HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetland Report
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC
Wetland Delineation &
Rating Report
February 25, 2024
Prepared for:
Rob Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC in regards to
The easement road to 404 Eaglemount Rd.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Jefferson County Parcel # 901193002
Jefferson County, WA 98368
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | i
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 .................................................................................. 8
3.3 Wetland Rating ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 9
3.5 Soils......................................................................................................................................... 11
3.6 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 14
3.6.1 Wetland Hydrology and Recent Weather ............................................................. 14
3.7 National Wetlands Inventory and County Critical Areas Map Query .................................... 17
4. Wildlife and Habitat Impacts ................................................................................................ 17
4.1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species ........................ 18
4.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) information ........................................... 20
4.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 20
4.4 Rare Species and/or Habitats .................................................................................................. 20
5. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 20
6. References ................................................................................................................................ 22
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | ii
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1. Vegetation observed within wetland plot (VSH 1) ........................................................... 9
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Site Map showing Wetland and Plot Points .................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Proposed Bridge Engineered Plan Drawings .................................................................. 6
Figure 4. 150-ft 1 Km Land Use Map............................................................................................. 7
Figure 5. Cowardin Plant Classes ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 6. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Survey Map and Legend ..................... 12
Figure 7. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Unit Description Within Wetland Area
....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8. WETS 2022-2023 Precipitation Data ............................................................................ 14
Figure 9. WETS Historical Data ................................................................................................... 15
Figure 10. Hydroperiods ............................................................................................................... 16
Figure 11. National Wetland Inventory Map ................................................................................ 17
Figure 13. WDFW Priority Habitats & Species............................................................................ 19
Figure 14. Water Quality Map ...................................................................................................... 20
Attachments
Attachment 1. Photo Documentation
Attachment 2. Wetland Determination Forms
Attachment 3. Wetland Rating Forms
Attachment 4. Methodology
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 1
1. Introduction
Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) was authorized by Rob Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC, to
complete a wetland delineation and rating for a small wetland spanning an easement road that
leads to their 40.85-acre parcel (# 901193002) of rural residential (CF-80) land. This parcel and
easement road are located in Jefferson County off of Eaglemount Road (see Figure 1). The
easement road and wetland in question are located east of the Gruye/ONAHAMA parcel
(henceforth referred to as simply Gruye for brevity), near the southeast corner of Parcel #
901193004. Additionally, the wetland spans southerly onto parcel # 901302001. Gruye wishes to
build a small bridge over the wetland on the existing dirt and gravel roadway to gain access to
their property.
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 IV Depressional 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 the proposed construction
project on site.
Fieldwork for the wetland delineation and rating was completed on November 21st, 2022.
Weather conditions were overcast, calm, and dry with temperatures around 45° Fahrenheit. The
time of year and recent precipitation history were considered in assessing the condition and
extent of the wetland.
1.1 Property Information
Gruye/ONAHAMA LLC Jefferson County Tax Parcel: # 901193002
Jefferson County Tax Parcels where wetland and access road are located: #’s 901193004 &
901302001
SW ¼ Section 19, Township 29N, Range 1W
Directions: From Port Townsend, take Lawrence St. to E Sims Way. Follow E. Sims Way to
WA-20 W. After approximately 11 miles, turn left onto Eaglemount Road. In approximately 1
mile the destination will be on your right.
Jefferson County Legal Description: S19 T29 R1W GOV LOT 6
Zoning Description: CF-80 – Commercial Forest
Watershed (WRIA): 17 – Quilcene – Snow
WRIA Sub-basin: Discovery-Townsend
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC 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.
Proposed Bridge
Access Location
Gruye/ONAHAMA
LLC Parcel
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC 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 8.2; 2022)
• 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, 2022)
• Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2014 Update)
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species
(PHS) online mapper
• Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR) Forest Practices Application
Mapping Tool (FPAMT) for viewing typed streams
• The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) Data Explorer, WA DNR
• NRCS National Water and Climate Center’s Wetlands Tables (aka WETS tables)
The boundary of the wetland was assessed and delineated solely within the boundaries of the
existing access road easement. MSA biologists are not certified Professional 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 Gruye parcel is mostly forested and undeveloped, surrounded by commercial forestry
properties to the north, west and south. To the east is rural residential property bordered by
Eaglemout Road. There is an existing gravel/dirt easement road that leads from Eaglemount
Road west through a neighboring property (Parcel # 901193004), allowing access to the Gruye
parcel. The wetland in question is located on this easement road, approximately 1,100ft east of
the southeastern corner of the Gruye parcel (See Figure 2). The wetland sits just off of
Eaglemount road in a linear depressional area that spans the gravel road north to south. From
Eaglemount Road and the wetland looking west, the road slopes steeply uphill before reaching
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 4
the Gruye parcel. The habitat in the area consists of mixed conifer forest, some of which has
been recently logged (upslope from the wetland on the south side of the gravel easement road).
The wetland itself is small and fairly disturbed by erosion/runoff, invasive plant species, and
occasional trash left by cars using the area as a pull-off. Wetland vegetation observed on site is
described in Vegetation Section 3.4. To the east of Eaglemount Rd. there is another larger
wetland, however it is functionally and physically disconnected from the wetland in question, as
no culverts are located under Eaglemount Road in this location.
Because the existing easement road travels directly through the wetland, and this road is needed
to provide private access to the Gruye parcel, a small bridge is being proposed to be constructed
over the wetland (See Figure 2).
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 5
Figure 2. Site Map showing Wetland and Plot Points
2
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 6
Figure 3. Proposed Bridge Engineered Plan Drawings
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 7
The area within a one-kilometer radius of the project site consists of 29.82% non-accessible
relatively undisturbed habitat, 20.47% non-accessible moderate or low intensity land use, 25.08
accessible moderate and low intensity land use, 19.80% accessible relatively undisturbed land
use, and 4.83% high intensity land use. (Figure 4).
Figure 4. 150-ft 1 Km Land Use Map
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 8
3.2 Wetland Delineation and Categorization
The easement road 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 to the east of the Gruye parcel in the
southeast corner of the neighboring parcel (#9011903004) along Eaglemount Road and continues
into the next parcel (#901302001) to the south.
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 wetland’s
boundary was delineated solely at the location of the easement road itself, using two standard
sampling plots. Several test pits were dug before the sampling plots were established – one wet;
“VHS1” and one dry; “VHS2” (Figure 2). 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).
One NRCS soil map unit was identified within the wetland region (Se – Semiahmoo muck 0-1%
slopes). The wetland was determined to fall into the HGM Class “Depressional, Category IV”
based on functions (Attachment 3). Depressional wetlands usually occur in topographic
depressions where the elevation of the surface within the wetland is lower than in the
surrounding landscape. The shape may vary, but in all cases, the movement of surface water and
shallow subsurface water is toward the lowest point in the depression. The depression may have
an outlet, but the outlet is higher than the lowest point of the wetland, thus trapping water in a
basin at times. This wetland was assigned a 40-foot buffer for moderate intensity land use
projects in accordance with the Jefferson County Code Table 18.22.730(1)(a) Standard Wetland
Buffer Widths table.
A recent ruling by the Supreme Court (Sackett v. EPA, May 25, 2023) stated that only wetlands
which are connected to relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing waters are
federally protected and subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA). Because the subject wetland is
physically and functionally isolated from any other waters, and no filling or grading is proposed
within the bounds of the delineated wetland, this wetland should not be within the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the project should only require permitting through
Jefferson County.
3.3 Wetland Rating
The 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 4 in the “Improving Water Quality” section, 4 in the “Hydrologic” section, and 5 in the
“Habitat” section for a combined score of 13, making this wetland a Category IV. Chapter
18.22.710(2)(c) of the Jefferson County municipal code states that Category IV wetlands are:
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 9
“(i) the lowest levels of functions (scoring 15 or fewer total points) and are often heavily
disturbed. These wetlands likely could be replaced or improved in some cases. Replacement
cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important
functions, so they should be protected to some degree.”
3.4 Vegetation
The majority of habitat surrounding the wetland site consists of native mixed conifer forest with
an understory of upland shrubs and herbaceous plants. The plant species observed include:
Trees:
• Western red cedar (Thuja plicata)
• Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
• Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
• Coastal willow (Salix hookeriana)
Shrubs:
• Salal (Gaultheria shallon)
• Red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium)
Herbaceous Plants:
• Deer fern (Blechnum spicant)
• Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) - Invasive
• Sedge sp. (Carex sp.)
• Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii)
• Cattail (Typha latifolia)
Two Cowardin plant classes were observed within the wetland which consisted of Emergent and
Scrub-Shrub classes (Figure 5).
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
Pacific willow Salix lucida FACW Tree
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC Shrub
Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus FAC Shrub
Lady fern Atherium felix-femina FAC Herb
Water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa OBL Herb
Piggyback-plant Tolmiea menziesii FAC Herb
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 10
Hairy crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis 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)
Figure 5. Cowardin Plant Classes
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 11
3.5 Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Service Jefferson County Soil Survey lists the soils in the
area of the wetland as BdD - Beausite-Alderwood complex, 0 to 30 percent slopes, and Se -
Semiahmoo muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The wetland appears to be located solely within the soil
type mapped as Se – Semiahmoo muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes (Figures 6 & 7).
Many test pits were dug within the wetland area for verification of the boundary. Two sample
plots were then surveyed for soil conditions – VSH1; wet plot, & VSH2; dry plot (Figure 2). Soil
in sample plot VSH1 (wet) was comprised of a silty clay with abundant roots in the upper layer.
VSH1 had visibly hydric soil with signs of reduction and concurrent oxidation (redox) in the
matrix presenting as concentrations as well as pore linings. Wetland hydric soils were identified
using the Munsell Soil Color Book. The soil color in the upper 12-inches was determined to be
100% Munsell 10YR 2/1. The soil color between 12 to 16-inches was found to be 70% 10YR 4/1
with 30% 10YR 3/6 redox (Attachment 2). The hydric soil indicator for this plot was “Depleted
Below Dark Surface (A11) and it also met the criteria for “Depleted Matrix (F3)”. VSH2 (dry
plot), in comparison, did not match any indicator and was surrounded by mostly facultative
upland plant species. Considering the recent rainfall, this test pit was also very dry. The first
layer 0-2-inches in this plot was found to be 100% 10YR 2/1. The second layer from 2 to 4-
inches was 100% 10YR 3/6, and the third layer from 4 to 16-inches was 80% 10YR 5/3 with
20% redox at 7.5YR 3/6. All layers were categorized as “sandy clay loam.”
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 12
Figure 6. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Survey Map and Legend
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 13
Figure 7. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Unit Description Within Wetland Area
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 14
3.6 Hydrology
The wetland in question is located in a long, heavily vegetated, ditch-like depression that extends
north and south along the west side of Eaglemount Road. Hydrology indicators noted on site
during the delineation included a water table 4 inches below the surface, observed in the VSH 1
wet plot, and saturation observed 2 inches below the surface. The wetland likely receives water
from runoff from both Eaglemount Road, and the easement road, and recent logging activities
upslope are likely contributing to this runoff. Precipitation also gathers in this depressional area,
and the wetland may receive groundwater seepage from uphill, since it is positioned at the slope
base. There is a larger wetland, which may have been historically connected to the subject
wetland, but is now functionally and physically isolated from this smaller wetland by
Eaglemount Road. No culverts or hydrologic connections were found between these two wetland
units. Because the wetland spans the only easement road for access to the Gruye parcel, a bridge
will be necessary to preserve the hydrologic functions of the site (see Figures 2).
3.6.1 Wetland Hydrology and Recent Weather
The Regional Delineation Supplement Version 2.0 (USACE 2010) recommends determining if
the precipitation in the area where the wetland delineation occurred was normal, drier than
normal, or wetter than normal. To do this, the methods examine the average rainfall during the
three months prior to the delineation survey. Actual rainfall is compared to the historic 30-year
average range.
When looking at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) National Water and
Climate Center’s Wetlands Tables (aka WETS tables) below, it appears that precipitation
conditions were drier than during the months of September, October, and November leading up
to the fieldwork, which occurred on November 21, 2022 (Figures 8 & 9).
Figure 8. WETS 2022-2023 Precipitation Data
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 15
Figure 9. WETS Historical Data
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 16
Figure 10. Hydroperiods
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 17
3.7 National Wetlands Inventory and County Critical Areas Map Query
The United States Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (Figure 11) shows
only a Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland classified as PSSC (Palustrine, Scrub-shrub,
Seasonally Flooded) located just west of the Eaglemount Road and the location of the subject
wetland.
Figure 11. National Wetland Inventory Map
4. Wildlife and Habitat Impacts
Rob Gruye and ONAHAMA LLC wish to place a retired truck scale, repurposed as a bridge, on
top of four newly constructed concrete footings, which will be placed on either side of the
wetland just outside of its delineated boundary. The retired truck scale is 40-feet in length and
10-feet wide. The concrete footings will be 6’ x 6’ x 15” tall and reinforced with rebar. Terrapin
Architecture, B2 Structural Engineers, and the Jefferson County Building Department have
signed off on the plans, and an engineer from B2 will inspect the construction process each step
of the way. The footing forms will be constructed out of plywood and will be prefabricated off-
site. Once brought on-site, the plywood boxes will be screwed together and set in place. A
concrete truck will park just off Eaglemount Road on the existing gravel pullout leading to the
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 18
wetland and will use a pump with a boom and/or hose to deposit concrete into the forms by
reaching across the wetland. No equipment will enter or drive across the wetland, and all work
will be done from the Eaglemount side of the wetland. Once the footing forms are poured and
cured, the plywood will be removed and disposed of in an approved offsite location. The retired
truck scale will be brought in by a professional heavy equipment mover, who will use a crane to
lift it and put it in place on top of the footings. Straw wattles will be placed between the footings
and the wetland to avoid erosion from entering the wetland.
On August 23, 2023 an onsite pre-application conference was held with staff from Jefferson
County Department of Community Development (JCDCD) to discuss mitigation options for No
Net Loss. It was determined that mitigation should be provided at a 2:1 ratio to provide
compensation for shade over the wetland. Additionally, the mitigation is compensating for prior
habitat removal from when the easement road was originally constructed because several large
trees were taken down within the wetland buffer on its western side without permits. MSA
prepared a Critical Areas Stewardship Plan (CASP, 2024), which recommends 1,600 ft2 of native
plants to be installed just upslope of the wetland. The CASP also outlines more details on the
mitigation calculations, construction sequence, and potential impacts to sensitive habitats and
species, as well as monitoring requirements.
While on site MSA Biologists observed the following species of wildlife:
• Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) – visual observation
• Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) – auditory observation
• Common raven (Corus corax)
• Pacific wren (Troglodytes pacificus) – visual observation
• Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber) – excavation holes on snags
• Spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus) – visual observation
• Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) – visual observation
• Blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus) - scat and tracks
4.1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species
One Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat is shown within
0.25 miles of the parcel, labeled as “freshwater forested/shrub wetland,” and it appears to be the
same large functionally disconnected wetland as described above, located on the east side of
Eaglemount Road. Because this wetland is functionally and physically isolated from the subject
wetland, no impacts from the proposed bridge construction are expected to affect this larger
offsite wetland. Additionally, one WDFW priority species is shown within a 0.25 mile radius
surrounding the subject wetland; resident coastal cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki). However, this
species is located within a stream that is shown as being located approximately 1,000-feet
northwest, and upslope, of the subject wetland, well outside any potential impact zone that could
be caused by the proposed bridge construction (Figure 13).
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 19
Figure 12. WDFW Priority Habitats & Species
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 20
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 Gruye parcel or the location of the wetland.
Similarly, no Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) ratings were found near the site (Figure 14).
Figure 13. Water Quality Map
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 IV Depressional Wetland located to
the west of Eaglemount Rd., bisecting an easement road used for accessing the Gruye parcel
(Figure 2). The wetland was mapped, delineated, and rated by MSA during a site visit on
November 21, 2022. A 40-foot buffer for moderate intensity land use was established according
14
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 21
to the Jefferson County Critical Areas Municipal Code (Table 18.22.730(1)(a) Standard Wetland
Buffer Widths) for a Category IV Depressional Wetland.
The subject wetland runs north-south in a vegetated ditch-like depression across the easement
road (see Figure 2). This wetland is determined to be of low value and function, as it is small,
disconnected from other waterways/wetlands, and is fairly disturbed with invasive vegetation,
roadside trash, runoff, and deposits from nearby erosion caused by recent logging. Water appears
to primarily enter as runoff and groundwater coming from the steep slope located immediately to
the west of the wetland, and other hydrology sources may be precipitation and high groundwater
table. No scour was observed, and hydric soils were found within test plots, indicating the
presence of a wetland. The wetland is located within a rural area bordered by rural-residential
properties, and Eaglemount Road to the east. A separate offsite apparent wetland is located to the
east of Eaglemount Road, however it is functionally and physically isolated from the subject
wetland, as no culverts were observed under Eaglemount Road (See Figure 2).
Gruye and ONAHAMA LLC wish to construct a small bridge spanning the delineated wetland.
To do this, they propose to place a retired truck scale upon four concrete footings. The footings
will be located just outside of the delineated boundary, thus necessitating a CASP for mitigation.
It is the opinion of MSA that the subject wetland will not be impacted as long as the CASP
mitigation and monitoring plan is implemented for the bridge work and previous vegetation
clearing. Final jurisdictional authority and permitting on this project will be the responsibility of
the appropriate local and state government agencies involved. The wetland characterization
outlined in this report has been confirmed by JCDCD and the Department of Ecology.
Sincerely,
________________________
Jill Cooper
Senior Ecologist
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation and Rating Report MSA | 22
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
Delineation wet plot soil profile – “VSH 1”
Delineation wet plot soil profile – “VSH 1”
Delineation dry plot soil profile – “VSH 2”
Delineation dry plot soil profile – “VSH 2”
Wetland as a ditch-like depression
Photo taken from easement road, facing west towards Eaglemount – looking down at wetland
Pink delineation flags indicating boundary of wetland
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
Gruye 11/21/2022
Meg Amos X 2014 & 2021
Depressional X
Esri et. al.(See MSA Figures)
4 4 5 13
X
IV X
Not Applicable
Gruye
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
Gruye
5
10
2
4
A:see below
4
14
14
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.
Gruye
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.
Gruye
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic es = 4 No = 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3?
Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Gruye
2
0
3
0
(use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4
5
X
1
1
0
0
*
* Eaglemount Road
2
X
0
0
0
0
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands
with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
2
0
3
5
X
1
1
0
X
2
0
0
0
X
Gruye
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
X
X
1
X
X
X Ditch
2
1
1
Gruye
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
5
X
0
19.8 + (25.08/2 = 12.54)
32.3
2
49.6 +(45.6/2 = 22.8)
72.4
3
0
5
X
0
X
Gruye
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.
Gruye
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
Gruye
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
Gruye
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
Gruye
DNR Hydrography Watercourses
USGS Topography Lines
Apparent Wetland
Contributing Basin
LEGEND
Figure
Contributing Basin
Gruye Parcel #901193002, Jefferson County
Map Credits: DNR Hydrography Lines,
USGS Topography, ESRI imagery
Map Date 12/21/22. Note: MSA Site Features not professionally surveyed, only GPS located A
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.