigation for environmental impacts SETTING The project is situated in the northwestern portion of the Olympic Peninsula, approximately 13 miles south of the town of Forks. The Hob River, which flows into the Pacific Ocean is located west of the project site, and the Olympic Mountains are to the east. Current land use in the project area consists of second and third growth forest, and recently logged areas. Transient recreational use is also present along the Hoh River, west of the project site. Topography of the project area is varied. The project area is within the Hoh River valley, and topography drops gradually toward the Hoh River west of the site. East of the project, topgraphy rises steeply in places along the foothills of the Olympic Mountains to the east. Within the project area, topography slopes downward toward the south in the southern end of the project, and toward the west in the northern end of the project. SR 101 No/an Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 END PROJ E CT END CONS TRUC T I ON MP 170o80 STAo 65+84 SEC. 13, T. 26N., R. SEC. 24, T. 26N., R. 36 NOLAN CREEK 8R[OGE INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT MP [70.45 LATITUDE 4'7°45'25" LONGITUDE 124°i9'12'' BEGIN PROJECT aEG!N CONSTRUCT[ ON ,,'qP i 70°OO STAo 25+60 O 2000 4000 SCALE IN FEET 13UNT'": CE.;'-':ERSON i SR ;Oi ZTATE: 4ASH[;.IGTON ; 'qOLAN :REEK ~RiOGE ~NO 7EALiGNME!iT iSHEET : 3F .J '-PoLi!Z,:,TiON 3Y: 4SDOT ; '/f. CINiTY )4AP iOATE: ;z/or Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map. · '22RP -~E.ql',~l 7 ZL.d COL,,9 ii o0 ZW C) l,ll--n C) Ld cl r.._~ 0 Lf) 'F.2(:SN., /e,.1,'SW., W.M. JEFFEfe,:30N COUi'ITI' 0£ OF FILL LINE PLAN 101 ,/ ~ ~I STA 4~+72.00 SE, 101 LINE PE,OFILE COMPOSITE STEEL PLATE GIE,DEE, LOADING: HL-93 FF, ELIMIIqAKY / \ / .¢ 2.. I ~ ,.-:':~'~';:'.., ~ 4 SOILS Soils in the area are dominated by loamy soils that formed in glaciofluvial sediments. Soils in the project area are mapped in the Soil Survey of ~efferson County Area, Washington, (USDA, 1987) as Kalaloch loam, 0-8% slopes (Figure 3, soils map). The Kalaloch series formed in glaciaofluvial sediments on high river terraces and low glacial terraces. It is described as a well drained soil. In a typical profile, the upper 8 inches is dark brown loam, followed by 13 inches of dark grayish brown loam. Below this, to a depth of 60 inches or more, is dark brown and dark grayish brown sandy loam and loamy fine sand. This soil series is not considered a hydric soil (USDA, 1991). Soils actually observed in the project area are mainly consistent with the Kalaloch series description. Most of the soils observed within the project area are a dark brown loam or a dark grayish brown sandy loam within the upper 16 inches of the soil profile. VEGETATION In the absence of disturbance, this area would support a typical western herrdock/Sitka spruce/red alder community, with an understory of salal, Oregon grape, evergreen huckleberry, and sword fern (Franklin and Dyrness, 1973). Wetlands would be dominated by red alder and black cottonwood, with an understory of salmonberry, slough sedge and small fruited bulrush. Riparian corridors would be vegetated by willow, red osier dogwood, and black cottonwood. Existing vegetation observed along the project corridor is relatively undisturbed, with the exception of an area east of SR 101 and south of Nolan Creek, which was recently logged. The remainder of the project area is forested with mature second growth timber. Species observed include: Sitka spruce, western hemlock, red aider, and bigleaf maple. Understory species observed include: osoberry, sword fern, salal, bracken fern, red huckleberry, salmonberry, piggyback plant, slough sedge, and subarctic ladyfern. These species indicate a wide range of soil and hydrology conditions, with indicator status ranging from upland to obligate wetland species. HYDROLOGY Wetlands delineated in the project vicinity are part of depressional areas that appear to be supported by a combination of groundwater seeps, and surface water runoff from the surrounding uplands. Some scattered seepage was observed in the project area during field work in November of 2000, and in October of 2001. Soil saturation to the soil surface was observed in wetland areas during field work in November of 2000. SR 101 Nolan Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report Januaw. 2002 5 Figure 3. Soil Conservation Service Soils Map for the project area. SR 701 No/an Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 6 One perennial stream, Nolan Creek, flows under SR 101 within the project vicinity. No other streams were observed in the project area in the Catalog of Washington Streams, Volume 1 (Washington Department of Fisheries, 1975). WETLANDS Field work was completed during two site visits, in November of 2000 and October of 2001. Wetland determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils, in conjunction with data from the National Wetland Inventory maps of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Soil Survey of Iefferson County Area, Washington of the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and USGS topographic maps. Wetland delineations were made in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). It was also determined that the delineations would be the same by using the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (WSDOE, 1997). Two jurisdictional wetlands have been delineated in the project area. The wetlands are described below and are shown on the site map (Figure 2). They are also classified according to the USFWS system (Cowardin et al. 1979), and categorized according to the Washington State Department of Ecology rating system (WSDOE, 1993). A rating sheet for each wetland is found in Appendix #1. In addition to the ratmg system, a ftmctional assessment of each wetland was performed using the Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Qualitative Assessment Methodology (Cooke, 1996). The assessment forms are included as Appendix #2. Scientific names of plant species are in Appendix #3. Data sheets are presented in Appendix #4. Wetland 1 Palustrine Forested Broadleaf Decidious Seasonally Flooded - - Category II This wetland is a large system that borders SR 101 at the south end of the project. The wetland continues offsite to the northeast, and appears to support a tributary drainage to Nolan Creek offsite to the east. A portion of this wetland may have historically been impacted by the construction of SR 101 along the southern end. Based upon field review, as well as evaluation of resource materials for the project area, the wetland appears to be at least 10 acres in size, and could be larger. This wetland is mapped on the National Wetlands Inventory map as palustrine forested wetland. Vegetation in the wetland inctudes a canopy of red alder and scattered black cottonwood, with an understory of salmonberry, hard hack, red elderberry, small fruited bulrush, subarctic lady fern, and slough sedge. The wetland may have other vegetative classes which were not observed during field work. SR 101 No/an Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 7 Soils in the area of wetland #1 are mapped as Kalaloch loam, 0-8% slopes. This soil is described as well drained, and is not considered a hydric soil. Soils examined within the wetland are inconsistent with the Kalaloch series description. Soils are 10YR 3/1 to 10YR 4/2 silt loam and silty clay loam, and display redoximorphic features, including concretions, mottles, and oxidized rhizospheres. The wetland functions to provide wildlife habitat, floodwater storage, sediment/ toxicant retention and removal, and may function as a ground water discharge area. Wildlife habitat includes nesting and foraging for passerine bird species, foraging for mammal species, and possibly for amphibian species as well. Wildlife functions are further enhanced by the wetland buffers, which are heavily forested along the majority of the wetland boundary, providing connection with upland areas. Floodwater storage provided by this wetland is likely important at the local watershed level. Under the current project design, this wetland will not be impacted. Wetland 2 Palustrine Forested Broadleaf Dedduous Seasonally Saturated - - Category II Wetland #2 is located north of wetland #1, along the east side of SR 101 at the north end of the project. This wetland extends into the project limits from offsite to the east, and drains westward toward SR 101. Although the exact size of the wetland is not known, it is estimated to be at least 5 acres in size. Drainage from this system is directed into the highway ditch along the east side of SR 101. Vegetation within wetland #2 is dominated by a forested canopy, with an understory of shrubs and herbaecous species. Species observed include: red alder, Sikta willow, Sitka spruce, salmonberry, skunk cabbage, slough sedge, and subarctic ladyfern. Soils in the area of wetland #2 are mapped as Kalaloch loam, 0-8% slopes. This soil is described as well drained, and is not considered a hydric soil. Soils examined within the wetland are inconsistent with the Kalaloch series description. Sods are 10YR 4/1 to 10YR 4/2 silty clay loam, and display redoximorphic features, including concretions, mottles, and oxidized-rhizospheres. Hydrology is similar to wetland #1, a combination of hillside seepage, and sheet flow from the surrounding uplands. Saturation just below the soil surface was observed during field work in both 2000 and 2001. SR 101 No/an Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 8 The wetland functions to provide wildlife habitat, floodwater storage, sediment/ toxicant retention and removal, and may function as a ground water discharge area. Wildlife habitat includes nesting and foraging for passerine bird species, and foraging for mammal species. Wildlife functions are further enhanced by the wetland buffers, which are heavily forested along the majority of the wetland boundary, providing connection with upland areas. Under the current project design, there will be a total of 7,165 square feet of impact to this wetland. IMPACTS Wetland #2 will be impacted as a result of the proposed project. Impacts are unavoidable due to project construction. Impacts to wetlands in the project area are shown below in Table 1. Table 1. Wetland impacts from proposed construction for the SR 101 Nolan Creek Realignment project. Wetland # Class Category Impact in Square Feet I PFO1E II 0 2 PFO1E II 7,165 Totals 7,165 Impacts to wetlands are based on surveyed points in the field. Should any design changes occur between now and the ad date, wetland impacts will need to be recalculated. These areas meet wetland criteria in Presidential Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," Governor's Executive Orders EO 89-10 and EO 90-04, "Protection of Wetlands," and WSDOT Directive D 22-27 (HR). MITIGATION Mitigation measures should include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Storm-water Discharge: To avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic habitats through water quality degradation, road and staging area runoff must be treated by using techniques such as biofiltration swales and/or detention basins. 2. Wetlands: The wetlands and special aquatic sites are protected under Presidential Executive Order 11990,"Protection of Wetlands," SR 101 Nolan Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 Governor's Executive Orders EO 89-10 and EO 90-04, "Protection of Wetlands," and WSDOT Directives 22-27 and 31-12 (HR). These orders and directives require the use of all practicable measures to avoid impact and provide mitigation for any unavoidable impacts. The executive orders stipulate that all state agencies shall use the following definition of mitigation, and in the following order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or part of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; 6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of these measures. Various replacement ratios can be used depending on the quality and diversity of the impacted wetlands (see Appendix #4). Because of the relati, vety small amount of impact as a result of this project, the abundance of wetlands within the watershed, and the lack of wetland mitigation opportunities in the vicinity, in-kind wetland creation is not proposed as mitigation for this project. The proposed mitigation consists of a fish enhancement project located near the highway project site (Figure #4, Vicinity map and design of the mitigation site). The proposed mitigation area is an offchannel wetland complex that drains into the Hoh River. An old roadbed at the outlet end of the wetland has created a fish passage barrier, as water flowing out of the wetland crosses the roadbed, and drops several feet to the other side, and eventually drains to the river. The wetland complex represents excellent refuge habitat for juvinile salmonids (i.e., coho) during winter high water events in the Floh River. To correct the fish barrier, the proposed mitigation project will consist of building a weir system across the roadbed to create access for fish to the wetland complex. The property is owned by Rayonier Timberlands, who has agreed to grant a right of entry to complete the work. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is aware of the barrier, and is in favor of the proposed project. WDFW has designed, and will implement the project, and WSDOT will fund monitoring, which SR 101 No/an Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 I~fll ~DO Or.q ¥16 will be completed by WDFW. Mitigation work will be completed in accordance with the Hydraulic Project Approval that will be required for this project. RECOMMENDATIONS To minimize impacts to wetlands, vegetation, streams, and fish and wildlife habitats, the following measures are recommended: 1. Use standard erosion control techniques during construction. 2. Leave as much native vegetation as possible in the right of way to preserve wildlife habitat and provide a buffer of vegetation. Minimize clearing of trees. Unavoidable clearing should be mitigated by planting suitable native trees along nonforested sections of the project right of way. 4. Mitigate where existing vegetation can help serve as a buffer or provide connectivity to wildlife habitat. 5. Replace highway ditches with new fiat-bottom ditches adjacent to the widened highway. SR 101 Nolan Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/©BS 79/31. Ecology/WSDOT. 1993. Implementing agreement between The Washington State Department of Transportation and The Washington State Department of Ecology concerning wetlands protection and management. July 1, 1993. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Stat/on, Vicksburg, MS. Franklin, I.% and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Governor of the State of Washington. 1989. Executive Order EO 89-10 and 90-04, "Protection of Wetlands". December 11, 1989, Olympia, Washington. President of the United States. 1977. Presidential Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands". Federal Re~ster, Vol. 42, No. 101 of May 25, 1977. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9). 89 PP. USDA Sod Conservation Service. 1987. Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Sods of the United States. Miscellaneous publication #1491. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1991. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington. Publication #91-58. 58 pp. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication ~96-94. Washington State Department of Fisheries. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Votume 1, Puget Sound Region. SR 101 Nolan Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 Washington State Department of Transportation. 1979. Directives D 22-27 and 31- 12 (HR), "Protection of Wetlands". WSDOT, Olympia, Wash. SR 101 No/an Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 Appendix #1. Wetland Rating Forms. SR 101 Nolan Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 1 Wetlands Ratin~ Field O~.t~. Form ~ac~rougd Inlormallon: Sourca~ ot Intormatlon: (Check all ~ourcea thai ~pp[y) 3 YE.~: Go m I'.'"E.~: C.:lcwcy I ' YES. '~u tt~ Q.2 YE.S: ~t, cu O-2-~ Irreplace4ible Ecological Functions: OR nod Fens any o( tr~ tr~c:c/ollawin~ t~andlUOru ~ (or t;'~ a'e. aof orgamc 4 Q.g~ ~ Cea.sa and Kelp Q.3. c~tegoc.y IV wetland=. ];.. L~ ti.4 ,*mJ~n~: tca.t [r~m I ,u::,"~ ~ (J','O in aAI: gu tn Q.3) YF.~ gu ~u Z3 YE.S: G,) lu 2¢ Y~-~: Go lu 20 YE.S: C'atcgocy l YD=..~.: C:[ctccy I Y,E~: C,.ucgucv I Y"~: C.;t~'Coo' I l't0: Citcgory II YES: Cu¢ ~m'y 11 HO: C~uc~,ary Ill NO: go lo 2d.2 YE.~: Catcgo~'-y I HO: C:tugury II Y E...~; C.~,..c locy IV ','"F.~: Czu:-~ocy tV YF.~; C~lory IV JI)- ,ti) '1 I-5 Z ~ Il/ 2 ....... 3 ....... 6 4 ....... 2 3 2 >3 4--5 2 >.I 3 2 I 3-~ 2 >4 3 2 t 3-a Z modcratc modcr-alc . High. S YF_S=4 HOw add ~he :~cofes circled (for (2.Sa - O.Sl above) to get a total.~.~--~,.._..------~ 9 .Notes: YE..,~ = Z Y'~'~ = I YF.~= I IOW high 1 ~Vctlands Rating Field Dura Form ~ ac k gtotln~'ln I ornq.adon: Sourc~ pt tn/ormatlon: (Chock all ~outca~ Q.I. HlghQualityNalum{ Wetland yF.~: C.;t~lory [ NO: Go ~o Q.J. YF.S: Cal,~nc'y I YE~: Cuc;~'y I NO: Go m q.y './E.~: C:,lc~-ucy 1 Q~. ;rreplac~blo Ecological FuncUon$: OR OR OR 4. - U lo.MI 7~ % o( ~ ,~ellx~;l I~ a DOcs q~ '~:~1~'~ cru:~'~tl of L~C four Q.7,d~ F~M Gca. s~ and Kelp 8~L1. YE.~. ~:u ~(, q.2 No: gO co lc. YES: g. ~u q.2 Y~.: Go lo 2d -NO: Gore YE~; C.ucg,ry Il NO: G. lo .~3.3 YE.S: Cue~'y ti NO: C~c~oq Y'F~: NO: go YE.S: Q~. C~,tegory IV weLland3. ~ Q?. $1gnlfloJr~l habll.'=ll value. 2 .1 >3 I 2-3 2 3 0 I 2 yF~4 -m:~ 26 49' ua ................ moderate low high YE.S~ 2 NOw add Ihe ~corea circled (for Q.$a - Q.5I above) lO gel ;~ tOlal. ' 9 .Notes' Appendix #2. Functional Assessment Forms SR 101 No/an Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 Wetland and Buffer Fun~ions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Locadon ~ T R Criteria Group 2 2 pts Flood/ Storm Water Control ~ints i '___~ (max 75) I pt __ SLZ8 < 5 a.c,"e$ _ nvenne or~akesnore __ < 10 °,,6 tore~8c[ CQvor IJ ri ~Jfq~i~rle(] __ ~3c.~[ed in ~ower ~/3 ot l]he draJnaCje size 5-10 ao-es m~l-~oced ',vedand 1o - 3o % fore.ed ~ver Group 3 3 pts S~Z~ > 10 aCFOS depfe ~s.~ons, neadwa[em, b3g~,~la~s ,30 % forested cover culven/oermed oude[ locked in ucoer 1/3 of the dr-'am~e Base Flow~ Ground Water Support ¢oJnts _L~ (max 75) SIZO < ,5 ac,9~s __ nvenne or lakesnore wedand k:x:~[ed in ~ower 1/3 otrhe dF'~Jnage __ ;emcoral~y ,.le, oded or sazuratea no ?~:w-sens~ve ~sn ¢oOumt~ons on-~e or c~ownsrearn Erosion/ OHWM S h o r e I i ri e -- ,,vexed ex[ends..¢..c~ m ~m ~rotection QHWM ~in~ __ ~~ ~o~ine or (m~ 9) Wster Quality J< ~0 q/a v~ ~ver ] m prove m u~ ~in~ ~ (m~ A = Not App~ie, N/I = No [afortiori &v~t~fe iow ~w-sens-Uve ~i.s~h paoularlons on-~e or down~reaJ-n __ sparse wood or veq along~,eW'~ __ weaand extends OHWM __ moder~:~T'~ooed Srioreline or /~.~moderate t~w glrougt~ sfte ~/"~'-- 50 - 80 % c~ver -< 50% ot basin Ulg.Sm~ vced~nd ~s de,~lo6ect holds 25 L 50 ~o oven;~uqd runoff __ we~and Co, tends > 200 m ~m __ un~:~'e~Decl s~2,ore/ine or ,Dzl~c~-nm ent :minant Vegetation: Wildlife: Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Natural I_ aze<sacres ~/~<"-~.sizeS-10acres size>10a, cres __ ag land, Iow veg s~'ucudre __ 2 level veg ~mgn v~ ~u~ Biological ~ sea.hal suvaco wa~er ~ pe~anen[ ~na~ wa[er ~ o~n wa[er ~ols~nmWh ~mmer Support ~ one h~ ~ ~ n~a[ ~s > 3 habit.s PAB POW P~ PSS PFO EST PA8 POW PEM PSS PFO ~ST PA8 POW PEM PSS PFO EST ~ ~ow plato dive~y (< 6 sCec~es) ~modera[e plan[ d~e~ (7-~ 5 ~n pl~[ dive~ (> 15 s~!es) s~c~es) ~ > 50 % invasive s~Jes 10 ~o 50 % invaave ~des ~ high pnmaw produ~N~ ~ iow pnma~ produ~iviW ~ modera[e ¢nma~producav~y ~ nigh org~ a~mula~n ~ Iowo~ic ac~mulation~ m~era[e o~ ~mula~n ~ Iow o~an~ exoo~ Iow o~an~ exoo~ __ low hadst ~a~r~ ~ ~me h~ re.utes ~nts ~ i~la[ed ~om upland haD~a[s ~ pamdly ~nn~ed [o Upl~d (m~ 36) ha~s Overall ~ s~e < 5 acres ~ s~ze 5-;0 acres ~ aze > ~0 ~cres ~ Iow haD~[diver~ ~ m~era[e h~at dive~ ~ hig~ haoitat dive~ H a b i t a t ~ Iow s~u~ or re.ge~ modera[e san~ or re.ge high s~cu~ or re.ge Functions ~lnts ~ (m~ 9) S p eci fi c ~ Iow inveaeurste hao~az moaerate inveae~a[e __ Iow ~p~iDJ~ hao'~ ~ mode~[e ~pM~i~ Functions _ lowmamm~haD~ ~ m~ratemamm~h~m __ hignmammalha~ ~ints ~ ~ Iow bird hao~at ~m~era[e ~rd ha~ ~ h~ bi~ ha~at (m~ ~ 5) · u I t u r al/ ~ ~ow ~u~nal cp~un~es ~ m~r~e e~nsl o~n~es' ~ h~n ~u~onal op~n~s ~ow ae~eoc vsl~e ~ mooer~/se~e~ v~ue ~ hig~ ~e~euc v~ue o O J O e O O- ~acxs commerc;al ~edes, ~ moderme commerci~ fi~efies, m i 6 age.re, renege re~ur~s j agn~i~, renew~le re~urces agn~l~re, renege ~iac~ hi~oncsl or ~eologic~ ~ ~o~al or ~r~eol~i~ re. urns ~ ~me p~ and a~e ~ac~ p~e and ~e re~ea~n~ o¢~n~ies ~r~e~n~ oP~n~es ~ ¢dvAteW o~, ~me puDllc reCea~n~ . pnva[elyo~ea a~ ' unre~ puDlic a~. ~not ne~ o~n ~e --  _ some~nn~on[oe~n'~ace __ di~ly~nn~too~ (m~2~) Notes: 7Vedand # Wetland and Buffer Fun~ions and Semi-quantitative Pen'ormance Assessment '_ocadon S T R Criteria Function mup 1 1 pt Group 2 2 ?ts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ Storm Water Control (max ;5) size 5-10 aumas m~l-51ooecl we[land 10 - 30 % tore.~ed cover sorer--go n~Tsjn ed oudet ~.~ lOC.~8(:l in mldd~ 1/30l Il-lO dranage __ stz~ > 10 acres depre ~sscns, headwaers, ~cx~s,,laLs ~(..> 30 % toreszed cover 7~ culverubermed oudet __ bc~ed in upper 1 ~3 of ~he (2-~rnage Base Fiowl Ground Water Support points ~ (msx 15) Er osi on/ Shoreline Protection (max Water Quality Improvement (max ~2) soar:se gra.s~lert~oo yea OHWM /'" wedana ex~,rds < 30 m ~-om OHWM/ hign~y/c~ve~ocea s[qoreflne or s~ment j~ raj:~d ~ow~ruugn me J ~ < 50 % vegcover ' ucsl3'earn in basin from J u~~ r_ ha~ < 25 ~/~ ovenand ~noff 'A = Not Appiicst2 e, Nil = No infcrmazion avaJlaJ21e __ ',~nd e~encls > 200 m F~ undeve~ed ~ or ~mea ;minant Vegetation: Wildlife: Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessmen[ ~VJL~ -~ ~ I, Natural _ s~e<5acres .L%<.s~eS.10acres __ size >10 acres __ ag Is, nd, low veg s~ucuJre __ 2 level veg . ~ high veg s~ruc~ure Biological ~. sea~nalsudacewa[er ~ ce~anen(~da~water -- o~n',va(er~ols~h~h~mmer S u p p o r t ~ne h~ ~ __ ~ h~a[ ~s > 3 hab~ ~s PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PA8 POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POWPEM PSS PFO __ Iow plan[ dive~y (< 6 s~oes) ~ madera[e plan[ d~e~ (7d 5 __ h~n pl~t d~/e~ (> 15 s~es) s~o:es) ~ < 1 ~/o invaave s~zes ~> 50 % invasive s~ies ~ 10 [o 50 o/o invas~ve ~oes __ nigh pnmaw produ~ ~ ~w pnmaw produ~iww ~ moders[e pama~ producav~y ~ high org~ a~mula~n ~ Iowo~c ac~mula[ion '~m~e~e o~ a~mula~n ~ high org~ __ iow o~an~ ex0o~ ~ Iow o~an~ expo~ ~ m~yh~ femurs __ ~ew ha~a~ ~a~r~ ~me h~ tenures bu~ no[ ~j __ buCem yew di~d ~bufers sig~ d~d ~11 ~nn~ed Ia upl~ h~ ~n[s ~ ~ i~la[ed ~om upl~d habRs~s ¢ ~ pam~ly ~nn~ed fo upl~d (m~ 36) ha~s Overall __ s~e < 5 acres ~size 5-~0 acres __ size > ~0 acres Habitat __ Iow,aural diver~ ~m~era[e ~a~dive~ -- ~ia,_ ~aoita[ dive~ __ Iow s~u~ or re~ge ~dera[e san~ or re.ge __ high s~u~or re~we Functions (m~ 9) S p eoi fi c ~ Iow inve~esra[e ~a~a[ ~ meders[e ~nve~e~a[e has,at high inve~ee~[e H a b J t a t ~ iow fish nag~a[ modera[e ~n nao~a[ nigh ~n F u n ct i o ~ s __ Iow m&mm~ ~ab~m m~ra[e m~m~ ~m ~ ~ign mammal ~tnts ~ __ Iow Oird ha~at ~m~erate bra ham~ __ h~n bi~ haO~at (m~ ~ 5) C u I t u ral/ ~ Iow ~u~nat o~Run~es __ m~rme e~nal o~n~es- __ 'h~n ~u~onal Sooioeco- ~ Iow ~e~e~c value __ moder~lae~e~v~ue __ hig~ae~e~cv~ue · -. lac~s cammerc:al fi~edes, moderate commerci~ ~edes, nigh ~mmer~ r~edes, n O m i C age.re, rene~e re~ur~s agn~i~, renew~le re~ur~s ag,~l~re, renege re.urns ~ ~me p~ ~d a~e ~ [ac~ ¢~e and a~e re~ea~n~ o¢~n~ieS ~ m~y pa~ ~d r~ea~na oo~n~es · ~ pava[eW o~, ~me public re~ea~na ~pava[elyo~ed a~ ~ unre~pu~lic ~ ~not ne~ o~n s~ -- some ~nne~on [o e~n' ~c8 dl~ly ~nn~ (m~ 2~) Notes: ,, 16 Appendix #3. Plant species names and wetland indicator status. Common Name Latin Name Wetland Indicator Status* red alder Alnus rubra FAC western red cedar Thuja plicata FAC western hemlock Tsuga hetrophylla FAC big leaf maple Acer macrophyllm'n FACU Sitka spruce Picea stichensis FAC salmonberry Rubus spectibilis FAC+ Sword fern Polystichttm mtmitttm FACU ocean spray Holodiscus discolor ....... salal Galtheria shallon FACU Nootka rose Rosa nutkana FAC common horsetail Ectuisitam arvense FAC trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus FACU stinging nettle Urtica dioica FAC+ subarctic lady fern Athyrium distentifolium FAC piggy back plant Tolmiea menziesii FAC sweet scented bedstraw Galium triflorum FACU small frttited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus OBL veronica Veronica americana OBL baltic rush Juncus balticus FACW+ curly dock Rumex cirspus FAC+ bracken fern Pteridiurn aquilinum FACU blackcap raspberry Rubus leucodermis ....... water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa OBL red elderberry Sambucus racemosa FACU woods fern Dryopteris intermedia FAC * Indicator status according to Reed (1988), Pacific Northwest Region. OBL = occurs in wetlands 99% of time FACW = occurs in wetlands 67-99% of time FAC = occurs in wetlands 34-66% of time FACU = occurs in wetlands 1-33% of time UPL -- occurs in uplands 99% of time SR 101 No/an Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 Appendix #4. Wetland data sheets. SR 101 Nolan Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND Db-TERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Applicant/Owner: ~ (,t"),%.~)77i- County: Investigalor: "~ U)C- ~,¢~-~1.-- ' State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Skuation)? Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed, explain on reverse.) . VEGETATION Oominent Plea! Soecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soec~es Stratum Indicalor 10. 11, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16, Percent el¢ Dominant Species that are eSL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). HYDROLOGY ~. Recorded Date (Demcribe in Remarks): ~ Stream,. Lake, or ~de Gauge ~ Aerial Photographs -- Other ~------No Recorded Oeta Available F~atd Observations: Depth et Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in PiT: Depth to Satura(ed Soih (in.) (in.) (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators: -- inundated/ -- Salurated in Upper I 2 Inches __ Water Marks -- Drih Lines, -- Sediment Depoiits -- Drainage Pattarne in Wetland~ Secor'~ef'ytndicetof$ (2 or more required}: -- Oxidized ~oot Channel= in Upper 1 2. Inches -- Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC,Neutral Test Other (Expleln in Remarks) SOILS Map Unit N~me (Se¢ies end Phase): Taxonomy. fSubgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? ~ No Profile Oescription: Depth Matrix Color (inches) Horizon ~.Mu ns ell ,%4oi s ~ Mottle Colors I ~',4u n s ell Mo,s~ Abundance/Con[res! Hydric Soil Indics[ors: Histoso! Histic Epipedon Sulfldic Odor Ac!uic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleved or Low-Chrome Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic S~reaking in Sandy Soils Us[ed on Local Hydric Soils Lis! [.Jsted on Nstional Hydric Soils LEst Other (Explain in Remerksl WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophyfic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Presen[? Hyddc Soil,~ Present? ~ N Yes //~'6h(Circlel Yes N[~,/ (Circle) ., Sampling Point Within s Wetland? Yes ~ this Remarks: AOproveo 0¥ HQuSACE 2¢92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: I"~Ci~k) (/) ~_r~_,~'~_ _ County: Investigator; ~%~ ' State: _. Do Normal Circumstances exis~ onthe size? ~ No Community, ID: Is the site significandy disturbed (Atypical Stuation)~ Yes ~ Transec~ ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID. (If needed, explain on reverse.) ~~ VEGETATION (Dominant Plan! Space5 S(ratum !ndica!or 9. 10. 12. 1:3. 14. 15. P~rcent of Dominant .Specie= that are OBL, FACW or FAC lexctuding FAC-), HYDROLOGY .'--"_.Recorded Data (Demcdbe in Remarg. s): ~ Stream,. Lake, or Tide Gauge ~ Aerial Photogreph~ ~ Other ~ No Recorded Data Available Field Obaervatione: Depth of Sur/ace Water: Depth [o Free Water in Pit.' Depth to SaturaTed Soil: (in.) (in.) fin.) Wetlar~l Hydrology Indicators Inditalors: Inundated/ ~urated in Upper 12. Inches We(er Marks Drift L.Jne s, Sediment Oepoeits Drainage Partern~ in Wetlands Seco~e~ (ndicatot~ (2 or mote required): .~xidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inche~ ~wler-S [ained Leaves Local Sod Survey O~ta FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) (Se,ios and Phaso~: , AL~tz.y_jH E~ Field Observations Confirm Mapped Ty~pe? Yes Profile Oescription: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mo~le To×lure. Concretions, Abundance/ContrasT Structute~ etc. / Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Histlc Epipedon Sulfidic Odor -- AQuic K4oisture Regime ~educing Conditions ~G[eyed or Low-Chrorna Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils L.;ated on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (ExDlain in Remarks) ,Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Nydrophy~.ic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? /Y Ye~= No (Circle) No {Circlel Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? , No Aoprove(~ Dy HQuSACE 2./92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Applicant/Owner: ~ i,~ ) ~>.?')?STi- County: Investigator: .. Y-,~, :>~,-b,b State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? O No CommuniTy. Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation}? Yes ,¢~ Transect ID: Is!he area a potential Problem Area? Yes~ Plot ID: (If needed, explain on reverse.) ~ ~D ~ VEGETATION Dominant Pleat Species 9. 11, 12. 13. Stratum Indicator Parcan! of Dominant Specie~ that are OBL. FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). HYDROLO,GY Recorded Data (Demcriba in Remarks): ~ Stream, Lake, or T~da Gauge ~ Aerial Photographs ~ O~har No Recorded Data Available Field Ob ser','a'flone; Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oep!h to SaTurated Soil: (in.) (in.} (in.} Wetland Hydrology In, dice!ors: Pnmary Ir~ficalors: ~ Inund at ad.~ ~Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Drift ~n~, S .dimen[ Deposits ~ Drainage Pn~arna in Wetlands Seco~e~ {ndicatots {~ or more required): ~ Oxidized Roo[ Channels in Upper 1~ Inches Water-Stained Leaves ~ Local Sod Survey Osta ~AC-Neutral Test O[hor (Exola~n m Remarks) Ramerx. s: SOILS Field Obsarvetions Confirm Mapped Type? /~ No Profile (Description: {Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors [inches} Horizon (.MunseJl Moist) !Munsall Molstt Mottle Abundance/Conlrest Texture, Concretions, Structure etC. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histic Eplpedon Suifidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Condit=ons Gleyed or Low-Chromo Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks} Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophy'[ic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hyddc Soils Present? Yes (Circle) / (Circte) · ® this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes Remar~.3: DATA FORM ROUTINE WE-rLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: v i,~")~.~)~' ' County: Investigator: ~L,)~ ).~ 1,. L. State: Do Normal Ci'rcumstances exist on'the site? No Community. ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?~Yes ~ Transect ID' Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes~ Plot ID: (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Percent of Dominant Species that ara OBL, FACW or FAC (e×cluding FAC-). 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.. $[re[um Indica[or Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Date {Deecdba in Remarks): ~ Straam,.Laka, or ~de Gauge ~ Aerial Photographs ~ Other No Recorded Data Available Field Obeervatione: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oaolh to Saturated Soil: fin.) lin.) (in.} Wetland Hydrology Indicators Pnmary IP, dice tars: ~ Inundated/ _.,:_'"~.~_--4~,~elurated in Upper 1 2 .Inches -- W~ler Marks -- O~iH Unes. -- Sedimen[ Deposits ~Otainege Pm~erns in Wetlands Seco~e~lndicators (~ o~ more required): ~Oxidiznd Root Channels in Upper 1 ~ inches atet-Slained Leaves -- Local Soil ,Survey Pain __ FAC.N~utral Tas~ Remerks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series end Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fiatd Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Profile Oesc6ption: Depth Matrix Color {inches) Horizon tMunsell Moist MotTle Colors /Vlor'tl~ Texture, Concretions, IMunsell Moist) Abundance/Contras! Structure~ etc. I Hydric Soil Indicators: Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor __ Aquic Moisture Regime '~d.~ Reducing Conditions ..~----_.~eyed or Low-Chrome Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer tn Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils U,ted on Local Hyciric Soils List Usted on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarksl WETLAND DE-TERMINATION Hydfophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hyddc Soils Present? e~y~NoN° (C;rcJa) (Circlel Is this C. amoling Point Within · Wetland?' . No Remarks: Approvea OV ~QuSAC~ 2/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 CeE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Applicant/Owner:' ~ (A ~)~ ~)-/~ County: Investigator: "~ L)~ ~.-bL- ' State: 'y,/~ Do Normal Circumstances exist on'the site? O No Community. ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Stuation)~ Yes (~) Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: (If needed, explain on reverse.) ~:;L,/,~W_b VEGETATION Indicator Dominant Plenl Soecies Slretum Indicstor 10. I1, 12, 13. 14.. 15. 16. Percent o~ Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC (e×cluding FAC-). Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Date (Describe in Remarks): ~ Stream,. Lake, or 'lqcle Gauge ~ Aerial Photogrepha Other No Recorded Data Available F]eld Obaervatione: Depth of Sudece Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oaoth to Saturated Soil: (in .) (in.) fin.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pnmary Indicators: ~ Inundated/ ~ Saturated in Ul:>pet 12 Inches Water Merka Dri~ Unes, Sediment Deposits ~ Otainege Pa~ern~ in Wetlands Seco~s~ IndJcatot~ (2 et more required): ~ Oxidized Root Channels Jn Upper I 2 Inches ~ Local Sod Survey Dale FAC-Neutral Test O~har ([xplamn In Remarks) ~emerks: SOILS (Series end Phase); Taxonomy [Subgroup): Field Observations Contirm Mapped Type? ~ No Profile Description: Depth N4atrix Color <.inche s} Horizon (N4u ns ell Mois~ Mottle Colors IMunsell Mo~Ia Taxlure, Concretions, Abundance/Contrast Slrucrure, arc, HydriC Soil Indicators: Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing (Conditions Gleyed or Law*Chrome Colors Concretions Migh Organic Contan! in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Orl2anic Streaking in Sandy Soits Us[ed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Sails List O~her (E~piain ~n ~emerks) WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophy~ic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? No (Circlel Yea (N~o (Circle) SemDling Point Within - Wetland? Yes [~b this Remer~.,: Apptovoa Oy HQu£ACE 2.;92 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 CaE Wedands Delineation Manual) A.p,ca t/Ow. r: br) .r)m- ' ' County: Investigator: ~'~ ~.~.-L,L-- ' S~:ate: '~' Do Normal Circumstances exis~ on'~he site? ~ No Community, ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ~ Transec~ ID: lsthe area a potential Problem Area? Yes~ Plot ID: . (If needed, explain on reverse.) ~bk~ VEGETATION Dominant Plan! Species Sltalum Indicator 5. P~rcen[ of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (e×cluding FAC-). Oominent Plant Species $Ctalum !ndicalor 9. 10, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Deecriba in Remarks): ~ Stream,. Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs ~ O/~he r No Recorded C~ata Available Raid Obaervarioni: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oeoth to Satuteled Soil; (in.} fin.) (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Ir~dicetors: ~ Inundated/ ~--~--~.~aluretad in Upper 1 2. Inches ~Watar Marks ~ Drill Lines, ~ Sediment Dapoeits '~,,_Drainage Panerna in Wetlands Seco~a~ indicators (2 or more required): ~xidized Root Chsnnel~ in Upper 1~ lnch~s ~Wm~er-Stained L~av~s ~ Local Sod Survey ga~a ~ FAC.Neutral Test Other (Exolam m Remarks) Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name [Series and Phaseh Taxonomy [Subgroup): Field Observations o~ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes Profile Description: Depth !inchesI Horizon Matrix CoJor Mottle Colors MoFflo !.Munsall MoistI IMuns~ll Mo,stl Abundenca/Conrres~ Texture. Concretions, Struclur% etc. Hydric Soil Indicators; )-lis~osol HisUc Epipedon ~ Sulfidic Odor ~ Aquic Moisture Regime ducing Conditions ::Z_C'-4.T3]eyed or Low-Chrome Colo~s Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic S~raaking in Sandy Soils Usted on Local Hyciric Soila List LJ, stad on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) WETLAND DETERMINATION HydroDhy~ic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hyddc Soils Present;' //~:'~'~ No (Circie) , [Circle}  No Is this Sampling Point. Within a Wetland? . No Approvea oy HCIUSACE"2/.~2 Appendix #5. Wetland Mitigation Guidelines. Guideline For Compensation Mitigation Ratios* Compensation acreage depends on the category of the wetland impacted and the category of wetland to be created. WSDOT agrees to a no net loss policy. The type of mitigation proposed, and past history of creating or restoring these types of wetlands, will be taken into account when determining appropriate ratios for the project. Wetlands dominated by exotic species (>80%), or out of kind mitigation, will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. IMPACT TYPE OF MITIGATION** Wetland Restoration and Creation Category Cat II Cat III I 4:1 6:1 II 2:1 3:1 III 1 - 1.5:1 1.5 - 2:1 IV .75 - 1.25:1 1 - 1.5:1 Enhancement Enhancement of existing wetlands as compensation for the filling of other wetlands is an available option in some circumstances. Enhancement is the augmentation, or increase, of the functions and values of an existing wetland by direct action. If enhancement of existing wetland is proposed, the ratios are greater than those used for restoration and creation of wetlands, since the wetland already provides some level of functions and values and a net loss of acreage will occur. Because of this, mitigation ratios for enhancement are generally twice that of ratios for restoration/creation. These ratios are only a guideline, the greater the increase in wetland functions and values provided by the enhancement, the lower the ratio can be. In some circumstances, enhancement of other aquatic resources and functions, such as stream or riparian areas, may be acceptable. In these instances, ratios will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Preservation Preservation may be used to reduce the ratios above for restoration and creation to a minimum of 1:1, and enhancement to a minimum of 2:1, as follows: · The balance of the area required to meet the ratio in the above table is met by creating or enhancing a buffer around the mitigation site at a ratio of 5:1, or by SR 101 Nolan Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002 preserving an existing buffer at a ratio of 10:1. For example, if the balance of the area required to meet the ratio is i acre, WSDOT can create a 5 acre buffer around the mitigation site. The balance of the area required to meet the ratio in the above table can. be met by preserving a Category I wetland at a ratio of 5:1 or a Category II wetland at a ratio of 10:1, that is functionally linked (by habitat or hydrology) with the mitigation site in the same watershed. For example, if the balance of the area required to meet the ratio is 1 acre, WSDOT can preserve a 5 acre Category I wetland. The highest priority should be given to creating and preserving buffers around mitigation sites. (Any preservation that is not on, or adjacent to, a mitigation site will be allowed only if adequate buffers are provided at the mitigation site.) From the July 1, 1993, Implementing Agreement between The Washington State Department of Transportation and The Washington State Department of Ecology Concerning Wetlands Protection and Management (Appendix E). Mitigation type is specified in the wetland mitigation plan. SR 101 Nolan Creek Realignment Bio/Wetland Report January 2002