HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetland Report 977700051
Rubenson & Niemeyer White
Wetland Delineation &
Rating Report
August 23, 2022
Prepared for:
Jonas Rubenson &
Cynthia Niemeyer White
317 Ridge Ave
State College, PA 16803-3438
Regarding:
Jefferson County Parcel # 977700051
Marrowstone Island, WA
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Property Information ................................................................................................................. 1
2. Wetland Assessment Methods .................................................................................... 2
2.1 Resources reviewed prior to conducting fieldwork .................................................................. 3
3. Results and Findings ................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Wetland Delineation and Categorization ................................................................................ 10
3.3 Wetland Rating ....................................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Soils......................................................................................................................................... 15
3.6 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 18
3.7 National Wetlands Inventory and County Critical Areas Map Query .................................... 20
4. Wildlife and Habitat Impacts ................................................................................... 22
4.1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species ........................ 22
4.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) information ........................................... 24
4.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Rare Species and/or Habitats .................................................................................................. 25
5. Summary ................................................................................................................ 25
6. References .............................................................................................................. 27
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1. Vegetation observed within wetland plot (VSH 1) ......................................................... 13
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Site Topography .............................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3. WA Department of Natural Resources LIDAR Map ...................................................... 7
Figure 4. Offsite Apparent Wetland Located to NE of Rubenson Parcel ....................................... 8
Figure 5. Map Showing 150 ft Boundary and 1 km Habitat/Land use ........................................... 9
Figure 6. Wetland Delineation Map with Buffer and Plot Points ................................................. 11
Figure 7. Cowardin Plant Classes ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 8. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Survey Map and Legend ..................... 16
Figure 9. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Unit Description Within Wetland Area
....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 10. Hydroperiods ............................................................................................................... 19
Figure 11. National Wetland Inventory Map ................................................................................ 20
Figure 12. Jefferson County Critical Areas Map Showing Wetlands and Saltwater Protection
Intrusion Zone ............................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 13. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species Map . 23
Figure 14. Water Quality 303(d) Map .......................................................................................... 24
Figure 15. Water Quality TMDL's ................................................................................................ 25
Attachments
Attachment 1. Photo Documentation
Attachment 2. Wetland Determination Forms
Attachment 3. Wetland Rating Forms
Attachment 4. Methodology
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 1
1. Introduction
Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) was authorized by Jonas Rubenson &
Cynthia Niemeyer White (property owners), to complete a wetland delineation and rating on
their 12.59-acre parcel (# 977700051) of rural residential (RR-5) land located on Marrowstone
Island, an unincorporated community in Jefferson County (see Figure 1). The process used by
MSA to survey and map the wetland boundary and rate its category is consistent with the current
Jefferson County Code Critical Areas requirements (JCC 18.22). The presence of a Category III
Slope Wetland was confirmed. This report serves to describe MSA’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 October 21st, 2021. Weather
conditions were overcast, calm, and dry with temperatures around 55° Fahrenheit. The time of
year and recent precipitation history were considered in assessing the condition and extent of the
wetland.
1.1 Property Information
Jefferson County Tax Parcel # 977700051
NE ¼ Section 9, Township 29N, Range 1E
Directions: From Port Townsend, take WA-20 south, then continue straight onto WA-19 south.
Turn left onto WA-116 E/Ness' Corner Road. After approximately 5 miles, turn right onto
Robbins Road. After approximately 1 mile, turn left onto East Marrowstone Road. Take the first
right onto Moen Road. The destination will be on your left.
Jefferson County Legal Description: OLSON & HAMBLETON'S LOTS 15(TAX 36 LESS PTN
TX 60) & 16(W1/2) LESS R/W
Zoning Description: RR-5 – Rural Residential
Watershed (WRIA): 17 – Quilcene – Snow
WRIA Sub-basin: Discovery-Townsend
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 2
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
2. Wetland Assessment Methods
The delineation fieldwork conducted by MSA biologists 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 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 Washington State
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.
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 3
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 (WECY)
• 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)
• Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2014 Update)
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species
(PHS) online mapper
The boundary of the wetland was assessed and delineated solely within the border of the
Rubenson/Niemeyer White property (hereafter referred to as the “Rubenson parcel/property, for
brevity). MSA 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.
3. Results and Findings
3.1 Site Description
The Rubenson parcel is entirely forested and undeveloped, surrounded by rural residential
properties with single-family homes to the north and east, Moen Road to the south, and East
Marrowstone Road to the west. An undeveloped ROW (shown as “Lip Lip Ln.” on County Maps
– see Figure 1) runs along the eastern property border. Just outside of the northwest property
border there is a large, fenced pasture on the neighboring property. Prior to the purchase of the
property, the Rubenson parcel had a small dilapidated residential structure, which was accessed
from Moen Road via a dirt driveway, but that structure was removed prior to Rubenson’s
ownership. The clearing where the structure was previously located remains as a grass field, as
does the driveway. A second small dirt driveway access is located further west, off of Moen
Road, where the Lip Lip Ln. is located. This driveway leads to an old dirt/gravel road grade that
roughly follows the ROW north and spurs off onto the subject parcel to the west, making a loop
(See Figure 6). Another offshoot of this same roadway appears to connect to the neighboring
horse pasture mentioned above, which is adjacent to the northwest section of the Rubenson
Parcel.
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 4
During the wetland survey, the neighbor associated with the adjacent horse pasture informed
MSA Biologists that they regularly ride their horse along the wooded road/trail and assist in
keeping it maintained/cleared of brush.
The subject property is zoned as Rural Residential RR-5, allowing for one unit per 5 acres.
Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.15.015 Rural lands, states,
“The purpose of this district is to allow for continued residential development in areas of
Jefferson County consisting of relatively high density pre-existing patterns of
development, along the county’s coastal areas, and within areas within or adjacent to
rural centers and rural crossroads. In addition, this district seeks to support and foster
Jefferson County’s existing rural residential landscape and character by restricting new
land divisions to a base density of one unit per five acres.
The wetland is located roughly in the center of the parcel, oriented in a northwest-southeast
direction, with water appearing to enter from the pasture located on the neighboring property to
the northwest, and exiting through a culvert located to the southeast, under Moen Road. South of
Moen Road the connected drainage appears more channelized (see Figure 6). The neighbor’s
pasture appears to receive water from an apparent wetland/drainage located just north of Merry
Road, with water flowing through a culvert connecting the apparent wetland/drainage to the
pasture property. At this location, observed from Merry Road facing north, MSA biologists noted
an abundance of water parsley and a small pool of standing water with algae.
The overall topography of the Rubenson parcel is slightly sloped (0-5% grade) from northwest to
southeast, with a depressional channel running roughly down the center of the parcel in a
northwest-southeast direction where the wetland is located, and the land sloping up slightly to
the northeast and southwest on either side of the channel (See Figure 2 contours). This allows the
water to enter the wetland from the northwest, flow through the channel, and exit to the
southeast.
Within the offsite pasture portion of the wetland, a drainage ditch runs north-south through the
pasture and onto the subject parcel, likely historically dug to help drain the apparent wetland
located within the mowed pasture. The ditch disappears shortly after crossing onto the Rubenson
parcel, at which point the wetland becomes more easily identifiable, with an abundance of
Slough Sedge (Carex obnupta), Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and very moist hydric soil.
Pacific Chorus Frogs (Pseudacris regilla) could be heard in this area during the field survey. In
addition to the MSA biologists’ observations, the neighbor who owns the pasture to the
northwest said that the pasture is very wet and muddy during the rainy season, and the drainage
ditch fills with water in November and stays wet through March, with ducks observed using the
area, as well as nesting nearby. Although there are some signs of occasional water flow through
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 5
the wetland, such as areas lacking vegetation, and a channel-like drainage path showing signs of
occasional ponding, no scour was observed, and hydric soils were found in multiple test plots
indicating that this feature is a wetland, not a stream.
The remainder of the Rubenson parcel is comprised mainly of a native upland forest plant
community (see Section 3.4 Vegetation). Many large old growth trees and snags can be found on
the eastern portion of the property, including two large Western Hemlocks (Tsuga heterophylla),
which were measured at 37-inch DBH and 42-inch DBH, and a notable Red Alder (Alnus rubra)
that had a DBH of 30-inches and an 8-foot circumference.
On the west side of the property, there is an abundance of Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum)
and old growth stumps, with mature Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata) and Big Leaf Maple
(Acer macrophyllum) trees as the dominant overstory. One small depressional area was observed,
approximately 1,462 ft2 in size, which had a large patch of Slough Sedge (C. obnupta) growing
in it. Multiple test pits were dug in this location (see Figure 6), and the soil did not meet any
hydric indicators. MSA biologists concluded that this area may have once been part of an old
road bed, since the soils observed appeared to be compacted and disturbed, with many different
colors present, indicating that the substrate may have fill material mixed in. In this area along
with the Slough Sedge, there was also abundant Sword Fern (P. munitum), and Big Leaf Maple
(A. marcrophyllum), both upland plants.
During the survey, MSA biologists looked for the supposed wet area shown on the County
Critical Area maps to be located adjacent to or within the northeast property corner of the
Rubenson parcel, but no sign of any wetlands were observed in this area. A few small patches of
Slough Sedge (Carex obnupta) existed on the ROW, probably due to the compacted ground
creating areas of poor drainage conditions. No evidence of hydrology or hydric soils were
discovered in this region, and although MSA biologists did not venture off of the Rubenson
parcel, no evidence of wetlands were observed when they looked out approximately 20-30 feet
into the neighboring properties (as far as was visible in thick brush). What was observed was
primarily an upland vegetation community.
Later, a desktop review was conducted due to concerns that the county had expressed regarding
previous wetland delineations showing a wetland located somewhere to the east or north of the
Rubenson Parcel. MSA Biologists completed a records request for these prior reports and found
that the offsite wetland is located approximately 120 feet northwest of the Rubenson Parcel (See
Figure 4). In 2002 this wetland was rated as a Category II with a 100-foot buffer by a delineation
performed on parcel #977700045 by Wiltermood Associates. In 2019 a different portion of the
same wetland located one parcel to the west (#977700041) was delineated and rated by WesTech
as a Category III depressional wetland and assigned a 110-foot buffer. And in 2007 a delineation
performed by Alkai Consultants LLC on the parcel located just east of the Rubenson Parcel and
Lip Lip lane showed the southwest portion of this same wetland located in the northwest corner
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 6
of the parcel (#977700049 ). This wetland was delineated by and rated as a Category II wetland
with a 100-foot buffer. The difference in the rating categorization may be due to the fact that the
2002 and 2007 ratings were using the 1993 2nd Edition of the Washington State Department of
Ecology Wetland Rating worksheet. MSA GIS staff mapped the apparent offsite wetland based
on the figures mentioned above, combined with County Contours (Figure 2), Esri Aerial Imagery
(Figure 4), and WA LIDAR data (Figure 3) that indicated a depressional forested area where the
wetland is likely located. Then, a 110-foot buffer, based on the most recent 2019 rating, was
applied. The buffer of the apparent offsite wetland extends to, but not onto the Rubenson Parcel
(See Figure 4)
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 7
Figure 2. Site Topography
Figure 3. WA Department of Natural Resources LIDAR Map
Location of
Rubenson Wetland
Location of offsite apparent
depressional wetland (note
contour lines circling
wetland area)
Location of
Rubenson
Wetland
Location of offsite apparent
wetland (note depressional area)
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 8
Figure 4. Offsite Apparent Wetland Located to NE of Rubenson Parcel
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 9
The area within a one-kilometer radius of the project site consists of 66% non-accessible
relatively undisturbed habitat and 22.4% non-accessible moderate or low intensity land use.
Other forms of land use make up less than 15% (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Map Showing 150 ft Boundary and 1 km Habitat/Land use
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 10
3.2 Wetland Delineation and Categorization
The Rubenson wetland was delineated by MSA biologists 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 roughly in the center of the property, in a
north-south running depression/channel.
During the survey described in this report, MSA biologists delineated the wetland boundary with
pink ribbon, and the plots were marked with stakes and blue/white ribbon. The pink flagging on
the southeast side of the wetland was numbered as “1, 2, 3…,” and the flagging on the northwest
side was numbered as “A, B, C…” The wetland was determined to be approximately 2.71 acres,
out of which 1.84 acres was delineated within the bounds of the Rubenson parcel, and 0.87 acres
was mapped as apparent from off-site observations combined with aerial imagery (located on the
adjacent pasture (see Figure 6). The wetland’s boundary was delineated using two standard
sampling plots. Several test pits were dug before the sampling plots were established – one wet;
“VHS1” and one dry; “VHS2” (Figure 6). Each data point consisted of a test pit dug to a
standard depth of 16 inches to expose a representative soil profile (see Section 3.5 Soils). The
plot samples were then assessed for the presence of three wetland indicators: hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (see Attachment 2).
Four soil map units were identified within the project site (Figures 8 & 9), but only one soil unit
type appears to be located along the region where the wetland is located (SaB - San Juan
Gravelly Sandy Loam 0-8% slopes). The wetland was determined to fall into the HGM Class
“Slope, Category III” based on functions (Attachment 3). Slope wetlands usually occur where
there is a discharge of groundwater to the land surface with no channel formation. Elevation
gradients may range from steep hillsides to slight slopes. This wetland was assigned a 110-foot
buffer for moderate intensity land use projects, and a 75-foot buffer for low intensity land use
projects, in accordance with the Jefferson County Code Table 18.22.730(1)(a) Standard Wetland
Buffer Widths table.
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 11
Figure 6. Wetland Delineation Map with Buffer and Plot Points
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 12
3.3 Wetland Rating
The Rubenson wetland was rated using the Western Washington Wetland Rating System
worksheet provided by the Department of Ecology – 2014 update (Attachment 3). The wetland
scored a rating of 5 in the “Improving Water Quality” section, 5 in the “Hydrologic” section, and
6 in the “Habitat” section for a combined score of 16, making this wetland a Category III.
Chapter 18.22.710(2)(c) of the Jefferson County municipal code states that Category III wetlands
are:
“(i) those with moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points total) or (ii) those
that can often be adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project. Wetlands scoring
between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse
or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.”
3.4 Vegetation
The majority of the Rubenson parcel consists of native mixed conifer forest with an understory
of upland shrubs and herbaceous plants. The plant species within this community include:
Trees:
• Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum)
• Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata)
• Willow Sp. (Salix sp.)
• Red Alder (Alnus rubra)
• Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
• Bitter Cherry (Prunus emarginata)
• Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
• Grand Fir (Abies grandis)
Shrubs:
• Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor)
• Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)
• Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemose)
• English Holly (Ilex aquifolium)
• Salal (Gaultheria shallon)
• Red Huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium)
Herbaceous Plants:
• Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum)
• Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica)
• Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum)
• Trailing Blackberry (Rubus ursinus)
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 13
• Reed Canary Grass along fence line (Phalaris arundinacea)
• Canadian Thistle (Cirsium arvense)
• Lady Fern (Athyrium filix-femina)
Woody Vines:
• Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus)
• English Ivy (Hedera helix) - found only near the east and northeast property boundaries,
within the ROW and on the neighboring properties.
In addition to plants, many Oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus ostreatus) and Artist’s Conks
(Ganoderma applanatum) were also observed on site, and were particularly abundant in the
eastern portion of the property where the trees tended to be a larger size, and there were ample
snags available.
Three Cowardin plant classes were observed within the wetland. Emergent (mainly within the
offsite pasture in the apparent wetland section), Scrub-shrub, and Forested. Additionally, the
forested plant class had an understory of shrubs and herbaceous plants (Figure 7).
Table 1. Vegetation observed within wetland plot (VSH 1)
Common Name Latin Name Status Stratum
Red Alder Alnus rubra FAC Tree
Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata FAC Tree
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC Shrub
Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens FAC Herb
Water Parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa OBL Herb
Soft Rush Juncus effusus FACW Herb
Slough Sedge Carex obnupta OBL Herb
Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica FAC Herb
Sticky Bedstraw Galium aparin FACU Herb
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)
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 14
Figure 7. Cowardin Plant Classes
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 15
3.5 Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Service Jefferson County Soil Survey lists the soils on the
Rubenson parcel as AgB - Agnew Silt Loam 0-8% slopes, IoC - Indianola Sandy Loam 0-15%
slopes, Whc - Whidbey Gravelly Sandy Loam 0-15% slopes, and SaB - San Juan Gravelly Sandy
Loam 0-8% slopes. The wetland appears to be located solely within the soil type mapped as SaB
- San Juan gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes. None of the four soil unit descriptions list
a hydric soil rating. (Figures 8 & 9).
Many test pits were dug within the wetland area for verification of the boundary. Two sample
plots were then surveyed for soil conditions – VSH1 – a wet plot, & VSH2 (Figure 6). Soil in
sample plot VSH1 (wet) was comprised of sandy clay loam, with a sandy loam layer below.
VSH1 had visibly hydric soil with signs of reduction and concurrent oxidation (redox) presenting
as concentrations or soft masses and pore linings within the soil matrix. Wetland hydric soils
were identified using the Munsell Soil Color Book. The soil color in the upper 7-inches was
determined to be 100% Munsell 10YR 3/2. The soil color between 7 to 16-inches was found to
be 70% 10YR 5/2 and 30% 7.5YR 3/6 (Attachment 2). The hydric soil indicator for this plot was
“Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11).” VSH2 (dry) showed much lighter powdery soil with
100% 10YR 4/2 throughout the entire 0-16-inch depth.
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 16
Figure 8. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Survey Map and Legend
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 17
Figure 9. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Unit Description Within Wetland Area
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 18
3.6 Hydrology
The overall topography within the parcel is fairly flat, with a slightly sloped (0-5% grade)
depressional channel running roughly down the center of the property in a northeast-southwest
direction where the wetland is located. Zooming in, the land on either side of the channelized
wetland slopes up slightly to the northeast and southwest (See Figure 2 – Site Topography).
Water was observed north of the Rubenson parcel, coming from north of Merry Road, through a
culvert, and onto the neighboring property where the horse pasture and apparent wetland is
located. During the wet season, water likely moves downslope from Merry Road and the
neighboring horse pasture (located just northwest of the Rubenson parcel), then through the
Rubenson property along the depressional channel, finally exiting through a culvert under Moen
Road. At this point, south of Moen Road, the wetland appears to become a narrower stream-like
drainage channel (see Figures 4 & 6).
Within the wetland on the Rubenson parcel, MSA biologists noted buttressed roots, moist soil,
and a topographically low area. Additionally, all septic test pits, on both sides of the property,
appeared to be completely dry (see Figure 6) during the habitat survey .
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 19
Figure 10. Hydroperiods
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 20
3.7 National Wetlands Inventory and County Critical Areas Map Query
The United States Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map does not show any
wetlands on or near the Rubenson parcel. However, the map does show a wetland just north of
Merry Road, classified as Palustrine Forested Seasonally-flooded – PFOC. The same wetland
appears to be identified on the Jefferson County Critical Areas map, but it extends further south,
with the very southern extent of the wetland overlayed on the northeast corner of the Rubenson
Parcel (Figure 12). For more information on this offsite apparent wetland located northeast of the
Rubenson parcel, see Section 3.1 and Figures 2 through 4.
Figure 11. National Wetland Inventory Map
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 21
Figure 12. Jefferson County Critical Areas Map Showing Wetlands and Saltwater Intrusion
Protection Zone
It should be noted that for any future development projects, the Jefferson County website states,
“High Risk SIPZ: The regulations are generally triggered by new home construction.
Building permit applicants will be required to conduct a hydrogeologic assessment to
indicate that their water use will not degrade water quality in the aquifer. If such an
assessment can prove that there would be no degradation, the applicant can use the well
provided that they install a flow meter and submit a water conservation plan to Jefferson
County. If such an assessment cannot be made, the applicant must use another water
source for their building. The High Risk SIPZ also expand the Washington State
Department of Ecology's "sea-salt water intrusion areas". New wells may be denied in
this zone if DOE determines the well would violate the state administrative code.”
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 22
4. Wildlife and Habitat Impacts
Jonas Rubenson & Cynthia Niemeyer White wish to construct a single-family home on their
parcel, but no site plans have been created at this time. There is ample buildable space located
outside of the wetland and wetland Critical Habitat Area buffer, and they intent to steward the
land and leave the majority of the property as a wild native landscape.
While on site MSA Biologists observed an abundance of wildlife including the following
species:
• Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) – visual observation
• Steller’s Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) – visual observation
• Golden-crowned Kinglets (Regulus satrapa) – auditory observation
• Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) – excavation holes on snags
• Pacific Wren (Troglodytes pacificus) – visual observation
• Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) – auditory observation
• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – auditory observation
• Red-breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber) – excavation holes on snags
• Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) – visual observation
• Varied Thrush (Ixoreus naevius ) – visual observation
• Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) – visual observation
• Pacific Chorus Frog (Pseudacris regilla) – auditory observation
• Douglas Squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) – visual observation
• Blacktail Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) - scat and tracks
• Townsends Mole (Scapanus townsendii) – mounds
• Banana Slug (Ariolimax sp.)
4.1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species
One Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat was found within
0.25 miles of the parcel, labeled as “freshwater forested/shrub wetland.” No WDFW priority
species were shown within the 0.25 mile radius of the Rubenson parcel (Figure 13).
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 23
Figure 13. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species Map
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 24
4.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) information
The project is not located in or near any area identified as a flood hazard by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
4.3 Water Quality
No 303(d) listed polluted waters are found near the Rubenson parcel (Figure 14). No Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) ratings were found near the property (Figure 15).
Figure 14. Water Quality 303(d) Map
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 25
Figure 15. Water Quality TMDL's
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.
5. Summary
This wetland report documents the presence of a Category III Slope Wetland located roughly in
the center of Jefferson County parcel # 977700051 (Figure 6 6). The wetland was mapped,
delineated, and rated by MSA during a site visit on October 21, 2021. A 110-foot buffer was
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 26
established according to specifications for moderate intensity land use projects in the Jefferson
County Critical Areas Municipal Code (Table 18.22.730(1)(a) Standard Wetland Buffer
Widths) for a Category III Slope Wetland.
The wetland on the Rubenson property is approximately 2.71 acres in size, out of which 1.84
acres was delineated within the bounds of the Rubenson parcel, and 0.87 acres was mapped as
apparent from off-site observations combined with aerial imagery (located on the adjacent
pasture (see Figure 6). This wetland is determined to be of moderate value and function. Water
appears to enter from the northwest through a culvert located under Merry Road, and exit
through a culvert under Moen Road to the southeast. Although there is a channel-like drainage
path where the wetland is located, no scour was observed, and hydric soils were found in
multiple test plots, indicating the presence of a wetland, not a stream. The parcel is located
within a rural area bordered by rural-residential properties, Moen Road to the south, East
Marrowstone Road to the west, and the Lip Lip Lane ROW to the east. It can be accessed from a
dirt/gravel driveway located off of Moen Road.
A separate offsite apparent wetland is located to the northeast of the Rubenson parcel. Portions
of this wetland was delineated by three separate companies, on three separate properties,
between 2002 and 2019 (see Section 3.1). The most recent rating of this wetland classified it as a
Category II depressional wetland with a 110-foot buffer. It does not appear to be hydrologically
connected to the Rubenson Wetland due to the topography and distance between. The buffer of
this offsite wetland does not appear to extend onto the Rubenson Parcel (see Figure 4).
It is the opinion of MSA that the neither the Rubenson wetland, nor the offsite apparent wetland,
will 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.
Sincerely,
________________________ ________________________
Jill Cooper Meg Amos
Wildlife & Wetland Biologist Certifie Wetland Ecologist
Rubenson Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 27
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
Example of upland forest community found on the majority of the Rubenson parcel
Many old and mature growth trees, stumps, and snags are located within the subject parcel
Pileated woodpecker excavation holes in mature snag
Example of dry septic perc test pit in upland area
Rubenson wetland and neighboring horse pasture with apparent wetland (photo facing north).
Historic drainage channel dug into horse pasture/apparent wetland area
Same area of Rubenson wetland, photo facing south
Salmonberries and brush throughout the property had been cut down prior to the purchase by
Jonas Rubenson and Cynthia Niemeyer White, but the plants appeared to be growing back fine
during the wetland survey
Large habitat snag located within the delineated wetland
Large stump within Rubenson wetland
VSH 1 wet plot
VSH 2 Dry Plot
Culvert under Moen Lane, where water exits wetland and topography becomes more
channelized/stream-like
Old dirt road/path loop trail located on Rubenson parcel and Lip Lip Lane ROW
Old growth alder tree located on western boundary of Rubenson parcel, along Lip Lip Ln. ROW
View from NW property corner, showing primarily upland forest plant community, no wetlands
Many varieties of fungi were found growing on the eastern portion of the parcel
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
Rubenson Wetland 10/25/21
Jill Cooper X 2021
Esri et al. (see figure credits)
Slope X
Rubenson
5 5 6 16
X
III X
JCC 18.22.730(1)(a) assigns a 110-foot buffer for moderate impact land usesto Cat III wetlands with habitat scores of 6-7
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
Rubenson
710
6 & 7
6 & 7
5
5
1415
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.
Rubenson
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.
Rubenson
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources ________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 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
9
1
0
Rubenson
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows.
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 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
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Rubenson
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 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
Rubenson
X
X
X
XX
X
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
Rubenson
X
X
X
3
5.4 1.35 6.75
71.4 12.55 83.95
3
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.
Rubenson
X
X
Many large trees, especially on east side of property, (two
trees were measured at 37" and 42" dbh)
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
Rubenson
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
Rubenson
old growth was not found within wetland, but was found within 100 meters upland (to the east)
N/A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
Rubenson
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.