Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRevised Wetland Delineation 802244003 Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC 834 East Front Street, Suite E, Port Angeles, Washington 98362 trevor@westech-ec.com WETLAND DELINEATION 288944 HIGHWAY 101 QUILCENE, WASHINGTON ASSESSOR’S PARCEL # 802-24-4003 August 2022 Trevor Shea, CWD and G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. Submitted to: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Submitted by: WESTECH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 834 East Front Street, Suite E Port Angeles, Washington 98362 Oct 07 2022 WETLAND DELINEATION 288944 HIGHWAY 101 QUILCENE, WASHINGTON ASSESSOR’S PARCEL # 802-24-4003 August 2022 Trevor Shea, CWD and G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. Copyright 2022 by Trevor Shea, Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC – All Rights Reserved Submitted to: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Submitted by: WESTECH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 834 East Front Street, Suite E Port Angeles, Washington 98362 WW1819.2-LakeLelandWD.TOC/082422/tjs i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER/SECTION PAGE NO. _______________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 METHODS 2 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS 6 3.1 Existing Conditions 6 3.2 Description of Critical Areas 10 3.3 Land Uses and Habitat Values 11 3.4 Wetland Types and Buffers 12 3.5 Online Mapping Review 13 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 4.1 Conclusions 14 4.2 Recommendations 14 5.0 REFERENCES 15 TABLES Table 1. List of Plant Species: On-Site Wetlands 7 Table 2. Site Soils 9 ` APPENDICES Appendix A – Maps & Figures A-1 Appendix B – Site Photographs B-1 Appendix C – Wetland Data Forms C-1 Appendix D – Wetland Rating Forms & Maps D-1 WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Project Site is owned by Ms. Molly Klupfell and is located at 288944 Highway 101, Quilcene, Washington (Figures 1-3). The Project Site is located within Section 24 of Township 28N and Range 2 West, in Jefferson County, Washington. The Project Site consists of one developed parcel that lies between the eastern edge of Lake Leland and Highway 101. The site is approximately 0.72 acres in size and has a single- family residence and garage structure located near the highway. The registered parcel number is 802-24-4003. The site is zoned RR-5 (Rural Residential). County Assessor's parcel maps, Google Earth aerial maps, and ArcGIS Pro GIS mapping software were used to determine locations and features of the Project Site (Figures 1-3). Initial field investigations of the wetlands were conducted by Mr. Collin Boe on August 2, 2022, with Mr. Trevor Shea present on video call. This report was written by Trevor Shea. Presently the Site is developed, consisting of an existing single-family residence and garage/shop building, and an open field/lawn area that extends from the existing structures to the lake shore. The proposed project is to tear down the existing garage structure and replace it with a new garage building. Ms. Molly Klupfell contracted with Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC (Westech) to delineate the on-site wetland that lies on the project site and to mark the OHWM of Lake Leland. The site was found to contain a Category II Lake fringe wetland (Wetland A) that extended into the lawn area from the lake’s edge. Wetland Regulations have been enacted as part of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Protection Code (Sections 18.22.100-18.22.965). Methods of investigation are summarized in Chapter 2.0 of this report. Chapter 3.0 of this Report contains results of the delineation. Chapter 4.0 contains Conclusions and Recommendations, followed by Chapter 5.0, References. Appendix A contains Maps and Figures, Appendix B contains Site Photographs. Appendix C contains Wetland Data Forms, and Appendix D contains the Rating Form and Maps. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 2 2.0 METHODS The Wetland was delineated and rated according to procedures required by the Jefferson County Code (JCCAC) (Sections 18.22.100-18.22.965). The JCCAC requires that wetlands be identified and delineated (JCCAC 18.22.700) whenever wetlands are believed to occur within 300 feet of the property boundaries of the proposed development. The Project (addition/remodel of existing garage structure) is considered a “moderate intensity” land use under the County Code. Since the State of Washington now defers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE or Corps) Wetland Delineation Methods, this wetland was delineated according to the Corps’ Wetland Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (USACE 2010). The Wetland was rated by the methods outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (DOE 2014). The following methods are drawn from the Corps’ Regional Supplement (USACE 2010). The Corps’ manual defines wetlands as those “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Wetlands are defined by the following three criteria: 1. Vegetation: Prevalent vegetation consisting of macrophytes (containing macro- phytic vegetation) adapted to areas with wetland hydrologic and soil conditions. 2. Hydric soils: Soils that are histosols, in aquic suborders or that show certain characteristics associated with poor draining, very poor draining or ponding for a long duration during the growing season. 3. Hydrology: Evidence that the area is inundated or saturated to the surface between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season in most years. Evidence of at least one (usually two or three) wetland indicators from each of these three categories is generally required to identify an area as a wetland. Preliminary data gathering consisted of the examining U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps, county parcel, wetlands, and topographic maps, aerial photographs, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys. Because these sources were insufficient to make a determination, additional information on site vegetation, soils and hydrology was gathered at the Site. The Site did not appear to have the complexity to require a comprehensive determination, therefore a Routine Determination with Onsite Inspection was used. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 3 The wetland boundaries were initially estimated by noting likely areas of topographic and vegetative distinction between wetlands and uplands. The routine method for delineating wetlands begins with the identification of plant communities, as uplands and wetlands are often occupied by different assemblages of species determined by combinations of environmental influences. These plant communities were identified and evaluated for the presence or absence of hydrophytic vegetation. The wetland indicator status of the dominant species is used to determine the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. Each species has an indicator status defined according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (USACE 2020). A species indicator status refers to the relative frequency at which the species occurs in jurisdictional wetlands. Wetland plant species (OBL, FACW and/or FAC) must constitute greater than 50 percent of the dominant vegetation to meet Corps and Department of Ecology (DOE) criterion for hydrophytic vegetation (USACE 2010). Since non-dominant plants in the wetland were scattered irregularly throughout, small transects could not be utilized to estimate percent coverage. Accordingly, a combination of on-Site visual inspection and aerial maps were used to estimate percent coverage. These estimates were used to conduct a dominance test with 50/20 selection as described in the Corps manual (USACE 2010). Wetland plants were primarily identified in the field, with subsequent collection and keying when necessary. Plants were identified using the following sources: Hansen’s Northwest Plants Database 2022 USDA NRCS Plants Database 2022 US Army Corps of Engineers Plants Database 2022 Roche, Brainard & Wilson 2019 Guard 2010 Cooke 1997 Hitchcock and Cronquist 2018 Picture This – Plant Identifier 2022 Turner 2014 Taylor 1995 Keying of plants using magnifying lenses and dissecting microscope was used, as necessary. Determination of wetland indicator status utilized regional keys published by US Corps of Engineers (USACE 2020). This indicator list replaces the USDA and US Fish and Wildlife lists. Areas with plant communities dominated by hydrophytic vegetation were then evaluated for wetland hydrology and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology refers to “all hydrological characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season.” These are areas with evidence that the presence of water has an overriding influence on the characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions (USACE 2010). WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 4 An area has wetland hydrology if it is inundated or saturated to the surface continuously for at least five percent (5%) of the growing season in most years. The level of inundation can range from permanently inundated to irregularly inundated/saturated. The level of inundation/saturation can be impacted by precipitation, topography, and soil characteristics. Hydrology is often the least exact of the parameters used to delineate wetland edges because it is the most ephemeral and leaves the least reliable traces in the landscape after water tables or floods have receded. Therefore, indicators of wetland hydrology are sometimes difficult to find in the field. However, it is essential that a wetland area is periodically inundated or has saturated soils for a sufficient duration during the growing season. Based on Corps regulations, Westech staff noted areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology. In general, places with wetland hydrology show evidence that the presence of water has had an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and chemically reducing conditions. Hydrologic conditions were determined through examination of topographic relief and drainage patterns. Soil moistness was determined by hand and, in the event of standing water, depth to standing water was noted. Field indicators of wetland hydrology include such features as watermarks, historic records, and visual observation of saturated soils or inundation. Evidence of hydric soils was checked along the apparent wetland boundary. These are soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper layers. These soils are identified in the field mainly by morphological features such as color patterns, organic matter accumulation, and observation of inundation. Soils were sampled to depths of up to 18-24 inches using a wetland shovel and soil auger. Soil consistency was determined by feeling for grain size and texture. Soil moisture was determined at that time. In the event of saturated conditions in the hole, depth to standing water was noted. Soil color was determined through comparison of field samples with standard Munsell Color Charts (Munsell 2009). Soil was also examined for presence of redox features, gley or other indicators of anaerobic soil oxidation. If one or more of these indicators was present in the wetlands, the soil was considered hydric. The wetland was determined based on the Routine On-Site Field Method used by the Corps using a combination of vegetation, soil, and hydrology indicators. The boundary of the wetland was determined by first mapping each plant community area as wetland or non-wetland. The general wetland boundary was determined by the interface of these two mapping units. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 5 Wetland boundaries were confirmed, and the boundary locations narrowed down by sampling specific transects along wetland boundaries. Various points were sampled for vegetation, soil, and hydrology in order to pinpoint the location of wetland boundaries. Appendix C contains the data form for one sample from a typical area of the delineated wetland. This test pit was paired with a test pit from an upland area in order to determine the wetland boundary in that area. Other pairs of test pits were also taken to help determine the boundary. The Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) was determined through the methodology outlined by Washington Department of Ecology. Field indicators were observed and marked in field notes in order to determine where the OHWM was in relation to the lake shore. The Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Leland was marked and flagged using yellow/black striped tape tied to 48” wooden stakes. The on-site wetland boundary was indicated in the field by the use of pink flagging tape tied to 48” wooden stakes or tied to vegetation. Buffer widths were determined based the Jefferson County Code and mapped with GPS and ArcGIS Pro Software. The Wetland Field Data Station and associated soil test pits were indicated by blue and white diagonal flagging and stakes containing the test pit number (labeled VSH-# for vegetation, soils and hydrology stations). One site visit was carried out by Mr. Collin Boe on August 2, 2022. Mr. Trevor Shea was present for this site investigation via video call. This report was carried out by Mr. Shea, with assistance from Dr. G. Bradford Shea, and Ms. Mary Ann Shea (Administrator). Exploration of the Property (Site) involved noting Site characteristics such as hydrology and soil conditions. A botanical study involving identification of the plant species found growing on the Site was also conducted. The wetland edge and lake’s OHWM was delineated, and photographic documentation was acquired (Appendix B). Measurements for mapping purposes were made using a fiberglass tape measure and Trimble DA2 Catalyst GPS unit. This GPS unit has sub-meter accuracy (+- 60 CM). WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 6 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS 3.1 Existing Conditions The Site consists of one developed parcel located at 288944 Highway 101, Quilcene, Washington. There is an existing single-family residence and garage building located along the property’s eastern edge near Highway 101. There is a mowed lawn area that extends from the back of the home to the shore of Lake Leland. The total acreage of the site is approximately 0.72 acres. Figure 3 shows the current site conditions. Highway 101 lies along the site’s eastern property boundary with Lake Leland bordering its western boundary. The site is a relatively flat property that ranges in elevation between approximately 199-205 feet above mean sea level (msl). Wetland A extends partway up the back yard from the water line. The surrounding properties are single-family or undeveloped rural residential properties in unincorporated Jefferson County. Jefferson County maps show a relatively accurate location for Wetland A. Westech’s field investigation found the on-site wetland to be a lake fringe wetland that extended partway up the mowed lawn area towards the house. Wetland A was rated and found to be a Category II wetland. Both the OHWM and the wetland boundary were marked using Trimble GPS technology that is accurate to within a meter. These boundaries were then incorporated into ArcGIS geospatial software to create the attached maps in this report. The lake fringe wetland (Wetland A) is classified as Palustrine emergent. The National Wetland’s Inventory has Leland Lake mapped and labeled as L1UBH (Lacustrine Limnetic Unconsolidated Bottom) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 2022). Vegetation Wetland A is a lake fringe wetland that is dominated by emergent and aquatic bed vegetation. The wetland is dominated by creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia) (FACW), cattail (Typha latifolia) (OBL), Panicled bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) (OBL), soft rush (Juncus effuses), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) (FAC). The rest of the property consisted of upland open field vegetation dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) (FAC), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) (FAC), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) (FACU), and red clover (Trifolium pratense) (FACU). A detailed list of plants found at the Site is shown in Table 1. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 7 TABLE 1. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES: ON-SITE WETLANDS Common Name Scientific Name Indicator * Wetland Slough Sedge Carex obnupta OBL Western red cedar Thuja plicata FAC Rose spirea Spiraea douglasii FACW Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera FAC Sitka willow Salix sitchensis FACW Common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus FAC Creeping jenny Lysimachia nummularia FACW Broadleaf cattail Typhy latifolia OBL Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC Soft rush Juncus effuses FACW Panicled bulrush Scirpus microcarpus OBL Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis FAC Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea FAC Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens FAC Upland Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis FAC Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea FAC Vine maple Acer circinatum FAC Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata FACU Indian plum Oemleria cersiformis FACU Mullein Verbascum thapsus FACU Self-heal Prunella vulgaris FACU White clover Trifolium repens FAC Red clover Trifolium pratense FACU *Indicators: UPL = Upland plant, FACU= Facultative Upland Plant (more upland than wetland), FAC = Facultative (borderline wetland plant), FACW = Facultative Wetland Plant (prefers wetland conditions), OBL = Obligate (only found in wetlands). WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 8 Soils “Hydric soils” is a name for soils commonly found in wetlands. These soils are identified mainly by morphological features such as color patterns, organic matter accumulation, or observation of inundation. A soil may be considered hydric if it is inundated (flooded or ponded) for at least one continuous week during the growing season in most years (Corps 2010). Westech staff looked for field indicators of hydric soil conditions as recommended by the Corps. If one or more of these indicators was present in the wetlands, the soil was considered hydric (Corps 2010). Westech staff examined existing NRCS soil surveys of the Site. The NRCS mapped two dominant soils on the Site (NRCS 2022) which is shown in Figure 4. The specific soils at the Site are: Belfast silt loam, heavy variant (Bh): This soil is moderately well drained with a depth to the restrictive feature at more than 80 inches below the surface. Its parent material consists of alluvium and primarily forms on flood plains. This soil’s capacity to transmit water is classified as moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 inch/hour) and has a depth to water table approximately 24 to 48 inches. Available water capacity is high (about 12 inches) and it has no frequency of ponding or flooding. This soil type is not classified as “Hydric”. Snohomish silty clay loam (SO): This soil’s is a poorly drained soil and has a depth to the restrictive layer of more than 80 inches below the surface. Its parent material consists of alluvium and forms within floodplains. It has a depth to water table of about 0 to 12 inches and has a very high available water supply (about 32.6 inches). This soil’s capacity to transmit water is classified as moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 inch/hour) and has occasional frequency of ponding or flooding. This soil type is classified as a Hydric soil. Because NRCS soil surveys do not necessarily capture small scale variation, Westech staff conducted additional field studies of the soils. To examine soils in the wetland boundary, Westech staff dug soil pits and observed soil characteristics. The location of two of these plots has been marked in the field using wooden stakes tied with blue and white striped flagging. The soil information taken at these sample points is highlighted in Table 2 and shown in Appendix C. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 9 Wetland soils were found to be mostly clayey loam soils. These soils were near the wetland edge to assist in identifying the wetland boundary. The soils closer to the lake were mucky peat soils commonly found in marshy lake shores. These soils were consistent with the Snohomish silty clay loam soils mapped by NRCS. The uplands were also found to be consistent with the characteristics of the Belfast soil types. Overall, surface soils on the Site appear to be roughly consistent with the NRCS mapping. Field investigations found that the soils conformed roughly to the NRCS characterization, in the upland areas consisting of gravelly loams in the upland. Peat, clay and loamy clay soils were found in the wetland based on data from the test quadrats (soils test pits and surrounding vegetation). The Wetland soil pit showed soils with hydric indicators. No restrictive layers were found within those depths. The soils in VSH 1 had a chroma/value ranging from 3/1 to 5/2 and had redox features (depletions). These soils also meet the U.S. Army Corps criterion for hydric soils described as Depleted Matrix (F3). The soil pit taken in the upland areas consisted of loamy soils and had a chroma/value of 4/2 (10YR) in VSH-2. These soils did not meet Army Corps hydric soils criterion. TABLE 2. SITE SOILS Location/Depth Type Value/Chroma VSH-1 (Wetland) 0-6” 6-20” Clayey loam Clayey loam 10YR 3/1 10YR 5/2 (95%) 10YR 4/6 (5%) VSH-2 (Upland) 0-10” 10-20” Loam Loam 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/2 WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 10 Hydrology Numerous factors (e.g., precipitation, topography, soil permeability, and plant cover) influence the wetness of an area. The wetland boundary of Wetland A matched the OHWM of Lake Leland. Hydrology for Wetland A is therefore largely sustained from the lake itself, with additional hydrology being fed from upslope runoff and direct precipitation. The area of the wetland near the lake shore appears to be heavily inundated year-round for most years according to aerial photographs and site investigations. The upper part of the wetland appears to be only occasionally inundated. Field investigations were taken during the dry season (August). During these investigations, the wetland soils showed saturation and a high-water table, although the test pits were taken outside of the permanently inundated area of the wetland. Hydrological indicators observed consisted of Surface Water (A1), High-Water Table (A2) and Saturation (A3). 3.2 Description of Critical Areas Westech’s field investigations determined that one Category II Lake fringe wetland was located on the site. Two soil test pits were taken, and the wetland boundary and OHWM of Lake Leland was mapped using GPS measuring software. Figure 5 shows the wetland’s location, shape, as well as the lake’s OHWM and test pit locations. Wetland A extends from the shoreline of Lake Leland to partway up the mowed lawn area behind the existing structures. Westech’s field investigations found that the lake’s OHWM and the boundary of the lake fringe wetland were in the same place and marked both boundaries in the field. This wetland was rated as a Category II Lake fringe wetland, and it covers a large portion of the yard area behind the house. Although the wetland continues across neighboring lots, only the project site was delineated at this time. The main source of hydrology to the wetland comes from the lake itself. Other sources of hydrology for Wetland A appears to come from direct precipitation and upslope runoff. Wetland boundaries were determined by first noting likely areas of topographic and vegetative distinction between wetland and uplands. The Site vegetation was found to transition from upland to wetland in a relatively abrupt fashion, apparently due to topography. Evidence of hydric soils was checked along the apparent wetland boundary. Westech staff noted the presence of soils marked by redox features in the boundary areas of each wetland. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 11 Westech staff also noted the presence of hydrological indicators. While difficult to find, and often the least exact of the three indicators, Westech staff noted areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology, places where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and chemically reducing conditions. These indicators are listed above and can also be found in Appendix C. The vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the Site are described in more detail in the previous subsections. Results of these three factors at two test pits are contained in Appendix C. Figure 5 shows the location of the critical areas relative to nearby features. Site photographs are shown in Appendix B. 3.3 Land Uses and Habitat Values Wetlands are transitional areas between upland and aquatic environments where water is present long enough to form distinct soils, and where specialized, water-tolerant plants grow. Wetlands serve a variety of functions such as transferring surface water into the ground, thereby recharging groundwater supplies. Wetlands trap water along with sediments and pollutants providing storm-water detention and filtration; mitigate flood impacts; and provide wildlife habitat. Wetland buffers are important because they reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses on wetlands. The buffers serve to stabilize soil and prevent erosion, filter suspended solids, nutrients and toxic substances and moderate impacts of storm-water runoff. As such, buffers serve to preserve wetland functions. They also provide important habitat for wildlife living in and around the wetland. The Site was checked using the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife “Priority Habitats and Species” database. This showed that Leland Lake is habitat for several priority threatened and endangered fish species. Leland Lake is also listed on the Water Quality Atlas as a 303d impaired water body. The Property is currently zoned RR-5 (Rural Residential) and is surrounded by a mixture of undeveloped lots and individual single-family residences. The proposed project (construction of a new garage building) is considered as moderate intensity land use. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 12 3.4 Wetland Types and Buffers The buffer sizes to be applied at this Site are governed by the Jefferson County Critical Areas Code. In order to establish buffer sizes, Jefferson County requires that wetlands be rated using the Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (WDOE 2006, 2014). In this system, wetland ratings are based on: 1) Water Quality Function (i.e., Does the wetland have the ability to improve water quality?) 2) Hydrologic Function (i.e., Does the wetland decrease flooding and/or erosion?) 3) Habitat Function (i.e., Does the wetland provide habitat for many species?) In Washington, wetland rating categories are based on the rarity of the type of wetland, our ability to replace it, its sensitivity to adjacent human disturbances, and the functions it performs. The objective of the rating system is to divide wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. Wetland A was rated as a Category II Lake fringe wetland with an overall score of 21 (DOE 2014). This wetland had a Water Quality score of 9, Hydrologic score of 5, and a Habitat score of 7. Under Jefferson County’s Code, a project of this type is considered “moderate intensity”. A Category II wetland with a habitat score of 7 and a moderate intensity project is required to have a buffer of 110 feet. Lake Leland itself is categorized as a “Shoreline of Statewide Significance” and therefore requires that the OHWM be identified for any project occurring within 200 feet of its shoreline. The OHWM was found to be the same as the wetland boundary of Wetland A and was marked in the field using yellow/black striped tape tied to wooden stakes. As per Jefferson County Code, a lake shoreline is required to have a 100-foot buffer from the OHWM (JCC 18.25.270). Figure 5 shows both the 100-foot shoreline buffer and the 110-foot wetland buffer in relation to the proposed project area. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 13 3.5 Online Mapping Review Jefferson County Map Jefferson County mapping shows Wetland A and is relatively accurate in its size and location. Field investigations refined and clarified the boundary. The OHWM of Lake Leland was also marked in the field and found to be the same boundary as Wetland A. No other critical areas are mapped on the Site. National Wetlands Inventory Map The NWI mapping database shows Lake Leland as a Lacustrine Unconsolidated Bottom wetland and Wetland A as a Palustrine emergent wetland. NWI mapping can often be inexact, however, in this case it appears to be fairly accurate. No other wetlands were mapped on the site. Priority Habitat Species Map The PHS database was consulted to search for any priority species located on or near the Site. The database found that several fish species that are listed on the Endangered Species List can be found within Lake Leland. Washington State Water Quality Atlas Map Washington State’s 303d mapping software lists Lake Leland as a Category 5 (303d) listed water. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 14 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Conclusions Access to the site is provided by an existing driveway from Highway 101. There is an existing single-family residence and garage located on the east side of the site, with a frequently mowed lawn area extending from the buildings to the shoreline of Lake Leland. The proposed project is to construct a new garage building in place of the existing garage. This type of project is classified as a “moderate intensity” project under Jefferson County Code (JCC 18.22.730). Wetland A was classified and rated as a Category II Lake fringe wetland associated with Lake Leland. Lake Leland is also classified as a “shoreline of statewide significance” and is therefore protected under Jefferson County’s Shoreline Code. The edge of Wetland A and the OHWM of Lake Leland were identified and marked in the field and were found to be the same boundaries. Wetland A had a habitat score of 7 as per the DOE Rating System. A Category II wetland with a habitat score of 7 is required to have a 110-foot buffer for a moderate intensity project. Additionally, the shoreline of a lake that is designated as a “shoreline of statewide significance” is required to have a 100-foot buffer from the OHWM. On-site measurements, GPS data collection, and geospatial analysis found that the proposed project appears to be outside of both buffer areas. 4.2 Recommendations A construction fence (silt fence or equivalent erosion control measure) should be placed between the construction area and the critical areas prior to any disturbance for the project. Placement of the fences should be based on locations of critical areas as delineated and described in this report and as staked by Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC in the field. Disturbance activities should not take place after September 30 or before May 1 without all possible erosion control measures in place. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 15 5.0 REFERENCES ArcGIS Pro. 2022. Version 2.8.0. ArcGIS Pro Mapping Software. Esri. Berkley, California. Cooke, S.S. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Google Earth. 2022. Online mapping software. www.googleearth.com. Imagery date July 29, 2021. Europa Technologies. Guard, J. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing. Renton, Washington. Hansen’s. 2022. Hansen’s Northwest Native Plant Database. www.nwplants.com Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Jefferson County. 2022a. Critical Areas Mapping website. https://gisweb.jeffcowa.us/LandRecords Jefferson County. 2022b. Critical Areas Code. https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/html/JeffersonCounty18/Jeff ersonCounty1822.html Jefferson County. 2022c. Shoreline Master Program. https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/html/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1825.html Lyons, C.P. 1997. Wildflowers of Washington. Lone Pine Publishing. Renton, Washington. Munsell Color. 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Munsell Color. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey website. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 2004. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing Company. Redmond, Washington. Taylor, R. 1995. Northwest Weeds. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula Montana. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987/1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022. (Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/java/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. National List of Species that Occur in Wetlands; Region 9 (and Supplement). Biological Report 88(26.9). Portland, Oregon. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2014. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington. Publication #14-06-029. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2022. Priority Habitats and Species Website. WDFW – PHS Website. WW1819-LakeLelandWD.RPT/0824/tjs 17 APPENDICIES WW1819.2-LakeLelandWD.APPA/082322/tjs A-1 APPENDIX A MAPS & FIGURES Source: ArcGIS Pro 2022 2022 Figure 1: Location Map Earthstar Geographics, County of Kitsap, Island County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC ¯Legend Project Location 0 3 61.5 Miles Maynard 104 101 101 Vinland Swansonville Fairmont Beaver Valley East Quilcene Center 104 307 Port Ludlow Breidablick Port Gamble Hansville Source: ArcGIS Pro 2022 2022 Figure 2: Vicinity Map County of Kitsap, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, Maxar Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC ¯Legend Project Location 0 0.5 10.25 MilesPacificCoastSceni c By w y US Highway 101Lake Leland Park Leland Source: ArcGIS Pro 2022 2022 Figure 3: Aerial Map Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Kitsap, WA State Parks GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC ¯Legend Property Boundary 0 40 8020 US FeetUSHighway1 0 1 Figure 4: Soil Map (Lake Leland) Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC 2022 Source: NRCS 2022 Source: ArcGIS Pro 2022 2022 Figure 5: Map of Critical Areas Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Kitsap, WA State Parks GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC ¯Legend Property Boundary Test Points Wetland Boundary Ordinary High Water Mark 110' Wetland Buffer OHWM 100' Shoreline Buffer 0 40 8020 US FeetUSHighway1 0 1 WW1819.2-LakeLelandWD.APPB/082322/tjs B-1 APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS WW1819.2-LakeLelandWD.APPB/082322/tjs B-2 1) View of the existing dock at lake edge. 2) View of lake edge and undisturbed vegetation on neighboring property. WW1819.2-LakeLelandWD.APPB/082322/tjs B-3 3) Phot showing VSH-1 and VSH-2 locations. 4) Photo of OHWM and Wetland boundary in relation to the existing house. WW1819.2-LakeLelandWD.APPC/082322/tjs C-1 APPENDIX C WETLAND DATA FORMS 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: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , 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 showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: WW1819-LakeLeland Quilecene, Jefferson 8-2-2022 VSH-1 Terrace 47.899965 N 122.873821 W NAD83 S24 T28N R2W x Site significantly disturbed by frequent and recent mowings. Wetland plants including Juncus effusus (FACW) and Scirpus microcarpus (OBL)mowed down. Snohomish silty clay loam 30 sq ft. 30 sq ft. 6 sq ft. 6 sq ft. Lysimachia nummularia 40 Y FACW Holcus lanatus 30 Y FAC Trifolium repens 25 Y FAC Spiraea douglasii 15 N FACW 15 95 3 3 100 x x x x x None 0 x 0 PEM1/SSF Molly Klupfell X X Collin Boe WA Northwest Forest US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) 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) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 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: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: VSH-1 x 0-6 10YR 3/1 100 Clayey Loam Damp DampClayey Loam6-20 10YR 5/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 PLC x x x x x Surface x X 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: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , 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 showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Lake Leland Quilecene, Jefferson 8-02-22 VSH-2 S24 T28N R2W Terrace None 0 NAD8347.899979 N 122.873774 W Belfast silt loam, Heavy Variant x Site significantly disturbed by frequent and recent mowings. Wetland plants including Juncus effusus (FACW) and Scirpus microcarpus (OBL) mowed down. 30 sq ft. 30 sq ft. 6 sq ft. 6 sq ft. Spiraea douglasii 5 N FACW 5 Ranunculus repens 40 FACY Holcus lanatus 30 Y FAC Lysimachia nummularia 15 FACWN Prunella vulgaris 10 FACUN 95 2 2 100 x x x x x x PEM1/SSF Molly Klupfell X X Collin Boe WA Northwest Forest US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) 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) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 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: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: VSH-2 0-10 10YR 4/2 100 Dry 10-20 10YR 4/2 99 10YR 4/6 <1 C PL Loam Loam Dry x Soil shows very small amount of redox the final 10 inches, all other indicators show upland features. x x x x WW1819.2-LakeLelandWD.APPD/082322/tjs D-1 APPENDIX D WETLAND RATING FORM AND MAPS Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form Ȃ Effective January 1, 2015 Score for eachfunction 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 ʹ Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II ʹ Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III ʹ Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV ʹ 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 Wetland A Lake Leland 8/2/2022 x 6/2022 xLake Fringe Collin Boe 9 5 7 21 x II ArcGIS PRO X Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form Ȃ 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 D-1 D-2 D-2 D-3 D-4 N/A Wetland A Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form Ȃ 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 Ȃ go to 2 YES Ȃ the wetland class is Tidal Fringe Ȃ 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 Ȃ go to 3 YES Ȃ 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 Ȃ 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 Ȃ 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 A Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form Ȃ Effective January 1, 2015 NO Ȃ go to 6 YES Ȃ 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 Ȃ go to 7 YES Ȃ 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 Ȃ go to 8 YES Ȃ 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 A Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 9 Rating Form Ȃ Effective January 1, 2015 LAKE FRINGE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality L 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? L 1.1. Average width of plants along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Plants are more than 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 6 Plants are more than 16 ft (5 m) wide and <33 ft points = 3 Plants are more than 6 ft (2 m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Plants are less than 6 ft wide points = 0 L 1.2. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other plants that are not aquatic bed > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other plants that are not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed plants and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Total for L 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 8-12 = H 4-7 = M 0-3 = L Record the rating on the first page L 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? L 2.1. Is the lake used by power boats? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of wetland unit on the upland side in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 2.3. Does the lake have problems with algal blooms or excessive plant growth such as milfoil? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for L 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential: If score is: 2 or 3 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page L 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? L 3.1. Is the lake on the 303(d) list of degraded aquatic resources? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 3.2. Is the lake in a 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 L 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 lake or basin in which the unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for L 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 Wetland A 6 6 12 x 0 1 1 x 1 1 1 0 2 x Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 10 Rating Form Ȃ Effective January 1, 2015 LAKE FRINGE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion L 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 4.1. Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include Aquatic bed): Choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland. > ¾ of distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 6 > ¾ of distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 6 ft (2 m) wide points = 4 > ¼ distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 4 Plants are at least 6 ft (2 m) wide (any type except Aquatic bed) points = 2 Plants are less than 6 ft (2 m) wide (any type except Aquatic bed) points = 0 Rating of Site Potential: If score is: 6 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page L 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? L 5.1. Is the lake used by power boats with more than 10 hp? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 5.2. Is the fetch on the lake side of the unit at least 1 mile in distance? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for L 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page L 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? L 6.1. Are there resources along the shore that can be impacted by erosion? If more than one resource is present, choose the one with the highest score. There are human structures or old growth/mature forests within 25 ft of OHWM of the shore in the unit points = 2 There are nature trails or other paths and recreational activities within 25 ft of OHWM points = 1 Other resources that could be impacted by erosion points = 1 There are no resources that can be impacted by erosion along the shores of the unit points = 0 Rating of Value: If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland A 2 x 2 x 0 0 0 x X X Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form Ȃ 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 ft2. 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 Wetland A x 1 x 2 1 1 X Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form Ȃ 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) ч50% 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 Wetland A 2 7 x 0 85 8.5 0 85 20 = ___73_% 3 3 x x 2 x X X 0 17 8.5 53 40 X X X Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form Ȃ 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 Ȃ 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 Ȃ 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 Ȃ 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 Ȃ 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 Ȃ 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 A Source: ArcGIS Pro 2022 2022 Figure D-1: Map of Cowardin Plant Classes Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Kitsap, WA State Parks GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC ¯Legend Property Boundary 0 40 8020 US FeetUSHighway1 0 1 Source: ArcGIS Pro 2022 2022 Figure D-2: Map of Plant Cover and 150' Boundary Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Kitsap, WA State Parks GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC ¯Legend 150' Wetland Rating Boundary Herbaceous 0 80 16040 US Feet LelandCreek USHi ghway101LelandCreek Source: ArcGIS Pro 2022 2022 Figure D-3: Map of 1 KM Polygon County of Kitsap, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Westech Environmental Consulting, LLC ¯Legend Wetland Boundary Low/Moderate Land Use Relatively Undisturbed 1 KM Polygon 0 0.25 0.50.13 Miles 101 Lelan d V alle y R d ELeland Lake 101 Snow Creek Rd LelandValleyR dW Lake Leland Park Leland WW1819-LakeLeland 303D List Map © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) DistributionAirbus DS © 2022 TomTomEsri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA August 4, 2022 0 1 20.5 Miles K Assessed Water/Sediment WaterCategory 5 - 303dCategory 4CCategory 4BCategory 4ACategory 2Category 1 SedimentCategory 5 - 303dCategory 4CCategory 4BCategory 4ACategory 2Category 1 Subbasins (10 digit HUCs)HUC boundary Site location WW1819-LakeLeland TMDL map © 2022 Microsoft Corporation Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2022 TomTomEsri, NASA, NGA, USGSCounty of Kitsap, Island County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, August 5, 2022 0 4 82 Miles K WQ Improvement Projects ApprovedIn Development Subbasins (10 digit HUCs) HUC boundary