Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetland Delineation 021324036MEEHAN-ROULST WETLAND DELINEATING ))) E0-- E0 W IE Ial MAR - 5 2018 D JEFFERSON COUNTY OF COMMUNITY DEVEU Kimberly Meehan-Roulst, Wetland Specialist 407 Embody Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Phone: 360-732-0073, Cell: 360-774-0551 Specializing In: Wetland and Stream Mapping, Delineation and Restoration 2/15/18 Jefferson County Critical Areas 18.22 Article VII. Wetland Report: Category IV Wetland PARCEL NUMBER: 021324036 S 32, T30N, R1 E Client: Petros Farmasonis M LA09-16 5/ZO N 09-00060 Investigator: Meehan-Roulst Wetland Consulting 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CONSULTING COMPANY 3 TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA INVISTIGATION 3 LAND OWNER 3 APPLICANT 3 INTRODUCTION 5 HISTORY OF PARCELS: REPORTS ON FILE AND PAST PERMIT 5 PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS 7 REASON FOR THIS WETLAND REPORT 7 WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD INVESTIGATION 8 METHODOLOGY 8 DETERMINATION BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA 9 FIELD INVESTIGATION 9-10 Wetland Plots and Upland Plots 9-10 PHOTOS OF PLOTS 11-14 WETLAND CATEGORY 15 Buffer 18 CONCLUSION 18 TABLES Table 1: Compiled Wetland Information on Parcel 954000801 16 Table 18.22.330(2) 17 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — Vicinity Map, Exhibit 1: Wetland Stations 1-13 and location of data plots. Exhibit 2: Measurements from Wetland Station 6 and 7 up to the closest perk holes. Exhibit 3: Location of the proposed road in 2011. Exhibit 4: Distances from closest wetland stations to septic area. Exhibit 5: Creative Design Solutions Map of Septic Area and New Road Location. "JCC Wetland Map", JCC Soils Map, Photos of Wetland and Copy of Corp of Engineers Review Letter. APPENDIX B- Wetland Field Data Forms APPENDIX C- Figures for Wetland Rating Sheets APPENDIX D- WESTERN WASHINGTON WETLAND RATING SHEETS APPENDIX E- APPROACH AND METHODS FA CONSULTING COMPANY: PROPERTY OWNERS WETLAND STUDY DELINEATION AND CLASSIFICATION Meehan-Roulst Wetland Consulting Kimberly Meehan-Roulst 407 Embody Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Petros Farmasonis 13753 3�d Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98177 PERSON REQUESTING STUDY Barbara Blowers, Representing agent Petros Farmasonis and Emma Boilin, Jefferson County Planner. SITE ADDRESS: 552 Griffiths Point Road, Nordland, WA 98358 LEGAL LOCATION. PARCEL # 021324036 Latitude 48'02'42'N, Longitude 122°42"O1" E SE'/4 of Section 32. Township 30N and Range lE ROUTE INSTRUCTIONS: From Jefferson County Permit Center, take the right onto W Sims Way/WA-20. Go right pass through the first roundabout then enter the second one and take the 2nd exit on the right onto WA 20. Stay Straight to go onto Airport Cutoff Rd/WA-19. Follow it until Ness Corner Rd/WA 116. Turn left onto WA 116. Follow it to the four-way crossing next to the QFC in Port Hadlock. Go straight at the four way stop. Turn left onto Flagler Rd/WA 116. Follow for 4.6 miles until Griffithss Point Road. Turn left onto Griffithss Point Road. Follow for .5 miles and property, 552 Griffithss Point Road, is on your right. The new access road is visible do to the newer black rocked drive way. ZONING: R -S- Rural Residential ASSESSORS LAND USE CODE: 9100 -Vacant Land SITE VISITS: Site investigation and field work started 2/12/18 and concluded on 2/22/18 Wetland Critical Areas Studv Cont: Soils ❑ Wetlands Aquatic & Wildlife Conservation Area ❑ Category IV Wetland 1. LANDSCAPE POSITION: HILLSLOPES ❑ TYPE. STREAM& RIVER ❑ FLOODPLAIN.S ❑ LEVEL TERRACES ® DEPRESSIONS ❑ MARINE TERRACE COASTAL DUNES ❑ ALLUVIAL FAN ❑ MARINE BL UFF ❑ VALLEYS ❑ SWALES ❑ LANDSLIDE ❑ LAKES & PONDS ❑ OTHER (EXPLAIN) ❑ TERRACE ESCARPMENT ❑ 2. SLOPE GRADIENT: 0-5%. 3. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS: Glacial Till 11 INTRODUCTION: Meehan-Roulst Wetland Consulting (M-R.W.C) was contacted by Barbara Blowers, owner of Waves Waterfront Reality, to update a Wetland Delineation that was performed by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. in the spring of 2010. Barbara Blowers is the representing agent for the landowner of parcel #021324036. The land owner is Petros Farmasonis who owns two parcels along Griffiths Point Road in Nordland Washington. He is the owner of one waterfront lot, parcel #021324013 on the west side of Griffiths Point Road and he also owns parcel #021324036 which is on the east side of Griffiths Point Road. This report pertains to the Category IV Wetland on the east side of Griffiths Point Road, parcel #02134036. The request to update the wetland delineation and wetland delineation report is as per the Jefferson County Community Development Planner, Emma Bolin. Emma Bolin communications between Barbara Blowers and Mike Deeney, septic designer, states "The SPAAD did not provide approvals for the proposed additional septic system on parcel #021324036. Due to the Proximity of the wetland and the outdated wetland report completed by Wiltermood and Associates, Inc. April 2010, please submit a revised wetland delineation compliant with Chapter 18.22 Article VII JCC 18.22.450 that addresses both proposed septic permit applications and the installed gravel driveway". Wetland is expired, older than five years and the terms of the SPAAD under which the wetland delineation report was required were changed: the access road to the drain field on parcel #021324036 was not installed in the said location under the SPAAD. HISTORY OF PARCELS: REPORTS ON FILE AND PAST PERMITS The two parcels owned by Petros Farmasonis are both situated along both sides of Griffiths Point Road located in the town of Nordland in Jefferson County Washington. One is a waterfront parcel, parcel #021324013. Physical address is 541 Griffiths Point Rd, Nordland, WA 98358. The other parcel, parcel #021324036, is further away from the shoreline, east side of Griffiths Point Road. The physical address attached to that parcel is: 552 Griffiths Point Rd, Nordland, WA 98358 in Jefferson County. The waterfront lot, parcel #021324013, is less than an acre (approximately .68 acres). A Site Plan Approval Advanced Determination (SPAAD) was issued on 4/27/2012 and Expired 4/27/2017 according to Jefferson County's online permit data website. From the information that M-R.W.C. received, under the SPAAD, there was no possibility of this lot every being able to support an onsite septic/drainfield to accommodate a septic. Under the permit, a drainfield would have to be located on the owner's other parcel: parcel #021324036, east of Griffiths Point Road. To gain access to the drainfield, a road was permitted to run from the septic tanks on parcel #021324013 east under Griffiths Point Road and then a road would be constructed on parcel 4021324036's south property line. The road would run up the south property line 50' (easterly direction) then turn north to the proposed drainfield area that was located approximately 85' east of Griffiths Point Road in the northern portion of the parcel. Field investigation reveals that the marked -out area of the drainfield is now more or less in the center (more south then the originally proposed area) of the parcel. All facts above are based on the original maps that were submitted with the SPAAD (Wiltermood Associates mitigation and wetland maps) and what is presently revealed now through M-R.W.C.'s field reconnaissance. See Appendix A for the map provided by Creative Design Solutions for the current road access and location of the drainfield. I M-R.W.C. conducted my own field measurements, from the property line to the road through the wetland and up to the drainfield and agree with the location's mapped location of both. Please refer to Appendix A to see the location of the original proposed road and drainfield "Exhibit A" SPAAD Site Plan created by Suzanne Martin and the current location of the road and drainfield, "Exhibit B" (Creative Design Solutions, Septic System Site Plan). NEWLY INSTALLED ACCES ROAD FACING WEST TOWARDS GRIFFITHS POINT RD. At the time when the proposed road was located on the southern property fine, a permit was approved by the Seattle District, Corps of Engineers dated October 14, 2016 referenced under NWS -2016-726. Please see Appendix A "Corp. of Engineers Reply". A permit was required because the proposed road was through the south portion of the wetland. It was permitted to construct a road that was 20' -long by 10' -wide driveway with 3 feet of road prisms on each side. The original location was through where the wetland narrows on the south end. Wetland would had had "fill" placed in the wetland totaling 420 square feet. See Appendix C for maps pertaining to the constructed road comparing the old proposed location compared to where it was installed. The road was "not" constructed in the perm itted location. As mentioned, it was constructed north of the permitted location. It now runs through the wetlands wider dimension. M-R.W.C. ran measurements with the use of a hand-held reel of 300' plastic tape. I measured from the west wetland boundary to the east wetland boundary, between field stations 5 & 6. The top of the road is 14' wide with prisms on each side. The prisms are three feet on each side thereby giving the roads footprint a total of 20' wide. From the stations to the wetland boundary next to Griffiths Point Road was 80'. This gives a total of 1600 square foot (footprint) of fill that was placed in the wetland. There was 1180 square feet of fa11 that was "un permitted" by the Corps of Engineers "Nationwide Permit". Con Physical Site Characteristics: Parcel #021324036 is approximately 6.9 acres (south property line is 883' long -north property line is 996'long- west property line is 322' wide -east property line is 299' wide) and is located in the south west quarter of the northwest quarter of section 32, Township 30 N and Range 1 E. Parcel is in the middle of Marrowstone Island on the west side next to Kilisut Harbor. Area is referred to as the town of Nordland in Jefferson County Washington. It is directly across from Indian Island Naval Magazine. The properties along this shoreline, one of which is also owned by Petros Farmasonis, parcel #021324013, are all developed lots on less than one acre. The shoreline is mostly low bank waterfront lots. They are waterfronts lot ranging in size from .5-.8 acres. The shoreline lot does not have suitable soils nor does it have the room to support a septic. This is the reason that for a home to be constructed on the water front lot, it must have a drainfield to accommodate that home and must be located across Griffiths Point Road, east, on his parcel #021324036. The parcel has a Category IV Wetland entirely on its western edge, next to the road. The property has fairly level topography on the western portion of the parcel with the exception of small depressions in the wetland. Property is level from the west property line heading east for about 150' then it rises up hill (slope of 20-30%) towards the proposed drainfield in the middle of the parcel. There is a road located on the southern property line belonging to the neighboring lot that is access to their drainfield uphill but access was denied to the owner of parcel #021324036. Properties southern property line has part of the wetland extending over it in the south west corner. It then exits west into the ditch along Griffiths Point Road. See Appendix A Exhibit 1 for location of outlet. The area further south of the neighbor's access road is in uplands with the exception of a small area that ponds next to Griffiths Point Rd. It is located south west of their access road which drains into the roadside ditch along Griffiths Point Road. The wetland also extends over the north property line. The wetlands width narrows considerably until it crosses onto the northern parcel. Wetland ends next to a up land strip 15'-20' wide on the norther parcel. On the parcel north of parcel 4021324013, there is a somewhat kidney beaned excavated pond south of their access road and north of the wetland. Berm might had been intentionally built up by the neighbor during the excavation of their landscaped pond. See Appendix A `Exhibit 1" for location of pond. REASON FOR THIS WETLAND REPORT: Jefferson County Community Development Emma Bolin told the representing agent for Petros Farmasonis, Barbara Blowers, that the wetland delineation performed and submitted in 2011 by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. is expired and required a revised wetland delineation report/delineated boundary compliant with Chapter 18.22 Article VII Jefferson County Code and 18.22.450 that addresses BOTH the proposed septic permit applications (drainfield) and the un permitted location of the newly installed driveway. All must be approved prior any further review of applications Revisions includes any changes in wetland boundary or habitat over the years since Wiltermood Associates, Inc. established the wetland boundary. M-R.W.C. has finished installing the wetland boundary on the property. There were no noticeable changes in the wetland boundary that was delineated by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. Where wetland boundary ribbons could still be seen in the field, M-R.W.C. stations were right next to them. Wetland boundary on the east side of the wetland has not changed in dimensions. M-R.W.C. field investigation did differ from Wiltermood Associates, Inc. maps. I did not flag the west side near Griffiths Point road out but took measurements. There are more up lands on the west side then their maps showed. They also show that the wetland is continuous to the neighbor's pond when it in fact is not. The wetland is pretty much isolated with the exception of the outlet at the south west corner of parcel. *Changes to the Western Washington Wetland Rating Sheets: In 2010, the required wetland rating sheets were rated using the "Wetland Rating System for Western WA, updated 2008" rating forms. To bring it up to current forms, the wetland was rated by M-R.W.C. using Department of Ecology's "Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update". Differences between raters, myself and Wiltermood Associates, Inc., will be discussed later in this report under "Wetland Category". 7 WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD INVESTIGATION Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Define Wetlands as: "Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. " - Definition of wetlands as used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since the 1970s for regulatory purposes. Wetlands must meet three parameters to be a wetland: Hdrophytic Vegetation (FAC or wetter), Hydric Soils (i.e. redoximorphic features in the upper ten inches of soil profile) and Hydrology (ponding or saturated soils). METHODOLOGY: Level I Assessment consisted of reviewing existing information to develop background knowledge of physical features, and to identify the potential for wetland and other water occurrences on the subject parcels. The resource documents available for the Level I preliminary assessment included: USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS), "Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area Washington", aerial photography, Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps and Jefferson County Critical Areas 18.22 Article VII Wetlands, U.S Fish and Wildlife NWI maps. See Appendix A "Critical Areas Map" for the mapped wetlands on and around subject parcel. Level III Assessment consisting of on-site investigation was conducted to determine the wetland area to collect quantitative data of Hydrophytic Vegetation, Hydric Soils, and Wetland Hydrology and to delineate and classify the wetland, as recommended in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Wetland Delineation 1987 Manual for Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2) 2010. Wetland was delineated in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC/EL TR -08-13, April 2008 and rated using the Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington Update 2014, Publication #14-06-29, Washington State Department of Ecology. Wetland boundary and location of field data plots can be reviewed in Appendix A "Exhibit I" or below. 6W EXC VATED POND EXHIBIT 1: WETLAND STATIONS 1 13 V 10 AND LOCATFON OF WET PLOT AND WET PLOT2 AND UPLAND PLOT 2 3 Qt Or YrZ% ST11 A -.40ARCEL 021324036-552 Grittily Pomt Road Nordiand S T- 10 ST11 V, A ST81UP P101 d J* Perk Hole 9 as per Septi 4Wet Plot ST7 ST6 � rT5 .4 . UP,PlOt 2 A A 4 &.0 ST3 ST2 r-lv 4 rp A ,Ito I OL N DETERMINATION BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA: USFW NWI Maps did not identify any wetlands on the investigated property. They do however show three wetlands within a half mile of the subject area. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Species Maps for Jefferson County indicates that there are no priority State Candidate Species, Threatened, Priority or Other Priority Habitats located within a half mile of the subject ,parcels. National Heritage Features Associated with Wetland Data does not list any rare plant species within the subject location. WETLAND DESCRIPTION: Wetland lies east of Griffiths Point Road. It run south to north and extends over the norther property line and a small portion, the outlet, extends over the south property line. It is comprised of a forested canopy of red alder (FAC} and a few western red cedar rooted in the wetland. There are patches of a sub canopy of shrubs such as oregon crabapple (FACW), salmon berry (FAC) and nootka rose (FAC). In the ponded areas there is less of the tree and shrub canopies towards the southern end. The area during field investigation was ponded one foot and the area of open water was dominated by water parsley (emergent). The area dominated by podding at present (February) is the location of where the constructed drive way is. Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps show that Semiahmoo muck (very poorly drained soils) is present within the wetland boundary. It is on the Hydric Soils List. In the up slope areas, upland, it is mapped as the Whidbey gravelly sandy leant series (moderately well drained) which is not on the Hydric Soils List. Field investigation began on February 12, 2018 and completed on February 22, 2018. Fieldwork was conducted under semi -sunny skies. Two days of field work were below freezing temperatures and field work was temporarily ceased until it thawed. Average ambient air temperature during the field investigation was thirty- eight degrees Fahrenheit. Three levels of data were gathered on the parcel: Vegetation, Soils and Hydrology. Field Data Results "Wet Plot and Wet Plot2": The wetland edge around the entirety of the wetland is forested. The NWI (National Wetland Inventory) classification for the data forms was palustrine freshwater forested. A 30' radius plot was analyzed. Two sets of wetland and upland data plots were investigated. "Wet Plot and Up Plot" are located between wetland boundary stations 7 and 8. "Wet Plot 2 and Up Plot 2" are located on both sides of wetland boundary station 4. Wetland stations 7 and 8 are located on the north side of the new drive way. Wetland station 4 is located on the south side of the new drive way. Both were selected because they are in the close proximity to the proposed drainfield. See Appendix A "Wetland Stations" for locations. Wetland vegetation: The area was dominated by red alder (FAC) with a sub canopy of salmon berry (FAC) and nootka rose (FAC). Herbaceous layer was western sword fern (FACU) and slough sedge (OBL). Slough sedge did not meet the criteria of a dominant species but was present, 10%. Plot had greater than 50% hydrophytic vegetation that was "FAC or wetter". Met the vegetation ,parameter. Wetland soils: The soil was a wet variant of the Whidbey gravelly sandy loatns on the wetland edge. The upper horizon was sandy foams with a matrix hue of 1 OYR and Value-Chromas of 2/2's in the upper six inches. The horizon below that were loamy sands. Matrix Hue of l OYR's and Value-Chromas ranged from 5/2's to 4/1's. Both "Wet plots" had redoximorphic features (7.5YR5/6-7.5YR4/4) starting in the upper six inches of the soil profile. Both wet plots met the definition of hydric soils: Depleted Matrix below six inches and greater than 2% prominent and distinct redoximorphic concentrations in matrix value of 4 and chroma of 1 and matrix value of 5 and chroma of 2. 10 *Difference between the 2010 Wetland Field Data by Willtermood Associates, Inc. and M -R. W C. field data: Soils: Wiltermoodfield data sheets state that the Semiahmoo muck series was present in their wet plots. MR. W. C. 's found a wet variant of the Whidbey series on the edges of the wetland. It is probably a difference between the months of the site visits. Wiltermood investigated the plots in the month of April when the water level was probably lower and they were able to investigate further into the wetland where the Semiahmoo muck is present. M -R W. C instigated when the wetland had afoot of water and delineated close to the edge where it was transitioning from the Semiahmee muck series into Whidbey series. Hh drolo:_Wet Plot had a water table at 2" below the soil surface. Wet Plot 2 had a water table at 4"'s. Both had saturation present and there was ponding out further into the wetland from the wetland boundary. Field Data Results "Ut) Plot and Un Plot2": Up Land Ve etation: _ The 30' radius up land plots had canopy's that ranged from 70% to 90% cover composed of western red cedar (FAC) and grand fir and red alder (FAC). The shrub stratum was composed of salmon berry (FAC) and snowberry (FACU). The herb stratum was western sworn fern (FACU) with trailing blackberry (FACU). The upland boundary was heavily dominated by western red cedar as is most of the uplands buffer. Vegetation is 50% FAC and 50% FACU. Up Land Soils: "Up Plot" had 10YR3/3 sandy loams in the upper eight inches of the soil profile. Below the upper horizon down to thirteen inches, the matrix color of 10YR4/3 and were gravelly sandy loams. "Up Plot 2" had a matrix color of 10YR3/4 down to eight inches. The lower horizon had a matrix of 4/3 down to thirteen inches. Soil texture was gravelly sandy loams. Both plots had chromas greater then 2 and lacked any hydric soil indicators (i.e. redoximorphic features). Hydrology: Both plots were free of standing water and the soils were dry down to 13" WETLAND BOUNDARY: Wetland boundary is marked in the field with metal whips with orange flagging at the top. Each whip states on it "M-R.W.C., Station #, Wet Boundary, and date". Wetland boundary was accomplished by auguring with a six inch drill every twenty-twenty five feet to determine the break between upland soils and wetland soils. Whips are positioned every twenty to twenty feet between them. Above the whips, orange ribbon was hung stating "Wetland Boundary" for the upper vegetation so it easily seen in the field. Station one starts on the south of wetland on the south west corner of the wetland. Stations move east then turn to the north. See Appendix A for location of the wetland boundary stations. Below are photos of the data plots on the ground. 11 PHOTO OF WET PLOT 12 PHOTO OF UP PLOT 13 PHOTO OF WET PLOT 2 14 PHOTO OF UP PLOT 2 15 WETLAND CATEGORY The wetland rated as a Category IV Wetland. Wetland was rated as depressional (HGM classification). The rating sheets can be reviewed in Appendix D. The wetland rated by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. under the old rating system and it was a Category III wetland. M-R.W.C. rated it as a high Category IV. It is not so much the difference between "raters", as it is the rating systems. The new rating forms weighs heavily on the wetland having the "potential' to improve water quality. The wetland as a whole has many habitat niches: Forest, Shrub/Scrub and Emergent. However, the wetland is mostly isolated from receiving any pollutants uphill, which is fairly undisturbed habitat, or next to the wetland. The wetland is higher in elevation than the drainage ditch alongside Griffiths Point Road. No pipes discharge into the wetland. M-R.W.C. re rated the wetland using the old rating forms that were used by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. I too came out with a rating of a low Category 1I1. Again, the difference in wetland category is primarily do to the difference between rating systems. DIFFERENCES IN RATINGS BETWEEN M-R.W.C. AND WII,TERMHQD ASSOCIATES, INC. +► D2.1: Wiltermood Associates, Inc. rated the wetland as having "A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads or clear-cut logging". M- R.W.C. walked the parameter of the wetland. There are no pipes discharging into the wetland and gave it no points. • HLI: Wiltermood Associates, Inc. checked "Forested" and that the shrub/scrub and emergent did not meet the 10% required to be counted. They also checked that it had 3 out of 5 strata. M-R.W.C. checked both Emergent, Scrub/shrub and Forested. Using the grid system, shrubs were 18% and emergent was 10% of the total wetland area. I did not check the 3 out of 5 strata because the strata classes are there but not all at once in one area. I.e. the area of water parsley is not vegetated with forest or shrubs. The forested area on the north side of wetland has ponding but no water parsley and shrubs in the open water. Wiltermood gave in 1 point, M-R.W.C. gave it 2 points. • H1.2: Hydroperiods: Wiltermood Associates, Inc. rated it as having 1 type present, zero points. M- R.W.C. rated it as having two hydroperiods, 1 point. • H1.4: Wiltermood Associates, Inc. rated the wetland as having "Low -None" so they gave it zero points. M-R.W.C. rated it as "Medium". In the middle of the wetland has seasonal ponding with a forest canopy and areas of shrub/scrub beneath it. Gave it 2 points. 16 Table 1 below provides compiled summary of wetland rating data using the depressional HGM. Location of the wetland study sites were recorded by latitude and longitude and presented on the field data forms in Appendix B. WETLAND CATEGORY: CATEGORY IV Table 1 Compiled Wetland Information on Parcel 17 Wetland Ratings Function , Scores + Improve Hydrologic Habitat Function Delineated Wetland Name Boundary: Acres H2O Quality Total Function core Wetland Cate or I g y �Lanclscape Position JHGM Class, IRatin g i.Site Potential M M M 2. Landscape r M M M Potential L L L 3. Value 021324036; Score 5 5 5 is IV Depressional Depressional 33 Acres On Parcel 17 Table 18.22.330(2) WETLAND CATEGORIES, RATING SCORES AND BUFFER WIDTHS FOR MODERATE IMPACT LAND USES Moderate impact land uses shall include the following: • Single-family residential use on parcels of one acre or larger; • Private roads or driveways serving three or more residential parcels; • Paved trails; • Passive recreation areas; • Utility corridors (private or public) with a maintenance road; • Class IV -General forest conversions, including conversion option harvest plans. Buffer: The required buffer will be 40'. Jefferson County Community Development will have the final decision because the impact from the newly constructed access road in the wetland. Buffer for "High Impact" for a Category IV wetland is: 50 Feet. ADVERSE IMPACT OF DRIVEWAY IN THE WETLAND: With any placement of fill in a wetland there will be impacts. The foot print of the road has decreased the amount of available habitat. The road has also changed the hydrology. Two culverts were placed under the road to decrease the impact by keeping them hydrologically connected on both sides of road. The location of the road is more direct up to the drainfield than what was previous planned, road on the south property line. The location of the original road would had resulted in many large trees being removed in the wetland boundary and its buffer. The vegetation that was impacted by the new road was most likely the bed of water parsley and some trees from the wetland boundary up to drainfield. Considering the road was not permitted in its original location and it has impacted the wetland more then the 20' length originally proposed, mitigation will most likely be required. I have reviewed the "Wetland Mitigation Plan" submitted by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. I agree with what she proposed: Mitigate at a 2:1 ratio by constructing more wetland to compensate for the loss of wetland under the road. Wiltermood Associates, Inc. Mitigation Plan should be used. The only thing that will need to change is the square footage to be mitigated. It has increased since the road is now in the wetlands wider dimension: 80'. 18 + An Additional Buffer Width with an Wetland Characteristics: Distance from an Identified Wetland Wetland Category • Habitat (H) Apparent Wetland Boundary • Water Quality (WQ) Boundary (Delineated) (Not Delineated) IV [Total of scores less than 15 40 feet +20 feet (Total of scores for all points] functions is less than 15 points) Buffer: The required buffer will be 40'. Jefferson County Community Development will have the final decision because the impact from the newly constructed access road in the wetland. Buffer for "High Impact" for a Category IV wetland is: 50 Feet. ADVERSE IMPACT OF DRIVEWAY IN THE WETLAND: With any placement of fill in a wetland there will be impacts. The foot print of the road has decreased the amount of available habitat. The road has also changed the hydrology. Two culverts were placed under the road to decrease the impact by keeping them hydrologically connected on both sides of road. The location of the road is more direct up to the drainfield than what was previous planned, road on the south property line. The location of the original road would had resulted in many large trees being removed in the wetland boundary and its buffer. The vegetation that was impacted by the new road was most likely the bed of water parsley and some trees from the wetland boundary up to drainfield. Considering the road was not permitted in its original location and it has impacted the wetland more then the 20' length originally proposed, mitigation will most likely be required. I have reviewed the "Wetland Mitigation Plan" submitted by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. I agree with what she proposed: Mitigate at a 2:1 ratio by constructing more wetland to compensate for the loss of wetland under the road. Wiltermood Associates, Inc. Mitigation Plan should be used. The only thing that will need to change is the square footage to be mitigated. It has increased since the road is now in the wetlands wider dimension: 80'. 18 Wiltermood Associates, Inc. plan was mitigating for 1,029 square feet. The impact from the new road in the wetland is now 1600 square feet. Mitigation would have to be increased by 571'. M-R.W.C. recommends that when a mitigation plan is required that it also has in it a band of shrubs being planted parallel the drainfield once it is complete. Shrubs far enough away so the roots do not obstruct the drainfield but close enough to serve as a buffer to increase absorption down slope in the event the drainfield fails in the future years. WETLAND PROTECTION FROM LOCATION OF DRAINFIELD.- The proposed new drainfield is upslope from the wetland boundary and the wetland buffer. Field measurements were taken from the two closest wetland stations: Station 6 and Station 7. Station 6 was 140' from perk hole #9 and TBI. Station 7 was 121' away. Creative Design Solutions Septic Site Plan shows a 90'X90' marked area around the perk holes needed for the septic plan. The area marked out is even closer to the stations. From Station 6 and Station 7, the marked -out area needed for the drainfield is 84' at the closest point. The wetland buffer is 40'. This concludes that the location of the drainfield is 44' at its closest point to the nearest wetland stations. See below the Septic System Site Plan dated 3/10/17 by Creative Design Solutions. M-R.W.C. field measurements confirmed what is drawn on the plan. CONCLUSTION: There is a .33 -acre wetland on parcel #021324032. Wetland was delineated and rated in 2010 by Wiltermood Associates, Inc. Wetland boundary has not really changed in dimensions from that delineation. Where Wiltermood's ribbon could still be seen hanging from the trees, M-R.W.C. wetland boundary flagging was pretty much right in line with theirs. Wetland Category was decreased from a Category III to a high Category IV. Reason for this is do to the different rating forms used. The installation of the new drive way through a Category IV wetland will most likely require a Mitigation Plan to compensate for the adverse impacts. M-R.W.C. recommends that the Wiltermood Associates, Inc. should be used and the increased square feet of impacted area be added to the plan. The proposed drainfield is well out of the wetland buffer and should have little to no impact. The only impact will be the short-term disturbances from moving heavy equipment in and out installing it and the utility lines to accommodate the septic. The construction of the road has already taken place. No further work on this parcel should take place until Jefferson County Community Development approves or dis approves of this Critical Areas Report: Wetlands, Sincerely, Meehan-Roulst Wetland Consulting 19 APPENDIX A Vicinity Map, Exhibit 1: Wetland Stations 1-13 and location of data plots. Exhibit 2: Measurements from Wetland Statism 6 and 7 up to the closest perk holes. Exhibit 3: Location of the proposed road in 2011. Exhibit 4: Distances from closest wetland stations to septic area. Exhibit 5: Creative Design Solutions Map of Septic Area and New Load Location. "JCC Wetland Map", JCC Soils Map, Photos of Wetland and Copy of Corp of Engineers Re%,iew Letter. ►K1 V4 M 0 A LA LA 'F At - CD IL eT IL 7.Y J, k L 1 �J. f (i1 '�';a DY A t"i'` ,.Tr , u - :E ` cl . to ,o Q ill CD €� c, 4,-" " ?1 -4 a U) Ari � �,�' � '�: �"O � �r y' f'*• cn T} -� `:AWL'S. f _ = •• ^` �. �. i �J ' � .,{ �;. ��. p, n �� ,M,, _ aye �, ur„M1, " • � Nva' Cil CD cnQ tOL i •J6 z L 16 A to y • y, f V ' y•T - f' y r T- �� ��� L.! '� +� '" �•".1. ("*'i' sir : w Y L �'N0Lt— - 0D dSIWArea: tMW , Area sons: Camd Gmveliy OR bsm, Q16% slopes Co. rum SEP 24 M I I J_; I MOM - am �-M -propobed drainfield area-t.29(i0sf; may be adjusted k adjacent wells i veil are deco+sloned i r r-ProPQsed reserve drainfield area (24004 0 &Y 100' SCALE 10=50 FEET o� aawn�a +Olpo..� a� *I I ft� N 10' drainfield protection zone PrOPosed primary drainfield area (2400s fl drrinAatd r� a W91h IM ad of I was -do ro ewn.p. sol in drWWAN an94 kkrdo dkMp -ft�lrnla'�. Mr � of *MW ,proa -Wft'R brWIt mofalk - Wfttkw&Xd&ft RW 6r fel'ft= alus* &M ±45 .4f - Prepared fbr f C� } � SPAACf Sits 541 +EarM tts Poi Roa Mortftw Parcel OM VA 013; 8 3Z 73M RIE APM zoos FBIII-4 4-7 -6 J TF z � � rn _ 1 in rZIP t5Y ~i 1 CU CLco W N LU is 1 A C? to,— s -tit �o 1 7I Cl "^ � �� �z tz I =1�2 �•S Iy Z 1 -J 0 oE, Z 09A It � �* T •� ? .Tw^���i �'T Viy'•••- • 4_ `�,r _ � -�•^�� �rL ,�' X11 I • a VVI I Roo r �. .. � � yr i' • ' P, ✓'"+, Til � ,. � T• r =�. l hit I i.`1,,1l ' ,� r `. S r , ri 01 i � � i•�r ,' r � ' 1' � : t 1 r 1 R �' I �'+y I ' �r I I. • r } - � r. �' '?F Y Ir��. �'i+I r "c ` � +• 1 W� � f � �.�' a W � ri { w � ',h _ g „� ;'i� J ,�� 7p yy»�''�y'�` «i �:r�C4iSr� �? �� •,� 1�•',ar , J «'. �• i� .' rf �d 1• ,1 1 1 �rw ii is'� � r; ,. , ' • f r w, I �; �t �+� � 1, ' jt °y ` ' I+ -'.r 'ti " 1 �' �a w s���E ' ;K r� t � �� , ' r ip. ow N.. . w _, It1� gin• � . •� � V it{�.•,nf �l'w. A07 iw or t - ,.ii/!y f `' _�YOW'"• .. Mme"' ^, . � ' _ ` w�:. 1. 4 r ,rte • , — r. r -. - w t �. r �� �, � ', `� `,� �� it"°� .vc 3 � it=_ i Y .-4 '. �� - �� �;;. , i� !� `�`ti �•. 1� '� _ r� � � Vit-: a ri;+ .�:'�. ! '2 'ff 4 � � "� I ,� ,t � M '• � I �i��ti �� � 1 .k/ i --° "} \ � { � .: ' y 1 1F'A� 1 - �. 1 � �y f s +. c } r j ,. ` � �, � t "z. i Y i � i, �' ,. 1 .4 � - - ^.�v l4 a � *tib f l.l'?Jo Y R •, w . � _ �., ., -. - � ..• r,.t k. . ,, .. a..... J r...:_....... ,: a. � I ., � ,. _, , is ... r i} � i _. �. � .. ..i Y i 'Y (� .. ' ! 4 f Jf ><� : `` 4 I• ��l'v - - pNa M �. M i J '_!r � 4 N� r. 1j;A �1 ..� � �V'i 4,. ., a 1 � '� � r ,� <� ,,; � - � F <j'- � � .,, z N.:�� ,. Fill r} ��r N i � �r�` t` �an .T t�N,'�� ,r '. �• � �� _ � _` ��. ,�� �Y ' �.. � , �, .. '`� � � _. ^r � j�.'�v�' r ��� � ,-1• f 3' " AtAT Op c. yr �rhfl:.ti o5 h: • • Regulatory Branch Mr. Petros Farmasonis 13753 3`d Avenue Northwest Seattle, Washington 98177 Dear Mr. Farmasonis: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755 October 14, 2016 Reference: NWS -2016-726 Farmasonis, Petros (Driveway) We have reviewed your application to construct a driveway through a wetland to access your property at 552 Griffiths Point Road, Nordland, Jefferson County, Washington. The project includes the placement of 375 cubic yards of rock and %-inch crushed gravel to construct a 20 -foot tone -foot wide driveway with 3 feet of road prism on each side. In total, 420 square feet o the w�ai_d would 6E'filled or drained by this work. vIn addition, a 24 -inch plastic pipe culvert (20 feet long) would be installed in the existing ditch for the road approach from Griffiths Point Road. There would be 40 cubic yards of pit run and 5 cubic yards of %-inch crushed gravel placed to construct the culverted road approach. Based on the information you provided to us, Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14, Linear Transportation Projects (Federal Register February 21, 2012, Vol. 77, No. 34), authorizes your proposal as depicted on the enclosed drawings dated September 15, 2016. In order for this authorization to be valid, you must ensure the work is performed in accordance with the enclosed NWP 14, Terms and Conditions. We have reviewed your project pursuant to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. We have determined this project complies with the requirements of these laws provided you comply with all of the permit general conditions. Please note that Seattle District NWP Regional General Condition 6, Cultural Resources and Human Burials, found in the Nationwide Permit Terms and Conditions enclosure, details procedures that must be followed should an inadvertent discovery occur. You must ensure that you comply with this condition during the construction of your project. -2 - In addition, please note that NWP National General Condition 12, Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls, found in the Nationwide Permit Terms and Conditions' enclosure, requires the appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls beJ�sed 'and maintained in effective operating condition during construction and all fills be permandntly stabilized at the earliest practicable date. The authorized work complies with the Washington State Department of Ecolagy,s (Ecology) Water Quality Certification (WQC) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZM) requirements for this NWP. No further coordination with Ecology for WQC and CZM is required. We have prepared and enclosed a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (JD) dated September 16, 2016, which is a written indication that wetlands and waterways within your project area may be waters of the U.S. Such waters will be treated as, jurisdictional waters of the U.S. for purposes of cornpuWion of impact area associated with your permit application. If you believe the Preliminary JD is inaccurate, you may request an Approved JD, which is an official determination regarding the presence or absence of waters of the U.S. If one is requested, please be aware that we may require the submittal of additional information to complete an approved 3D and work authorized in this letter may R-01 occur 'until the approved JD has been finalized. Our verification of this NWP authorization is valid until March 18, 2017, unless the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked prior to that date. If the authoiized work has not been completed by that date and you have commenced or are under contract to commence this activity before March 18, 2017, you will have until March 18, 2018, to complete the activity under the enclosed terms and conditions of this NWP. Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of this NWP verification invalidates this authorization and could result in a violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. You must also obtaiall local, State, and other Federal permits that apply to this project. n You are cautioned that any change in project location or plans will require that you submit a copy of the revised plans to this office and obtain our approval before you begin worm. Upon completing the authorized work, you must fill out and return the enclosed Certificate of Compliance with Department ofthe Army Permit form. Thank you for your cooperation during the permitting process. Information about our Program is available on our website at www.nws.usace.army.mil, select "Regulatory Branch, Permit Information'. Im -3- A copy of this letter with enclosures will be furnished to Ms. Barbara Blowers at 124 Harrison Street, Port Townsend, Washington 48368. 1f you have any.questions, please contact me atiuliana.houghton@usace.artny.mil or (206) 764-3768. Sincerely, Enclosures Juliana Houghton, Project Manager Regulatory Branch APPENDIX B "FIELD DATA FORMS" 21 or WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Regions Parcel # 021324036 City/County: Nordland, WA Sampling Date: 2/15/18 riser:: Petros Farmasonis State: WA Sampling Point L U Plo Meehan-Roulst Wetland Consultin i(im Mcchan-Routst Section, Township,Range: S32 T30N, RIE f[slo e. terrace, etc): Depression L*eal relief eoneaVe convex none • C 5ubre ion(LR R : North West Forest Lav 4' Soil Map Unit Name: Semiaml100 snuck shallow variant Are climatic / h drolo is conditions on the site typical for this time Are vection [ 3 1 [] or l-lydrolol Are Y etation Soil , or li drolo SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site n Flydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Lydric Soil Present? Yes dNetland Hydrology Present? Yes Remarks: — oncave Slc !'N L.on : 122de 42'01"W Datum: NWI classir1catinn: PFO6A Yes NOLJ if no explain in Remarks,} Are "Normal Circutnstances" present? Yes 6 No L j I Is the Sampled Area No JI Within a Wetland? No 6J VEGETATION – Use scientific narrtcs of alants Absolute Trees Str tum 30' Radius Plot size: % Cover 1. Thuja plicata 70 T. Alnus rubra 20 3. 4. 5. Sa lin Shrub Stratum (Plot size) 1. Rubus spectabilis 2. Symphoricarpos albus 3. 4. 5. 4. 5.. Herb Stratum Piot size: 1. Polystichum munitum 2. Rubus urSmus 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1, etc Yes ❑ No 0-5% 83 No Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: S e jes? Status Number of Dominant Species That Yes FAC Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3 Yes FAC 90% Canopy= Total Cover 20 Yes + FAC 15 No FACU 35% =Total Cover 80 Yes�FA 20 Yes 80% =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20% Total Cover 1 0 Remarks: Total; Number of dominant _§p2cies Across All Strata: B 5 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FCW, or FAC: (A/B) 60% Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of Multiply by. OBL species X 1 = FACW species X2= FAC species X3= FACU species X4= Species X5= Column totals (A) (B) Prevalence index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ I. 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. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Regions Project/Site: Parcel # 021324036 City/County: Nordland, WA Sampling Date: 2/11/18 Applicant/Owner: : Petros Farmasonis State: WA Sam lin Point: Wet Plot Investigator(s): Meehan-Roulst Wetland Consulting/Kim Meehan-Roulst Section, Township, Range: S32 T30N, RIE Landform (hillslo e, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex. none): Concave Sloe %) 0-5% Subregion (LRR): North West Forest Lat: 48de 02'42"N Long: 122de 42'01 "W Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Semiamhoo muck, shallow variant I NWI classification: PF06A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this lime of rear? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are vegetation 0, Soil ❑, or I-lydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" resent? Yes 9 No ❑ Are vg etation ❑. Soil . or I lydrology naturally roblcmatie? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) SI)MNIARY OF FINDINGS— Attach cite man showing samnlinv nnint Incatinnc. Iranzoetc. imnartant fpatnroc_ rte (Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area (Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1. Alnus rubra Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of olants Trees Stratum 30' Radius Plot size: Absolute Dominant % Cover Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3 1. Alnus rubra 75 Yes FAC 2• Total; Number of dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) 5 3, 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FCW, or FAC: (A/B) 60% 5. 75% Canopy cover= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: Sa lin Shrub Stratum (Plot size) 1. Rubus spectabilis 50 Yes FAC OBL species X 1 = 2. Rosa nutkana 20 Yes FAC FACW species X2= 3. FAC species 3 X 3 =9 4. FACU species 2 X 4 =8 5. UPL Species X 5 = 4. Column totals 5(A) 17(B) 5.. Prevalence index = B/A =3.4 70% =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: [:11. 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. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No El% Herb Stratum Plot size: ) I . Polystichum munitum 40 Yes FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 30 Yes FACU 3. Carex obnupta 10 NO OBL 4. 5 6. 7, 8. 9. 800% =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 1. 2 30%=Total Cover 0 Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35% leaf litter Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Regions 11'roject/Site: Parcel # U2 324036— A — — City/County: Nordland, WA 3IicantlOwner; : Petros T'arrnasanis Sampling Date: 2/15/18 lnvestt r�slo s : Mcetlean-I'toulst Wetland Con�ultin tion i47eehan-Itoulst L.andforrn hilfslope. terrace:, etc). De Scot °nWToev---- Ran aT n Point: U Plot 2 c: 532,'C3(1hd Rl l Pression Strbre, ion LRR : North Wcst Farest [,at., 48de local relief concave convex, none : Cone�ve Sln e % 0-5°f° Soil Ma Unit Name: Semiamhoo muck, shallow variant Are climatic / h drolo ie 02'42"N Lon : 122de 42'01 "W Datum: NAD 83 NWI conditions on the site t ical for tl�is Lime of Are vc etatian S°il or II drolo] si nificantl classification: i'1?f1bA ar'? Yes NO It no, cx lain in Remarks, disturbed? Are ve etati°n ,Soil or I I drolo Q naturall robicrnatie? Are "Normal Circumstances" resent? Yes No SUAIATAItY C1F I'IN[II1vGg _ Attaeh site ma shawin I1'ru�edcd, e:x lain an answers in Remarks sam tin oint iucations, transects im urtant features. etc Iydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No � -1►dric Soil Present? Yes [� No � Is the Sampled Area etlastd Fi drolOAYPresent? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Remarks: VEGETATION— Use scientific names of Tants Trees Stratum 30' Radius Plo# size: AbsVie Dom;neast Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Thuja plicata 50 Status Number of Dominant Species That Yes 2. Abies gra FAC Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2 20 Yes 3. Alnus rubra FAC U 10 4. Yes — FAC Total; Number of dominant _ -- 5. S ecies Across All Strata: S 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FCW, or FAC: (A/B) 50% 70% Canopy= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: a lin fSltruh Stratum (Plot size) Total °fo Cover of. 1llulti`_. I. Rubus spectabilis 20 2 Yes FAC OBL species III X1= 3, FACW species X 2 = 4. FAC species X3= 5. FACU species X4= 4, UPL Species X5= 5„ Column totals (A) (B) Prevalence index = B/A = 20% =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb St tum Plot size: I. Polystichum munitum80 El1. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes 2• FACU ❑ 2.Dominance Test is >50% 3. El 3. Prevalence Index is <3.0' 4. — 5. ❑ 4. Morphological Adaptations' 6. (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate Sheet) 7. g ❑ 5. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 9, ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Wood Vine Stratum Plot size: 80% =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland l ` hydrology must be present. 2. Hydrophytic =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Strata- 5% 0 Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Regions Project/Site: Parcel # 021324036 City/County: Nordland, WA Sampling Date: 2/11/18 A licant/Owner: : Petros Farmasonis State: WA I Sam lin Point: Wet Plot 2 Investi ator s : Meehan-Roulst Wetland Consultin Kim Meehan-Roulst Section, Township, Range: S32, T30N, R1 E Landform (hillslo e, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief concave, convex, none): Concave Sloe % 0-5% Subregion (LRR): North West Forest Lat: 48de 02'42"N Long: 122dee 42'01 "W (}atum: NAD 83 Soil Mae Unit Name: Semiamhoo muck, shallow variant NWI classification: PF06A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of ear? Yes No If no explain in Remarks. Are vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology❑ si niticandl disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" resent? Yes 0 No ❑ Are vegetation ❑, Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, ex lain any answers in Remarks SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site naan showine samniine nnint locations_ trampeic. imnarhint features. rte Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑ Is the Sampled Area I lydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland I lydrology Present? Yes No 1. Abies grandis Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of niants Trees Stratum 30' Radius Plot size: Absolute Dominant % Cover S ecies? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total; Number of dominant Species Across All Strata: (A) 2 1. Abies grandis 40 Yes FACU 2. Alnus rubra 20 Yes FAC B 3 3. 4• Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FCW, or FAC: (A/B) 60% 5 60% Canopy cover= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: Sa lin IShruh Strxltetttt (Plot size) 1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Yes FAC OBL species X 1 = 2. Rosa nutkana 10 Yes FAC FACW species X2= 3. FAC species X 3 = 4• FACU species X4= 5. UPL Species X 5 = 4. Column totals (A) (B) 5•. Prevalence index = B/A = 70% =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: [11. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ® o 2.Dominance Test is >50 /o ❑ 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. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No E:1% Herb Stratum Plot size: ) 1. Polystichum munitum 15 Yes FACU 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 15% =Total Cover 100 Wood Vine Stratum Plot size:) 1. Rubus ursinus 15 Yes FACU 2, 15%=Total Cover 10 Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10% leaf litter Remarks: U5 Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast — Version 2.0 APPENDIX C FIGURES FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON RATING SHEETS 22 �, , = , n r* 0 cu v H Ln �r ... " r.•...- , � "iJ. ��"ate"-,I�'r•,�`'n-"}++isrl+..I.�. r.- - r , + . "- ---•- ' i' •` 1 Frail `, ��� � . - � �,,.- ... - � ,+..._._,.,,r-.rte'--r'-"�• •;�". Irw - �� . _ � � - I�� �r �"'fit � ,`.. •� r cadork PC � � 1•-+ r r 41 l } y=- � ��` , 0 4.- P* \ � .. f� } # � � � ■ Ami ƒ W".a . \ - �@��o ■ - BRd Al m 2 N / J4 .. y J it :2� >- m 0 o n '' a a° o N Q ®fidCL ,0 ®® r d H a a o a f�D 2 � �p d ��y, W n n n n (� a a a N nni 3 ID (p (V a N (p .moi n n n n w �r tv a a a rr 9 9 � io � �c �c f rr"e fD 'A A a a O p j a n c m 0 O O O O O O 2 Z ` 'n 'm n Z N a n a a 1 m 3 ^ � o ) iow m IV eT ti o w w It VI O fD a 3 c a n m 2 m m K ry n -' v O p GI � V x m fa m 7 CL T v a a N 0 0 3 0 O 0 D m 3 a CD to CD 0 0 s. 0 co Cw c D C V v m U) Cf) m B m CD VJ N ID CDa D N CD 3 CD 7 3 m 0 0 c d N d 0 d (D �n f v m A c T) Q m d 0 m fl �n m m c m y]� 2 2 k k CD J m � CL a ƒ ƒ / / O £ $ CL k CD I R 2 C Q N \ a Ll [i El m m -n k B k w m � 7 ƒ ƒ 3 E 2 CD CD cn k ¢ g 7 a � ;u g CD / g � CD I M 0 -0 n _ w - a Co o zn � APPENDIX D WESTERN WASHINGTON WETLAND RATING FORMS, 2014 23 Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY -Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #):, Date of site visit Rt I ti Rated by t Trained by Ecology?,Yes _No Date of training61+ 's HGM Class used for rating `��" c,F �O Wetland has multiple HGM classes?—Y—/—N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures �aq be co bined). Source of base aerial photo/map t #- f OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions_ or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I — Total score = 23 - 27 Category 11— Total score = 20 - 22 'Category III — Total score =16 -19 Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat - water Quality Circle the apN site Potential H L H' M, L ,andscape Potential H L H L Value H N1 L H M' OTAL core Based onratings �,.15 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H, H, L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M, M, M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M, M, L 4 = M, L, L 3 = LLL 1 Wetland name or number Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for 41 Western Washington De ressional Wetlands Riverine Wetlands 0,31 1 -G Lake Fringe Wetlands Slope Wetlands weuana xaung system for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? Qgo to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ioulr altwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. +t NO -g to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats lj_yv .r wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO -:go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The wetland is on a slope (slope can be verygradual), _The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, —The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, _The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number IN 0-o to 6 ' YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. 1s the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which.water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 - he wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area wi i no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO - o to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within.the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than Z HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? WeXAits.: es = 1 `,,No = 0� Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water, leaving it (no outlet). D 2.4. Are then other pes of pollutants coming into the wetland th t are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? points = 3 Source f s Yes = No = O , Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above %ointsh- 2' Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface or duff layerl layeris true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions}.Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of tsersistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area t oints='§� Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > Yz of area ppoififs' A Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points =1 i Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonalpQriding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > Y2 total area of wetland p6fn—ts = 4� Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland paints = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is, 12-16 = H 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland it eceiv stbrtr�w ter i kLa es? ` r B6VCjJ es = 1 No = 0 F -^a 0f Yes =1 D 2.2. Is > 10% the area wl hin 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? WeXAits.: es = 1 `,,No = 0� D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 f No = Oj D 2.4. Are then other pes of pollutants coming into the wetland th t are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Source f s Yes = No = O , Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 or 4 = H 41or2=M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 f No = Oj Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above r, Rating of Value If score is: -2-4 = H _1= M oyY' 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpbints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points =1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet nerigig: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland paints = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the we Jand to s arage n the w ershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetiond to -the area of the wetland unit Itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit paints = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points= 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? -- D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1No = 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 ' o -�'`, ti D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land u esidential at f >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? es =1 o = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 = H Z or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a la dsca a that has flooding roblems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit Being rated. Do not add points. Choose the hi hest scot i more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): 0 Flooding occurs in a slib-basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 2 points =1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or na# ral condi lona that the wad to ed by the etland nnot reach�-�easi�that flood. E plain why points = 0 There no pro iet�s ith �din�r� qtr arra a�f e we'10. t- A-V [ y �- �l points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood con#r, n? Yes =2 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H _3 = M 40=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 �L. Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HGllii classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of '4 ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed `, ,, 4 structures or more: points = 4 mergentw ,l*4 "c'k"..t ' ., ` °' # r structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) ��` 2 structures: paants -- 1 f Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canop shrubs,rbaceou , oss,<ground-C over) r that each cover 20% within the Forested ,polygon.4 H 1,2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or Y. ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or Inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 asonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 C>ccasionally flooded or inundated types present: points =1: Saturated only 1'type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland _Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland _Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 W. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species i points = 2 5 -19 species points = i\ < 5 species paints -'0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low = 1 point j,Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points i t Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 Wetland name or number H 1.5. Special habitat features: H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat thatArectly abuts wetiand unit). Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Calculote: % undisturyj habitats t [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2111— - Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). If total accessible habitat As: :Z Standing snags (dbh >4 In) within the wetland > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 'Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/pr overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 over a stream _(or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Ob &11).s 1 40 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree < 10% of 1 km Polygon '�4olnts = 0 slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. �. Awhere wood is exposed) r � Calculate: % undisturbed habitat [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] _ : % t least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are Undisturbed habitat> 50% of Polygon ', points = 3 or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 /permanently Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see 41.1 for list of � strata) Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If i Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H Z7-14 = M _0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat thatArectly abuts wetiand unit). Calculote: % undisturyj habitats t [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2111— If total accessible habitat As: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points =1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon '�4olnts = 0 r H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. �. r � Calculate: % undisturbed habitat [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] _ : % Undisturbed habitat> 50% of Polygon ', points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 i Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patchespaints_= Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If i > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity 'ants Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes ala©ve Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: -4-6 = H 1-3 = M _< 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. l Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered specids (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above `,,,points = 0. i Rating of Value If score is:_2 = H _1= M ti.�' 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating' on the first page 14 It Wetland name or number WDFW Priority Habitats priority hahi au li ted by WDFW (see complete descriptions -of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008, Priority Habitat and Species list. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.p 4 wdfw watiQ��/001f SJwdfwO(li 5 >df or access the list from here: htt�i/zvdfwyv_ ov/ccr�lservatio khs/list) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and fortis on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: -12rowt f - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 1.00%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is ,generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 - see web link above). — Instrearn: The combination of physical, bioiggical, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation — T7al: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, an /or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. nags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and >. 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the cotegory when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No- of an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Est eserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under, WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I ^N� Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three condo eons? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Sportina, see page 25) Cat. 1 At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un - mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or Cat. II contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I N = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of lands of High Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No Go to SC 2.3 Cat. SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes= CategoryI No = of a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? htt www .dnr.wa. ov rah refdes datasearch wnh wetlands. df Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No =Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Val}f and listed it on their website? Yes = CategoryI ! No 'Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs 'mow Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that pose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3o�– Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are le sth� 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating p of a lake or pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 � No =, Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AN,D�&ast a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes =1s a Category I bog No`- Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute tat criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less han 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. 1 SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover ume canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? if you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. - Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at -least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (,dbbh)) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes= Category 1 1Vo = t a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs a measured near the bottom) Cat. I Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. 11 —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un - mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ) oCategory II Yes = Category I No SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? if you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 r __ Yes - Go to SC 6.1 kNo = not an interdunal wetland for ra4n . SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions m rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. If for the three aspects of function)? Yes= CategoryI No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or Is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV t. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 APPENDIX E APPROACH AND METHODS 24 APPROACH AND METHODS CRITICAL AREA DETERMINATION DELINEATION & CLASSIFICATION: Wetland boundary is marked every 25' with 3" x 5" orange plastic wire whips. The whips have the station numbers for surveying, the date the boundary was established and the lettering M-R.W.C. indicating Meehan- Roulst Wetland consulting as the principal contractor. Each wetland whip has an orange wetland boundary ribbon attached to it. In addition, in forested and shrubby areas there is wetland flagging hung at near eye level for guidance to the next wetland station. WETLAND DELINEATION BASED ON: 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Wetland Delineation 1987 Manual for Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2) updated in 2010. Wetland Determination Two levels of information were gathered to do a routine wetland determination. These included: a) Review of preliminary site data and, b) On-site investigation to determine the presence of wetlands and non wetland waters. a) A review of existing information was conducted to develop background knowledge of physical features, and to identify the potential for wetland occurrence on the subject property. The resource documents available for preliminary review of the site conditions included: USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS), "Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area Washington", 2013 and 1994, Jefferson County aerial photography, and Jefferson County Planning Department data. b) During the on-site investigation, wetland areas were determined and verified on the basis of three parameters: Hydrophytic Vegetation, Hydric Soils, and Wetland Hydrology, as recommended in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0), May 2010. Hydric soils are classified using Filed Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0, 2010. Aosp itive wetland determination is made when all three parameters are present, or in certain situations determined following the guidelines recommended in wetland determination procedures, or for atypical situations or problem areas. c) The wetland was classified as to type (category) by using the Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington -October -2014. Effective January 2015, Washington State Department of Ecology's Publication No. 03-06-029 and applicable Rating Forms Effective January 1, 2015. 110rop-hytic Vegetation 25 Areas where more than 50% of the dominant species present from all strata are hydrophytes (plants adapted to growth and reproduction in saturated soil conditions) are considered to be inside the wetland boundary, unless clear evidence of hydric soils or wetland hydrology cannot be established. A species is considered dominant if it is equal to or greater than 20% areal cover, or exerts a controlling influence on, or defines the character of a community. Hydrophytic vegetation is determined to be present, when under normal circumstances: More than 50"A of the dominant plant species in a plant community have an indicator category of Obligate Wetland (OBL.), Facultative Wetland (FACW), and/or Facultative (FAC) as listed in "National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9)" This Plant Indicator Status Categories system was developed for the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory by Cowardin et al. (1979). The rational. Plant List Panel, Reed, Porter B., and Jr. modified it in 1988 and 1993. The Wetland Indicator Category (WIC) used in this report refers to the plants Indicator Symbol as referred to in the table below. There have been changes to the list since 1993. In 2016 the list was updated and was used for this report. National Indicators reflect the range of estimated probabilities (expressed as a frequency of occurrence) of a Species occurring in a wetland versus a non -wetland across the entire distribution of the species. )", Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2416 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Percentages expressed as estimated probability. Indicator Cateam OBLIGATE WETLAND PLANTS Indicator Svmbol Definition OBL Occur almost always, >99% (estimated probability) in wetlands Under natural conditions. <I% in non wetlands. FACULTATIVE WETLAND FACW Usually occur in wetlands, 67-99%, PLANTS 1-33% in non -wetlands. FACULTATIVE PLANTS FAC Equally likely to occur in wetlands, non -wetlands 34-66%. FACULTATIVE UPLAND PLANTS OBLIGATE UPLAND PLANTS H drir Soils FACU Usually occur in non wetlands 67-99%, but occasionally found in wetlands 1-33% UPL Almost always occur in non -wetlands of Northwest Region 9, >99%. <I% in wetlands. 26 There have been trey Ietidous scientific changes since 1991 in several of the indicators such as the introduction of aquic conditions to cover the requirements for saturation, reduction, and morphological indicators used to define the modified aquic moisture regime, and mottles and low chroma colors being replaced by redoximorphic features. Because of these changes, we consult the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2014. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United Stater, Version 7.0". G. W. Hurt, L. M. Vasilas . (eds.), USDA, MRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance and decision in making final hydric soils determinations. Field indicators of hydric soil conditions in this document, (Land Resource Region (LRR) A that includes Western Washington), are presented here: (1) ALL SOILS: Al. Histosols; A2. Histic Epipedons; A4. Hydrogen sulfide; A6. Organic Bodies; A7. Mucky mineral; A8. Muck Presence; A10.2 cm Muck; All. Depleted Below Dark Surface; and Al2. Thick Dark Surface (2) SANDY SOILS: Sl. Sandy Mucky Mineral; S4. Sandy Gleyed Matrix; S5.Sandy Redox; and S6. Stripped Matrix (3) LOAMY AND CLAYEY SOILS: Fl. Loamy Mucky Mineral; F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix; F3. Depleted Matrix; F6. Redox Dark Surface; F7.Depleted Dark Surface; and F8. Redox Depressions; Wetland Hydrolou Water is the driving force for wetlands. Indications of wetland hydrology are those where the I)resence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducii-ib conditions, respectively. Areas that are seasonally saturated and/or inundated to the surface for a consecutive number of days for more than 12.5% of the growing season are wetlands provided the soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas wet between 5% and 12% of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface for less than 5% of the growing season are non -wetlands. Wetland hydrology exists if field indicators are present. 27 Field indicators of wetland hydrology nlay include, but are not limited to visual observations of inundation, ponding, soil saturation, oxidized root channels (rhizosplieres) associated with living roots and rhizomes, watermarks, drift lines, water -borne sediment deposition, or wetland drainage patterns. The growing season starting and ending dates are required to evaluate hydrologic data. For wetland determinations, the growing season is determined using the local SCS county soils surveys. Generally, the growing season is calculated based on the "28 degrees F or lower" temperature threshold at a frequency of "5 years in 10". For much of western Washington at low elevations, the Enesic growing season (March I to October 31) has been considered a good rule. However, in some areas of the Puget Sound Lowlands and coastal areas the growing season occurs all year round because the soil temperature at 19.7 inches below the soil surface is higher than 41 degrees F. Plant I lentiiication and Classification Primary references used for scientific plant names and the endemic and non-native or exotic status of Plants to the North Olympic Peninsula were determined as found in Flora of the Pacific Northwest by Hitchcock and Cronquist. Univ. of Washington Press, 1972. Other references referred to .included: (1) A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washin n-& Northwestern Oregon by Sarah Spear Cooke, editor, Washington dative Plant Society, May 1997; Wetland Tants of Oreon 8c Washin an by Jennifer Guard, Lone Pine Publishing, 1995; (2) Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast- Washin ton Ore on British +Columbia & Alaska edited by Pojar and Mackinnon, D.C. Forest Service, Research Program, Lone Pine Publishing, 1994 and, D.C. Forest Service, Research Program, Lone Pine Publishing, 1994; and (3) Northwest Weeds by Ronald J. Taylor, Mountain Press Publishing Company, 1990 28