HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetland Delineation 821081019
Hunter Wetland Delineation & Rating Report
September 10, 2020
Prepared for:
Noelle & Jamie Hunter
25647 Seabrook PL NE
Kingston, WA 98346-9006
Regarding:
Jefferson County Parcel # 821081019
2320 Swansonville RD
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Dec 21 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Wetland Assessment Methods ................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Resources reviewed prior to conducting fieldwork .................................................................. 3
3. Results and Findings ................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Wetland Delineation and Categorization .................................................................................. 7
3.3 Wetland Rating ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.5 Soils......................................................................................................................................... 10
3.6 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.7 National Wetlands Inventory Query ....................................................................................... 18
4. Wildlife and Habitat Impacts ................................................................................................ 19
4.1 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) information ........................................... 21
4.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 21
4.4 Rare Species and/or Habitats .................................................................................................. 23
5. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 23
6. References ................................................................................................................................ 25
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1. Vegetation observed within wetland boundary .............................................................. 10
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Map Showing 150 ft Boundary and 1 km Habitat/Land use ........................................... 6
Figure 3. Wetland Delineation Map with Buffer and Plot Points ................................................... 8
Figure 4. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Survey Map and Legend ..................... 12
Figure 5. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Unit Descriptions ................................ 14
Figure 6. Contributing Basin Map ................................................................................................ 17
Figure 7. National Wetland Inventory Map .................................................................................. 18
Figure 8. Jefferson County Critical Areas Map ............................................................................ 19
Figure 9. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species Map ... 20
Figure 10. FEMA Flood Map ....................................................................................................... 21
Figure 11. Water Quality Map ...................................................................................................... 22
Figure 12. WA Wetlands of High Conservation Value Map ........................................................ 23
Attachments
Attachment 1. Photo Documentation
Attachment 2. Wetland Determination Forms
Attachment 3. Wetland Rating Forms
Attachment 4. Methodology
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 1
1. Introduction
Marine Surveys & Assessments (MS&A) was authorized by Noelle and Jamie Hunter (property
owners), to complete a wetland delineation and rating on their 1.13 acre parcel of rural
residential land located in Port Ludlow, unincorporated Jefferson County. The process used by
MS&A to survey and map the wetland boundary and rate its category is consistent with the
current Jefferson County Code Critical Areas requirements (JCC 18.220). The presence of a
Category IV Depressional Wetland was confirmed. This report serves to describe MS&A’s
findings including the overall site conditions, wetland rating and categorization, boundary
delineation, and assessment of potential impacts from any future construction projects on site.
Fieldwork for the wetland delineation and rating was completed on July 30th, 2020. Weather
conditions at the site were clear and dry with a light breeze (~73° F). The time of year and recent
precipitation history were considered in assessing the condition and extent of the wetlands.
1.1 Site Description
Jefferson County Tax Parcel # 821081019
NE ¼ Section 8, Township 28N, Range 1E
Address: 2320 Swansonville Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Directions: Take WA-19 to Swansonville Road, destination is on right after 14 miles, just south
of Werner Road
Jefferson County Legal Description: S8 T28 R1E TAX 32 LESS TAX 4
Zoning Description: RR-5 – Rural Residential
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 2
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 3
2. Wetland Assessment Methods
The delineation fieldwork conducted by MS&A 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; USACE, updated May
2010) in accordance with the Shoreline Management and Growth Management Act in
Washington State. The field rating work followed the methodology outlined 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 and setbacks, identified in
accordance with each individual wetland’s rating score, are described in the Jefferson County
Critical Areas Ordinance Chapter 18.22.710 Classification/designation, 18.22.730(6) Wetland
Buffer Widths, Table 18.22.730(1)(a) Standard Wetland Buffer Widths, and
18.22.630(5)(ii) Protection standards (outlining setbacks). For more information on
methodology see Attachment 4.
2.1 Resources reviewed prior to conducting fieldwork
• 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
• 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 boundary of the wetland was assessed and delineated solely within the border of the Hunter
property. MS&A biologists are not certified land surveyors. For any future development
proposals, Jefferson County may require a surveyed site plan by a certified land surveyor
showing the wetland boundary and the buffer overlaid on the engineered project plan drawing.
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 4
3. Results and Findings
3.1 Site Description
The parcel is located in a historically farmed field surrounded by residential housing, conifer
forest, and neighboring farmlands. It is zoned as Rural Residential RR-5, allowing for one unit
per 5 acres. A dilapidated 762 square foot residential building, originally constructed in 1920, is
located on the site, and includes a 30 square foot porch, 16 square foot deck, and 288 square foot
detached garage. The wetland is located in a topographic depression in the northeast corner of
the parcel. There is a Type F stream located on the adjacent property to the east, on the other side
of a raised and compacted gravel driveway located primarily on the neighboring parcel (a small
portion of the driveway is within the bounds of the northeast corner of the Hunter parcel - see
Figure 3). A man-made roadway drainage ditch is located in between the wetland and the
driveway. There is an additional ditch located on the north side of the parcel along Swansonville
Road. There are no culverts leading in or out of the wetland.
On the other side of the compacted driveway mentioned above (to the east of the parcel), the
Type F stream runs from north to south, passing through a culvert (labeled 2321 on the roadway)
beneath Swansonville Road (Figure 3). The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map shows an
associated fresh water emergent wetland in this area (Figure 7). There is a manmade pond
(confirmed by information provided by long-time neighbors) associated with the creek and there
appears to be a wooden footbridge over it. This area is physically separated from the subject
wetland by the raised and compacted gravel driveway, but may not be considered completely
functionally isolated, as the road surface is not completely impervious and it’s possible that
wildlife could cross between the two areas. There are no visible signs that the Hunter wetland is
hydrologically connected to the stream. The Type F stream has a 150 buffer, which falls partially
on the Hunter’s parcel, running through a small portion of the wetland in the northeast corner of
the property (Figure 3).
To the northeast of the Hunter parcel, on the other side of Swansonville Road, the Type F stream
continues and there appear to be associated wetlands along the stream corridor. The NWI map
indicates fresh water emergent and fresh water forested/shrub wetlands in this area (Figure 7).
This area is physically separated and functionally isolated from the small depressional wetland
on the subject property as per Jefferson County Code 18.22.270 by the paved Swansonville
Road. There is no hydrologic connection, and Swansonville Road runs through what would be
considered the buffer area.
There is a man-made hole approximately 10 feet in diameter that is located on the northern side
of the wetland on the Hunter’s property. At the time of the visit, the water depth was
approximately 52 inches from the bottom of hole to water surface. The measurement from the
water surface to the edge of pit was approximately 86” (overall depth of hole ~ 11 feet). A frog
was observed in the water (undetermined species). In talking with neighbors about the history of
this property, it was discovered that the hole was dug with the intent to create a fishpond. The
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 5
current property owners would like to fill the hole in for safety reasons. It was recommended that
large rock be used as fill before adding topsoil.
The subject parcel (see vegetation section 3.4) is composed mainly of non-native planted grass
species, ornamental plants, some native species: Red Alder (Alnus rubra), willow (Salix sp.),
Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana), and herbaceous species noted on data sheet (Attachment 2).
Invasive species were also observed, much of which had been previously mowed down: English
holly (Ilex aquifolium) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus).
The area within a one-kilometer radius of the project site consists of 38.1% non-accessible
relatively undisturbed habitat, 28.6% non-accessible moderate and low intensity land use, and
23.7% high intensity land use. Accessible relatively undisturbed habitat and accessible moderate
and low intensity categories make up less than 10% of combined land use in the area (Figure 2).
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 6
Figure 2. Map Showing 150 ft Boundary and 1 km Habitat/Land use
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 7
3.2 Wetland Delineation and Categorization
The wetland was delineated by MS&A using the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Determination Form – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (Attachment
2). The wetland is located in the northeast corner of the client’s property. As mentioned in
section 3.1, there is a Type F stream and associated pond located on the adjacent property to the
east (parcel # 821081003), on the other side of a compacted gravel driveway. Another larger
wetland appears to be located on the north side of Swansonville Road (parcel # 821081002). A
culvert is located beneath Swansonville road (to the northeast of the Hunter parcel) allowing the
stream to run from north to south underneath the roadway.
During the survey described in this report, MS&A biologists delineated the wetland boundary
with pink ribbon, and the plots were marked with stakes and blue/white ribbon. The wetland was
determined to be approximately 0.12 acres in size. The wetland’s boundary was delineated using
a pair of standard sampling points. Several test pits were dug before the sampling points were
established – one wet, “VHS1” and one dry, “VHS2.” 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. The test pit samples were then assessed for the presence of three wetland
indicators: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (Figure 3).
Two soil map units were identified within the project site (Figures 4 & 5). The wetland was
determined to fall into the HGM Class “Depressional, Category IV” based on functions
(Attachment 3). Depressional wetlands occur in lower topographic areas. This wetland’s primary
source of water is likely a high groundwater table resulting from the nearby stream, and/or
roadway runoff and rainfall. There are no inlets or outlets. This wetland was assigned a 40-foot
buffer for moderate intensity land use projects, according to the Jefferson County Code
18.22.730(1)(a) Standard Wetland Buffer Widths table.
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 8
Figure 3. Wetland Delineation Map with Buffer and Plot Points
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 9
3.3 Wetland Rating
The wetland was rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating Field Data Form
provided by the Department of Ecology 904-06-025 with October 2008 updates (Attachment 3).
The wetland scored a rating of 4 in the “Improving Water Quality” section, 4 in the
“Hydrologic” section, and 5 in the “Habitat” section for a combined score of 13, making this
wetland a Category IV, meaning it possesses very low level habitat value or function. Chapter
18.22.710 of the Jefferson County municipal code states that:
“Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring 15 or fewer total
points) and are often heavily disturbed. These wetlands likely could be replaced or
improved in some cases. Replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These
wetlands may provide some important functions, so they should be protected to some
degree. Category IV wetlands that are non-federally regulated and not associated with a
riparian area and less than one-tenth acre (4,356 square feet) shall be exempt from the
requirements of this article when all of the following criteria are met:
(a) The wetland does not provide significant breeding habitat for native
amphibian species. Breeding habitat is indicated by adequate and stable seasonal
inundation, presence of thin-stemmed emergent vegetation, and clean water;
(b) The wetland does not have unique characteristics that would be difficult to
replace through standard compensatory mitigation practices;
(c) The wetland is not located within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area
(FWHCA) or a FWHCA buffer as defined in Article VI of this chapter, and is not
integral to the maintenance of habitat functions of an FWHCA;
(d) The wetland is not located within a floodplain;
(e) The wetland is not within the jurisdiction of the county shoreline master
program;
(f) The wetland is not part of a mosaic of wetlands and uplands, as determined
using the guidance provided in the wetland rating system; and
(g) The wetland does not score five or more points for habitat functions (based on
the 2014 version of the Washington Department of Ecology Wetland Rating
System, or as amended by Washington Department of Ecology).”
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 10
This wetland was close to meeting the exemption criteria. However, because the wetland has a
habitat score of five or more points, it is considered a regulated wetland.
3.4 Vegetation
The subject parcel is a mix of planted non-native grass species, ornamental plants, some native
species - Red Alder (Alnus rubra), willow (Salix sp.), Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana), herbaceous
species noted on data sheet (Attachment 2). Invasive species observed were English holly (Ilex
aquifolium) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), much of which had been previously
mowed down by the property owners. One Cowardin plant class (shrub/scrub) was observed in
and adjacent to the wetland (see Rating Worksheet Attachment 3).
Just upslope from the depressional wetland, there were more creeping buttercup and grass
species along with Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Red Clover (Trifolium pratense), and
Narrow Leaf Plantain (Plantago lanceolata). A large non-native Hazelnut tree (Corylus sp.) also
stands near the wetland.
To the east of the parcel, along the Type F stream and associated pond, plant species observed
from the road included Common Cattail (Typha latifolia), Red Alder (Alnus rubra), Nootka Rose
(Rosa nutkana), willow (Salix sp.), Buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus
armeniacus), and Water Parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa).
To the north of the Hunter parcel, on the other side of Swansonville Road, plant species observed
from the roadway include Spirea sp., Common Cattail (Typha latifolia), Pacific Willow (Salix
lucida), and Lady Fern (Athyrium filix-femina).
Table 1. Vegetation observed within wetland boundary
Common Name Latin Name Status Stratum
Red Alder Alnus rubra FAC Tree
Soft Rush Juncus effusus FACW Shrub
Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens FAC Herb
Himalayan Blackberry Rubus americanus FAC Woody Vine
OBL – Obligate Wetland Species, FACW – Facultative Wetland Species, FAC – Facultative
Species, FACU – Facultative Upland Species, UPL – Obligate Upland Species. (Plants classified
according to the Fish and Wildlife Service; 1988, 1993)
3.5 Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Service Jefferson County Soil Survey lists the soils as
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 0-15% and Swantown gravelly sandy loam 0-8% (Figures 4 &
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 11
5). Many test pits were dug within the wetland area for verification of the boundary. Two sample
plots were then surveyed for soil conditions – VHS1 and VHS2 (Figure 3).
Soil in sample plot VSH1/HW1 (wet) was comprised of sandy clay loam. Test pits in this sample
plot were significantly wetter compared to VSH2/HD1. VSH1/HW1 had visibly hydric soil with
signs of oxidization. Wetland hydric soils were identified using the Munsell Soil Color Book.
The soil color in the upper 4” was determined to be 99% Munsell 10YR 3/2, and 1% 7.5 YR 4/6.
The soil color between 4-15” was found to be70% 10YR 3/2 and 30% 10YR 5/8. The hydric soil
indicator was “Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11).” There was a restrictive layer of large
gravel and cobble starting at a depth of 12” (Attachment 2).
Soil in sample plot VSH2/HD1 (dry) was comprised of crumbly dry light-colored soil with a
chroma of 3 for the entirety of the 0-16” depth. There were no signs of hydrology in this plot
(Attachment 2).
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 12
Figure 4. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Survey Map and Legend
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 13
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 14
Figure 5. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Unit Descriptions
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 15
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 16
3.6 Hydrology
The topography within the parcel is primarily flat with a depressional wetland located in the
northeast corner of the parcel. There was no surface water present on the site at the time of the
survey. As mentioned in section 3.1, there is a man-made hole approximately 10 feet in diameter
that is located on the northern side of the wetland on the Hunter property. At the time of the visit,
the water depth was approximately 52 inches from the bottom of the hole to the water surface.
The measurement from the water surface to the edge of pit was approximately 86” (overall depth
of hole ~11 feet). The wetland has no inlets or outlets. The larger wetland located on the north
side of Swansonville Road is functionally isolated from the Hunter property by a raised paved
road lacking culverts. To the east, a Type F stream and associated pond are separated from the
Hunter wetland by a compacted gravel driveway and drainage ditch. The larger wetland, pond,
and stream do not appear to be hydrologically connected to the Hunter wetland. The wetland site
has low hydrologic value to the area but could support the absorption of some runoff. The
contributing basin is 119.4 acres (Figure 6).
According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Type F streams are “streams and waterbodies that are known to be
used by fish, or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish. Fish streams may or may
not have flowing water all year; they may be perennial or seasonal.” The buffer size for a Type F
stream is 150 feet (see Figure 3).
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 17
Figure 6. Contributing Basin Map
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 18
3.7 National Wetlands Inventory Query
The United States Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map shows several
freshwater emergent wetlands and a large interconnected freshwater forested/shrub wetland
located within ~0.25 miles of the project site (Figure 7). The same wetlands are identified in the
Jefferson County Critical Areas map (Figure 8).
Figure 7. National Wetland Inventory Map
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 19
Figure 8. Jefferson County Critical Areas Map
4. Wildlife and Habitat Impacts
No development projects have been determined at this time. The wetland has been categorized to
have low habitat value and function.
4.1 Wildlife
Two Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats were found within
0.25 miles of the parcel - Freshwater forested/Shrub wetland, and Freshwater emergent wetland
aquatic habitat (Figure 9).
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 20
Figure 9. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species Map
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 21
4.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) information
The project is in an area of minimal flood hazard – Zone X (Figure 10).
Figure 10. FEMA Flood Map
4.3 Water Quality
No 303(d) listed polluted waters are found near the parcel. No Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) ratings were found near the property (Figure 11).
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 22
Figure 11. Water Quality Map
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 23
4.4 Rare Species and/or Habitats
No Washington Natural Heritage Program rare vascular plants or Wetlands of High Conservation
Value (WHCV) were reported near the project site.
Figure 12. WA Wetlands of High Conservation Value Map
5. Summary
This wetland report documents the presence of a Category IV Depressional Wetland located in
the northeast corner of Jefferson County parcel #821081019 (Figure 3). The wetland was
mapped, delineated, and rated by MS&A on July 30th 2020. A 40-foot buffer was established
according to specifications for moderate intensity land use projects in the Jefferson County
Critical Areas Municipal Code (18.22.730(1)(a) Standard Wetland Buffer Widths) for a Category
IV Depressional Wetland.
The wetland on the Hunter’s property is approximately 0.12 acres in size, and has been
determined to be of low habitat value and function. There are no visible signs of water
inflow/outflow. The parcel is located within a rural area bordered by conifer forest and farmland.
Two priority habitats are located within a quarter mile of the project area - Freshwater
Project location
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 24
forested/Shrub wetland, and Freshwater emergent wetland aquatic habitat (Figure 9), but no
priority species were identified in the area.
A Type F stream and an associated pond border the property on the eastern side, just opposite the
neighboring driveway, which is made of compacted gravel and has an associated drainage ditch.
Because it is a potential fish bearing waterway, the buffer for this stream type is 150 feet. The
stream and associated pond appear to be functionally isolated from the Hunter wetland with the
exception that wildlife could cross between the two habitat zones, and the gravel may have some
permeability. A larger wetland is located to the north of the Hunter property on the opposite side
of Swansonville Road, and is functionally isolated from the Hunter wetland because of the raised
and compacted paved roadway. There are no culverts connecting either area to the Hunter
wetland.
It is the opinion of MS&A that the wetland will not be impacted as long as any future
development is constructed outside of the buffer area. Final jurisdictional authority and
permitting on this project will be the responsibility of the appropriate local, state, and/or federal
government agencies involved. Wetland status or characterization outlined in this report has not
been confirmed by a government agency. All information contained in this report should be
reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to approval or issuance of permits.
Hunter Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MS&A | 25
6. 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, 2008.
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
Pojar, Mackinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast.
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
ATTACHMENT 1
Photo Documentation
Photo Documentation at Hunter Site
Looking into wetland from the driveway to the east
Soil in wetland plot - VSH 1(HW1)
Man-made pond within wetland
Water table in man-made pond
ATTACHMENT 2
Wetland Determination Forms
ATTACHMENT 3
Wetland Rating Forms
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
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
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ 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 ____ (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
Water Quality
Hydrologic
Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
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
Hunter - 2320 Swansonville Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 30 July 2020
Meg Amos 2014
Depressional
4 4 5 13
IV
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
No outlet
Only one hydroperiod
Entire wetland one class
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
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
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be 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 – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
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.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is 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 – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics 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 > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? 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 of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3?
Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 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 society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
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
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 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
3
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet 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 the watershed: 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 6-11 = 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
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 = 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 flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met .
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
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?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
4
0
0
4
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 ¼ 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
____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 ¼ 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
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
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
< 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.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
Entire wetland area recently
cleared of Himalayan Blackberry
0
0
0
0Himalayan Blackberry was the main cover
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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
____Undercut 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 ¼ 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
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 habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
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)
≤ 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.
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)
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: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
3.8 3 6.8
0
38.1 14.3 52.4
3
0
Type F stream within 100 m
1
0
3
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority 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. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and 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 (53 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.
Type F Stream within 100 m, with associated wetlands.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
Cat. I
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
Cat. I
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat I
Cat. II
Cat. III
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
ATTACHMENT 4
Methodology
1
Methodology
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.
When delineating the boundary of a wetland, the edges are staked and flagged. The test plots
have flagging of a differing color. Whenever possible, GPS locations are taken at the test plot
data points, as well as around the boundary of the wetland.
Evaluating 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.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) wetland
plant species must, under normal circumstances, constitute greater than 50% of the total
vegetation present to meet the qualification as a site dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.
Dominance of plant species is determined by estimating plant cover within a reasonable radius of
each data point. Commonly occurring plant species have been rated by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands:
Northwest (Region 9), as to their frequency of occurrence in wetlands and non - wetlands.
During the fieldwork, each species is recorded and given a rating based on percent cover and
indicator status, obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), and/ or facultative (FAC).
2
Evaluating 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.
Wetland hydric soils are 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.
Evaluating 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. 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. Visual
observation of soil saturation requires digging a soil pit to a depth of 18 inches. If the water table
is found within the soil test pit near twelve inches of the soil surface one can assume that soil
saturation occurs to the surface. Positive signs of hydrology are sometimes absent during the
summer and fall months but can be inferred if there are positive indicators of hydric soil and
hydrophytic vegetation.
National Wetlands Inventory Query
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.
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
3
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. All wetlands identified using this
methodology may be federally regulated, regardless of size.
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. Buffers are assigned according
to intensity of land use for specific parcel size using final numeric scores. Category I is the
highest quality wetland because they are not replaceable and therefore receive the highest
protection.
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.
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.
The parcel in question was examined to identify potential wetlands based on observed plant
communities, topographic features, hydrology sources, hydric soils, wildlife use, habitat
functions, and drainage patterns. It was determined whether human impacts to the site would
significantly alter any wetlands found.