Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Report (005)VILLAGE CENTER PORT LUDLOW WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT December 1, 2000 LOG ITEM # / PREPARED FOR: Olympic Property Group Attn: Jon Rose 70 Beaker Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 PrePared by: Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 1550 Woodridge Dr. SE Port Orchard, WA 98366 VILLAGE CENTER PORT LUDLOW WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT December 1, 2000 PREPARED FOR: Olympic Property Group Attn: Jon Rose 70 Beaker Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Prepared by: Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 1550 Woodridge Dr. SE Port Orchard, WA 98366 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation This report has been prepared by Applied Environmental Services, Inc. (AES) following the described methods and information available to the best of our knowledge at the time of the work. The information presented in this report reflects AES's best professional opinion regarding the subject property. The applicant is advised to contact all appropriate regulatory agencies (local, state, and federal) prior to design or construction of any development to obtain necessary permits and approvals. Wetland boundaries, classifications and discussions are based on our understanding of the lOcal, state, and federal regulations, and site conditions at the time of our work. The final wetland boundary determination and wetland classification is to be made or verified by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. Within the defined scope of our contract, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with standards acceptable in this profession at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, declared or implied, should be understood. Any alteration, deletion, or editing of this document without explicit written permission form Applied Environmental Services, Inc. is prohibited. Any other unauthorized use of this document is prohibited. This document is intended to be used in its entirety. If an excerpt is quoted or paraphrased, it must be properly referenced. Lisa Berntsen, PWS Sr. Environmental Scientist, President Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 12/1/00 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS · 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 LOCATION 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.3 SCOPE 1.4 PERFORMANCE AND GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION 2. METHODS 2.1 PAPER INVENTORY 2.2 FIELD DELINEATION 2.3 WETLAND EVALUATION 2.4 WETLAND PARAMETERS 2.4.1 HYDROPHYTIC PLANTS 2.4.2 HYDRIC SOILS 2.4.3 HYDROLOGY 3. RESULTS 3.1 PAPER INVENTORY 3.2 FIELD DELINEATION 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.2 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE HYDROLOGY 4.3 WETLAND FUNCTION 4.4 WETLAND VALUES 4.5 LUDLOW CREEK 4.6 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL 4.7 WETLAND AND CREEK BUFFER 5. CONCLUSION PAGE 4 4 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 18 18 20 21 22 23 23 24 FIGURES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. VICINITY MAP TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP SOIL SURVEY OF PIERCE COUNTY MAP SURVEYORS MAP AERIAL PHOTO OF PROJECT SITE SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE HYDROLOGY 3 5 6 7 8 13 19 TABLES 1. 2. DATA FORM - WETLAND A - VEGETATION UNIT 1 DATA FORM - REFERENCE AREA 14 16 REFERENCES APPENDICES Port Ludlow Villa e Center Wetland Delineatio___n_n 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 LOCATION Applied Environmental Services, Inc. (AES) was contracted by Olympic Property Group to perform a wetland delineation on approximately 23 acres located southwest of the village of Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow is just north of Port Ludlow Bay in Jefferson County, on the western shore of HoOd Canal (Figure 1). The project site is specifically located in Section 17, Township 28, and Range 1 East. Bordering the site to the south is Ludlow Creek, and Oak Bay Road borders the site to the north. The eastern border of the site consists of a portion of Ludlow Creek and the associated drainage areas. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This wetland delineation has been prepared in preparation of a plan for commercial development. 1.3 SCOPE The scope of this investigation was focused toward two specific goals. These were: A. Wetland Delineation: · identify any wetlands and associated boundaries within the subject property, · evaluate existing conditions regarding wetland function and value, · assess probable impacts to wetlands as a result of development, and · identify mitigation options that will minimize the impacts. B. Field Review of: · Ludlow Creek and the associated tributary stream · the riparian corridor · the ordinary high water marks (OHW) · the boundaries of the locations mentioned above. 1.4 PERFORMANCE AND GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION On July 10, 2000, AES scientists performed a formal wetland delineation and inspection of the creek OHW on the subject property. The region was not experiencing unusual or extreme hydrographic conditions during the time of the delineation. The study area is Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 1 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation sloping from topographic highs of over 130 feet on the northern boundary, down to less than 50 feet near Ludlow Creek on the southern boundary. The vegetation on site is mainly scrub-shrub in nature, although riverine habitat dominates the creek and its associated tributary. A forested canopy of western red cedar, western hemlock, big-leaf maple and red alder is found along Ludlow Creek to the south and its associated unnamed tributary to the west. The under story along the creek and tributary consists of salmonberry, salal and thimbleberry. The northern portion of the site is populated with a canopy of alders; salmonberry, lady fern, sword fern, and horsetail dominate the ground cover. The remainder of the project site has a canopy of alder, with an under story of salmonberry, elderberry, sword fern, and trailing blackberry. Existing in the center of the site is a mobile home park, with numerous power hook-ups. This park contains 41 locations for power hook-up and two access roads, one to the northeast and one to the southeast. The mobile home park is currently in use and constitutes the only form of development on the site. Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 2 12/1/00 T29N_ RIE T28N' · ; O7 ; 91 2O .:.: 22 SCALE** " S(':\ll' lq FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP VILLAGE CENTER WETLAND DELINEATION JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Apl)lied EnvironmentaI Services, Inc. 3 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation 2.0 METHODS 2.1 PAPER INVENTORY To prepare for the field delineation effort, a search of pertinent and applicable literature was conducted. The Washington State Department of Ecology (1989) recommends a thorough review of existing information regarding a particular site prior to conducting the fieldwork. Data sources that were reviewed for this wetland delineation included: the Port Ludlow topographic map (USGS 1994) (Figure 2), the Port Ludlow NWI map (USFWS 1973) (Figure 3), and the Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington (USDA, NRCS formerly SCS, 1979) (Figure 4). The surveyors map (Figure 5) was provided by Pope Resources. A wetland delineation was performed in 1991 by Raedeke Associates Scientific Consulting on the adjoining 770 acres for a proposed golf course that has since been built. This delineation report was provided to AES by Olympic Property Group, along with a biological assessment performed by Pentec Environmental in 2000 for the expansion of the Port Ludlow Marina. The Raedeke and Pentec reports provided by Olympic Property Group will be referenced throughout this report as the sources of much past research on and near the project site. 2.2 FIELD DELINEATION The delineation for this work effort followed the methods described for use in identifying and delineating wetlands as per the Washington State Identification and Delineation Manual (1997) which is consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The delineation methods used and the results given in this report are valid for both manuals. Wetland boundaries and soil pit locations were labeled by surveyor's tape in the field. All flags were sequentially numbered. Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 4 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation ii MILEJ ~ !~ I i :-.':7 - 't' O } o .,, SCALE 1:24000 1 I ~ o I '- 2:'_~_-.--:C-'--Z.~T-.-_-CC:LTTZT_-L_.-JZ-_ "~'_'7~Z_7~_.~_---~..---- i:-----:----->:-~?Z'-~---U--z-~-~- Id,.,) 0 I ti{X) 2(100 3~C~) ,lC00 50:0 60CO ?O~/0 r£[ 1 t :z'7_LZ}_ L.4_Z I '-'- LT_ ..... DxZ:.=z--zq'F-:-ZI~~.U.'---~_ --~---~t ....... ir - ~-~---'=-- -----=z--l' ..... I 5 0 I Klt.(jt.lEl ER t ::Z:-T' -- I~--~:I.--'l--~-~f ----I----T---- I.--~;-- }-7::---; ........ I MiLE FIGURE 2. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP S17, T28N, R1E PORT LUDLOW (USGS 1994) VILLAGE CENTER WETLAND DELINEATION JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 5 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation ., , · i.."x'.-' '-' .~' -~.-::' ~ .... :"" · ' V' '' .... '-. Fl .... : ' ~ ..... ~' ' ' ' '" I ':' ~ r'67T~.. £' :i, i -t: ',. :' , :,' ., .~. , ~. :.~ . _:., _ . , . .-> ",./ ,~ ,, .~- .... ,... :~ ~ I'; , :', :.:'~ ~'~ '- ',9;'-~"'". '-.. --..:-, 'A~POWHx 1.9, / · '. '.:,..i. -, I- N-' '-~ ,,c., '.~¥..,' ; · ':'..: '..(... u ~ /x.~h SCALE 1:24000 I I ~ o I MILE [ .... l--'-'~-] , ,~-------q - ~ ~ '---'-F i i, __ __1 ICCO 0 1000 2000 3000 4OCO 5OCO 6000 7CC0 FEEl t 5 0 I FIGURE 3. NWl MAP S17~ 28N, R1E PORT LUDLOW ( USFWS 1987) VILLAGE CENTER WETLAND DELINEATION JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 6 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation AID OrF . OeD · . ,. OrF . .'.' The Twins · ,~' · : · · SCALE 1:24 000 I I ? 0 I: -..'- '-'~-~-i--~-D-~LT.~-~L: -~---~-~:-l-'2'2 -----Z]:.~-~: ----- -D .-----::~. i' IC~;O O I t. IOO 2000 3(JO0 4005 50:0 6000 7OCO FEE; L_:-~'ZI.:'I'.:lS_Li .... l- '-i }----: '~'---:~-"-~t. 2'~-- --l:IR:'~--~----zt ..... [ ....-~-=-1 .... lk"'~.--] I ?, 0 } }',ILl::.![_ f El: I N,LE FIGURE 4. SOIL SURVEY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY (USDA, NRCS formerly SCS, 1979) VILLAGE CENTER WETLAND DELINEATION JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 7 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation 2.3 WETLAND EVALUATION Many references were used in conjunction with experience to complete the evaluation of wetland functions and values. Reference material is cited where appropriate throughout the text to justify and explain the results of this investigation. All delineated wetlands were categorized separately by both the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance and the Cowardin System (Cowardin et al. 1979). Values for wetlands involve a combination of social and biological attributes. Therefore, wetland values are discussed as to their relative availability or presence associated with any particular wetland. Often, many unknowns are associated with the evaluation of wetland value and individual property rights may interfere with societal values commonly characterized with wetland systems. 2.4 WETLAND PARAMETERS Wetlands are identified by the clear presence of three physical parameters. These are: hydrophytic plant species, hydric soils and positive hydrology. 2.4.1 Hydrophytic Plants Hydrophytic plants are species that generally prefer areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils sufficient to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present (Ecology 1997). The relative strength of an individual species preference for wetness determines the indicator status for that species. Wetland plant indicator status has been determined by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the summary of this information for this region is contained in Reed (1988) with a revision for the Pacific Northwest region (Reed et al. 1993). To meet the wetland criteria established in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) and the 1987 Federal manual, hydrophytic vegetation must exceed 50 percent of the total dominance measure for each stratum (tree, shrub, herb) present. When more than 50 percent of the dominant species in each vegetation unit have a wetland indicator status of obligate wet (OBL), facultative wet (FACW) or facultative (FAC), the vegetation unit meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. 2.4.2 Hydric Soils Hydric soils are soils that are saturated or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper layer (USDA, 1988). Prolonged anaerobic soil conditions lead to a chemically reducing environment. The chemical reduction of some soil components (e.g. iron and manganese oxides) leads to the development of soil Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 9 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation colors and other physical characteristics that are usually indicative of hydric soils (Ecology 1997). Hydric soils can be identified by the use of a color comparison chart. A commercial soils color chart is produced by Kollmorgen (1988) and commonly used by wetland scientists. Soil color is typically identified by hue, chroma and value. In writing, Munsell notation consists of hue, value and chroma with a space between the hue and the succeeding value number, and a diagonal between the value and chroma numbers. Hue describes the soil based on its relation to the spectral colors (red, yellow, green, blue, purple or a mixture of these colors), value describes the degree of lightness and the chroma indicates the strength or purity of the color. These terms reflect the variable amount of moisture, organics and overall composition of any given soil sample providing critical information on soil wetness, and degree of saturation and inundation (Kent 1994). In general, the lower the number for chroma and value, the more likely the soil sample is to be hydric. The color chart is also used to compare mapped soil types in the Soils Survey with field observations. 2.4.3 Hydrology Hydrology is defined as the presence of water. The term "wetland hydrology" encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Numerous factors (e.g. precipitation, topography, soil permeability, plant cover and human disturbance) influence the hydrology of an area (Ecology 1997). Hydrology is often the least exact of the parameters, and indicators of wetland hydrology are sometimes difficult to find in the field. This is especially prevalent when wetlands are delineated in the summer months when springs or seeps may not be apparent. Under these conditions, indicators of hydrology are used as positive identification. Indicators such as drainage patterns, sediment deposits, dried algae and water-stained leaves or bark are examples of hydrology. The presence of these (or other) indicators, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation confirm the presence of a wetland. Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 10 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 PAPER INVENTORY Figure 2 is an excerpt from the USGS topographic map. The subject property has been outlined to help identify the site location. Figure 3 is an excerpt from the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map and shows the location of existing hydrology on the site. Figure 4 is an excerpt from the Soils Survey of Jefferson County. Two soil types have been identified as present on the subject property. They are known as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and Everett gravelly sandy loam (Figure 4). Neither of the onsite soils are listed as hydric in the Hydric Soils of the State of Washington (USDA, 1988). The Alderwood type is moderately well drained and has moderately rapid permeability. Runoff is slow to medium and the hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate. The Everett soil type is somewhat excessively drained and has rapid permeability. Runoff is slow and the hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate. Neither of the two soil types present on the site are found in the Washington State Hydric Soils List. The 1991 Raedeke report and 2000 Pentec report were used to identify recent site conditions and uses, as well as past survey, delineation, and assessment efforts. 3.2 FIELD DELINEATION The subject property was investigated by a thorough field review of the topographic low areas. After wetlands in low areas were identified and delineated, transects through the remainder of the property were investigated for the presence of wetland indicators. Upon discovery of a wetland indicator, the process of confirming the presence of all three wetland parameters was completed. A wetland boundary determination was made upon positive confirmation of the three wetland parameters. Wetland boundaries were professionally surveyed by MacLearnsberry, Inc., Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Planners in 2000. AES has reviewed the surveyor's map provided by MacLearnsberry, Inc. and found it to be accurate with respect to the flags placed in the field. AES has verified the existence of a wetland on the northern boundary of the site along Oak Bay Road. Also, verified was an unnamed tributary of Ludlow Creek. AES has concluded that there is only one area with wetland characteristics present on the site. Figure 6 is an aerial photo of the site showing the location of the wetland to the north, Ludlow Creek to the south and the unnamed tributary to the west. Modified Ecology wetland data forms were completed as part of the field effort. These Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 11 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation forms are presented as Tables 1 and 2. Plant species (abundance and dominance), soil type, and hydrology indicators are shown on the forms. The OHW and additional assessment of the small associated seep wetland on Ludlow Creek was assessed in 1991 by Raedeke Associates Scientific Consulting. This was done as part of the Port Ludlow Golf Course Wetland Delineation. This area was surveyed by MacLearnsberry, Inc. in 1994 and was found to be unchanged. In July of 2000, AES re- assessed this area and verified its presence without modification (in respect to the existing map products). Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 12 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation Figure 6. Aerial Photo of Project Site (USGS 1994) Village Center Wetland Delineation Jefferson County, Washington Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 13 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation TABLE 1- DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ?ield Investigator(s): Lisa Berntsen & Wayne S. Wright ?rojectJSite: Village Center Applicant/Owner: Olympic Property Group Plant Community g/Name: Wetland A - Vegetation Unit #1 Date: July 10, 2000 County: Jefferson State: Washington Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? (If no, explain.) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? (If yes, explain.) VEGETATION Yes X No Yes __ No X **Shaded Areas Indicate Dominant Species In Each Stratum** Dominant Plant Species (Scientific and Common) Ind. Status % Cover Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 80% ~heck indicators that apply: ~ Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ~ Physiological/reproductive adaptations X Wetland plant database . Mowhological adaptations Technical literature X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Rationale: Eighty percent of the dominant vegetation is hydrophytic. SOILS Yes X No Series/phase: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Profile Description: Soil pit 1 Yes No X Mottle/gley/texture/depth 10 YR 2/1 down to 16" 10 YR 4/2 16" and deeper Damp, Positive Stain Test, Negative Smell Test Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 14 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation TABLE 1 - DATA FORM - continued Hydric soil indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed/Low Chroma X Matrix chroma <2 with mottles Mg or Fe Concretions High Organic Content (sandy soil) Organic Streaking (sandy soil) Hydric Soil List (national/local) ~ Other (Dampness) Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No ~ Rationale: Hydric soil colors with a positive stain test and presence of soil dampness indicates the presence of hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Current growing season? (If no, explain.) Depth of inundation: Depth to free water in soil pit: Depth to saturated soil: Check those that apply: Aerial photograph __ Stream, lake or gage data 0 inches 0 inches 0 inches Water-stained leaves: Yes ~ No X Oxidized root channels: Yes ~ No X Sediment deposits: Yes No X Drainage patterns: Yes X Other indicator(s): Yes__ No X (If yes, explain.) Water marks: Drift lines: FAC Neutral: Local soil survey: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Rationale: Appears to have seepage through the road from an adjacent wetland. WETLAND DETERMINATION Yes X No N/A = Not Applicable Yes No X Yes No X Yes No X Yes No X Yes. X No~ Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No ~ Rationale: All three parameters for this area have been met. Comments: The hydrology present in this wetland appears to be seepage from through the road. Table adopted from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (1996) Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 15 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation TABLE 2-DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Field Investigator(s): Lisa Berntsen & Wayne S. Wright Date: July 10, 2000 Project/Site: Village Center County: Jefferson Applicant/Owner: Olympic Property Group State: Washington Plant Community g/Name: Reference Area Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes X No ~ (If no, explain.) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes m No X (If yes, explain.) VEGETATION **Shaded Areas Indicate Dominant Species In Each Stratum** Dominant Plant Species (Scientific and Common) Ind. Status % Cover Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 40% Check indicators that apply: . Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ~ Physiological/reproductive adaptations X Wetland plant database ~ Mochological adaptations Technical literature X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ~ No X Rationale: Only forty percent of the dominant vegetation is hydrophytic. SOILS Series/phase: Everett gravelly sandy loam Is the soil on the hydfic soils list? Yes ~ No X ~ofile Description: Mottle/gley/texture/depth Soil pit 2 10 YR 2/2 down to 9 inches 10 YR 3/3 from 9 inches down Fairly Dry Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 16 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation TABLE 2 - DATA FORM - continued Hydric soil indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed/Low Chroma Matrix chroma <2 with mottles Mg or Fe Concretions High Organic Content (sandy soil) Organic Streaking (sandy soil) Hydric Soil List (national/local) Other Is the hydric soil criterion met? Rationale: No moisture present, and soil is not on hydric soils list. HYDROLOGY Yes No X Current growing season? (If no, explain.) Depth of inundation: Depth to free water in soil pit: Depth to saturated soil: Check those that apply: __ Aerial photograph __ Stream, lake or gage data 0 inches 0 inches 0 inches Yes No X N/A = Not Applicable Water-stained leaves: Yes .__ Oxidized root channels: Yes ~ Sediment deposits: Yes ~ Drainage patterns: Yes Other indicator(s): Yes ~ (If yes, explain.) No X No X No X No X No X Water marks: Drift lines: FAC Neutral: Local soil survey: Yes No X Yes No X Yes No X Yes No X Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Rationale: Hydrology was not present. Yes No X WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Yes No X Yes No X Yes No X Is the plant community a wetland? Yes __ No X Rationale: None of the wetland parameters have been met. Comments: Dry. Probably a seasonal runoff from upland, through a draw created by previous grading activities. Table adopted from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (1996) Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 17 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation 4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The onsite wetland area has formed in the northern edge of the property, along Oak Bay Road. It seems that the hydrology source is seepage from the established wetland on other side of the road. There was no culvert located within the prism of the road near wetland A. AES assumes the seepage is coming through the road. As identified by the Wetlands Rating Office Data Form (Appendix A) associated with the Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, the wetland present on site is categorized as class III. However, because the wetland is so small (855 sq. ft.) it is not subject to the standards in the wetlands section of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. The classification and designation of the wetlands can be seen in an excerpt form the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (Appendix B). The other two onsite areas identified as possibly containing wetlands, based upon topography from the 1994 MacLearnsberry, Inc. surveyor's map, are located on the southern portion of the site and the western boundary. The southern topographic draw was investigated by AES and was not characterized as a wetland, as it failed to meet all three of the wetland parameters. This location does however seem to be a seasonal runoff area. Topography suggests that the runoff sheet flows through a filled field from the upland portion of the site, through the draw area and then sheet flows again before dispersing into the ground. The western draw was investigated by AES and was found to exist as a type III unnamed tributary. 4.2 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE HYDROLOGY Hydrology for the wetland appears to originate as seepage from the other side of Oak Bay Road. Onsite hydrology predominantly sheet flows from north to south, and eventually into Ludlow Creek to the south or the unnamed tributary to the west. The flow of hydrology on site is illustrated in Figure 7. Soil permeability also influences the duration of inundation and soil saturation (i.e.: clayey soil absorbs water more slowly than sandy or loamy soil, therefore having slower permeability and a longer period of saturation). Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is moderately well drained and has moderately rapid permeability. Everett gravelly sandy loam is somewhat excessively drained and has rapid permeability. This results in shorter periods of saturation and minimal presence of ponding. Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 18 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation ,;"; '69 · . ~ FIGURE 7. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE HYDROLOGY VILLAGE CENTER WETLAND DELINEATION JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 19 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation 4.3 WETLAND FUNCTION Several researchers and wetland scientists have developed assessment methods for wetland functions (Reppert et al. 1979, Adamus 1983, Adamus et al. 1987). Physical characteristics, topography, flow, site, watershed location, vegetation, species use and adjacent land use are considered in these assessments. The result of each' of these efforts has shown, in practice, that professional judgment is very important in assessing wetland functions and care must be taken to eliminate as much bias as possible. Perhaps Ishinger (1992) describes wetland functions and their assessment best. "...Wetland function is a biological, chemical or physical attribute or process that occurs in wetlands as a result of geomorphic, topographic, physiographic and hydrologic position in the landscape. Many of these functions also occur in upland and aquatic ecosystems at different temporal and spacial rates or scales--others are unique to wetlands. Wetland functions are bounded by source and vector of water, geomorphic setting, hydrodynamics, and water chemistry .... Wetland functions are in dynamic equilibria with their watersheds subject to successional processes and catastrophic events such as floods, fire, or human activities. Wetland size, continuity, and contiguity to other wetland, upland, and aquatic ecosystems are important to functional performance at the basin, regional, and continental landscape levels..." There are six major functions for which wetlands are typically assessed. These are: · Water Quality Improvement Wetlands help maintain and improve water quality of rivers and other water bodies naturally by filtering out nutrients, waste, and sediment. · Storm and Flood Water Control Wetlands reduce the damaging effects of flood flows by temporarily storing flood waters, slowing flood velocities, and reducing peak flood flow. · Ground Water Recharge Wetlands provide ground water recharge through a complex system of geology, soils, and surface topography. Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 20 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation · Biological Support Wetlands provide productive systems used for nesting, spawning, rearing, and feeding for a variety of species. · Hydrologic Support Wetlands maintain the stability and integrity of the water system by providing a hydrologic connection to lakes or streams. · Shoreline Protection Wetland vegetation prevents severe erosion by reducing the impact of waves and current on the upland areas. The wetland existing on the project site performs functions in the form of storm water control and water quality improvement. Existing in close proximity to the road, this small wetland provides some water control for road runoff.~ As stated above, wetlands help maintain and improve water quality of rivers and other water bodies naturally by filtering out nutrients, waste, and sediment. However, because sheet flow exists across the entire site, the surface water from the wetland is not able to directly access the creek. 4.4 WETLAND VALUES Wetland values are determined from observations of ecological importance, wetland size and location, and the existing impacts associated with the wetland as a result of human presence. The value of wetlands depend upon perceptions and opinions of individuals and society as a whole. As with wetland function, much professional judgment and care must be taken to minimize bias from each independent assessment. Smardon (1988) has identified several socioeconomic values of wetlands that are useful in developing an overall understanding of wetland importance. These values are: · Aesthetic Sensory Experience The quality of the sensory experience in the landscape is related to a complex range of factors. Factors determining aesthetic value include: access to the wetland, spatial relationship to the vicinity, and the physical, biological, and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. Although the visual experience is stressed, other sensory experience is not discounted. · Recreational Quality Recreational experience in wetlands is partially determined by the type of wetland encountered. Factors which influence the recreational quality include: water flow Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 21 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation velocity, water depth, stream pattern complexity, wetland contiguity and size, physical access, water quality, and floral and faunal species. · Natural Heritage and Cultural Value Natural Heritage and Cultural Value applies to wetlands that have current historic and cultural significance, or have documented potential for future cultural, educational or scientific use. · Open Space Value Wetlands become open space in the landscape because of their wetness, soil conditions, and inaccessibility. They define or break up developed areas. Even if a wetland system is totally degraded from a biological or hydrologic aspect, it still has this value. Factors which determine the open space value include: size, location, proximity to other habitat areas, setting and access. The wetland currently existing on the site has little value with respect to the points mentioned above. The wetland is minimal in size and the hydrology appears to be present only as seepage. Due to these factors, the wetland is not aesthetically or recreationally valuable. It does not have current historic or cultural significance, and the potential for this site to have future cultural significance is minimal. Finally, due to the small size of the wetland, the area has little open space value. Although the wetland does perform some functions, its overall value in the community is low. 4.5 LUDLOW CREEK Existing on the southern boundary of the project site is Ludlow Creek, a type I stream. This creek is categorized as type I by the 1999 Washington Administrative Code (WAC 1999), found in Appendix C. Ludlow Creek is the largest subbasin within the Port Ludlow Bay watershed and contributes the greatest discharge of fresh water (FishPro 1993). Waterfalls that occur approximately 1,800 ft. upstream of the mouth of the creek serve as a migration barrier to anadromous salmonids. Fish usage of this lower section of Ludlow Creek is documented for coho (Oncorhyncus kisutch) and chum salmon (Oncorhyncus keta) as spawning and rearing habitat. Field surveys by Washington State Department of Fisheries (WDF; now WDFW) biologists were conducted in the lower 0.5 miles of Ludlow Creek during 1974, 1975, and 1984. Surveys indicated that both coho and chum salmon spawn in this section of the creek, although natural propagation of these species is limited by the short length of stream available (FishPro 1993). However, no salmonids were observed in Ludlow Creek during surveys conducted in 1984 and 1986 by WDF (Pentec Environmental 2000). Currently it is believed that no native runs Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 22 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation are present in the creek (Pentec Environmental 2000), although the opportunity for this to occur still exists if specific management practices are employed. Associated with Ludlow Creek is a type III unnamed tributary on the western boundary of the site. This tributary is categorized based on the 1999 Washington Administrative Code - Chapter 222-16-030 (WAC 1999). As stated earlier, water on the site either flows into Ludlow Creek or this associated tributary. Steep slopes are associated with the banks of both this tributary and Ludlow Creek itself. These slopes are considered to be landslide hazard areas based on the regulations in the 1999 Washington Administrative Code- Chapter 365-190-080 (WAC 1999), which can be seen in Appendix D. Due to the steep slope of the bank and the direction of hydrology flow on the site, the banks of both the creek and the associated tributary are considered landslide hazard areas. 4.6 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL This wetland delineation has been performed in conjunction with the proposal for commercial development on the subject property. Any development occurring on this site will result in some environmental change and increased human activity may reduce the overall habitat use of the property. An increase in impervious surfaces is expected to result from development. Storm water is a major force behind soil erosion in developed areas. Impermeable surfaces such as roads, rooftops, and parking lots cause more rain to run off at accelerated rates with the result that less water seeps into the soil (Leedy and Adams 1984). Increased runoff from the developed area may require adequate treatment to prevent decreases in water quality or changes in local hydrographic conditions. This is important on this project site as the hydrology eventually flows into Ludlow Creek on the southern boundary. 4.7 WETLAND AND CREEK BUFFER Literature indicates that buffers reduce wetland impacts by moderating effects of storm water runoff (erosion and water level fluctuations), filtering out pollutants, providing habitat, and reducing human impacts (blocking out noise and visual disturbances) (Castelle et al. 1992). Specific buffer requirements vary from state and local level, and the wetland present on the project site falls under Jefferson County jurisdiction. According to the Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, this wetland is categorized as class III. The buffer associated with a class III wetland has a minimum width of 50 feet established from the delineated wetland edge. However, the wetland is considered non-jurisdictional based on Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 23 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation regulations in the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (Section 6.30) because it is very small (less than 10,000 sq. feet). Therefore, the wetland in question is not subject to the standards set forth in the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System (Appendix A). There are no buffer requirements for non-jurisdictional wetlands. Ludlow Creek is identified as a type I stream in the 1999 WAC. The buffer requirement for this type of stream is 100 feet from the edge of the delineated area. Associated with Ludlow Creek is a type III tributary located on the western portion of the site. The required buffer associated with this type of tributary is 15 feet. However, buffer requirements are also associated with the landslide hazard areas on both Ludlow Creek and the drainage area. The buffer for these landslide hazard areas must be 30 feet from the top of the slope. Based on the regulations set forth in the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance - Section 10.507, the buffer to be maintained in an area is the buffer that is most restrictive. In the case of Ludlow Creek, the 100 foot buffer associated with a type I stream must be maintained. In the case of the associated tributary, the 30 foot buffer associated with landslide hazard areas must be maintained. 510 CONCLUSION ' , One wetland was delineated on the subject property. It was determined to be a class III wetland through the Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, but was found to be non-jurisdictional based on its small size. The function and value of the wetland was evaluated based on specific criteria. Although all wetlands perform important functions in the ecosystem, this wetland was found to be of minimal overall value in the community. The small size and source of hydrology are the major factors influencing the minimal value of the wetland. Two other areas on site were evaluated for wetland presence: a southern location and a western location. The southern area was found to be only a seasonal runoff zone between the upland region and Ludlow Creek. This area failed to meet any of the three wetland parameters. The western area was found to be a type III unnamed tributary of Ludlow Creek. The buffer to be maintained on this western location will be the 30 foot buffer associated with landslide hazard areas. This buffer starts from the top of the slope along the drainage. Appfied Environmental Services, Inc. 24 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation Ludlow Creek, a type I stream, is present as the southern border of the project site. Although salmonids did once inhabit this creek, it is believed that no such activity currently occurs in Ludlow Creek (Pentec Environmental 2000). The runoff from the project site sheet flows through a field and forest and eventually into Ludlow Creek, which contributes the greatest discharge of freshwater into Port Ludlow Bay. The buffer to the maintained on this creek is the 100 foot buffer required for a type I stream. Any development on this site will result in environmental change. Specific design plans need to be included in the construction to maintain the quality of the water entering Ludlow Creek. With proper storm water control in place, this site can be developed with minimal impact to the environment. Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 25 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation REFERENCES Adamus, Paul et al. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Techniques (WET) Volume II: Methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Adamus, P.R. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment. Volume II U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration Office of Research, Environmental Division. Washington, D.C., (No. FHWA-IP-82-24). Castelle, A.J. et al. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Adolfson Associates, Inc. Shorelands and Coastal Zone management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia Publication No.92-10. Cowardin et al. 1979. Classification of Wetland and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. Performed for Office of biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Viksburg, Miss. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (FICWD). 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. Cooperative Technical Publication. Washington, D.C. FishPro. 1993. Pope Resources fisheries resource assessment for the Port Ludlow development program. FishPro, Port Orchard, Washington. Ishinger, L.S. 1992. Proceedings form the 1992 14th Annual Meeting of Wetland Scientists. Society of Wetland Scientists. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. 1994. Jeffer.son County Board of Commissioners. Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 26 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation Kent, D.M. et al. 1994. Applied Wetlands Science and Technology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. Leedy, Daniel and Lowell Adams. 1978. Planning for Wildlife in Cities and Suburbs. Urban Wildlife Research Center, Inc., Elliott City, Maryland. MacLearnsberry, Inc. 1994. Land Survey Map for Port Ludlow Project Site. Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners. Bainbridge Island, Washington. Civil McCreary, F.R. 1975. Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington. Conservation Service. 100pp. USDA Soil Pentec Environmental. 2000. Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Biological Assessment. Edmonds, Washington. Reed, P.B. et al. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9), Washington, D.C. Reed, P.B. et al. 1993. Supplement List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9), May 1988, Washington, D.C. Reppert, R.T. et al. 1979. Wetland Values - concepts and methods for wetland evaluation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources Research Report 70-R1, Fort Belvoir, Virgina. Smardon, R.C. 1988. Aesthetic, recreational, landscape values of urban wetlands. Pages 92-96 in J. Kusler, editor. National Symposiums: Urban Wetlands. Berne, New York. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS formerly SCS) 1988. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology. inventories. Olympia, Washingotn. 1989. A guide to conducting wetland Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 27 12/1/00 Port Ludlow Village Center Wetland Delineation Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication #91-57. Olympia, Washington. Applied Environmental Services, Inc. 28 12/1/00 APPENDIX- A SECTION 6~ WETLAt~DS Subsections: 6.10 Introduction 6.20 Purpose 6.30 Classification/Designation 6.40 Applicability and Waivers 6.50 Protection Standards _6, -10 ..~Btroduction ~etlands in Jefferson County are charact, er.ized by hydric soils, water- tolerant plants (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation), and surfaces that are either saturated or inundated with water for a specified period of time during the growing season. A wetland positively impacts water quality and stormwater control by trapping and filtering surface and ground water. Wetlands also provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. Because of the difficulty in replacing these rare and valuable areas, these regulations control development within and adjacent to specific high quality wetlands. 6.2 O Purpose To protect the public from harm by preserving the functions of wetlands and streams as recharge for groundwater, flood storage, floodwater conveyance, habitat for fish and wildlife, sediment control, pollution control, surface water supply, and aquifer recharge. The purpose of this ordinance section is, however, subordinate 'to the overall purpose of this ordinance as stated in ~1.201. 6.30 classification/Desionation 6. 301 qlassification: For the purposes of this ordinance, wetlands shall be classified using the Washington State Department of Ecology's wet~od R~t~.nc_! system for Wester. n Washinqton, October, 199]. ed. .Q:.3_2QZ__pe..sj, at~.atio.n: As determined using the i.;ashington State Department of Ecology's Wetland I~ating System for Western Washington, October, 1991 ed., class I wetlands, class I! wetlands 2,500 square feet or larger in size and class III and IV wetlands 10,000 square feet or larger in size shall be subject to the standards of this section. APPENDIX- B ,, . Wetlands )Rating Office Data Form Background Information: . Name of Rater:~r:~r~o.~o'O ~_~~ Affiliation: ,A-ES., ~e... Date: Narnc of wetland (il' known): · Government Jurisd.iction ofwdla_nd: '~e~.xtc.r"sd,,,x. C~oum~ty .... - L. ocation: 1/4 S: or 1/4 S: __ SEC: I~ TWNSHP: ~8' RNGE: } E" SOUI~CES OF INFORMATION: (Check all sources that apply) Site visit: ~ USGS Tope Map: 2('.. N'WI map: ..... Aerial Photo: _ Soils survey:/~ · Other: ~ Describe: When office and/or field data forms are completed enter Category here' ANSWER ALL'QUESTIONS BEt.OW. If the source agency Data Catagory idenlilics the wetland ms satisfying any of thc questions below, Source (the circle the category in "CATEGORY" column, qualifies) Category i Questions A. ]s thc wetland in a Section and Subsection that has been docu- DNR - Yes: Next monied as a habitat that p. crforms a life support function for an)' StateNatural Question or Federally listed Threatened ~r Endangered plant or anim'A s?:.:cims'? Heritage; ~.o For tl~c purp. ascs ~f lifts rating sy.stcm, "documented" means th:2 and Question I) wctlvmd is on the appropriate state database. WDW NOTE: The rating of a v,,etltmd is incomplete in most cases wit.heat this documentation. B. Does the wetland contain individuals of Federal or State-listed DNP,.- Yes' Category Tlu'eatencd or End,gered plant species; OR NaturM No: 1Nc:s~t Does the v,'ctland contain documented occurences.of l'~eral Heritage' Question or state-listed Tl-u-eatened or Endangered wildlife and species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife? WDW C. 1)tk:s the wetland c~tain documented occurcnccs of State {~: WDV,'; Yes: Category Fcdcralty listed 'Threatened or Endangered fish species. OR r:~t'c.,~ WDF No: Next of fisl~, managed by thc Waslfington Department of Wildli[c Qucstit~n or thc Washington Department of Fisheries'? --- __ Wetlands Rating Office Data Form (continued) D. ls the wetland already on record with the Washington Natural DNR- Yes' Category I Heritage Program as a high quality native wetland? Natural (~dxt Hcrit a~c Question E. Does the wetland contain documented regionally significant WDW Yes: Category 1 waterfowl or shorebird concentration areas? ~Next Question F. Is thc wclland dc, cumcnlcd as a Calcg{)ry I Wetland o1' l.{~cal l.{<al Yes' (.:atcgt~ry 1 $ignilicanc¢'? £'}ovcrnmcnt ~cxt Question Category !1 Questions ,.. G. Is the wetland in a Township, Secdon and Subsection that has DNR- Yes: Next been documented as a habitat for any State listed Sensitive plant Natural .,,~estion Heritage ~ Go to or ardmal species'?. Program; Question K and WDW .. H. Doe, s thc v,,ctland conlain individuals of Stale-listed Scn.,,;itivc DNR Yes: Cat. II plant species'?. Natural N~.~' Ncxl Merit age Question I.Dc~cs the wetland contain dt)cumcnted occurenccs of Tcdcrally tlr WI)W Yes: Cat. Ii state-listed sensitive wildlife species'? Nc)' Next Question J Does the wet_land contain documented ~.x::curcnces el'state or V,'DF Yes: Cat. II federally listed Sensitive fish species'? V,'DW No' Next Question -- K. D¢cs thc wetland contain priority species or habitals documcr~ted V,,'I)W Yes: Cat. I1 by Y','~lSngton Dep;.ulmcnt of Wildlil'c's Priority Habitats and Sl-,ccics Program ? Qucslion .. Is Ih,.: wetland &)cumcntcd a.'-; a Catcgt~ry II Wetland of I.t~cal l.t~cal 'Yes: C;d. 11 Significance? GovcrnI'nCnt (~cxt , Question Category III Questions l',,l. Is the wetland documented ~ a Category III wetland of local L{)cal Yes: Cat. Ill sigaificance. = Government (~o to Rating Field Data Form Il Wetlands Rating Field Data Form Background Information: Name or Rater: ,_.~'~h.~ ~.,b,.~.er- Affiliation: ,,,4.E,q:,/ Date: Name of wetland (if known): Government Jurisdiction of wetland: I,ocati¢)n: I/4 Secdon:~ of 1/4 S: Section:_ ) 7 Township: Range:_/RT' Sources of Information: (Check all sources that apply) Site visit: _ ~ . USGS Topo Map: ·~ NWI map: Aerial Photo: ..... Soils survey: Other: Describe: When The Field Data form is complete enter Category here: Q.1. High Quality Natural Wetland Answer this question il' you have adequate inl'ormation tlr experience t(~ If not lind someone with the expertise to answer thc questions. Then, if iht answer to questions la, lb and lc are all NO, contact the Natural Heritage program of DNR. la. Human caused disturbances. Is there significant evidence of human-caused changes to topography {or hydrology of the wetland as indicated by any of the following conditions'? Consider only changes that may have taken place in the last 5 decades. The impacts of changes done earlier have probably been stabilized and the wetland ecosystem ,,,,,ill be close to reaching some new equilibrium that may represent a lfigh quality wetland. · Iai. Upstream watershed > 12% impervious. 12. Wetland is ditched and water flow is not obstructed. la3. Wedand has been graded, filled, logged. la4. Water in wetland is controlled by dikes, weirs, etc. la5. Wetland is grazed. 1 al. Other indicators of disturbance (list below) Circle Answers Yes: gl)t() (,3.2 Yes: go to Q.2 '-'Yes: go to Q.2 Ye.s: go to Q.2 Yes: go to Q.2 . : go to Q.2 go to lb. lb Are there populations of non-native plants which arc currently present, cover more than 10% of the wetland, and appear to be invading native populations9. Briefly describe any non-native plant populations and Information source(s): lc. Is there evidence of human-caused disturbances which have visibly degraded water quality. Evidence of the degradation of water quality include: direct (untreated) runoff from roads or parking lots; presence, or historic evidence, of waste dumps; oily sheens; the smell o[orgahic chemicals; or lifestock use. Briefly describe: YES: go to Q.2 t~ go to 1 c. (g~ go to Q.2 NO: Possible Cat. I contact DNR Q.2. Irreplaceable Ecological Functions: l)oes the wctl and: {3 have at lea.st 1/4 acre ol'{~rganic soils deeper than 16 inches and the wetland is relatively undisturbed; OR flit' the answer is NO because the wetland is disturbed briefly describe: Indicators of disturbance may include: - Wetland has been graded, filled, logged; - Organic soils on the surface are dried-out thc more than halt' of the year; - Wetland receives direct stormwater runoff from urban or agricultural areas.]; OR have a forested cia.ss greater than 1 acre; OR have characteristics of an estuarine system; OP. have eel gr~u;s. {~loating or non-floating kelp beds'? 2a. Bogs and Fens Are an)' of the tltree following conditions met for the ~ea of organic soil? 1. Are Sphagnum mosses a common ground cover (>3()%) and the co','sr of invasive species (see Table 3) is less than 10%? Is the area of sphagnum mosses and deep orgarSc soils > 1/2 acre'? Is th~ area of sphagnum mosses and deep organic soils 1/4-1/2 acre'? (o all: to Q.3) go YES go to 2a YES': Go to 2b YES: Gt~ to 2c YES' Go to 2d YES: Category YES: Category' NO: Go to-~2a.3 2a.2. Is there an area of orgarfic soil which has an cm,.r..ent class with at least one species from Table 2, and cover oI' invasivc species is < 10% (see Table Is the area of herbaceous plants and deep orgapJc soils > 1/2 acre'? Is the area ot' herbaceous plants and deep orgart!c s~fils 1/4-1/2 acre'! YES: Category I YES' Category II NO: Go to 2a.3 26 , Is the vegetation a mixture of only herbaceous planls and Sphagnum mosses with no scrub/shrub or forested classes'! Is the area of herbaceous plants, Sphagnum, and deep organ.lc soils > 1/2 acre? Is the area of herbaceous plants, Sphagnum, and deep organic soils 1/4-1/2 acre? Q.2b. Mature forested wetland. 2b. 1. Does 50% of the cover of upper fi)rest canopy consist of evergreen trees older than 80 years or deciduous trees older than 50 years'?. i Note: The size of trees is often not a measure of age, and size cannot be used as a surrogate for age (see guidance). 2b.2. Does 50% of' the cover of forest canopy consist of evergreen trees older than 50 years, AND is the structural diversity or' the lbrest high as characterized by an additional layer o1:' trees 20'-49' tall, shrubs 6' - 2()', tall, and a herbaceous groundcover? 2b.3. Does < 25% of the areal cover in the herbaccous/groundcover tlr the shrub layer consist o1" invasive./exotic plant species from the list on p. 19'! Q.2c. Estuarine wetlands. 2cl. Is the wetland listed as National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park, or Educational, Environmental or Scientific Reserves designated under WAC 332-30-1517 ..... 2c.2. Is the wetla_nd > 5 acres; ............................ Note: If an area contains patches of salt tolerant vegetation that are 1) less than 600 feet apart and that are separated by mudt'lats that go dry on a Mean Low Tide, or 2) separated by tidal channels that are less than 100 feet wide; all the vegetated areas are to be considered together in calculating the wetland area. or is the wetland 1-5 acres; .................... ' .................. or is thc ,,vctland < 1 acre? ....................................... YES: Category I · YES: Category II NO: Go to Q.3. YES: Category I NO: Go to 2b.2 YES: Go to 2b.3 NO: Go to Q.3 YES: Category 1 N(): Go to Q.3 YES: Category I NO: Go to 2c.2 YES: Category I YES: Go to 2c.3 YES: Go to 2c.4 2c.3. Does the wetland meet at least 3 of the following 4 criteria: ........ - minimum existing evidence of human relat~ disturbance such as diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, gra2.ing or the presence o1" non- native plant species (see guidance for definition); - surface water connection with tidal saltwater or tidal freshwater; - at least 75% of the wetland has a I(X')' buffer of ungrazed pasture, open water, shrub or forest; - hms at least 3 of the following features: low marsh; high marsh; tidal channels; lagoon(s);woody debris; or contiguous freshwater wetland. 2c.4. Does the wetland m~t all of the four criteria under 2c3. (above)?.. Q.2d. Eel Grass and Kelp Beds. 2d.1. Are eel grass beds pre.sent? .................................. 2d.2. Are there floating or non-floating kelp bed(s) present with greater than 509;, macro algal cover in thc month of August or September'! ......... Q.3. Category iV wetlands. 3a. Is the wetland: less than I acre gnd. hydrologically isolated _and, comprised of one vegetated class that is dominated (> 8()% ~'eal cover) by one species from Table 3 (page 19) or Table 4 (page 2() ) 3b. Is the wetland: less than two acres and, hydrologically isolated, with one vegetated class, and > 90% of' zeal cover is an:,' combination of species from Table 3 (page 19) 3c. Is the wetland excavated from upland ~ a pond smaltsr than 1 acre without a surface water connection to streams, lakes, rivers, or oilier wetland, and h,ms < (). 1 acre of vegetation. YES: Category I NO: Category II YES: Category II NO: Category IFI YES' Category-I NO: go to 2d.2 YES: Category I NO: Category II YES: Category IV oto 3b YES: Category IV (J~go to 3c YES: Category IV (oto Q.4 Significant habitat value. Answer all questions and enter data requested. 4a. Total wetland area Estimate area, select from choices in the near-right column, and score in thc far column' Enter acreage of wetland here:, acres, and source: Circle scores that qualify _~crcs V)int~ > 200 6 4()- 2(×). 5 1() - 40 4 5- I() 3 1-5 2 ().1 - I I <().1 ~ 4b. Wetland classes' Circle the weiland classes below that qualify: Open Water: if the area of open water is > 1/4 acre Aquatic Beds: if the area of aquatic beds > 1/4 acre, Emergent: if the area o[emergent class is > 1/4 acre, Scrub-Shrub: if the area of scrub-shrub class is > 1/4 acre, Forested: if area of forested class is > 1/4 acre, Add the number of wetland cla.sscs, above, that qualify, and then score according to the columns at right. e.g. II' there are 4 classes (aquatic bcd.';, open waler, emergent & scrub- shrub), you would circle 8 l:xfints in the far right column. classes '~ .0C.¢9 2 ....... 3 3 ....... 6 4 ....... 8 5 ....... 1() 4c. Plant species diversity. For each wetland class (at right) that qualifies in 4b above, count the number of dil'l'crcnt plant species you can find that cover more than 5% or the ground. You do not have to name them. Score in column at far right' e.g. It' a wetlafld has an aquadc bed class with 3 specie.s, an emergent class with 4 species and a scrub-shrub class with 2 species you would circle 2, 2, and 1 in thc t'ar column. Note: Any plap. t species with a cover of'> 59, ~ qualities for points within a class, even those that are not of that class. -. _Class Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub-Shrub Forested ~cics in class 1 2 3 >3 1 0 2-3 1 4-5 2 >5 3 I () 2 I 3-4 '~ >4 3 1 2 3-4 2 >4 3 29 4d. Structural diversity. If the wcdand has a forested da.ss, add 1 point ircach el'the following classes is present within thc forested class and is larucr than 114 acr~: -trccs> 50' tall ..................... YES - I -trees 20'.-49' taU, ................... YES - 1 -shrubs ............................. YES - 1 -herbaceous ground cover ............. YES - 1 Also add 1 point if there is any "open water" Or "aquatic bed" class mmediately next to the forested area (ie. there is no scrub/shrub or emergent vegetation between them). YES - l 4e. Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between High - $ wetland classes is high, moderate, low or none'?. If you think the. Moderate - 3 amount of interspersion falls in between the diagrams score accordingly Low - 1 (i.e. a moderately high amount of instcrspersion would ,~corc it 4, None while ;t modcnttcly low amount would scorc il 2) ,, , none low low -- mode rate mode rate high 4f. ttabitat features. An-~'.'.. CF questions below, circle fcamrcs tl~at apply, and score to right: Is ti~:~c cvidcncc, that thc open OF standing v,'atcr ,,,,'as caused by beavers YES = 2 Is a i';:FOn rookei7 located within 300'? YES-=- 1 Are rap:.or ncst/s located within 300'? YES =~ Arc ¢~,cre at least 3 standing dead trees (snags) per acre greater than 10" in di;~mctcr at "breast height" (DBt-I)'?. YES =(~ Ar,: ti:crc at least 3 downed logs per :icrc with a diameter > (:" t'o: :it least ¥-0' in length? YES .... (vegetated or unvcgctatcd) xvithi~x thc wetland that are AFC [,l~.f,.. areas t)o::J.:d t-or ::t least 4 months out of the year, and thc wetland has not clu:t'.il'~cd ;:s l~a,,'ing an open watcr class in Question 4b. ? YES = 2 4g. Connection to streams. (Score one answer only.) ' 4g.1. Does the wetland provide habitat for fish at any time of the year AND does it have a perennial surface water connection to a fish bearing stream. 4g.2 Does the wetland provide fish habitat seasonally AND does it have a seasonal surface water connection to a fish bearing stream. 4g.3 Does the wetland function to cxN)rt organic matter through a surl'acc water connection at all times of the year to a perennial stream. 4g.4 Does the wetland function to export organic matter through a surface water connection to a stream on a seasonal basis'.> 4h. Buffers. Score the existing buffers on a scale of 1-5 based on the following four dcscri'ptions. If the condition of the buffers do not exactly match the description, score either a point higher or lower depending on whether the buffers'are less or more degraded. Forest, scrub, native grassland or open water buffers are present Ibr more than lO()'around 95% of the circumference. Forest, scrub, native grassland, or open water buffers wider than 1(×)' for more than 1/2 of the wetland circumference, or a forest, scrub, grasslands, or open water buffers for more than 50' around 95% of the circumference. Forest, scrub, native grassland, or C~l",cn water buffers wider than' 1(×)' Ibr more than 1/4 of the wetlar~d circumference, or a forest, scrub, native grassland, or open water butTers wider than 5(1' for more than 1F2 t~f the v,'etland circumference. No ri)ads, buildings tlr paved areas within i(×)' of the wetland li~r m¢wc Illth 95% of the wetland circuml'crcncc. No roads, buildings or paved areas within 25' of the wetland for more thm~ 95% of the circumference, or No roads buildings or paved areas witkin 50' or' the wetland for more than 1/2 of the wetland circumference. Paved areas, industrial areas or residential construction (with less than 5()' between houses) are less than 25 fec't from the wetland for more than 95% of the circumference of the wetland. YES = 6 'YEs = 4 YES=4 YES =2 Score = 5 Score ~corc --- 2 Score = 2 Score = 1 Score = () 31 4i. Connection to olher h'ahltat areas: qelcci the de.%'ripli~n wldcl~ be.si matches lhe sile being evalualed. -Is the wetland connected to, or part of, a riparian corridor at lea.st 1(×)' wide connecting two or more wetlands; or, is there an upland connection present wide with good forest or shrub cover (>25% cover) connecting it with a Significant Habitat Area? YES = 5 - Is the wetland connected to any other Habitat Area with either 1) a fore.stecl/skr'ub corridor < 100' wide, or 2) a a corridor that is > ltD'wide, but has a low vegetative cover less than 6 feet in height.'? YES = 3 -Is the wetland connected to. or a part ol', a riparian corridor between 5{) - l{×r wide with scrub/shrub or forest cover connection to other wetlands? YES - Is thc wetland connected to any tither Habitat Area with narrow corrid<~r (<I(×)') ioflc,,v vegetation (< 6' in height)? YES = 1 - Is the wetland and its butTer (it' the bufl'er is less than 5I)' wide) completely isolated by development (urban, residential with a density greater than 2/acre. or industrial)? YES = , , Now add the scores circled (for O.Sa - O.5i above) to get a total. Is the Total greater than or equal to 22 points? YES = Category II · (JS~ Category III 32 APPENDIX - C. WAC 222-16-030 Water typing system. *The department in cooperation with the departments of fish and wildlife, and ecology, and in consultation with affected Indian tribes shall classify streams, lakes and ponds and prepare stream classification maps showing the location of Type 1, 2, 3 and 4 Waters within the various forested areas of the state. Such maps shall be available for public inspection at region offices of the department. The waters will be classified using the following criteria. If a dispute arises concerning a water type the department shall make available informal conferences, which shall include the departments of fish and wildlife, and ecology, and affected Indian tribes and those contesting the adopted water types. These conferences shall be established under procedures established in WAC 222-46-020. *(1) "Type 1 Water" means all waters, within their ordinary high-water mark, as inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, but not including those waters' associated wetlands as defined in chapter 90.58 RCW. *(2) "Type 2 Water" shall mean segments of natural waters which are not classified as Type 1 Water and have a high fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments of natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands, which: (a) Are diverted for domestic use by more than 100 residential or camping units or by a public accommodation facility licensed to serve more than 100 persons, where such diversion is determined by the department to be a valid appropriation of water and the only practical water source for such users. Such waters shall be considered to be Type 2 Water upstream from the point of such diversion for 1,500 feet or until the drainage area is reduced by 50 percent, whichever is less; (b) Are within a federal, state, local, or private campground having more than 30 camping units: Provided, That the water shall not be considered to enter a campground until it reaches the boundary of the park lands available for public use and comes within 100 feet of a camping unit, trail or other park improvement; (c) Are used by substantial numbers of anadromous or resident game fish for.spawning, rearing or migration. Waters having the following characteristics are presumed to have highly significant fish populations: (i) Stream segments having a defined channel 20 feet or greater in width between the ordinary high-water marks and having a gradient of less than 4 percent. (ii) Lakes, ponds, or impoundments having a surface area of 1 acre or greater at seasonal low water; or (d) Are used by salmonids for off-channel habitat. These areas are critical to the maintenance of optimum survival of juvenile salmonids. This habitat shall be identified based on the following criteria: (i) The site must be connected to a stream bearing salmonids and accessible during some period of the year; and (ii) The off-channel water must be accessible to juvenile salmonids through a drainage with less than a 5% gradient. *(3) "Type 3 Water" shall mean segments of natural waters which are not classified as Type 1 or 2 Water and have a moderate to slight fish, wildlife, and human use. These are segments of natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands which: (a) Are diverted for domestic use by more than 10 residential or camping units or by a public accommodation facility licensed to serve more than 10 persons, where such diversion is determined by the department to be a valid appropriation of water and the only practical water source for such users. Such waters shall be considered to be Type 3 Water upstream fi'om the point of such diversion for 1,500 feet or until the drainage area is reduced by 50 percent, whichever is less; (b) Are used by significant numbers of anadromous fish for spawning, rearing or migration. Waters having the following characteristics are presumed to have significant anadromous fish use: (i) Stream segments having a defined channel of 5 feet or greater in width between the ordinary high-water marks; and having a gradient of less than 12 percent and not upstream of a falls of more than 10 vertical feet. (ii) Ponds or impoundments having a surface area of less than 1 acre at seasonal low water and having an outlet to an anadromous fish stream. (c) Are used by significant numbers of resident game fish. Waters with the following characteristics are presumed to have significant resident game fish use: (i) Stream segments having a defined channel of 10 feet or greater in width between the ordinary high-water marks; and a summer low flow greater than 0.3 cubic feet per second; and a gradient of less than 12 percent. (ii) Ponds or impoundments having a surface area greater than 0.5 acre at seasonal low water; or (d) contribute significant Are highly significant for protection of downstream water quality. Tributaries which greater than 20 percent of the flow to a Type 1 or 2 Water are presumed to be for 1,500 feet from their confluence with the Type 1 or 2 Water or until their drainage area is less than 50 percent of their drainage area at the point of confluence, whichever is less. *(4) "Type 4 Water" classification shall be applied to segments of natural waters which are not classified as Type 1, 2 or 3, and for the purpose of protecting water quality downstream are classified as Type 4 Water upstream until the channel width becomes less than 2 feet in width between the ordinary high-water marks. Their significance lies in their influence on water quality downstream in Type 1, 2, and 3 Waters. These may be perennial or intermittent. *(5) "Type 5 Water" classification shall be applied to all natural waters not classified as Type 1, 2, 3 or 4; including streams with or without well-defined channels, areas of perennial or intermittent seepage, ponds, natural sinks and drainageways having short periods of spring or storm runoff. *(6) For purposes of this section: (a) "Residential unit" means a home, apartment, residential condominium unit or mobile home, serving as the principal place of residence. (b) "Camping unit" means an area intended and used for: (i) Overnight camping or picnicking by the public containing at least a fireplace, picnic table and access to water and sanitary facilities; or (ii) A permanent home or condominium unit or mobile home not qualifying as a "residential unit" because of part time occupancy. (c) "Resident game fish" means game fish as described in the Washington game code that spend their life cycle in fresh water. Steelhead, searun cutthroat and Dolly Varden trout are anadromous game fish and should not be confused with resident game fish. (d) "Public accommodation facility" means a business establishment open to and licensed to serve the public, such as a restaurant, tavern, motel or hotel. (e) "Natural waters" only excludes water conveyance systems which are artificially constructed and actively maintained for irrigation. (f) "Seasonal low flow" and "seasonal low water" mean the conditions of the 7-day, 2-year low water situation, as measured or estimated by accepted hydrologic techniques recognized by the department. (g) "Channel width and gradient" means a measurement over a representative section of at least 500 linear feet with at least 10 evenly spaced measurement points along the normal stream channel but excluding unusually wide areas of negligible gradient such as marshy or swampy areas, beaver ponds and impoundments. Channel gradient may be determined utilizing stream profiles plotted from United States geological survey topographic maps. (h) "Intermittent streams" means those segments of streams that normally go dry. [Statutory Authority: RCW 76.09.040 and chapter 34.05 RCW. 97-24-091, ss 222-16-030, filed 12/3/97, effective 1/3/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 76.09.040, 76.09.170 and chapter 34.05 RCW. 94-01-134, § 222-16-030, filed 12/20/93, effective 1/1/94. Statutory Authority: RCW 76.09.040, 76.09.050 and chapter 34.05 RCW. 92-15-011, § 222-16-030, filed 7/2/92, effective 8/2/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 76.09.040. 87-23-036 (Order 535), § 222-16-030, filed 11/16/87, effective 1/1/88; Order 263, § 222-16-030, filed 6/16/76.] APPENDIX- D WAC 365-190-080 Critical areas. (1) Wetlands. The wetlands of Washington state are fragile ecosystems which serve a number of important beneficial functions. Wetlands assist in the reduction of erosion, siltation, flooding, ground and surface water pollution, and provide wildlife, plant, and fisheries habitats. Wetlands destruction or impairment may result in increased public and private costs or property losses. In designating wetlands for' regulatory purposes, counties and cities shall use the definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030(22). Counties and cities are requested and encouraged to make their actions consistent with the intent and goals of "protection of wetlands," Executive Orders 89-10 and 90-04 as they exist on September 1, 1990. Additionally, counties and cities should consider wetlands protection guidance provided by the department of ecology including the model wetlands protection ordinance. (a) Counties and cities that do not now rate wetlands shall consider a wetlands rating system to reflect the relative function, value and uniqueness of wetlands in their jurisdictions. In developing wetlands rating systems, counties and cities should consider the following: (i) The Washington state four-tier wetlands rating system; (ii) Wetlands functions and values; (iii) Degree of sensitivity to disturbance; (iv) Rarity; and (v) Ability to compensate for destruction or degradation. If a county or city chooses to not use the state four-tier wetlands rating system, the rationale for that decision must be included in its next annual report to department of community development. (b) Counties and cities may use the National Wetlands Inventory as an information source for determining the approximate distribution and extent of wetlands. This inventory provides maps of wetland areas according to the definition of wetlands issued by the United States Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service, and its wetland boundaries should be delineated for regulation consistent with the wetlands definition in RCW 36.70A.030(22).. (c) Counties and cities should consider using the methodology in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, cooperatively produced by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, that was issued in January 1989, and regulatory guidance letter 90-7 issued by the United States Corps of Engineers on November 29, 1990, for regulatory delineations. (2) Aquifer recharge areas. Potable water is an essential life sustaining element. Much of Washington's drinking water comes from ground water supplies. Once ground water is contaminated it is difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to clean up. Preventing contamination is necessary to avoid exorbitant costs, hardships, and potential physical harm to people. The quality of ground water in an aquifer is inextricably linked to its recharge area. Few studies have been done on aquifers and their recharge areas in Washington state. In the cases in which aquifers and their recharge areas have been studied, affected counties and cities should use this information as the base for classifying and designating these areas. Where no specific studies have been done, counties and cities may use existing soil and surficial geologic information to determine where recharge areas are. To determine the threat to ground water quality, existing land use activities and their potential to lead to contamination should be evaluated. Counties and cities shall classify recharge areas for aquifers according to the vulnerability of the aquifer. Vulnerability is the combined effect of hydrogeological susceptibility to contamination and the contamination loading potential. High vulnerability is indicated by land uses that contribute contamination that may degrade ground water, and hydrogeologic conditions that facilitate degradation. Low vulnerability is indicated by land uses that do not contribute contaminants that will degrade ground water, and by hydrogeologic conditions that do not facilitate degradation. (a) To characterize hydrogeologic susceptibility of the recharge area to contamination, counties and cities may consider the following physical characteristics: (i) Depth to ground water; (ii) Aquifer properties such as hydraulic conductivity and gradients; (iii) Soil (texture, permeability, and contaminant attenuation properties); (iv) Characteristics of the vadose zone including permeability and attenuation properties; and (v) Other relevant factors. (b) The following may be considered to evaluate the contaminant loading potential: (i) General land use; (ii) Waste disposal sites; (iii) Agriculture activities; (iv) Well logs and water quality test results; and (v) Other information about the potential for contamination. (c) Classification strategy for recharge areas should be to maintain the quality of the ground water, with particular attention to recharge areas of high susceptibility. In recharge areas that are highly vulnerable, studies should be initiated to determine if ground water contamination has occurred. Classification of these areas should include consideration of the degree to which the aquifer is used as a potable water source, feasibility of protective measures to preclude further degradation, availability of treatment measures to maintain potability, and availability of alternative potable water sources. (d) Examples of areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, may include: (i) Sole source aquifer recharge areas designated pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. (ii) Areas established 'for special protection pursuant to a ground water management program, chapters 90.44, 90.48, and 90.54 RCW, and chapters 173-100 and 173-200 WAC. (iii) Areas designated for wellhead protection pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. (iv) Other areas meeting the definition of "areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water" in these guidelines. (3) Frequently flooded areas. Floodplains and other areas subject to flooding perform important hydrologic functions and may present a risk to persons and property. Classifications of frequently flooded areas should include, at a minimum, the 100-year floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Flood Insurance Program. Counties and cities should consider the following when designating and classifying frequently flooded areas: (a) Effects of flooding on human health and safety, and to public facilities and services; (b) Available documentation including federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and programs, local studies and maps, and federal flood insurance programs; (c) The future flow floodplain, defined as the channel of the stream and that portion of the adjoining floodplain that is necessary to contain and discharge the base flood flow at build out without any measurable increase in flood heights; (d) The potential effects of tsunami, high tides with strong winds, sea level rise resulting from global climate change, and greater surface runoff caused by increasing impervious surfaces. (4) Geologically hazardous areas. (a) Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible commercial, residential, or industrial development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Some geological hazards can be reduced or mitigated by engineering, design, or modified construction or mining practices so that risks to health and safety are acceptable. When technology cannot reduce risks to acceptable levels, building in geologically hazardous areas is best avoided. This distinction should be considered by counties and cities that do not now classify geological hazards as they develop their classification scheme. (a) Areas that are susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards shall be classified as a geologically hazardous area: (i) Erosion hazard; (ii) Landslide hazard; (iii) Seismic hazard; or (iv) Areas subject to other geological events such as coal mine hazards and volcanic hazards including: Mass wasting, debris flows, rockfalls, and differential settlement. (b) Counties and cities should classify geologically hazardous area as either: (i) Known or suspected risk; (ii) No risk; (iii) Risk unknown - data are not available to determine the presence or absence of a geological hazard. (c) Erosion hazard areas are at least those areas identified by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as having a "severe" rill and inter-rill erosion hazard. (d) Landslide hazard areas shall include areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include any areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Example of these may include, but are not limited to the following: (i) Areas of historic failures, such as: (A) Those areas delineated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as having a "severe" limitation for building site development; (B) Those areas mapped as class u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides) in the department of ecology coastal zone atlas; or (C) Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published as the United States Geological Survey or department of natural resources division of geology and earth resources. (ii) Areas with all three of the following characteristics: (A) Slopes steeper than fifteen percent; and (B) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock; and (C) Springs or ground water seepage; (iii) Areas that have shown movement during the holocene epoch (from ten thousand years ago to the present) or which are underlain or covered by mass wastage debris of that epoch; (iv) Slopes that are parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness (such as bedding planes, joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface materials; (v) Slopes having gradients steeper than eighty percent subject to rockfall during seismic shaking; (vi) Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action; (vii) Areas that show evidence of, or are at risk from snow avalanches; (viii) Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding; (ix) Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief. (e) Seismic hazard areas shall include areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of ! earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. One indicator of potential for future earthquake damage is a record of earthquake damage in the past. Ground shaking is the primary cause of earthquake damage in Washington. The strength of ground shaking is primarily affected by: (i) The magnitude of an earthquake; (ii) The distance from the source of an earthquake; (iii) The type of thickness of geologic materials at the surface; and (iv) The type of subsurface geologic structure. Settlement and soil liquefaction conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density, typically in association with a shallow ground water table. (f) Other geological events: (i) Volcanic hazard areas shall include areas subject to pyroclastic flows, lava flows, debris avalanche, inundation by debris flows, mudflows, or related flooding resulting from volcanic activity. (ii) Mine hazard areas are those areas underlain by, adjacent to, or affected by mine workings such as adits, gangways, tunnels, drifts, or air shafts. Factors which should be considered include: Proximity to development, depth from ground surface to the mine working, and geologic material. (5) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation means land management for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are not created. This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times, but it does mean cooperative and coordinated land use planning is critically important among counties and cities in a region. In some cases, intergovernmental cooperation and coordination may show that it is sufficient to assure that a species will usually be found in certain regions across the state. (a) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas include: (i) Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; (ii) Habitats and species of local importance; (iii) Commercial and recreational shellfish areas; (iv) Kelp and eelgrass beds; herring and smelt spawning areas; (v) Naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; (vi) Waters of the state; (vii) Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; or (viii) State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. (b) Counties and cities may consider the following when classifying and designating these areas: (i) Creating a system of fish and wildlife habitat with connections between larger habitat blocks and open spaces; (ii) Level of human activity in such areas including presence of roads and level of recreation type (passive or active recreation may be appropriate for certain areas and habitats); (iii) Protecting riparian ecosystems; (iv) Evaluating land uses surrounding ponds and fish and wildlife habitat areas that may negatively impact these areas; (v) Establishing buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the habitat areas; and (vi) Restoring of lost salmonid habitat. (c) Sources and methods (i) Counties and cities should classify seasonal ranges and habitat elements with which federal and state listed endangered, threatened and sensitive species have a primary association and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. (ii) Counties and cities should determine which habitats and species are of local importance. Habitats and species may be further classified in terms of their relative importance. Counties and cities may use information prepared by the Washington department of wildlife to classify and designate locally important habitats and species. Priority habitats and priority species are being identified by the department of wildlife for all lands in Washington state. While these priorities are those of the department, they and the data on which they are based may be considered by counties and cities. (iii) Shellfish areas. All .public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest shall be classified as critical areas. Counties and cities should consider both commercial and recreational shellfish areas. Counties and cities should at least consider the Washington department of health classification of commercial and recreational shellfish growing areas to determine the existing condition of these areas. Further consideration should be given to the vulnerability of these areas to contamination. Shellfish protection districts established pursuant to chapter 90.72 RCW shall be included in the classification of critical shellfish areas. (iv) Kelp and eelgrass beds; herring and smelt spawning areas. Counties and cities shall classify kelp and eelgrass beds, identified by department of natural resources aquatic lands division and the department of ecology. Though not an inclusive inventory, locations of kelp and eelgrass beds are compiled in the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas, Volumes 1 and 2. Herring and smelt spawning times and locations are outlined in WAC 220-110-240 through 220-110-260 and the Puget Sotmd Environmental Atlas. (v) Naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat. Naturally occurring ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farmponds, temporary construction ponds (of less than three years duration) and landscape amenities. However, naturally occurring ponds may include those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate conversion of ponds, if permitted by a regulatory authority. (vi) Waters of the state. Waters of the state are defined in Title 222 WAC, the forest practices rules and regulations. Counties and cities should use the 'classification system established in WAC 222-16-030 to classify waters of the state. Counties and cities may consider the following factors when classifying waters of the state as fish and wildlife habitats: (A) Species present which are endangered, threatened or sensitive, and other species of concern; (B) (C) Species present which are sensitive to habitat manipulation; Historic presence of species of local concern; (D) Existing surrounding land uses that are incompatible with salmonid habitat; (E) Presence and size of riparian ecosystems; (F) Existing water rights; and (G) The intermittent nature of some of the higher classes of waters of the state. (vii) Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish. This includes game fish planted in these water bodies under the auspices of a federal, state, local, or tribal program or which supports priority fish species as identified by the department of wildlife. (viii) State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. Natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas are defined, established, and managed by department of natural resources. [Statutory Authority: RCW 36.70A.050. 91-07-041, § 365-190-080, filed 3/15/91, effective 4/15/91 .]