HomeMy WebLinkAboutHabitat Survey and No Net Loss AssessmentHABITAT SURVEY AND
NO-NET-LOSS ASSESSMENT
South Point Property
Jefferson County, Washington
Prepared for
Michael Edwards
2353 South Point Road
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
408 718-7121
June 4, 2018
Prepared by
Ecological Land Services
1157 3rd Avenue South, Suite 220A • Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371 • Project Number 2639.01
Michael Edwards –South Point NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Shoreline Mitigation Plan i June 4, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ..................................................................1
SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................................1
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL .....................................................................................................2
MITIGATION SEQUENCING ..............................................................................................................2
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HABITAT CONDITIONS...............................................................................3
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT ...........................................................................................................3
WILDLIFE INVENTORY ...................................................................................................................3
BUFFER FUNCTIONS .......................................................................................................................4
IMPACT ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................4
Shoreline and Impacts ..............................................................................................................4
Shoreline and Wetland Buffer Impacts .....................................................................................5
NO-NET-LOSS MITIGATION ...........................................................................................................5
RESTORATION PLAN ........................................................................................................................5
FLOODPLAIN HABITAT AREA DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................6
STATE AND FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT .............................................6
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES ........7
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,WATER TYPING ..................................7
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ........7
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY,COASTAL ATLAS .....................................................7
JEFFERSON COUNTY CRITICAL AREA AND HABITAT MAPPING...................................................8
RESEARCH AND SITE INVESTIGATION ...........................................................................................8
HABITAT NARRATIVE.....................................................................................................................8
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................10
DIRECT EFFECTS .........................................................................................................................10
INDIRECT EFFECTS .....................................................................................................................10
INTERRELATED/INTERDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES .......................................................................10
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...............................................................................................................10
EFFECT DETERMINATION ...........................................................................................................10
MINIMIZATION AND CONSERVATION MEASURES ........................................................................11
LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................11
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................12
Table 1. Summary of Upland Restoration Plantings
Table 2. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat
Table 3. Summary of Mapped Priority Habitats and Species
Michael Edwards –South Point NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Shoreline Mitigation Plan ii June 4, 2018
FIGURES & PHOTOPLATES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Existing Conditions
Figure 3 Site Plan
Figure 4 Shoreline Designation and Zoning Map
Figure 5 Coastal Shoreline Photo-2006
Figure 6 Coastal Atlas Map
Figure 7 Shoreline Mitigation Plan
Photoplates Site Photos
APPENDIX A
Western Washington Wetland Rating Form
Jeff and Kerrie Sanson –Angeline Avenue Shoreline Mitigation Ecological Land Services,Inc.
Shoreline Mitigation Plan i June 4, 2018
SIGNATURE PAGE
The information and data in this report were compiled and prepared under the supervision and
direction of the undersigned.
___________________________
Joanne Bartlett, PWS
Senior Biologist
Laura Westervelt
Biologist
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 1 June 4, 2018
INTRODUCTION
Ecological Land Services,Inc.(ELS)has been contracted by Michael Edwards to conduct a no-
net-loss assessment (NNL)that addresses potential impacts associated with stabilization of a
shoreline slope on the property at 2353 South Point Road in Port Ludlow, Washington.The
residential shoreline property consists of Jefferson County Tax Parcel Number 721093003,that
lies in a portion of Section 9 ,Township 27 North,Range 2 East of the Willamette Meridian
(Figure 1). The project is located within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction and requires
completion of the shoreline buffer plan to satisfy the requirements of Jefferson County Code,Title
18, Shoreline Master Program (JCCSMP).Mitigation sequencing is required to address the
potential impacts associated with installation of anchored logs to stabilize the shoreline bank and
achieve no-net-loss of buffer function and habitat for the shoreline community.
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
This project is being reviewed under the updated JCSMP that was adopted in 2015 because it is
within 200 feet of the shoreline of Hood Canal.The entire property lies within 200 feet of the
shoreline so it is under shoreline jurisdiction and requires a shoreline mitigation plan under
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (JCSMP).The required buffer width is 150 feet,
which extends beyond the property and across South Point Road.Under the current administrative
process, projects proposing construction within the designated shoreline buffer must complete a
shoreline report to document existing conditions and show that there will be no-net-loss of buffer
function per Section 18.25.200 of the JCSMP.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The 0.25-acre property is located on the east side of South Point Road in the Bridgehaven area of
Port Ludlow, Jefferson County, Washington (Figure 1).It is a trapezoid-shaped property with the
east and west property lines angled to the curve of Hood Canal and South Point Road, respectively.
It is composed of a single-family residence on a shoreline property with areas of landscaping and
native vegetation.The property slopes steeply down from the driveway at South Point Road to a
level parking area,which accesses the attached garage (Photoplate 1).Retaining walls and terraces
support the driveway and maintain the steep slope behind the house, which is oriented north to
south.In front of the house, there is a continuous wall that supports the parking area and the
house. It is composed of rip-rap rock where it supports the driveway and transitions to blocks
where it supports the house and deck (Photoplates 2 and 3).The block wall continues around the
north end of the house and ends at a set of block stairs that access the narrow lawn (Photoplate 5).
Between the wall and the unarmored shoreline bank,there is a narrow strip of lawn that extends
south to a clump of fir trees by the south property line (Photoplate 4).The shoreline bank is
several feet higher in elevation than the shoreline itself and is vegetated by fir trees at the south
end, ornamental shrubs in the middle, and is unvegetated at the north end.During the November
2017 field visit, the beach was observed at low tide (Photoplate 8).The beach slopes moderately
from the shoreline bank,is composed of sand and cobble,and is vegetated by several salt-tolerant
species (Photoplate 6).There is a fir tree outside the north property line and several fir trees near
the south property line that overhangs the beach (Photoplate 7).The property to the north is a
community boat launch with a rip-rap bulkhead and the property to the south is in a relatively
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 2 June 4, 2018
natural, unarmored state (Photoplate 9).A stream was observed draining onto the shoreline about
100 feet south of the property.
A narrow area of estuarine wetland was identified below the shoreline bank at the top of the
sloping beach. The strip is about 10 feet wide on average and continues from just north of the
property to just south.The wetland was rated according to special features as directed by the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2015). It is a Category
II Estuarine system.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The proposal involves the repair of the shoreline bank between the house and the beach for
stabilization using soft-shore armoring methods (Figure 3). There is currently no armoring on the
bank and high tides have eroded the soil beneath the shrubs on the bank (Cousins 2016).Soft
shore armoring will involve overlapping and anchoring 24 to 36 inch diameter logs to the slope.
Fish-spawning gravel and cobble will be backfilled behind the logs to promote infiltration and
prevent further erosion (Figure 3).The gravel and sand is also used as sacrificial sediment where
natural recruitment has been interrupted by development and dredging (Cousins 2016).The
project proposes approximately 1,332 square feet of temporary impacts required to prevent
damage to the foundation of the house and 1,332 square feet will be restored for a restoration ratio
of 1:1.Upon completion of the project,456 square feet of salt-tolerant vegetation will be restored
and 876 square feet of upland will be restored.
In order to accommodate the proposal for work near the beach, the project must address potential
impacts to the 150-foot shoreline buffer,the wetland, and the required 75-foot wetland buffer.
The armoring will be located primarily above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM).There will
be no permanent impacts to important habitat or vegetation. Soft -shore armoring will not result in
new or destructive impacts to the shoreline and the restoration plan achieves no-net-loss of
shoreline buffer function.
MITIGATION SEQUENCING
This property lies entirely within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction of Hood Canal.The buffer of
the wetland extends west from the boundary into the developed area of the property.There is a
Type Ns stream about 100 feet offsite to the south that will not be impacted by this project.Soft-
shore armoring efforts are proposed within the 150-foot shoreline and 75-foot wetland buffers.
These buffers are composed of ornamental landscaping, maintained lawn, a retaining wall, and the
house (Figure 3). As part of the mitigation process, projects are required to address mitigation
sequencing to assess whether the project can avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce impacts before
identifying compensation or mitigation measures.
Avoiding Impacts:This entire property lies within shoreline jurisdiction. The shoreline buffer
covers the property and extends west across South Point Road (Figure 2).The house and yard
require stabilization to prevent further erosion and protect the foundation of the house (Cousins
2016).The logs are proposed in the only feasible location because they will serve to protect the
shoreline bank from eroding further.The armoring is designed to allow infiltration of stormwater
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 3 June 4, 2018
and to add habitat features to the shoreline. Impacts to salt-tolerant beach vegetation are temporary
and the beach will return to its current state post-construction.A narrow strip will be gently moved
out of the way of construction and then returned to the same location once construction is
complete.
Minimizing Impacts:The project is minimizing impacts to the shoreline buffer by proposing soft
shore armoring rather than a concrete or rip-rap bulkhead.The logs will represent a permanent
structure in the shoreline environment, but serves to minimize the amount of new impervious
surface as well as contributing to forage fish habitat.The project will minimize impacts to the
wetland by preforming the work from the upland only (Cousins 2016).
Rectifying,Reducing,or Eliminating the Impacts:The project represents a permanent
improvement to habitats in the buffer within shoreline jurisdiction.
Compensating for the Impacts:The project cannot avoid, rectify, or reduce the impact to the
shoreline buffer but has minimized the impact to the extent possible by proposing to use soft-shore
armoring to stabilize the shoreline bank.The project will use restoration to return the area to pre-
construction conditions (Figure 7).Because the project will protect the home from erosion and
improve habitat features there are no permanent impacts to the shoreline buffer. The shoreline
bank will be planted with native plants and the shoreline will be revegetated with native salt-
tolerant species.Once construction activities are completed, the shoreline and wetland buffers will
be improved.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HABITAT CONDITIONS
Shoreline Environment
The shoreline adjacent to this property is located along the northwest side of Hood Canal across
from the Bridgehaven Community (Figure 1). This section of shoreline is composed of a sand
beach under cobble with some shell debris and areas of fine sediment (Photoplate 4).Maps
obtained for this project indicate the presence of patchy saltmarsh fringe and low marsh fringe in
this section of Hood Canal (DOE 2014)(Figure 5).There is a narrow strip of Category II
estuarine wetland on the beach adjacent to the property.
This section of shoreline is composed of developed residential properties with about 50 percent
armoring along the OHWM consisting of rip rap bulkheads that extend down the shoreline
(Photoplate 4).The bulkhead on the property to the north is constructed of large rip-rap (Figure
6).This bulkhead appears to have been constructed right along the OHWM.There are no
bulkheads to the south for over 200 feet.Homes on the Bridgehaven peninsula are 100 percent
armored around the entire peninsula and are constructed primarily of concrete.There is forested
vegetation to the south that hangs over the beach for several hundred feet (Figure 6)(Photoplate
9).
Wildlife Inventory
Presence of oyster beds is mapped along this section of Hood Canal (WDFW 2015).There is also
a breeding site for Purple Martins (Progne subis)and estuarine wetlands mapped offsite to the
north.There are no other habitat areas mapped for the shoreline adjacent to this property.No
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 4 June 4, 2018
terrestrial habitat or wildlife occurrences are mapped on this or the adjacent properties.There are
no habitat features available for the federally listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species in
the vicinity of this project except for listed salmonids species, which utilize Hood Canal as part of
their lifecycle (USFWS/NOAA Fisheries 2015).None of the species identified during online
research were observed during the site visit conducted on November 29, 2017.The shoreline
environment appears to be in a natural condition waterward of the bulkhead however, the channel
is occasionally dredged (Cousins 2016).
Buffer Functions
This property lies within a shoreline residential designation and is zoned Rural-Residential, which
allows 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. There is a community boat launch to the north and
undeveloped forest to the south of the property.Onsite there is ornamental vegetation, maintained
lawn, a block wall, deck, and the house in the shoreline and wetland buffers.Because the
shoreline slope is eroding and the buffer is dominated by residential development , the onsite
function is fairly low except where trees are growing farther south.
The width of buffers necessary to protect a critical area from degradation is related to the functions
of the critical area and the buffer itself (Castelle, et al. 1992).Buffers function to protect water
quality of critical areas including shorelines and wetlands by removing sediment and nutrients from
runoff and the function depends on the type of soils, vegetation, and characteristics of the runoff.
The function of buffers is also based on width and slope. In some cases, buffers as low as 50 feet
are effective in filtering pollutants when there is dense groundcover, no slope or a gradual slope,
and the runoff sheet flows across the buffer. The buffer is residentially developed and has limited
function as a result.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Shoreline and Impacts
The shoreline of Hood Canal will not be directly impacted by onsite construction activities because
the project represents temporary impacts in an area already disturbed by human development
(Photoplate 5). The logs will be installed from the upland and are proposed at the toe of the
eroding shoreline bank.New impacts to the shoreline are avoided by improving the condition of
the beach with nourishment and vegetation restoration. There will be no permanent impact to
vegetation cover because the salt-tolerant vegetation on the beach will recover and upland
vegetation will be restored upon completion of the project. There will be no increase in the
amount of runoff generated onsite because the soft-shore armoring will not increase the amount of
impervious surface. There will be no indirect stormwater impacts on the shoreline because the
stormwater generated onsite will not change as a result of the proposed project.
Noise generated during installation of the logs, which will include use of equipment and workers,
may influence use of the shoreline environment by wildlife species. This area is already developed
and there is noise currently generated by the existing and adjacent homes. There will likely be an
increase in noise generated during construction but once construction is completed, the n oise will
return to current levels. Noise and light impacts are currently generated on the adjacent residential
properties.
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 5 June 4, 2018
Shoreline and Wetland Buffer Impacts
The project proposes to anchor logs along the toe of the eroding bank from the upland which
demonstrates avoidance of additional buffer/shoreline impacts and new impacts by avoiding
driving heavy equipment on the beach and in the wetland. Because the buffer is currently
comprised of residential use and the bank is eroding, increased protection will be afforded to the
shoreline environment particularly with regard to habitat. The logs and sediment will provide
refuge and breeding habitat for forage species as well as prevent further erosion,which will reduce
excessive sediment and debris impacts to the shoreline. The project will only temporarily increase
the amount of noise and light generated on this property but will return to normal post-
construction.
The logs represent no increase in impervious surface so there will be no negative impact to the
shoreline buffer because the armoring will serve to protect the shoreline from continued erosion.
Water quality onsite will not change and the armoring will improve onsite drainage to encourage
infiltration. The site will not generate any new pollutants or sediments that will have a negative
impact on the shoreline environment.It will also not change the conditions or use of the area.
No-Net-Loss Mitigation
Because the project proposes to anchor logs to an eroding shoreline bank, there will be no-net-loss
of buffer function of the shoreline environment. The shoreline bank is currently vegetated by non-
native shrubs and the shoreline is vegetated with native salt-tolerant vegetation. Construction work
is the minimum necessary to continue to protect the house and the shoreline from erosion. Because
the project will reinforce an eroding bank and be restored to pre-construction conditions,this
project achieves the no-net-loss requirement of the JCSMP.
During construction activities, best management practices will be utilized to protect the shoreline
environment with regard to siltation caused by exposed soils within the impacted buffer. Onsite
construction activities will be conducted during the summer months to reduce the chance of rain
events that could cause siltation into the downslope shoreline buffer and environment.Tides will
be considered to prevent work from impacting marine life.Best management practices for siltation
will include use of silt fences, hay bales, and other means to prevent movement of soil material in
the critical area during all phases of the construction process.
RESTORATION PLAN
In order to ensure a no-net-loss of ecological function, the project proposes to restore the 1,332
square foot area that will be temporarily disturbed while installing the logs (Figure 7).Of the
1,332 square feet,876 square feet of upland will be restored with native plantings, specified in
Table 1 and 456 square feet of estuarine vegetation will be replaced from its stockpile location,
which will be a distance sufficient to ensure protection.
Table 1. Summary of Upland Restoration Plantings
Species Common Name Spacing Size Number
Symphoricarpos
albus Snowberry 5 feet 1 gallon, potted 7
Rosa nutkana Nootka rose 5 feet 1 gallon, potted 7
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 6 June 4, 2018
Deschampsia
caespitosa Tufted Hairgrass 3 feet 1 gallon, potted 21
Calamagrostis
canadensis Bluejoint 3 feet 1 gallon, potted 22
Total 57
In addition to the restoration of the upland side, the estuarine vegetation will also be restored to
match pre-construction conditions. Prior to any work,the narrow strip of pickleweed (Salicornia
depressa) within the work area will be gently removed and placed aside to avoid impacting the
vegetation. Pickleweed should recover well once the work is completed and it is placed back into
the saltmarsh area.
FLOODPLAIN HABITAT AREA DESCRIPTION
STATE AND FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
Federally listed fish, bird, and mammals for Hood Canal and Jefferson County (WDFW 2015)
identified using the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS websites are presented in Table 1.
Table 2.State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat
Species, ESU1 or DPS2 State Status4 Federal
Status3
Critical Habitat5 in
Project Vicinity
Puget Sound ESU
Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha)Candidate Threatened Yes
Puget Sound DPS
Steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss)None Threatened Yes
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)Candidate Threatened Yes
Birds
Marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus)Threatened Threatened No
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus)Candidate Threatened No
Streaked Horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris strigata)Endangered Threatened No
Mammals
Southern Resident DPS
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)Endangered Endangered Yes
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)Endangered Endangered Yes
1)ESU -Evolutionarily Significant Unit. A distinct group of Pacific salmon.
2) DPS –Distinct Population Unit.
3) Endangered -In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated;Threatened -Likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and that has been formally listed as such in the Federal Register under the
Federal Endangered Species Act; Sensitive -Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state;
Species of Concern -An unofficial status, the species appears to be in jeopardy, but insufficient information to support listing.
State candidate species include fish and wildlife species that the Department will review for possible listing as State Endangered,
Threatened, or Sensitive. A species will be considered for designation as a State Candidate if sufficient evidence suggests that its
status may meet the listing criteria defined for State Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive.
4) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, PHS website
5) NOAA 2015
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 7 June 4, 2018
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority and Habitat and Species (PHS) website
(WDFW 2016)identifies the presence of the species and habitats listed in Table 3 within this
portion of Hood Canal.A narrow strip of estuarine wetland is identified on the shoreline of this
property.All of the other listed species occur far enough away that they will not be impacted by
onsite activities.
Table 3.Summary of Mapped Priority Habitats and Species
Common Name Species Name Occurrence Proximity to Project
Purple martin Progne subis Breeding Site >500 feet away
Pacific Sand Lance Ammodytes
hexapterus
Breeding Area Opposite side of
peninsula
Subtidal Hardshell Clam Presence Several thousand feet
offshore
Pacific Herring (Georgia
Basin DPS)
Clupea pallasi Regular
Concentration
Several thousand feet
offshore
Dungeness Crab Presence >500 feet offshore
Hardshell Clam Presence Several thousand feet
offshore
Geoduck Presence Several hundred feet
offshore
Estuarine and Marine Wetland Aquatic Habitat Several hundred feet
to north
Oyster Beds Presence Directly adjacent
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,WATER TYPING
The Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Application Review System
(FPARS) mapping website (WDNR 2016a)identifies Hood Canal as a Type S water because it is a
shoreline of the state. There are no freshwater habitats mapped near the property, however a Type
N stream was identified during the site visit to the south.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
The Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program (WDNR 2016b)
identifies seven species of rare plants in Jefferson County. The property for which this assessment
has been conducted is developed and maintained. No rare plants were identified during the field
visit within the floodplain area.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY,COASTAL ATLAS
The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology 2016b), Coastal Atlas Mapping tool indicates
that there is patchy salt and low marsh fringe on the landward side of the peninsula in this section
of Hood Canal (Figure 6).No other significant features were noted on the coastal atlas map. No
kelp or seaweed accumulations were noted in the wrack or dispersed on the beach during the
November 29, 2017 site visit.
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 8 June 4, 2018
JEFFERSON COUNTY CRITICAL AREA AND HABITAT MAPPING
The Jefferson County Critical Area Maps (JCCA) viewed through the on-line mapping website
was used to identify the presence of critical areas found within and along the shores of Hood Canal
(Jefferson County 2018).The only critical area mapped along this section of Hood Canal is the
FEMA 100-year floodplain unit within the bay of the peninsula (Figure 5).
The floodplain area extends from the beach and into the peninsula to below the mean higher high
water line (MHHW)(Figure 4). This portion of the floodplain is composed of dense residential
development dominated by homes, impervious pavement, and sparse ornamental vegetation. There
are areas of native trees on the slope to the south that overhanging the shoreline but are
intermingled with more residential development.
RESEARCH AND SITE INVESTIGATION
Fish and Whales
Hood Canal provides habitat for the listed fish and aquatic mammal species appearing on Table 2.
The cobble and sandy beach is vegetated primarily at the top of the slope and the wrack did not
contain any vegetation, seaweed, or eelgrass accumulations (Photoplate 8). There is minimal tree
canopy to provide additional shading over this section of the shoreline , confined to the south end of
the property. Therefore, the floodplain area of this section of shoreline provides little to the food
web for the listed species. The floodplain area lacks freshwater habitat and other features that
would be important in the life cycle of the listed species, except that it provides saltwater habitat
for the listed fish that utilize Hood Canal.
Birds
Research conducted for this project shows that the property is not within habitat or management
areas for marbled murrelet,streaked horned lark,and yellow-billed cuckoo (WDFW-PHS 2015;
USFWS 2015). The upland along this section of Hood Canal is developed with residential homes
within 100 feet of the shoreline. There are no habitat features or known habitat for the listed bird
species particularly within the mapped floodplain. The trees at the top of the bluff may be utilized
by local raptor species including bald eagles, but they are located outside the floodplain.
Plants
The Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program website (WDNR
2016b) lists seven rare plant species that occur within Jefferson County. None of the listed species
or suitable habitat was identified on the property during the November 2017 site visit.
HABITAT NARRATIVE
The habitat narrative includes a discussion of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) for the
species that appear on the endangered, threatened, and sensitive list for this area of Hood Canal as
they appear in the FEMA floodplain habitat assessment guidance (FEMA 2013). The PCEs
include those associated with fish and mammal species utilizing Hood Canal as part of their life
cycle as they would be the most likely species found in floodplain areas of saltwater shorelines.
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 9 June 4, 2018
Primary Constituent Elements
The primary constituent elements for the critical habitat of Hood Canal salmon and steelhead in or
adjacent to Hood Canal include:
Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate
supporting spawning incubation and larval development.
Freshwater rearing sites with:
o Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat
conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility,
o Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development,
o Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams, and
beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and
undercut banks.
Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with
o Water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult
physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater,
o Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation,
large rocks, and boulders, side channels,
o Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting
growth and maturation.
Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation:
o Water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates
and fishes, supporting growth and maturation,
o Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation,
large rocks and boulders, and side channels.
Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic
invertebrates and fishes supporting growth and maturation.
The onsite section of Hood Canal floodplain is composed of cobble and sandy beach at the toe of
concrete and riprap bulkheads. The bulkheads have no native vegetation and are bare to the beach,
which is also predominantly un-vegetated.The beach itself is composed of sand and contains a
narrow strip of vegetation with no larger rock so provides minimal protection or feeding areas for
the listed species.Only 4 small fir trees overhang the upper half of the south end of the beach so
there is minimal shading of habitat along the shoreline.The only available primary constituent
elements available on or adjacent to this property are the nearshore and offshore marine areas. The
nearshore area on this property does not have overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large
rocks and boulders, or side channels that would prove valuable to the listed fish species. However,
the sand and cobble of the beach is likely valuable as breeding areas for sand lance, pacific herring,
and surf smelt, particularly once the gravel and logs are installed.
Water Quality
Portions of Hood Canal appear on the list of 303(d) waters (DOE 2017a) and there are no
freshwater 303(d) waters that drain into Hood Canal within 1 mile of this property.
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 10 June 4, 2018
Water Quantity
The floodplain is mapped on the beach below the property and is composed of sand and cobble on
which minimal vegetation is growing. There are no inputs of freshwater from the upland in the
immediate area.One freshwater stream is noted several hundred feet to the south of the property.
Vegetation Communities and Habitat Structures
The shoreline along this section of Hood Canal is composed of cobble and sand that gradually
slopes down waterward from the toe of residential bulkheads.The bulkheads are entirely un-
vegetated with some ornamental landscaping vegetation occurring above the bulkheads in places.
The area landward of the bulkhead is comprised of impervious decks and patios or maintained
lawn.
Floodplain Refugia
There is little floodplain refugia on these properties. Driftwood along this section of Hood Canal is
primarily absent.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
DIRECT EFFECTS
Installation of logs and gravel is proposed near the mapped floodplain of Hood Canal.The
estuarine wetland will be temporarily impacted near the floodplain area so there will be no
permanent,direct effect on the listed plant or animal species and their habitat.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
There are minimal habitat features in the floodplain, and no potential for habitat formation on these
properties with the current level of surrounding development,so there will be no indirect effects to
primary constituent elements for listed plant or animal species.
INTERRELATED/INTERDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES
The project proposes to install soft-shore armoring one a developed lot within a developed section
of Hood Canal shoreline.The new armoring will serve to protect the foundation of the house from
further erosion. This property will be used in the same manner as current uses and will not result
in any impacts resulting from interrelated or interdependent activities.There will be no increase in
human activity in this section of shoreline because the current use will remain the same.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The proposed armoring is located on the landward side of the MHHW of a shoreline residential
property east of South Point Road and is in proximity to an area of mapped floodplain. Because all
impacts are temporary, the estuarine and upland impact areas will be restored,the armoring will
protect the foundation from erosive damage,and there is minimal floodplain habitat in the project
area, there will be no cumulative impacts to the floodplain area or habitat.
EFFECT DETERMINATION
Construction of the proposed soft-shore armoring will occur near the mapped floodplain on this
property on South Point Road. Excavation will occur from the upland to allow logs to be trenched
in and anchored at the OHWM.Beach nourishment gravel will be used to backfill the logs and
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 11 June 4, 2018
provide breeding habitat for listed species.Construction activities will not involve permanent
removal of any native riparian vegetation. Puget Sound Chinook ESU, Puget Sound Steelhead
DPS, and bull trout are designated as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and the critical
habitat is designated. These species utilize Hood Canal where it occurs on these properties, but
there will be no effect on the floodplain habitat or their use of the habitat because the impacts are
temporary and there are no primary constituent elements for these species within the floodplain
area. There are also no habitat areas for the listed birds and mammals within the mapped
floodplain. Therefore, this project is not likely to have any effect on the floodplain habitat of listed
species or critical habitat.The project will result in a no-net-loss of habitat and shoreline buffer
function due to the ecological lift provided by the proposed plantings.
MINIMIZATION AND CONSERVATION MEASURES
There are no specific minimization or conservation measures proposed for this project because it is
not likely to have direct, indirect, interdependent/interrelated, or cumulative effects to the mapped
floodplain habitat. Mitigation is not proposed for this project because there is no habitat present
for listed species within the mapped floodplain.
LIMITATIONS
The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted
professional consulting principles and practices.There are no other warranties, express or implied.
The services preformed were consistent with our agreement with our client.This report is prepared
solely for the use of our client and may not be used or relied upon by a third party for any purpose.
Any such use or reliance will be at such party’s risk.
The opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when
services were performed.ELS is not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental
standards, practices, or regulations after the date of this report.ELS does not warrant the accuracy
of supplemental information incorporated in this report that was supplied by others.
Michael Edwards –South Shore NNL Ecological Land Services, Inc
No-net-loss Assessment 12 June 4, 2018
REFERENCES
Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Maurermann, T.
Erickson, S.S. Cooke. 1992.Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness.Adolfson
Associates, Inc., Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington
Department of Ecology. Olympia. Pub. No. 92-10.
Cousins LEG, LHG, Robert F. Cousins P.E. Nina L. 2016.Re: Geologic Slope and Beach
Processes Reconnaissance Draft. December 2, 2016. Coastal Solution LLC. Bainbridge
Island, Washington.
Jefferson County Code.2017.Title 18 Shoreline Management Program.
Jefferson County Parcel Search, 2015.https://jeffcowa.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html
Accessed May 2018.
Sheldon, D. T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E.
Stockdale. March 2005.Wetlands in Washington State –Volume 1: A Synthesis of the
Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia,
WA.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Endangered Species Website.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. Website accessed May 2018.
Washington Department of Ecology.2014.Washington State Coastal Atlas
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/. Website accessed May 2018.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2016.Priority Habitats and Species PHS on the
Web.http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/. Website accessed May 2018.
FIGURES AND PHOTOPLATES
NOTE:
USGS topographic quadrangle map reproduced using
MAPTECH Inc., Terrain Navigator Pro software.
LOCATION MAP
WASHINGTON
47.8415° Latitude
-122.6852° Longitude
SITE
SITE
SCALE IN MILES
30150
SITE
5/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
4
1
P
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
j
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
\
c
o
u
n
t
y
-
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
2
6
3
9
-
e
d
w
a
r
d
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
s
o
u
t
h
p
o
i
n
t
n
n
l
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
_
N
N
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
5/
3
0
/
1
8
26
3
9
.
0
1
So
u
t
h
P
o
i
n
t
N
N
L
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
9 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
27
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
1E
,
W
.
M
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
LW
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
20
0
0
40
0
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
CAMAS
QUILCENE
QUEETS
NEAH BAY
CLALLAM BAY
5 542
542
209
LOPEZ
FRIDAY HARBOR
ORCAS
ANACORTES
LAKE
ROSS
ROCKPORT
BELLINGHAM
FERNDALE
LYNDENBLAINE
SEDRO WOOLLEY
MOUNT VERNON
OAK HARBOR
STANWOOD
DARRINGTON
ARLINGTON
EVERETT
MUKILTEO 9
MONROE
PORT
TOWNSEND
113 112
SEQUIM
ANGELES
PORT
101
FORKS
MORTON
KELSOLONGVIEW
HOQUIAM
ABERDEEN
MONTESANOOCEAN
SHORES
WESTPORT
RAYMOND
CENTRALIA
CHEHALIS
WINLOCK
CASTLE
ROCK
CATHLAMET
WOODLAND
5
12
12
6
5044
12
101
PACIFIC
BEACH
GRAYS
HARBOR
PACIFIC
LEWIS
COWLITZ
WAHKIAKUM
KALAMA
ELMA
5
BATTLE
GROUND
VANCOUVER NORTH BONNEVILLE
STEVENSON CARSON
MT. ST.
HELENS
MOSSYROCK RANDLE
PACKWOOD
EATONVILLE MT.
RAINIER
ROY
ORTING
BUCKLEY
ENUMCLAWPUYALLUP
DUPONT
TENINO
YELM
OLYMPIA
SHELTON
HOODSPORT
GIG
TACOMA
AUBURN
KENT NORTH BEND
SEATTLE
DUVALL
BOTHELL
SKYKOMISH
14
LA
CENTER
503
5
SKAMANIA
CLARK
MASON
KING
THURSTON
PIERCE
KITSAP
505
127
123
410161
101 3
3
18 90
2
WAY
101
101
ILWACO
OCEAN
PARK
LONG
BEACH
COPALIS
BEACH
JEFFERSON
CLALLAM
SNOHOMISH
SKAGIT
WHATCOM
ISLAND
SAN JUAN
AMANDA
PARK
SOUTH
BEND
KIRKLAND
REDMOND
BELLEVUE
HARBOR
FEDERAL
PORT
ORCHARD
BREMERTON
POULSBO
STEILACOOM
RIDGEFIELD
WASHOUGAL
So
u
t
h
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
Re
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
W
a
l
l
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
Upland
Forest
Stream
Type Ns
Hood CanalParking
Area
La
w
n
Block Wall
Rock Wall
Fir Trees
Community
Boat
Ramp
Estuarine Wetland
Category II
(75' Buffer)
NOTE(S):
1.Aerial from Google Earth™
2.Wetland and test plots located using handheld GPS with submeter accuracy.
LEGEND:
Site Boundary
Approx. Wetland Boundary
OHWM
150' OHWM Buffer
Top of Slope
Top of Slope (To Be Stabilized)
Stream with Flow Direction
5/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
4
1
P
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
j
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
\
c
o
u
n
t
y
-
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
2
6
3
9
-
e
d
w
a
r
d
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
s
o
u
t
h
p
o
i
n
t
n
n
l
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
_
N
N
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
SI
T
E
M
A
P
5/
3
0
/
1
8
26
3
9
.
0
1
So
u
t
h
P
o
i
n
t
N
N
L
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
9 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
27
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
1E
,
W
.
M
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
LW
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
40
80
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
5/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
4
1
P
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
j
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
\
c
o
u
n
t
y
-
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
2
6
3
9
-
e
d
w
a
r
d
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
s
o
u
t
h
p
o
i
n
t
n
n
l
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
_
N
N
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N S
W
E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Figure 3 SITE PLAN
5/
3
0
/
1
8
26
3
9
.
0
1
So
u
t
h
P
o
i
n
t
N
N
L
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
9 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
27N , Range 1E , W.M.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
County, WA
JL
L
LW
NO
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by Kitsap County at web address: https://jeffcowa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer
5/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
4
1
P
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
j
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
\
c
o
u
n
t
y
-
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
2
6
3
9
-
e
d
w
a
r
d
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
s
o
u
t
h
p
o
i
n
t
n
n
l
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
_
N
N
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
C
O
U
N
T
Y
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
A
R
E
A
S
M
A
P
5/
3
0
/
1
8
26
3
9
.
0
1
So
u
t
h
P
o
i
n
t
N
N
L
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
9 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
27
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
1E
,
W
.
M
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
LW
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
20
0
40
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
NOTE(S):
1.Map provided on-line by WA State Department of Ecology at web address:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/map.aspx
5/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
4
1
P
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
j
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
\
c
o
u
n
t
y
-
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
2
6
3
9
-
e
d
w
a
r
d
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
s
o
u
t
h
p
o
i
n
t
n
n
l
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
_
N
N
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
SITE
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
CO
A
S
T
A
L
A
T
L
A
S
M
A
P
5/
3
0
/
1
8
26
3
9
.
0
1
So
u
t
h
P
o
i
n
t
N
N
L
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
9 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
27
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
1E
,
W
.
M
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
LW
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
20
0
40
0
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
Salt Marsh
Fringe (patchy)
Low Marsh
Fringe (patchy)
5/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
4
1
P
M
\\
e
c
o
s
e
r
v
e
r
2
\
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
j
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
\
c
o
u
n
t
y
-
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
2
6
3
9
-
e
d
w
a
r
d
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
s
o
u
t
h
p
o
i
n
t
n
n
l
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
_
N
N
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N S
W
E
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Figure 6
CO
A
S
T
A
L
S
H
O
R
E
L
I
N
E
P
H
O
T
O
5/
3
0
/
1
8
26
3
9
.
0
1
So
u
t
h
P
o
i
n
t
N
N
L
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
9 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
27N , Range 1E , W.M.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
County, WA
JL
L
LW
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
60
0
0
12
0
0
0
NO
T
E
(
S
)
:
1.
Ma
p
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
n
-
l
i
n
e
b
y
W
A
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
a
t
w
e
b
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
ht
t
p
s
:
/
/
f
o
r
t
r
e
s
s
.
w
a
.
g
o
v
/
e
c
y
/
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
a
t
l
a
s
/
t
o
o
l
s
/
M
a
p
.
a
s
p
x
SI
T
E
LEGEND:
Temporary Impact Area
(1,332 sq.ft.)
Restoration of Salt Tolerant Vegetation
(456 sq.ft.)
Restoration of Upland Vegetation
(876 sq.ft.)
Total Restoration
(1,332 sq.ft.)
5/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
:
4
1
P
M
\\
E
C
O
S
E
R
V
E
R
2
\
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
\
E
L
S
\
W
A
\
j
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
\
c
o
u
n
t
y
-
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
2
6
3
9
-
e
d
w
a
r
d
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
s
o
u
t
h
p
o
i
n
t
n
n
l
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
-
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
2
6
3
9
.
0
1
_
N
N
L
.
d
w
g
Ja
c
k
N
S
W E
DA
T
E
:
DW
N
:
RE
Q
.
B
Y
:
PR
J
.
M
G
R
:
CH
K
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
RE
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
5/
3
0
/
1
8
26
3
9
.
0
1
So
u
t
h
P
o
i
n
t
N
N
L
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
9 ,
T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
27
N
,
R
a
n
g
e
1E
,
W
.
M
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
WA
JL
L
LW
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
20
40
11
5
7
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
0
A
Lo
n
g
v
i
e
w
,
W
A
9
8
6
3
2
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
3
6
0
)
5
7
8
-
1
3
7
1
Fa
x
:
(
3
6
0
)
4
1
4
-
9
3
0
5
ww
w
.
e
c
o
-
l
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:12/12/17
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR:LHW
PROJ.#:2639.01
Photoplate 1
Project Name:South Point
Road NNL
Client:Michael Edwards
Jefferson County, Washington
Photo 1 was taken from the
driveway as it leaves South Point
Road.The property slopes very
steeply from the road to the
shoreline.
Photo 3 was taken from the same
location as Photo 2 facing
northeast.It looks across the
level parking area toward the
shoreline.There are several fir
trees along the southern half of
the shoreline bank.
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 2 was taken from the
bottom of the driveway looking
north towards where Photo 1 was
taken.Retaining walls support
the driveway on both sides.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:12/12/17
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR:LHW
PROJ.#:2639.01
Photoplate 2
Project Name:South Point
Road NNL
Client:Michael Edwards
Jefferson County, Washington
Photo 4 was taken from the same
location as Photo 3 (Photoplate 1)
looking east.It looks towards the
southeast property corner and the
south stairs that access the beach.
Photo 6 was taken from
approximately the same location
as Photo 5 facing north.It looks
along the riprap portion of the
wall.There is a narrow terrace
between the wall and the
shoreline slope that is vegetated
by fir trees in this area.
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 5 was taken from the
corner of the driveway looking
down at the south stairs.There is
a wall between the house and the
shoreline slope along the length
of the property.The riprap
portion of the wall begins at the
southeast driveway corner.Salt-
tolerant vegetation begins on the
slope below the fir trees.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:12/12/17
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR:LHW
PROJ.#:2639.01
Photoplate 3
Project Name:South Point
Road NNL
Client:Michael Edwards
Jefferson County, Washington
Photo 7 was taken from the
southeast corner of the house
looking south.The wall
transitions in this area from riprap
to blocks.The vegetation on the
narrow terrace also transitions
from fir trees to sparse, non-
native shrubs.
Photo 9 was taken from the same
location as Photos 7 and 8 facing
north.It looks along the block
portion of the wall in front of the
house.The terrace is vegetated
with grass in this area.The
center stairs are visible in the
right background of the photo.
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 8 was taken from the same
location as Photo 7 looking west.
It shows the transition from rock
to block materials in the support
wall.Both walls are in good
condition.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:12/12/17
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR:LHW
PROJ.#:2639.01
Photoplate 4
Project Name:South Point
Road NNL
Client:Michael Edwards
Jefferson County, Washington
Photo 10 was taken from the
center stairs looking south.A
clump of non-native shrubs
vegetate the shoreline bank in
this area.
Photo 12 was taken from the
same location as Photos 10 and
11 facing north.It shows the
north half of the property and the
open portion of the shoreline
bank.
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 11 was taken from the
same location as Photo 10 looking
east.There is significant erosion
occurring beneath this shrub on
the shoreline bank.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:12/12/17
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR:LHW
PROJ.#:2639.01
Photoplate 5
Project Name:South Point
Road NNL
Client:Michael Edwards
Jefferson County, Washington
Photo 13 was taken from the
northeast corner of the house
looking west.It shows the north
stairs and the lawn as it
transitions to upland forest offsite
to the north.
Photo 15 was taken from the
same location as Photos 13 and
14 facing northeast.It shows the
transition from the level lawn to
the sloped bank vegetated with
salt-tolerant vegetation and the
sloping beach.Repair efforts
will extend to the north property
line.
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 14 was taken from the
same location as Photo 13 looking
north.A narrow footpath leads to
the community boat launch to the
north of the property.The fir tree
picture is just north of the lot.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:12/12/17
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR:LHW
PROJ.#:2639.01
Photoplate 6
Project Name:South Point
Road NNL
Client:Michael Edwards
Jefferson County, Washington
Photo 16 was taken from the
beach north of the property
looking south.It provides an
overview of the condition of the
north half of the beach.There is
beach grass growing near the top
of the shoreline slope and
pickleweed growing among and
between the beach grass and the
bare beach.
Photo 18 was taken from the
beach looking down at the
eroding cave under the shrubs
pictured in Photo 17.The hole
goes back several feet under the
shrubs roots and poses a threat to
the foundation of the house.
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 17 was taken from the
middle of the property looking
northwest.It looks toward the
area of shoreline bank that is
eroding due to tide activity.This
portion of the bank will be
stabilized with the installation of
overlapping anchored logs.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:12/12/17
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR:LHW
PROJ.#:2639.01
Photoplate 7
Project Name:South Point
Road NNL
Client:Michael Edwards
Jefferson County, Washington
Photo 19 was taken from the
middle of the property looking
northwest. It looks toward the
area of shoreline bank will be
stabilized with the installation of
overlapping anchored logs.
There will be no impact to
important shoreline vegetation
because the pickleweed will
easily revegetate post-
construction.
Photo 21 was taken from the
same location as Photos 19 and
20 looking south.It
demonstrates the transition from
sparse shrubs to dense trees along
the southern shoreline slope.The
strip of salt-tolerant vegetation
continues beyond the south
property line.
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 20 was taken from the
same location as Photo 19 looking
west.It shows the shrubs that are
rooted on the shoreline slope
between the house and the beach.
1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220A
Longview, WA 98632
(360) 578-1371
Fax: (360) 414-9305
DATE:12/12/17
DWN:LHW
PRJ. MGR:LHW
PROJ.#:2639.01
Photoplate 8
Project Name:South Point
Road NNL
Client:Michael Edwards
Jefferson County, Washington
Photo 22 was taken from the
south property line looking
northwest.The shoreline
stabilization project continues
south until slightly past the
transition from block wall to rock
wall.The fir trees appear to be
stabilizing the bank at the south
end of the property.
Photo 24 was taken from
approximately the same location
as Photos 22 and 23.It looks
down at a fir branch with
wracked debris due to high tides.
This evidence helped indicate the
ordinary high water mark
(OHWM).
Photo 2 is taken from the same
location as Photo 1 and looks north
along the trail. The area beyond
the maple tree on the right is a
historic clearing that is now
dominated by blackberry thickets.
Photo 23 was taken from the
same location as Photo 22 looking
west.It looks at the fir tree
branches which extend over the
beach and dissipate tidal action.
There was a significant amount of
seaweed and algae mixed into the
pickleweed and beach grass
during the site visit.
APPENDIX A
Wetland name or number:
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 1
RATING SUMMARY –Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #):Wetland A Date of site visit:11/29/17
Rated by:Laura Westervelt Trained by Ecology?X Yes No Date of training:3/2017
HGM Class used for rating:Estuarine Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y X N
NOTE:Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map:Google Earth
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics X_)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I –Total score =23 –27
Category II –Total score = 20 –22
Category III –Total score = 16 –19
Category IV –Total score =9 –15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
Score for eachfunctionbasedonthreeratings(order of ratingsisnotimportant)
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 =L,L,L
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
Wetland name or number:
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 2
Maps and figures required to answ er questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3,H 1.1,H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4,H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods)D 1.1,D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)D 2.2,D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3,D 5.3
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)D 3.1,D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1,H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)R 2.4
Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2,R 4.2
Width of unit vs.width of stream (can be added to another figure)R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2,R 2.3,R 5.2
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)R 3.2,R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1,L 4.1,H 1.1,H 1.4
Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure)L 2.2
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)L 3.1,L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of:To answer questions:Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1,H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense,rigid trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure)S 2.1,S 5.1
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge -including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)S 3.1,S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)S 3.3
Wetland name or number
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 3
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,youprobablyhave a unit with multiple HGM classes.In this case,identify which hydrologic criteria inquestions 1-7 apply,and go to Question 8.1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?NO –go to 2 YES –the wetland class is Tidal Fringe –go to 1.11.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO –Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES –Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your 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.Groundwaterandsurfacewaterrunoffare NOT sources of water to the unit.NO –go to 3 YES –The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland,use the form for Depressional wetlands.3.Does the entire wetland 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 anyplants 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 very gradual),The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional)and usually comes fromseeps.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 andshallowdepressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).5.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 thatstream or river,The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
Wetland name or number
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 4
NO –go to 6 YES –The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE:The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is notflooding6.Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to thesurface,at some time during the year?This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.NO –go to 7 YES –The wetland class is Depressional7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding?The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches.The unit seems to bemaintainedbyhighgroundwater in the area.The wetland may be ditched,but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO –go to 8 YES –The wetland class is Depressional8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses.For example,seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain,or a smallstreamwithin a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides.GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICHOFTHEHYDROLOGICREGIMESDESCRIBEDINQUESTIONS1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREASINTHEUNIT(make a rough sketch to help you decide).Use the following table to identify theappropriateclass to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored.
NOTE:Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated.If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope +Riverine Riverine
Slope +Depressional Depressional
Slope +Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional +Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional +Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine +Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland,or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland name or number
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 5
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland.Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
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=Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1.Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge,National Park,National Estuary Reserve,Natural Area
Preserve,State Park or Educational,Environmental,or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes =Category I No -Go to SC 1.2 Cat.I
SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
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 Spartina,see page 25)
At least ¾ 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
contiguous freshwater wetlands.Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.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 Wetlands of High
Conservation Value?Yes –Go to SC 2.2 No –Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2.Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes =Category I No =Not a WHCV
SC 2.3.Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
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 Value and listed it on
their website?Yes =Category I No =Not a WHCV
Cat.I
SC 3.0.Bogs
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 compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile?Yes –Go to SC 3.3 No –Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2.Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils,either peats or mucks,that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock,or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash,or that are floating on top 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,AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4?Yes =Is 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 that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep.If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present,the wetland is a bog.
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 under the canopy ?
Yes =Is a Category I bog No =Is not a bog
Cat.I
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland name or number
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 17
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 (dbh)exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes =Category I No =Not 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 to be measured near the bottom)
Yes –Go to SC 5.1 No =Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1.Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking,ditching,filling,cultivation,grazing),and has less
than 20%cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p.100).
At least ¾ 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/ac (4350 ft2)10 Yes =Category I No =Category II
Cat.I
Cat.II
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
Ocean Shores-Copalis:Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes –Go to SC 6.1 No =not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1.Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)?Yes =Category I 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
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
Cat I
Cat.II
Cat.III
Cat.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 UpdateRatingForm–Effective January 1,2015 18
Wetland name or number
This page left blank intentionally