The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWetland Delineation 801121001Crooked Shepherd LLC Wetland Delineation and Habitat Management Plan Prepared for: Tia Taylor 552 Embody Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 552 Embody Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Parcel 801121001 April 2019 Olympic Wetland Resources LLC 856 50th Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 360 385-6432 dixie@cablespeed.com Crooked Shepherd LLC Wetland Delineation and Habitat Management Plan April 2019 Table of Contents Introduction Project Proposal Site Description and Existing Conditions Methodology Background Information Wetland Delineation Findings Soils Vegetation Hydrology Habitat Management Plan and Wetland Analysis Categorization and Buffers Habitat and Species Assessment Watershed and Hydrologic Assessment Potential Impact of Proposed Development Limitations Summary References Appendix Figure 1 Location, Critical Area Map (Jefferson County), Soils Figure 2 Findings and Proposed Septic Location Figure 3 Photographs Figure 4 1 KM Polygon for Rating Form Applied Methodology for Wetland Delineation 2019 Wetland Rating Field Data Form Data Forms, Routine Determination, WA Wetland Rating System (DOE) Crooked Shepherd LLC Wetland Delineation and Habitat Management Plan Parcel 801 121 001 April 2019 Introduction JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD Olympic Wetland Resources, LLC has been authorized by Tia Taylor, Crooked Shepherd LLC to perform a Wetland Delineation and Habitat Management Plan (HMP) on the subject parcel at 552 Embody Road, Port Ludlow Washington. Field work was conducted on April 17, 2019 to determine the wetland boundary and rating of the wetland. The wetland boundaries are accurate within 5 feet as determined by topography, soils, and vegetation. Project Proposal A septic system and reserve area have been designed by Nathan Cleaver Septic Design Inc. (Permit # SEPT 18-00011, Oct 2017). Tia Taylor is working with Linda Atkins Jefferson County Environmental Public Health for approval of the septic design and with Kevin Hitchcock Department of Community Development (DCD, (CASE BLD 1800129, 2/21/2018)) for building plans associated with the new house under construction. Prior to final approval both the septic design and building plans require additional information. Site Description and Existing Conditions The parcel slopes gently towards Ludlow Creek (east) and associated wetland (east and north). The parcel is entirely composed of fenced pastures, pig pens, outbuildings, greenhouses, barns, and yurts. The single-family home under construction has been framed and roofed. The yurts, design for new septic, and new house are located upslope approximately 10 feet in elevation from Ludlow Creek and the bottom of Beaver Valley. • Legal Description: Parcel 801 12100 1, Section 12 Township 28N Range 1 W • WRIA 17 Sub Basin 2014 Ludlow, Zoned RR -20 • Soils: Se Semiahmoo muck, StB Swantown gravelly sandy loam, and KsD Kitsap gravelly loam • Location: 6.5 miles south of Chimacum intersection on Beaver Valley Road (HWY 19) • Slopes 0 to 8%, 9.989 acres, elevations 160' to 170' At the end of this report are the following: Figure 1 Location, Critical Areas, and Soils Figure 2 Findings and Proposed Septic Location Figure 3 Photographs Figure 4 1 KM Polygon for Rating Form. Methodology Due to the mapped wetlands throughout Beaver Valley and Ludlow Creek located on the subject parcel, this Wetland Delineation and HMP are required by Jefferson County Environmental Health and DCD as part of the permit application process. This assessment is prepared according to the current Unified Development Code, Chapter 18.22, Critical Areas (18.22.270, 18.22.330, 18.22.440 and 18.22.450). Crooked Shepherd LLC Wetland Delineation and HMP Report File 2019-0417 1 April 2019 The characteristics of an area that result in its classification as "wetland" have been formally defined by federal and state agencies. All wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional, Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (May 2010) Complete 'Methodology used"for this delineation and HMP are included at the end of this report. Background Information The following resources were consulted prior to field work for this project: • Jefferson County UDC Chapter 18 Critical Areas (updated on the internet, March 2019) • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat Species (PHS) • Aerial Photographs (Google Internet) • Soil Survey (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm) • Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997) • National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (2019 name update) Wetland Delineation Findings This delineation follows a dry winter with below average rain fall. Vegetation was dormant, and the temperatures were seasonally warm; air temperatures were 52° and soils temperatures 48° at 16" below the surface in a soil test pit. Determining a wetland edge is difficult in grazed agricultural pastures especially at the beginning of the growing season. The Jefferson County Critical Areas map indicates over 80 percent of the parcel is within a wetland, except for the western boundaries. NRCS soil maps indicate hydric soils (Se, Semiahmoo muck) on only the north eastern corner (Figure 1). The wetland edge was determined by examining soils, vegetation layers, and hydrology at each data point. The wetland boundary is defined by a slight drop in topography, change of vegetation, the presence of redoximorphic features in the soils, and the presence of hydrology both in the pit and ponding nearby. Findings reveal the wetland edge corresponds closely NRCS soil map indicating hydric soil (Se) boundaries and not the wetland edge indicated on Jefferson County Critical Areas wetland map. Once the wetland edge was established it was flagged at 20' to 30' intervals (Al- A4). The Findings Map (Figure 2) includes the property boundaries, existing buildings, proposed septic site location, delineated wetland edge, associated buffers, and data point locations overlaid on an aerial photograph (Google). Soils NRCS Soil Survey (intemet) lists all soils on the subject parcel as Se Semiahmoo muck (hydric) (37.9%), StB Swantown gravelly sandy loam (44.9%), and KsD Kitsap gravelly loam (17.2%). Findings were consistent with this soil description as observed in the 3 data point soil test pits and within Nathan Cleaver soil logs. The Soil matrix color in Data Point 1 (DP 1) was very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) with no redoximorphic features. Below 8" soils were greyish brown and sandy (I OYR 5/2) with faint redoximorphic streaking in the sandy layer (1 OYR 5/8). The soil pit had no water and minimal vegetation was present due to agricultural practices. Crooked Shepherd LLC Wetland Delineation and HMP Report File 2019-0417 2 April 2019 Data Point 2 (DP 2) was downslope near Ludlow Creek and consisted of hydric soils. The soil matrix color was black (Munsell l OYR 2/1). Below the surface 12 inches down in the pit a compressed silt ash layer (10YR 5/1) was observed. This soil test pit is within the wetland and immediately filled with water to within 8 inches of the surface. Ponding, surface saturation, and near surface water table were present and hydric vegetation including spirea, willow, soft rush, and reed canarygrass were dominant. Data Point 3 (DP 3) was 40 feet to the west and slightly upslope from DP 2. Soils in this test pit were dry and very dark brown (10YR 2/2). Soils below 10 inches were dark grey and sandy (10YR 4/ 1). All soils were dry and no redoximorphic indicators were observed. Vegetation This wetland delineation was conducted during spring when most pasture grasses were still dormant, and shrubs were just beginning to leaf. Herbaceous vegetation was identified by last year's growth or growth structure. Trees and shrubs were identified by familiarity of branching, bud formation, and residual leaves on the ground. The only trees or shrubs on this parcel are associated with Ludlow Creek. The remaining parcel consisted of buildings, greenhouses, bare soils (in pig pens), or grazed pastures. The dominant vegetation and percent cover are recorded on the Data Forms at the end of this report. Below is the list of vegetation identified during the April assessment and include the assigned indicator status of each species. Scientific Name Common name Status Layer Dactylis glomerata Orchard -grass FACU Grass Juncus gfiusus Soft rush FACW Rush Phalaris arundinacea Can s FACW Grass Rum= tris us Curly dock FAC Herb Salix scouleriana Scouler willow FAC Tree S iraea dou lasii Hardhack FACW Shrub Taraxacum o icinale Dandelion FACU Herb FACU Facultative Upland Species/ Non wetland FAC Facultative Species FACW Facultative Wetland Species OBL Obligate Wetland Species NI No Indicator Assigned National Wetland Plant List 2019 COE Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Hydrology Hydrology was only present at DP 2 occurring within 8" of the surface indicating a shallow water table. Ponding and soil saturation were near this test pit as seen in the photographs at the end of this report (Figure 3). Both DP 1 and 3 are slightly upslope from the bottom of the Beaver Valley and Ludlow Creek and contained no hydrology at 16 inches. The wetland was flagged between the upland/wetland Data Points 2 and 3. Ludlow Creek at Embody Road drains towards Port Ludlow Bay. Habitat Management Plan and Wetland Analysis Categorization and Buffers This wetland unit at 552 Embody Road falls between driveways and ditches that define the boundaries. The rating for this wetland unit received 19 points based the following: Improving Water Quality (6 points). Hydrologic Function (6) points, and Habitat (7 points) for a total of 19 points. Wetlands with a Crooked Shepherd LLC Wetland Delineation and HMP Report File 2019-0417 3 April 2019 rating of 19 points and 7 points for Habitat qualify as a Category III Wetland and have associated 110 foot buffers as highlighted in the table below. Buffers are measured perpendicular from the delineated edge. The proposed septic system/reserve and single-family residence are on a parcel larger than one acre and are defined as "moderate impact land- use". All development is outside of wetland buffers. The Wetland Rating Form is included in the Appendix at the end of this report. Table 18.22.330(2) WETLAND CATEGORIES, RATING SCORES AND BUFFER WIDTHS FOR MODERATE IMPACT LAND USES Moderate impact land uses shall include the following: • Single -Family residential use on parcels of one acre or larger; • Private roads or driveways serving three or more residential parcels; • Paved trails; • Passive recreation areas; • Utility corridors (private or public) with a maintenance road; • Habitat and Species Assessment Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species were evaluated within 1/3 of a mile of this parcel. All threatened or endangered plant or animal species were recorded and if possible surveyed during the April 2019 assessment. Many species of birds and wildlife have been documented to use this site. WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat Species (PHS) Common Name Scientific Name Coho O. kisutch Freshwater Forested Shrub/Wetland Resident Coastal Cutthroat O. clarkii Wetlands Watershed and Hydrologic Assessment This parcel drains toward Ludlow Creek and eventually into Port Ludlow Bay. Ludlow Creek is a Type "F" Fish Bearing Stream and requires 150' buffers (Table 18.22.270(1)). It is in the WRIA 17 Sub Basin 2014 Ludlow. The subject parcel rises slightly upslope to an elevation of 10 feet above the low areas of Beaver Valley. The building envelope will be located on the highest elevation of the site outside of the 110' wetland and 150' Ludlow Creek buffers. Figure 2 indicates both wetland and creek buffers. Crooked Shepherd LLC Wetland Delineation and HMP Report File 2019-0417 4 April 2019 Wetland Characteristics: Buffer Width with an Identified +An Additional Distance Wetland Category • Habitat (IT) Wetland from an Apparent Boundary Wetland Boundary • Water Quality (WQ) (Delineated) (Not Delineated) IV [Total of scores less than 15 40 feet +20 feet points] (Total of scores for all functions is less than 15 points) III [With H score 5 — 7 points] 110 feet +30 feet (Total of scores for all functions is 16 —19 [Not meeting above 60 feet Points) characteristic] Habitat and Species Assessment Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species were evaluated within 1/3 of a mile of this parcel. All threatened or endangered plant or animal species were recorded and if possible surveyed during the April 2019 assessment. Many species of birds and wildlife have been documented to use this site. WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat Species (PHS) Common Name Scientific Name Coho O. kisutch Freshwater Forested Shrub/Wetland Resident Coastal Cutthroat O. clarkii Wetlands Watershed and Hydrologic Assessment This parcel drains toward Ludlow Creek and eventually into Port Ludlow Bay. Ludlow Creek is a Type "F" Fish Bearing Stream and requires 150' buffers (Table 18.22.270(1)). It is in the WRIA 17 Sub Basin 2014 Ludlow. The subject parcel rises slightly upslope to an elevation of 10 feet above the low areas of Beaver Valley. The building envelope will be located on the highest elevation of the site outside of the 110' wetland and 150' Ludlow Creek buffers. Figure 2 indicates both wetland and creek buffers. Crooked Shepherd LLC Wetland Delineation and HMP Report File 2019-0417 4 April 2019 Potential Impacts of Proposed Development Short-term impacts during the septic installation and completion of the house will be minimized by careful construction practices. Quantities of excavated soils for the septic system and the final design for the single-family residence will be discussed in detail in the final plans. All other impacts and impervious surfaces will be addressed when the final plans are submitted. All construction will take place outside of delineated buffers and are over 150 feet from the waters of Ludlow Creek. There will be "No Net Loss" of any ecological functions during or after construction. The proposed building envelope consists of existing buildings and grazed pastures, no trees are present. Due to the gently sloping landscape there will be no potential for erosion or siltation entering Ludlow Creek or associated wetlands. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be followed during and after construction. There will be no alteration of surface water flows since the site is level, well drained and final contours will follow the original slopes in the landscape. Limitations The final authority over approval of this Wetland Delineation, Categorization and Fish Bearing Stream Buffer will be Jefferson County DCD and Department of Environmental Public Health. Final jurisdictional authority over wetland, shoreline, and buffer determinations rests with the local, state and federal agencies. If there are further questions or planning requirements for this project, please do not hesitate to call. Summary Olympic Wetland Resources, LLC conducted a wetland delineation, rating, and Habitat Management Plan for Tia Taylor, Crooked Shepherd LLC on the subject parcel at 552 Embody Road, Port Ludlow Washington on April 17, 2019. The proposed project includes the installation of a septic system (Permit # SEPT18-00011, Oct 2017) and the permitting and completion of a single-family residence, (CASE BLD 1800129, February 2018) currently under construction. Tia Taylor is working with Jefferson County Environmental Public Health to finalize septic design and DCD for building plan approval. Findings from this report include a Category III wetland with 110 foot buffers and a Type "F" Fish Bearing Stream with 150 foot buffers. The building envelope is over 150 feet from Ludlow Creek and outside all wetland buffers as indicated on the findings map (Figure 2) at the end of this report. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be followed during and after construction to insure "No Net Loss" of ecological functions or impacts to wetlands or waters of Ludlow Creek. Respectfully Submitted, Dixie Llewellin dixie@cablespeed.com Principal Biologist, Olympic Wetland Resources, LLC Certified for Wetland Delineation, WTI Certified for Wetland Rating and Soil Analysis DOE, 2007, 2012, 2014 Crooked Shepherd LLC Wetland Delineation and HMP Report File 2019-0417 5 April 2019 References 2019 Buckingham, et al., 1995. Flora of the Olympic Peninsula. Northwest Interpretive Association and the Washington Native Plant Society, Seattle, Wash. Cooke, Sarah Spear, 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Wash. Cowardin, L.M.V. Carter, F.C.Goblet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetland and Deep Water Habitats of the U.S. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Hitchcock and Cronquist, 1973, Second Addition2018 update. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Jefferson County Unified Development Code. Critical Areas, Shoreline Master Program 2014. MacBeth, Div. of Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., 1992. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Pojar, Mackinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Reed, Porter, 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands, Region 9 WMVC. Updated 2017/2019. Washington State Department of Ecology, April 2004. Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, January 2015. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Pub 14-06-029 and as updated on internet. Washington State Department of Ecology, October 2016. Determining OHWM for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Pub 16-06-029). U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1987. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Corps of Engineers, 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps Engineer Wetland Delineating Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0 and as updated). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1975. Soil Survey of Jefferson County. Web sites: Fish and Wildlife Service, NWI, http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs,ov/wtinds/launch.htmi National Resource Conservation Service, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/ann/ Priority Habitat and Species https://wdfw.wa.gov/mappingiphs/ ■ Title: Location, Critical Areas, and Soils Sc*: Fgure Oy"picWetlandResources Crooked Shepherd LLC As Indicated 552 Embody Road Date. 5 SW Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Po0r send,wA98368 NO38HO che"t Tia Taylor April 2019 1 dxleQablwpW.cwm 552 Embody Road Job f: Port Ludlow, WA 98365 2019-0417 U, 7 Parcel 801 121 001 S12 T28N R1 W crani �..M Mapped Critical Areas Green is Wetland Jefferson Coeaty Aegis, WasiNngton (WA621) leffferson County Area, Washington � (WA631) Map INR Map unit Nanta Acres Percent of eb� Syasl In AOI AOI KSD Kltsop gravelly 2.0 17.2% loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes. Se Semlahmoo 4.4 37.9% muck St$ Swantown 5.2 44.9% gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Totals for Area of 11.7 100.0% Interest Parcel 801 121 001 S 12 T28N R 1 W Single Family Residence vara romts V (Under Construction) 100 feet v Tide: Findings and Proposed Septic Location Scale: Fgure a OtympicWe&mdR%wrces Crooked Shepherd LLC 552 Embody Road As Indicated -- — - f �1, 856 5ft Street Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Date: i 2 Pat Townsend, WA 989138 - April 2019 9so � 2 dixie@c adespeed.00m C W: Tia Taylor 552 Embody Road Job it. ll Port Ludlow, WA 98365 2019-0417 Parcel 801 121 001 S 12 T28N R 1 W Single Family Residence vara romts V (Under Construction) 100 feet v Parcel 801 121 001 S12 T28N R1 W Ditch on South Property Boundary Behind Yurt Wetland on Adjacent Parcel Title: Photographs Scale: Figure Ol mpic Wedand Resouns Crooked Shepherd LLC As Indicated 552 Embody Road W5MSc4ee<Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Date: Post Townsend, WA 98368 360 385-6432 — Client Tia Taylor 3 Apri12019 di4e@raMespeed.com 552 Embody Road Job #: Port Ludlow, WA 98365 2019-0417 Parcel 801 121 001 S12 T28N R1 W Ditch on South Property Boundary Behind Yurt Wetland on Adjacent Parcel Scale: Fgure As Indicated I Date: 4 April 2019 Job #: J 2019- 0417 Parcel 801 121 001 S12 T28N R1 W Undisturbed U —15% Low Intensity Land Use L (open or agricultural land) —75% Moderate Intensity Land Use M (less than one dwelling unit/acre) —10% High Intensity Land Use H (more than one dwelling unit/acre) NONE Title: 1 KM Polygon for Rating Form Olympic Wetland Resources ` Crooked Shepherd LLC 552 Embody Road 85650thhShut Port Townsend, WA 98368 Part Ludlow, WA 98365 -- - - 36038&6432 Client, -pia Taylor dWe@cablespeed.com 552 Embody Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Scale: Fgure As Indicated I Date: 4 April 2019 Job #: J 2019- 0417 Parcel 801 121 001 S12 T28N R1 W Undisturbed U —15% Low Intensity Land Use L (open or agricultural land) —75% Moderate Intensity Land Use M (less than one dwelling unit/acre) —10% High Intensity Land Use H (more than one dwelling unit/acre) NONE Applied Methodology for Wetland Delineation 2019 The characteristics of an area that result in its classification as `wetland" have been formally defined by federal and state agencies. All wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (May 2010). The wetland delineation report will include how the wetland boundary was determined and include a map of the delineated wetland, data sheets, and descriptions of site characteristics in both upland and wetland. The methodology outlined in the Corps Manual is based upon three essential characteristics of wetlands: (1) hydrophytic vegetation; (2) hydric soils; and (3) wetland hydrology. Field indicators of these three characteristics must all be present to determine that an area is a wetland (unless problem areas or atypical situations are encountered). All wetlands identified using this methodology may be regulated regardless of size. Determining Wetland Edges Wetland edges were determined by establishing pairs of data points. In general, the wetland edge falls between the sampling plot with all three positive wetland requirements and where one or all of the requirements were not present. Other difficult situations encountered in identifying wetlands are described in greater detail in the Corps Regional Supplement. Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation decisions are based on communities of species that tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during the growing season. Vegetation sampling will follow the guidance outlined in the Corps Manual. Several methods can be applied; however, one method includes recording vegetation of a sampling point to determine if more than 50% of the dominant species have a wetland indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC. Dominance of plant species is determined by calculating actual aerial cover within an appropriate radius for trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species at each data point. Commonly occurring plant species have been rated by the U.S. Army Corps of Enineers Notional We Plant List &WPJ. 2014 COE Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast. During the fieldwork, each species was recorded and given a rating based on indicator status and percent cover. The 2014 NWPL will be used in any wetland delineations or determinations performed after May 1, 2014. Key to Wetland Indicator Status codes — Northwest Region (Source: USFWS, 1988, 1993): OBL Oblilale: species that almost always occur in wetlands under natural conditions (est. probability >99%). FACW Facultative wetland: species that usually occur in wetlands (est. probability 67 to 99%), but are occasionally found in non -wetlands. FAC facultative: species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non -wetlands (est. probability 34 to 66%). FACU Facultative upland: species that usually occur in non -wetlands (est. probability 67 to 99%), but are occasionally found in wetlands. UPL Upland: species that almost always occur in non -wetlands under normal conditions (est. probability >99%). NL Not listed: species that are not listed by USFWS (1988, 1993) and are presumed to be upland species. NI No indicator: species for which insufficient information is available to determine status, or which were not evaluated by USFWS. Hydrophytic Soil A hydric soil is a soil that forms under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding lasting long enough during the growing season to result in an anaerobic upper layer (USDA-NRCS 1995). Hydric soils favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, has compiled lists of hydric soils. It is common, however, for a map unit of non -wetland (non -hydric) soil to have inclusions of hydric soil, and vice versa. Therefore, field examination of soil conditions is important to determine if hydric soil conditions exist. In general, anaerobic conditions create certain characteristics in hydric soils, collectively known as "redoximorphic features" and include low chroma, depletions, gleying, sulfidic material (rotten egg odor) and/or high organic content within the soil immediately below the A -horizon. Holes were dug on the site and soil colors were described by texture, color name, value, and chroma (Munsell Color 2000). Soils were categorized in accordance with NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils of the United States (Version 7.0, 2010 with updates). This manual further defines organic soils, sandy soils, loamy and clayey soils with a numeric value. Wetland Hydrology Water must be present in order for wetlands to exist; however, it need not be present throughout the entire year. The standard requires 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, or ponding or a water table 12" or less below the soil surface during the growing season. The growing season has begun when two or more different non -evergreen vascular plants are identified. Indicators of hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to, ponded water, drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, historic records, water -stained leaves, cracking of the soil surface, oxidized root channels, and/or sediment deposits. The Regional Supplements provide methods for evaluating situations in wetlands that periodically lack indicators of wetland hydrology but where hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation are present. Categorization Wetland categorization is determined using the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Wetland Rating System Revised (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, Effective January 2015 and as amended), according to type and category of wetland. The wetland is assigned a score of High, Medium, or Low for wetland values; including water quality function, hydrologic function, and habitat function. The total rating determines the category of wetland. Wetlands are rated as entire systems and quite often exceed project boundaries. Ratings range from Category I to Category IV. Buffers are assigned according to intensity of land use for specific parcel size using final numeric scores. Category I indicates wetlands with the highest quality of function for improving water quality, preventing flooding problems, and providing habitat. These are not replaceable and therefore receive the largest buffer and highest protection. Classification Two classification systems are commonly used to describe wetlands. The hydrogeomorphic (HGM) system describes wetlands in terms of their position in the landscape and the movement of water in the wetland (Brinson, 1993). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979) describes wetlands in terms of their vegetation communities; for example, emergent (PEM), scrub - (PSS) shrub, and forested (PFO) community types. Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): 55;Z---0VVVPA F=P 5VDate of site visit:. l 1-7 1 ZO Icr Rated by !=UJ Trained gy Ecology? /-Yes —No Date of train ML" 4- HGM Class used for ratings ["DSIJ°tC Wetland has muitiple HGM classes?_Y � N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested ( ores can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map JJEE 60 aw-5 Lg �f/4 R -C-5 MAP OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions_ or special characteristics_) 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 Hydrologic Water Quality Habitat Circle the op ropriate ratings Site Potential H L H L L H L L Landscape Potential H M L Value H M H L H M L 'Score Based on Ratings CQ I II III IV None of the above TOTAL 1q, 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine 1 lI 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 Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings Is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4= M,L,L 3 = LLL Wetland name or number DEP RESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). ' points = 3 1 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. If there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 points = 2 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points =1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points =1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface [or duff laverl Is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 (� D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of oerslenTplants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > X of area points = 3 I Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/lo of area points = 0 D 1.4. Charactgri,$t1gs of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that Is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 q - Area seasonally ponded Is > % total area of wetland points = 2 ' Area seasonally ponded is < Y, total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quallty function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 f D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes =1 No = 0 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes -1 No = 0 ' D 2.4. Are there other sources f pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes =1 No = 0 1 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above If there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:y3 or 4 = H _1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to socia ? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that Is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 v D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 No = 0 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES If there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above [� Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H _1= M = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page M h fl - Wetland name or number DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 I Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes =1 No = 0 D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above �. D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 1 Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 Q D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods- Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage In thewatershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H _46-11= M _0-5 - L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes =1 No = 0 I D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland In land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes =1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above �. Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 e H -1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the -site valuable to Society? D 6.1. The unit Is in a landscape that has floodlnA problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the hi "hst Icorer than one condi n is me t. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient Into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that Is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points =1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Q Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is:_24 = H 'n�- 1 = M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page M M Al Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined far each class to meet the threshold of '. ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 A Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 G}f- V. Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points =1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or X ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Jt Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 _Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 J�'Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland _Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland _Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 W. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed conorygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 0 .> None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number H I.S. Special habitat features: H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). 12! meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) _Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) >'/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon _Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered points = 2 where wood is exposed) 10-19% of 1 km Polygon 7' At least X ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present In areas that are Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) .{ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. strata) Total for H 1 Add the points In the boxes above I :�::Td Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H ?7-14 = M _0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). 12! meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 Calculate: 15 % undisturbed habitat+ [(% moderate and low Intensity land uses)/2]'4L= 57 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) If total accessible habitat is: — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) >'/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: ( 'a % undisturbed habitat7�+ ((% moderate and low Intensity land uses)/2]_�Z= % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points =1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points In the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M _< 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. 12! meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an Important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points =1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is::4,2 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 m H WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/She; spa Em iz o P-1 Lyji:. 6 City/County: Sampling Date:(� r Appllcamtlowner: i A 0.1 S ft LQ LSlate: - �� Sampling Print: 17�� investigator(s): D. ��!` A 0WvZ _ Section, Township, Range: 12 Landform (lrlalope, terrace, ate.):r� w -fib AJA- Local relief (concave. convex. none): 6Y1 L- _ Slope Subregion (LRR): ► It , V &L ('J CZA7 Lat: Long: Datum: Sall Map Unit Name: _ti'Z1 _ 5 qA7MP11 W.14 j4-{ I i) LD -601-1 NWI class ficatlon: Aro Glmatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yeses No (If rx1, explain In Remarks.) Aro Vegetation At2Sofl 6 , or Hydrology significanily disturbed? Are'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No,," Aro Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydroplyok Vegetation Present? Yes No Tree Stratum (Plot size: ] 1. AkJ('-- Hydre Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Arae Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Watland? Yes No Remarks: AGr %12 ( C r/L % k 'I� L f; eTL P f C7 j VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Amry Corps of Engineers Weslem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Absolute Dominent Indicator Dominance Test worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: ] 1. AkJ('-- % Cover Sondes? Status Number of Dominant Species That Aro GBL, FACW, kir FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across AN Strata: 4. Peroenl of Dominant Species ■ Toil Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB) SanHno/Shruta Stratum (Plot size: I Prevalence index workshaat: - - 2. Total % Cover of: MuItMN by; 3. QBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x3- = Total Cover FACU species x 4 Herb Stratum (Plot size: ] UPL species x 5 = 1, 6k ufJ-k\ /,,am V r A r Column Talars: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indlcstom: 4• _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophylic Vegetation 6. _ 2 - Dominance Test Is >60% a. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' T• _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Welland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicakxs of hydric soll and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problemstk, = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation V = Total Cover Present? Yes No ✓� % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum US Amry Corps of Engineers Weslem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 SOIL Semolina Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth matrix RWox Features Ilnchesl r m i Cotor fmois()% Tyne Texture Remarks _12!;_ f +2 / UJ - _#. li3fo`� S�0 'T C -Concentration, D=De telhM, RM■Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coaled Sand Grains. kocation: PL -Pore Lining, MxMatrix. Hydro !loll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solt : _ Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 crrl Muds (Al 0) _ Htedc Eplpedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S8) _ Red Parent Material (72) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F7) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) — Redox Dark Surface (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophyllc vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) _ Depleted Dark Surface (177) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Deproaslorta (Flt) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): _ Water Marks (B1) Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric boil Present? Yes No Remarks* PA -TA -ftil"F A&"5 F la -o<_ HYDROLOGY Wetxsnd Hydrology Indicators: of one reguimall that a D121YJIndicatorsmorej _ Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,41A, and 40) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ Soft Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposita (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow AquNard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (CB) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (138) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D8) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present? Yes No - Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (Inches): Prowl? Saturation Pre? Yes No Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NoI>e iWudes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region PProject/Sits:L- � � �!7 Citylcounty Sampting Date: - r 7 1 ,40lcP Applsa8nV0wne : State: tA//t Sampling Point: Inveedgator(s): i(.?-- Section, Township. Range: M LW Landform (tdIIslope, terrace, eta.): _ 1?W [Ytq6f WAt Local relief (concave, convex, none):—I��iVv� Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lai: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: S e S L aQ4gwI V p' m ocu— NWI classftWon: Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the *Re typical for this time of year? Yes ,_2�=- No (B no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vepelation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are *Normal Circumstances' present? Yes Y, No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hyddc Soil Present? Yes No Is the trampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: v/P54" & TRS I - v o L,� CLOA- e - VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: 7 (Plot size: ��Number 5 of Dortdnant Spades That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Spades Across All Skate: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Spades That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB) Total Cover �liri4[St]L1Iti� 1. rafum (Plot size: 1 �J fCy�f - J—= Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total MunioN bv: 08L spades x 1 - FACW species x 2 - 3. 4 5. FAC species .3. Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 UPL species x 5 = 1. - -A* Cokxnn Totals: (A) (B) 3. Prevalence Index a B/A e Hydrophytic Vagefatlon Indicators: 4. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. _ 2 - Dominance Test Is >50% 6. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 7. _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting a. data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) g. _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must . Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Y�n@.Stratum (Plot size: I. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation , Present? Yes_„ No m Total Cover _ 96 Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks 1:>P * 2- ,��i vY�- I.tI� (� ��t� tld g cpm ray _D" f FUS LS - 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Pjirngry Indicato i' t Depth malrix Redoxfeatures ,;•Surface Water (At) (inches) Colorfmoistl % �` Type, LOCI_ _Texture R�marics ;High Water Table (A2) 0-k dD I tcb 100 Iy% _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (810) — Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De lellon. RM -Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coaled Sand Grains. 'Location: PL -Pore Lining. M■Metrix. _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric Boll Indicators: (Applkable to all LRRs, unless othervAse noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils". _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0) _ Hbslosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 on Muck (Al 0) _- Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Hlstic Epipedon (A2) — Stripped Matrix (616) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F8) 'Indicators of hydrophytk vegetation and _ Sandy Murky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetlard hydrology rpt be Pint, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _, Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problemalle. Restrictive layer (If present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soll Present? Yes, No Remarks: HYDROLOGY vvetland Hydrology Indicators: Pjirngry Indicato i' t l I ~Secondsf i rm r �r ,;•Surface Water (At) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, ;High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (810) — Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0) _ Geomorphic Position (132) _ Algal Mat or Crust (1134) _- Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquilard (133) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (107) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): h1 'moi s -t3 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 8 NAL Saturation Present? Yes Na Depth (inches): 5096il-C Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No uces indca Ila e Describe Reeerded Dais (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos. previous inspections), If available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers'�Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: /County: Sampling Date: 7 I� Appllcant/Owner: C State: 61A Samlpking Polnt: � lnvasligator(s);}7 Section, Township, Range: 5 11z T- 2-!k 12- 1 W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): D l; S t V-j8ZAaL, Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope Subreglon (LRR): Lot Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: P\ Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the alta typlcal for this time of ear? Yes No (If no, explain In Remarks.) Aro Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Aro "Normal Circumstances" present? Yea iC No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ' Dominant fndfcator Hydric Soil Present? Yes Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No ' No 7— Is the Sampled Ana within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: r -)P *, 3 1M 4-0. G 17P ► C u�� ^\Ar-) do-F,�>(p e- � o 5 VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Amry Corps of Engineers Wbatern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2,0 Absolute Dominant fndfcator Dominance Test worksheet: TreeStratum (Plot size: ] % Cover Status Number of Dominant Species 1. AV •n f.t r,- That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant 2. 3. Spades Across Ail Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) (Plot size: f Prevolence Index workstwat: 1 l ❑ & Total % Cover of. MultiRly bv: 2 - OBL species x 1 - 3. FACW spades x 2 = FAC species X3. FACU species x4 - 4 -Herb 4. 5. Total Cover Herb 5 lum (Plot size: ] UPL species x 5 S 1. rj I[j Column Totals. (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A x 2. TAf .;z --x I.lari'i bPp i Ci N& -t- If Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators-, 3. t? -L_1) fn i at n ao V2 4 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vagetatlon 5. _ 2 - Dominance Test Is >50% g• _ 3 - Prevalence Index Is s3.0' 7• _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting a• data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g, _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10, _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover WaDdv Vine Strali m (Plot eiZe: 1 1 • Hydrophytic Vegatatlon Present? Yes No 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum Remarks: M09T P457v(-G 6/LA4SGtl& WtV,6� <!WAZ-60 ANO 000 L -p NCTr 5P-- /n �rr4�-akb US Amry Corps of Engineers Wbatern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2,0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conflrm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redgx Lts (Inchesl % Calor (moist) % Tvoe _Lac_ Texture 82wa tt§ 6-oCandan(_Indiotq!j (Z Pr. (T„}.gm MuiredI _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _ Water-Stalned Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 'Type; CwConoentralion DaDe ietion. RM -Reduced Malk, CSwCovered or Coated Sand Grains. 20caiion: PL=Pore Unimr M=Matrix, HydrM Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric nolle : _ Hlstosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muds (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (72) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mudry Mineral (F7) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Metric (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F6) unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer (If present): _ FAC-Neulral Test (D5) Type: Depth FHydiicil (Inches): Present? Yes NoY Remarks: IVY - -A-5 A _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indlest4►a ("Mmum of Qne,mgyl!jd: check all that aADly) 6-oCandan(_Indiotq!j (Z Pr. (T„}.gm MuiredI _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _ Water-Stalned Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 48) 4A, and 45) _ Saturation (A3) _ Safi Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Met or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (133) _ Iron Deposits (135) ` Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Sona (C6) _ FAC-Neulral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ` Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (Incites): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Includes ce Ila Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring weii, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available: Remarks: US Amry Corps of Engineers Ir� Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0