Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PRE2020-00009 Wetland Report
J U N 18 2020 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY Pf ' 6F CoM 3UNIT1f OEM' White Lotus Wetland Delineation Report Nklay 5, 2020 Prepared for: White Lotus, LLC 3723 Beaver Valley Rd. Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Regarding: Jefferson County Parcel 821063004 ►sue �` `�,,�� � f N, SSmVj MARINE SURVEYS & ASSESSMENTS 380 Jefferson Street Port Townsend WA 98368 360-385-4073 msa@marinesurveysandassessments.com L Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. I 2. Project Site Existing Conditions................................................................................................. 1 3. Project Site Information...................................:...................................................I...................... 5 3.1 National Wetlands Inventory Query......................................................................................... 5 3.2 Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Query.............................................................. 7 4. Wetland Assessment Methods...................................................................................................... 7 5. Wetland Delineation................................................................................................................... 8 5.1 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................9 5.2 Soils..........................................................................................................................................10 5.3 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 11 6. Wetland Rating......................................................................................................................... 11 7. Summary................................................................................................................................... 13 References..................................................................................................................................... 14 List of Tables Table1, Soil Map Units.................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2. Wetland — Sample Plot 7A-wet: Vegetation..................................................................... 9 Table 3. Wet — Sample Plot TP 11 W: Vegetation......................................................................... 10 Table 4. Wetland — Sample Plot 7A-wet...................................................................................... 10 Table5, Wet— Sample Plot TP11W............................................................................................. 10 List of Figures Figure1. Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................... 2 Figure2. Site Map....................................................................—.................................................... 3 Figure 3. Neighboring Apparent Wetland Boundary and Buffers .................................................. 4 Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory Map.................................................................................. 5 Figure5. Web Soil Survey.............................................................................................................. 6 Attachments Attachment 1. Wetland Determination Forms Attachment 2. Wetland Rating Forms Attachment 3. Wetland Rating Figures Figure A. 150-11 Boundary 1-km Habitat Figure B. Water Quality 303d Figure C. Flood Map Figure D. Contributing Basin Figure E. Cowardin Plant Classes Figure F. Water Quality TMDL Attachment 4. Photo Documentation White Lotus Wetland Delineation MS&A I ii 1. Introduction Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) was contracted by the client, White Lotus LLC., to complete a wetland delineation at Jefferson County parcel 821063004 (14.66-acres), which is currently owned by White Lotus LLC. The project site is located in Port Townsend, Washington 98365 in Section 6, Township 28N, Range lE (Figure 1). The presence of a slope wetland was confirmed, delineated, and mapped. The wetlands are within Jefferson County, and as such were rated and assigned a buffer as specified by Jefferson County Municipal Code (JCMC). A Category III slope wetland, with high impact land use, was assigned a 150-foot buffer and 180-foot buffer according to specifications in JCMC Table 18.22.330(3). A building setback line of five feet was also applied from the edge of the buffer area (18.22.270(5)(ii)) (Figure 2). This report follows criteria required in JCMC, Chapter 18.22.450 — Wetland Reports. As of March 10, 2020, a revised Jefferson County ordinance is in effect; however, the site visit was done prior to March 10, 2020 based on the previous ordinance. As per previous Jefferson Country Critical Areas Ordinance, the apparent wetland boundary was defined for the project. Field work for the wetland delineation was completed on February 28, 2020, with GIS mapping and subsequent report writing completed between March and April 2020. Conditions at the project site were partially cloudy/overcast and windy (-45° F). The time of year and recent precipitation history were considered in assessing the extent of the suspect wetlands presumed to exist on site: heavy rain, over the course of a few days, was observed prior to the site visit (Attachment 1). 2. Project Site Existing Conditions Parcel 821063004 is predominantly pasture grass (farmland), with scattered forest and sapling/shrub habitat along the eastern perimeter, bordering a stream (Figure 2). The parcel is primarily farmland with heavily disturbed soil and vegetation. Access to the project site is along the western boundary of SR 19. Egg & I Rd. is to the north and Embody Rd. is to the south of the project site (Figure 1). The delineated wetland has a hydrological connection with a riverine wetland, west of the project site. A previous wetland delineation on the neighboring property documented a wetland at the southwest portion of the project site (MS&A, 2020; Figure 3). According to the Jefferson County Public Land Records map, a wetland was present in a much larger area, compared to the MSA wetland delineation, but in a similar location in the northwest portion of the project site (Figure 4). Three soil map units were identified throughout the project site (Figure 5). White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A I l Figure 1. Vicinity Map 172" G'QVY 172 44'dVJ .., c� ti -•'� irjl', ` S r,� i i 1 � •; •• -.'r � 1 ' r{• L �f-:T Av 1It Tf@O LnPJ 1 i ! Site Location - r '' 'x . ; F-�li d` l�¢ — ' • - 'f y ^9 7 vr� `�7; ' �C/''. � � • f. -• }J Q11�� jII V Lf • a I } �t`n4i7� 1 r,} ?_ 0 Legend$ White Lotus Project Parcel l 1 '�} •�r� — y trod y i `. Miles r . ❑ 0.5 3 2 �•.'' 11l'� Scivica Layer Clcdds: Sowu, �.•: Clienl: order of the While Lotus LLC FI Ll re Esn,,[J, 1t lG oq GeoEye Jefferson Couol Parcel821063004 Vicinity Map g Ea Distar Lobe, Glii E I \ 'ry Y CNESrA�rt us DS, USDA, USGS, ---1 Welland Assessment Completed 2i28i20 A—GR10- IGN ono Ine GIs User N ', By M- Amos and loana Docio oov Cndllliy Map Date; 3r2412020 White Lotus 1 Cnpynghli;) 2.013 Nabonel White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 12 Figure 2. Site Map 1 s� 7 '+ r3 T ► r •r Fi = s' 1 x �.� ► Wet spot (2,164 sq ft) '.' ► appears o e cause by drainage from storm water (driveway and barn). •. y � iFi�• f, ii ti Legend While Lotus Project Parcel r:• Stream/River (National Hydro Dataset Flowline) Apparent Wetland (NWI-mod; 224.0 acres) r Delineated Wetland (onsite) Apparent Wetland g+ 150 ft Stream Buffer 150-ft Wetland Buffer (Delineated) O-ft Wetland Buffer (Apparent) Feet 5 ft Building Setback 0 100 200 400 600 service Layor Credits: sourco: Esn, DigiLAGlobe, GeoEye, ��~`"-� • Client: Order of the While Lotus LLC Site Map Flgulra Exthslar Geographies, - CNESIAirbus DS, USDA, USGS, �rJ_ .... AnrOGRID, IGN. and the GIS Usor N �f Jefferson County Parcel 821063004 Welland Assessment Completed 2128120 Community so-t- By M. Amos and loana Bociu White Lotus Parcel Data Jeflerson County. Map Date: 4/2912020 White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 13 Figure 3. Neighboring Apparent Wetland Boundary and Buffers Legend DNR Streams & Water Bodies Forest: Practices � Standing Water Flsh Habitat Q Parcel `war'-t>a, Habitat Inventoried Slltp'ellna Waterbodies — Fish Habitat © Wetland Boundary N I -fish Habitat Q Buffer 110' — Inventnrled Slid-ellne � 75' Riparian Buffer �W�t' Lw I �'100 200 300 ft �k T I V io - � . n Servke Wyr-r ['redd<. Srnitce: APPARENT Wetland Client: Valerie Louahney Figure E:Sn. Ulgir43[ibhe, [;rvEy¢, errlhsur G�Wrapl,ks, U(JjFt,A6raus D5. VSt7A. uS[iS, ftoZRla, IGN, and Nc GI5 ' `+'n r r` '._� I ��- BOunda and Buffers Boundary Parcel No. 601121003 Section 12, Township 26N, Range 1W Loughney '+5 Parcel 801121003 3 tomin�n;ty N Parcel Data &eicnsnn amity. +' ` ^'+ ` _ ChimaCUm, Washington Drawn:01/2812020 98325 Drawn By: 16 White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 14 Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory Map National Wetlands Inventory White Lotus £I...Ir 'ry 41n' r vr. r:rrriy i�a Ll �l r:S: rriJl'rS xLklr: February A: 2020 sr•: �r:a,rri WBIIaadB i.r:o n.an aKnw!'o �lmoa •iwr. nu me^:rmz leoinn ram wl,xeci� FresliwaderEmergentWetland lnkc.,:�4:ri:"x�rna.u+:r.lr:a,n;nn�:::,<:rxr�,um:.r:ro:.r•r. wftJllh�l A4rlryv: rvlrl.+:In 0 Ewlurrrine and Marine Ueepwater Fresbwalar FarestadiSilrub Wetland n pinur 0 Btunrinn and Marine Welland Q Freahwater Pond �'� Rlrlaino f b luitMr+'�!r Frm1wW nr �'� hlH::upys 3. Project Site Information 3.1 National Wetlands Inventory Query The United States Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map shows mapped wetland types within —0.25 miles from the project site (Figure 5). The NWI map documents were prepared primarily by stereoscopic analysis of high -altitude aerial photographs taken in 1980 and 1981. Wetlands were identified on the photographs based on vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography. The aerial photographs typically reflected conditions during a specific year and season when they were taken. Some small wetlands and those obscured by dense forest cover may not be included on the map. In addition, there is a margin of error inherent in the use of aerial photographs. White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 15 47 U" II ' N 57 Y 2YN Figure 5. Web Soil Survey Soil Map —Jefferson County Area, Washington (White Lotus) !{1elv�"' �Iq'aY? •uM1.' NlVidl !:+^'1EyC) i14RY7 !rKKrY%7 AVlx,*e 5t2,510 if pined on A pm"k(8,7x1J")slrett. g N n 35 m 14(1 rn q tqp 2qQ r@ 600 nlKnJntlon: 41ib �1tYcatcr COnerwa0r iQ :1 A p M Eckje3G: lJTM ZaV %UN VVG—ea GNatural Resources Web Soil Survey 2,'2812020 Conservation Service National Cnol)erative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 arrzs•s1 White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 16 3.2 Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Query Table 1. Soil Map Units Soil Map Code Soil Name Percent AID Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.5 AmC Alderwood gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 38.4 AmD Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 8.5 Bm Belfast silty clay loam, wet variant 5.1 InD Indianola loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 2.4 KtC Kitsap silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 19.3 Min McMurray and Mukilteo peats 9.6 Se* Semiahmoo muck 15.6 SnD Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.8 (Approximately 14.66 acres soil query boundary; including but not limited to parcel 821063004) *Soil map unit sampled during wetland delineation Belfast silty clay loam, wet variant, was not sampled during the delineation. However, the wetland soil type is present on the parcel and occurs on flood plains of alluvium (30 to 660 feet elevation) with 50 to 70 inches of mean annual precipitation and 50' F annual air temperature. Typical profile for the Belfast map unit is consistently silt clay loam between 0 to 9 inches (H1), loam between 9 to 20 inches (H2), and stratified gravelly fine sandy loam to clay loam between 20 to 60 inches (113). The map unit is somewhat poorly drained with depth to the most restrictive layer at more than 80 inches, moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) capacity to the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat), and a depth of water table between 6 to 12 inches. Occasional flooding and no frequency of ponding was recorded. The soil is rated as hydric (Figure 5). Semiahmoo muck was sampled and occurs in depressions (10 to 1,300 feet elevation) with 35 to 70 inches of mean annual precipitation and 46°F to 50' F mean annual air temperature. Typical profile for the Semiahmoo map unit is consistently muck 0 to 16 inches (H1), muck between 16 to 54 inches (H2), silt loan between 54 and 55 inches (H3) and muck between 20 to 60 inches (H4). The map unit is very poorly drained with depth to the most restrictive layer at more than 80 inches, moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) capacity to the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat), and a depth of water table of 0 inches. Frequent ponding was recorded. The soil is rated as hydric (Figure 5). 4. Wetland Assessment Methods The delineation fieldwork followed the methodology outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (effective January 1987): Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 9 (Version 2.0; USA CE, updated May 2010). This is the standard manual, used in determining wetland areas when applying state and local government regulations under the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act in Washington State. Preliminary information was gathered on the project site prior to the field review, rating, and delineation. General information sources included: White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 17 • 1974 National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; March 12, 2020) • Web Soil Survey: National Cooperative Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; April 22, 2020) • 2016 Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Atlas (WDOE) • Chapter 18.22 Jefferson County Critical Areas Municipal Code [Ord. 3-08 § 1] ■ 2016 National Wetland Plant List (NWPL): Western Mountains, Valleys & Coast. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Field Indicators Based on Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (Version 8.0; 2017) • Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with National Technical Committee of Hydric Soils (NTCHS) (Version 8.2, 2018) • 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington 2014 Update. (Hruby, T Washington State Department of Ecology) The field rating followed the methodology outlines in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2014 Update) field manual, published by the State of Washington Department of Ecology. The specified buffers, identified in accordance with each individual wetland's rating score, are specified in Jefferson County Critical Areas, Chapter 18.22.330(1)-(3) Table: Wetland Categories, Rating Scores and Buffer Widths ... Specific field methodology used in determining the extent and location of wetland areas include: 1) As part of the initial project site reconnaissance, the site was walked to determine the general extent and location of potential wetland areas. 2) Wetland and upland sample plots were established in the identified potential wetland areas and in the adjacent upland areas by walking in sequence from upland to wetland. The wetland adjacent to project site to the west was delineated. The wetland to the north, off site, was marked with an apparent boundary. 3) The extent of the wetland was located and marked using a GPS unit (Garmin 64st). No flagging tape or stakes were used for the survey due to farm animals being housed at the survey site; and 4) Extensive notes were taken to accurately define the apparent wetland boundary. 5. Wetland Delineation A wetland delineation establishes the specific boundaries of a wetland for the purposes of federal, state, and local regulations. In determining these physical parameters of each individual wetland, indicators of vegetation, soils, and hydrology are analyzed to assess critical areas. By defining the transition zone between scientifically established upland and wetland indicators, an established accurate boundary of the wetland can be identified between a pair of data points; one representing the upland and one representing the wetland. It is common for paired data points, when linked to vegetative indicators (such as an obvious transition line of upland grass into an emergent herbaceous community), to inform the identification of the wetland delineation. A delineation, often in conjunction with a subsequent rating, is a necessary procedural step in obtaining information which will inform subsequent construction. White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 18 A wetland delineation was conducted to obtain accurate wetland boundaries of a gradually sloped wetland at the north and eastern area of the project site. The site includes a high impact land use (agriculture), according to Jefferson County municipal code (18.22.330(3)), Wetland buffer widths were selected to represent the extension of a commercial structure. The wetland was delineated using a pair of standard sampling points. The sampling points were designated "7A-wet" and "TP11W". The "7A-wet" point represented the wetland sampling point within the paddock area to the west of the project site. The "TP 11 W" represented the wetland test pit sampling point to the south where a wet spot was present with wetland vegetation (Figure 2). Each data point consisted of a test pit dug to a standard depth of 18 inches to expose a representative soil profile, with the exception of a restrictive layer. Each data point was then assessed for the presence of three wetland indicators: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Following the successful location of paired data points, the wetland boundary was marked by a handheld GPS (Garmin 64st). The test pits were also geo-located by GPS latitude and longitude (Figure 2). 5.1 Vegetation To distinguish the types of plants that grow in different hydrologic regimes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service incorporated a system of wetland plant indicator status to classify individual plant species. The wetland indicator status of a species is based on the individual species occurrence in wetlands in 13 separate regions within the United States. A plant indicator status is applied to the species, although individual variations exist within the species. Plant species were identified and given an indicator status according to the National Wetland Plant List: Western Mountains,,Valleys & Coast. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (NWPL, 2016). Indicator categories are as follows: OBL — Obligate Wetland — Almost always occurs in wetlands under natural conditions. FACW — Facultative Wetland — Usually occurs in wetlands, occasionally found in uplands. FAC — Facultative — Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non -wetlands FACU — Facultative Upland — Usually occurs in non -wetlands, occasionally found in wetlands. UPL — Obligate Upland — Almost always occurs in uplands under natural conditions. To meet the qualification as a site dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, wetland plant species must show at least one of five hydrophytic vegetation indicators (Attachment 1). All test plots that qualified as wet sites did not fulfill one of the following wetland vegetation indicators: Dominance Test (>50% hydric vegetation). This is because the site is historic farmland; therefore, vegetation is an unreliable indicator of wetland presence. Vegetation throughout the wetland and upland was dominated by pasture grass. The tree stratum in the sampling plot was not present. The sapling/shrub/stratum was not present. Herbaceous vegetation included only pasture grass for 7A-wet (Table 2 and Attachment 1). Table 2. Wetland — Samnle Plot 7A-wet: Vegetation Absolute % Stratum Common Name Latin Name Status Cover Herb Pasture Grass Poaceae s . - 100 The TP 11 W plot was located south of the proposed project area, within the "wet spot" (Figure 2). A tree stratum and sapling/shrub/stratum was not present. The herb stratum included Juncus White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 19 effuses, Ranunculus occidentalis and Poaceae sp. No bare ground was recorded within the sampling plot (Table 3 and Attachment 1). Table 3. Wet — Sample Plot TP11 W: Vegetation Stratum Common Name Latin Name Status Absolute %Cover Herb Lamp rush Juncus effusus FACW 20 Herb Western buttercup Ranunculus occidentalis FACW 2 Herb Pasture Grass Poaceae s . - 80 5.2 Soils Hydric soils form under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil horizon (NRCS). Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repeated periods of inundation or saturation that last more than a few days. Saturation or inundation, when combined with microbial activity in the soil, causes a depletion of oxygen. This anaerobic state promotes certain biogeochemical processes, such as the accumulation of organic matter, the accumulation or reduction of iron, and other reducible elements. These processes in turn create regionally specific, visible indicators, which help identify and delineate hydric soils in a field setting. These indicators are not intended to replace or modify the requirements contained in the definition of a hydric soil; they are dynamic, and open to a degree of human interpretation. Some hydric soils lack any currently listed and accepted indicators; therefore, the lack of any listed indicator does not prevent classification of a soil as hydric. However, such soils and their specific morphologies, are included and specified in the necessary field guides. The wetland hydric soils were identified using the Munsell Soil Color Book, a standard reference manual prepared by the Munsell Color Company and used by the United States Department of Agriculture. The hydric soil indicator for wetland sample plot 7A-wet was: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11). Large rock formed a restrictive layer at 10 inches and made analyzing a complete 18-inch sample difficult (Table 4 and Attachment 1). Table 4. Wetland — Sample Plot 7A-wet Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture Color % Color % Type' Loc2 0-7.5" 1 OYR2/ 1 100% - - _ _ Sandy clay loam *a lot of roots 7.5-10" 1OYR4/2 70% 10YR5/8 30 D M Sandy clay loam Type: C=Concentration, RM=Reduced Matrix, D=Depletion, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric soil indicators were demonstrated for sample plot TP11 W. The sampling location is south of the wetland boundary and was distinctly different from 7A-wet (Table 5 and Attachment 1). Discussion with the property owner revealed that the hydric conditions are being created artificially. The "wet spot" is artificially created; therefore it falls under the JCMC, Chapter 18.22.070 — General exemptions. Table 5. Wet — Sample Plot TP 11 W Depth (inches) I Matrix Redox Features Texture Color % Color % T e' Locz 0-4 10YR3/2 100 - - - - Sandy clay White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 110 4-16 1 10YR6/1 1 70 1 10YR3/6 1 30 1 D I M J Sandy clay Type: C=Concentration, RM=Reduced Matrix, D=Depletion, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 5.3 Hydrology Hydrologic conditions result from the interactions between meteorological, surface and ground water, as well as physical and biological factors that influence the flow, quality, or timing of water. Therefore, the determination of the presence of hydrologic conditions focuses on the corresponding presence of factors that most directly influence the persistence of water in a specific area. Similar to the indicators used in hydric soils, and because watersheds vary tremendously across the country, regional hydrologic indicators are used to identify wetlands in the field more easily. Wetland sample plot "7A-wet" demonstrated Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) and Geomorphic Position (1)2). Days leading up to sampling included heavy rainfall. Upland sample plots to the east of "7A-wet" were not keyed due to disturbance and visibly not demonstrating wetland hydrologic indicators (Attachment 1). At the same elevation, to the north of "7A-wet" surface water is present. Wetland sample plot "TP 11 W" demonstrated Saturation (A3). Days leading up to sampling included heavy rainfall. The water table may have been higher if the sample plot was left to fill. Upland sample plots around "TP 11 W" were not keyed due to disturbance. Furthermore, the area did not demonstrate wetland hydrologic indicators (Attachment 1). 6. Wetland Rating The intent of a rating is to provide a basis for protecting and managing wetlands; this is accomplished assessing a wetland's valued functions and resources: ecological, economic, or aesthetic. In the process of a rating, a wetland is placed in a Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Class, or a classification of wetland type, and a Category, or a numerically scored quantification of its functions and specific attributes such as rarity, sensitivity to disturbance, and the functions they provide. Based upon this score, the wetland is placed in Category I through Category IV; the former is a wetland of greatest value, based upon the rating rubric's characterization of its inherent value, while the latter is a wetland of least value. A specific buffer, identified in accordance with each individual wetland's rating score, is then recommended, using standardized and established guidelines. While all wetlands provide some functions and resources that are valued, be they ecological or aesthetic, they also vary widely. Consequently, the recommended buffer identified in accordance with each individual wetland's rating score reflects that particular wetland and its specific qualities. In accordance with the Washington Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update, rating categories are divided into four grades, in order of descending buffer size: Category I with total scores of 23-27; Category II with total scores of 20-22; Category III with total scores of 16-19; Category IV with total scores of 9-15 (Attachment 2). The category of wetland based on functions is rated by the following parameters: 1) Water Quality Functions: a wetland's potential to improve water quality a) Potential of the wetland to improve water quality of and surrounding the wetland. White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 111 b) Potential of the wetland to support the water quality function of and surrounding the wetland. (This parameter regards the ability of the wetland to mitigate for and lessen the toxicity of potential pollutants on and surrounding the wetland). c) Potential of local water quality improvement provided by the wetland to benefit adjacent waters. 2) Hydrologic Functions: a wetland's potential to improve hydrology a) Potential to reduce flooding and erosion b) Potential of wetland to support the hydrologic functions of the site (this parameter regards the ability of the wetland in reducing the toxicity of potential pollutants on - site and up -gradient of the wetland). c) Potential of wetland to help capture surface water that might otherwise flow down - gradient into areas where flooding might occur. 3) Habitat Functions: a wetland's potential to provide important habitat/ecological value a) Potential of the wetland to provide habitat for natural living systems. b) Potential of the accessible and undisturbed habitat and land use intensity surrounding the wetland to support the habitat functions of the site. c) Value of wetland to society; degree to which it provides habitat for species valued in laws, regulation, or policy. Wetland: Slope, Category I11. Buffer for "High impact land uses" (Single-family residential use on parcels smaller than one acre; Commercial, multifamily, industrial and institutional uses; Public roads) 150 delineated buffers and 180 feet for apparent boundary buffers (Jefferson County Code 18.22.330(3)). The wetland was determined to fall into the HGM Class — Slope, Category III, based on functions. According to the Washington State Wetland Rating System,for Western Washington 2014 Update (Hruby 2014), "Slope wetlands occur on hill or valley slopes where groundwater surfaces and begins running along the surface, or immediately below the surface. Water in these wetlands flows only in one direction (down the slope) and the gradient is steep enough that the water is not impounded. The downhill side of the wetland is always the point of lowest elevation in the wetland." The wetland scored a rating of five (Low, Medium, and Medium) within the "Improving Water Quality" function, five (Low, Medium, and Medium) within the "Hydrologic" function, and seven (Low, High, and High) within the "Habitat" function section, for a combined score of 17. Chapter 18.22.300 of the Jefferson County municipal code states "Category III wetlands are "(1) those with moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points total) or ( 2) those that can often be adequately replaced with a well- planned mitigation project. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 point generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the Iandscape than Category II wetlands". The property owner is working with x to restore wetland'` function and increase the wetland rootprint. One Cowardin plant class (emergent) was observed in the wetland. The wetland vegetation near the project site included pasture grass (Attachment 2). To the south an artificial wet spot (Figure 2) is present. The area within a one -kilometer polygon of the project site consists predominantly White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 112 of accessible and non -accessible undisturbed habitat, with moderate and low intensity uses making up 12% and high intensity land uses making up 0.9% of the area (Attachment 3, Figure A). No Category 5 — 303(d) listed waters or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) projects were recorded near the project site (Attachment 3, Figures B and F). These criteria are associated with the HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington. The wetland was considered a slope wetland (Wetland Rating Form - Attachment 2). The project is near a flood zone (Attachment 3, Figure Q. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) report identified coho and cutthroat trout as listed species and freshwater emergent and freshwater forested/shrub wetlands as habitat on the parcel. No Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) were reported near the project site. 7. Summary This wetland report documents the presence of a sloped wetland on Jefferson County parcel 821063004 (Figure 2). The portion of the wetland to the west, nearest the proposed construction site, was delineated. An apparent boundary was identified on the neighboring parcel, which was the closest portion of the wetland to the north. The entire wetland was rated based on delineated and apparent boundaries and mapped. A buffer was established according to specifications in the Jefferson County Critical Areas Municipal Code for a Category III wetland, with high impact land uses (18.22.330(3)), The delineated buffer is 150' and the apparent buffer is 180'. A building setback line of five feet was also applied from the edge of the buffer area (18.22.270(5)(ii)) (Figure 2). Depending on the proposed construction footprint, it may be necessary to obtain permission from the neighbors to clearly define the line to the north during a subsequent wetland delineation. White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 113 References Cowardin, LM., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service document FWS/OBS-79/31. 84pp. Washington D.C. Jefferson County Municipal Code. Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas [Ord. 3-08 § 1 ] Hitchcock, L.C. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Munsell Soil Color Charts, 1998. Gretag Macbeth. North Windsor, New York. National Cooperative Soil Survey. Official Established Series Description. 2000. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). 2020. Wetlands Report. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Field Indicators Based on Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States v. 8.0 with Updates, Prepared by Wetland Training Institute, Inc., 2017 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987): Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), May 2010. Speare-Cooke, S., 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington. December, 2013 US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 1978 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 1992 White Lotus Apparent Wetland Delineation MS&A 114 Attachment 1 White Lotus Wetland Determination Forms WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: �1 y ; l� 1`��� CitylCDunty: 1(��i l �Ilil�llle�P� lf�nl�i ^Samr�linn n�Fc• I i �t 1.,'} x. Applicant/Owner: 1 State: 8arllpling Point: w — w Investigator(s): r^,J eqt Section, Township, Range: Landform {hf€Eslvpe, trace, ntc.J: .� Local relief (concave, convex, none}: 0 f? Slope Subregion (LRR): Lat- Lang: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Q—i — Lo NVIR classification: {' q Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typlcal fof this time of year. Yes No Are Vegetation (If no, explain in Remarks.) , Soil , or Hydrology )[ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil _ , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showsho, AngsalrnphnQ point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �NoHydro Sall Present? Yes Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworkshest: Tree Ira (Plot size: } °! C ver S es? Status Number of Dominant Species 2' 2. That Are OBI., FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are 0BL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) = Total Cover - S lin !Shrub !um (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 • Total % Cover of Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. 4. FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = = Total Cover UPL species x g = H r Stra (Plot size: ) 1, r'' Column Totals: (A) (B) 2' Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. 6. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. 2 - Dominance Test is >5o% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptationst (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soli. and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic / L! %a. Bare Ground in Herb Stratum VegetationPresent? Yes No Remarks: 1 J v ��� ) -►� Yam" i y r ti' �y QC+E' --I; .•t � ; F�'lnnvl UC°r� Insets Ja^ �� jV1 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 i Rnll Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth matrix Redox Features (Irichesli Color moist - 96 Color moi % Type.Loc I Texture RemarPs. c; } t) 1 t 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL-Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (31) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth Cinches): Rem'ar-kss I u 60 1 f� M `�,_OAA 't J' `-krt f r4,XIt.,C a r►. )' 1( y e :�❑ ti 11 I �A.'� �� ii M C�lr� HYDROLOGY of one required: check all that apply] Sc:condwv Indicators 2 or more required) Water -Stained Leaves (39) (except Water -Stained leaves-(89) (MLRA i, 2, Surface Water (Al) , MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) _ 4A, and 4B) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (310) Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Water Marks (131) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) rI Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (63) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ ShallowAqui;ard (D3) Recent Iron Reductign in Tilled — Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Soils (C6) = FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) . _ Iron Deposits (135) (-RR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (-RR A) Surface Soil Cracks (36) T Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (37) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No Depth (inches): -- Walleyed Hydrology Present? Yes X . No Saturation Present? 4. _i CTf (includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (inches): }��}]q p��v �t � }� Lam, �,"I_ - . 4�j Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous InspeCticns), if avaiEa a � f h 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: City County: Sampling Date: (�L mac- 0 C�oao Applicant/Owner. 'State: t Sam fingPolnl: Investigator(s): r q Secllon, Township, Range: i Landform (hillslap terra a PC.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%); Subregion (LRR): Lat:, Lo : Datum: Sol[ Map Unit Name: - - a— NWI classification: d 3P &- C' Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site lypicafforti�js time of year? Yes No — (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 41 ,Soil L , or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil — , or Hydrology — naturally problematic? - (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showin $arri lin point Hydrophytic vegetation. Present? locations, transects, jm ortant features, etc. Yes No _ Hydric Sell Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within Wetland Hydrology Present? a Wetland? Yes No Yes No Remarks: } P .jAa i lA�,� ' { ti tnt .� ��. ' y ti- rw" ..t1i F�{�'J Ixvl 1 f` VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum (Plot size: ) Cnv r S ec' s Status Dominance Testwgrksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC: A Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species !_ 2. 3' 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: l(�Q (A/g) = Total Cover D1ino15hnib Stratu n (Pict size: ) , Prevalence Index worksheet: 1, Total %Cover of; Muftip[y ]7y — OBL species x 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x 3 = 2. 3 4 5. = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = FIe tra m (Plot size: UPL species x 5 =) 1. ••� Vr -C �' 'T t; Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B!A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: — 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation — 2 - Dominance Test is >5o% 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 2{ 4. 5. a 7, Q. 9 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 10, __ data to Remarks or on a separate sheet) 11. _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) = W Ve Total Cover (Plot size; j 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains: Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 } I � VA-) i U1 SOIL —TT11 W c—N.,.. D..[.,r- Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Color (moist) % • Color mold 96 -Type' l.oc Texture Remarks ' o K 3 �(,:� M� •�'�t nal� rn,.. �. J 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for. Problematic Hydric Soils _ Histosol (Al) , Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) — Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) — Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) i Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators'of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (177) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): ! Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes V No Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima ry Indicators minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MI -RA 1, 2, _ Surface Water (Al) _ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) _ 4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2) Saturatlon (A3) Salt Crust (1311) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Dry-Seasen Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living _ _ Sediment Deposits (132) — Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Drift Deposits (133) ^ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Recent Iron Reductipn in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Soils (C6) - FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) . Iron Deposits (85) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (136) Field Observations: ' Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes) No Depth (inches): 1t - Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes • No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No _ Depth (inches): Desc-vibe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if availat)le: Remarks. �]�`,,; .'_; �,•�,a�e,,, :.:�;t,�. ;` .G� ;�� : ��urc°� ��f� �� r 1,x� ,r.' � s f� � r� . �•,�. -tom•. y;�'+�i"ow• �Q:f..� S�f ��r� _ �: u - ' •� US Army Corps of Engineers , Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 ' Attachment 2 White Lotus Wetland Rating Forms Wetland name or number: White Lotus RATING SUMMARY -Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): White Lotus Date of site visit: 2/28/20 Rated by Mee Amos Trained by Ecoloev? ✓Yes No Date of trainine 2014 HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ✓Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (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 Habitat Water Cluality Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M H M Landscape Potential H L H L H M L Value H L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 5 5 7 T 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland 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 = L,L,L 1 Wetland name or number: White Lotus Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 H droperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map..of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 4.3, D 5.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 _ D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riveri a Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1. 1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs,. and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream.(can be added to anotherfigure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen Capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Frin a Wetlands Map of: To answerquestions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 E Hydroperiods H 1.2 C & D Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 E Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 E A A Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including--H polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 B Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 D & F Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number: White Lotus HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO -go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ✓ The wetland is on a slope ( dope can be very gradual), ✓The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, [The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO-goto5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ✓ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ✓ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number: White Lotus NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO-goto7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO-goto8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. The wetland is in a stream valley that experiences overbank flooding, but the majority of the land cover slopes to the stream from east and west. "rherefore, this will be rated as a sloped wetland. (See flood map) NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number: White Lotus SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope. is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2 Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1 3 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff laverl is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0 0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants >'% of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants >'/ of area points = 1 0 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants Grazed pasture with patches of forest/shrub < 20% points = 0 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12 = H _6-11 = M / 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Road run-off and farming/grazing up hill Yes = 1 No — 0 1 S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? Other sources Farminglgrazing within wetland Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:�/1-2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 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 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 1 S 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 unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:-2-4 = H 3L1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 11 Wetland name or number: White Lotus SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding; and stream erosion S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> I/8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1 All other conditions points = 0 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Residential and farming. Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:\/1 = M _O = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient points =1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points= 0 f S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes=2 No=O 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:_2-4 = H V1 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number: White Lotus 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 for each class to meet the threshold of '< ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 cc. Add the number of structures checked. _Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 _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 % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). _Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 _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 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 Based on knowledge of area and observations over the years and aerial imagry. Most of the wetland unit is off site. H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 1 < 5 species paints = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. Stream edge and pasture. 0 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points 1 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number: White Loutus H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. _Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland VUndercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) _Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) �At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are 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 strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 5 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 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat34.3 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 6.0 = 40 % If total accessible habitat is: > J13 (33•3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon 3 points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat41.9 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 4_95= 47 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50?4, 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) 50% of 1 I{ :;n fntert,il, points = 0 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 4 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. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) 5 [mon in stream 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 an of the criteria above Rating of Value If score is:__,,/2 = H _1 = M 0 = L Wetland hating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Farm — Effective January 1, 201S MIIX$ Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number: White Lotus WDFW Priority Habitats PriorU habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. ltt • /Iwdfw.wa.gov,lpublications/QQ ifi5f_wsifw4065.12df or access the list from here: h ttn:./Iwdfw.wa.gov/conservatioll/12lis/lisv) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (S3 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves; A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number: White Lotus CA Wetland Type Check off any criteria that a A SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands NIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHP RISTICS to the wetland Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinitVigreaterthan 0.5 Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http:/Iwwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.r)df Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Category Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Cat. I Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. if you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number: White Lotus SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contleuous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria forth e WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this .section Cat. SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. Yes — Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftz) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes — Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No — Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No — Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment 3 White Lotus Wetland Rating Figures 7� A y Y 4 High Intensity 0.9% f • +K Accessible Moderate and Low Intensity 12.0% Accessible Relatively Undisturbed Habitat 34.3% 4~ r Non -Accessible Moderate and Low Intensity 9.9% °Y i Non -Accessible Relatively Undisturbed Habitat 41.90 1L ti Legend Delineated Wetland (onsite) k Apparent Wetland (onsite) I; Apparent Wetland (offsite; NWI-mod; 224.0 acres) _ a 150-ft Wetland Boundary 1-km Polygon (outside weltand area: 2,355.6 acres)' . 1-km Habitat High Intensity ` Accessible Moderate and Low Intensity Accessible Relatively Undisturbed Habitat-: I Non -Accessible Moderate and Low Intensity 0 Non -Accessible Relatively Undisturbed Habitat - i (Viiles 0 0.5 2 Service Layer Globe,ts:Source: .titi sUe. Client: Order of the White Lotus LLC 150-ftBoundary Figure Esrl, DistarGlobe, phics , r r L',- Jefferson County Parcel 821063004 Earirbus Geographies, Wetland AssessmentCom Completed 1-km Habitat CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, P A AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User N T �= By M. Amos and loana Bociu H Community s.� T Map Date: 4/2/2020 White Lotus Parcel Data Jefferson County. i. \ - � � _. _ � �1 � •sit} � �.t . � � ,�'���.. >! %I a to y06 ,��� ���i ,�... �---s� > sa"•� �'r C�`". ..�r. 98 r , 7. &) o •� �.:�. } ► %'. Rh rma Rd `�'� L � `� �L� -� .�i ! � '•� gN�y r' �' aya'� �, 7; Legend White Lotus Project Parcel Delineated Wetland (onsite) Apparent Wetland (onsite) x S 1 1 l a Apparent Wetland (offsite; NWI-mod; 224.0 acres) '4 1a � � �� r ya sad4. Contributing Basin f'` S.' 7 1 i f m4 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 7 `F r Client: Order of the White Lotus LLC Contributing Basin Figure Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© p 2013 National Geographic Society, N Jefferson County Parcel 821063004 Wetland Assessment Completed 2/28/20 fj_,1 i-cubed loana Bociu D Parcel Data Jefferson County. N 7ti'�+-tiarti�s- By M. Amos and Map Date: 4/2/2020 White Lotus San Juan hIA • Otn9enes Nit A5, Quilcene - Snow JA 4% ry A " — - . AL IM—, ..,e / 60A Attachment 4 White Lotus Photo Documentation T ki _ _ �i�'c tom- a . _'� •:�' _ _ `` •' `�: ..��'' �=::-.irk • '• , /...�fif�ai"w*-,�i1 �.r-.Aim •lx...?T,,: '�*zc-.-. �i_- Eastern view of project site. Red circle indicates the approximate location of standing water at Semiahmoo muck map unit. _=-~ice �, i=:.;,--•'�_s��n: ��: " � a o�- a.5:,tii".-._..r'.�.. :„3i:1�`.J •-'•`.ri•IY��, Northeast view of the parcel- �''i-'.� �hT��I ..F`"��,+`t ! • '�ai .y.:, a r. ' y _ "Wet spat" present towards south of ,.1-4 the property (see Figure 2).