The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMEP2018-00020 HMP - HMP Habitat Managment Plan - 7/25/2018 Ep 2 6 18 - l.O010) � .1) Id 2LoI8 oa Horsfall Single Family Residence -Mason County, WA SITE RESTORATION AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVEb MASON COUNTY DCD PLANNING SITE PLAN REQUIRED TO BE ON SITE CHANGES SUBJECT TO APPR -`/,4L/ By /ZCv h Date IMP Prepared For: Kevin and Deborah Horsfall FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Prepared By: ALEXANDER CALLENDER, M.S., PWS LAND SERVICES NORTHWEST LLC OLYMPIA,WASHINGTON June 9, 2018 Horsfall Single-Family Residence Site Restoration and Habitat Management Plan Prepared for: Kevin and Deborah Horsfall 1004 S 295TH PL FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 Prepared by: Alexander Callender, M.S. Ecologist LAND SERVICES NORTHWEST LLC (360)481-4208 July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SITE NAME: Horsfall Single Family Residence and Shoreline Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan SITE LOCATION: Parcel # 122195000050 at 240 East Westlake Drive North in Mason County with the legal description Of LAKELAND VILLAGE 7 LOT: 50 S 44/86 PROJECT STAFF: Alexander Callender M.S., PWS FIELD SURVEY: June 6, 2018 HYDROLOGY: One SMA Regulated Lake (Lake Anderson) SOILS: Soils generally confirm NRCS vicinity mapped soil types: • Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes VEGETATION: Upland vegetation on the subject property is dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii; FACU), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata; FAC), Wetland vegetation located mostly off-site includes Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FAC), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata; FAC), Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum; OBL), and Lady fern (Athyrium cyclosorum; FAC) DETERMINATION: Trees were felled on the subject property on May 4, 2018 to provide a safer environment for a planned single-family residence. A site visit was conducted by the county or the purposes of project review and the applicant was told to restore the site to prevent a loss of shoreline functions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Two Story Single Family Residence with Attached Garage. There is a pending code violation associated with the property, e.g. illegal clearing within the regulated shoreline (ENF2018-00042). A western red cedar tree has been deemed hazardous by a licensed arborist and a letter recommending its removal is provided in Appendix x. Mitigation will be provided by planting three trees meeting Mason County's standards. Under the Mason County SMP, Mason County allows vegetation removal, but only after obtaining a shoreline permit or exemption. The vegetation on site has undergone ''Significant Vegetation Removal." Which by Mason SMP definition involves, `The removal or alteration of trees, shrubs, and/or ground cover by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or other activity that causes significant impacts to ecological functions provided by such vegetation. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds does not constitute significant vegetation removal. Tree pruning, not including tree topping, where it does not affect ecological functions, does not constitute significant vegetation removal." This report and restoration proposal was created to restore ecological functions and to provide information for review by the county to allow for after - the- fact permits for vegetation removal illegal clearing within the regulated shoreline and provide a common line co4horL miti❑ 4i�n tt�lon _ _ 9(JUI)2018 Land Services NW LLC Horsfall Vegetation Management Plan Page i Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan In accordance with the Mason County SMP, this project will be done in a responsible manner and limit and prevent further shoreline impacts as well as set expectations on vegetation management actions to mitigate for the shoreline impacts. 9(JUI)2018 Land Services NW LLC Horsfall Vegetation Management Plan Page ii Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i. Executive Summary ii. Table of Contents iii. List of Drawings iv. List of Tables 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1. 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 3 2.1 Historical and Current Land Use 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3.0 METHODOLOGY 5 3.1 Information Review 5 3.2 Analysis of Existing Information,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„-------„•,,,,,----,--------,,,,,5. 3.3 Field Investigation..................... ........ ...•--•. -------- -•-•---- ------•. •----•--•-•....6 4.0 RESULTS 8. 4.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................. 5.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 8 6.1 Mason County Regulations,,,,,, „,,,, 8 6.2 Danger Tree Removal.•.•......................•..-..----------•---.....-.--.......•--------••---•-•-------.1-7 6.3 Common Line Setbacks 19 -..•-----------------••--•-••---•-----------.•...................................---•-•. 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT...........................................................................................20. 6.1 Description--------- ---------------------•---...---....-..........-..............-----------------------------•---20 6.2 Development Impacts----------------------------------------------------------------•--------•-•- 2Q 6.3 Impact Avoidance and Minimization,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 20 6.4 Minimization of Water Quality Impacts.......................................................... 1_ 7.0 WILDLIFE..................................................................................................................21. 8.0 REVEGETATION PLAN..........................................................................................22. 8.1 Vegetation Impacts 22 8.2 Revegetation Plan Concepts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„_„_•,_____________________,_,__,,,,,_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,,22 8.3 Installation 26 8.4 Performance Measures....................................................................................28 8.5 Surety Bond------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•---- 28 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION............................................................................. 10.0 LIMITATIONS..........................................................•---.............................................28 9(JUI)2018 Land Services NW LLC Horsfall Vegetation Management Plan Page iii Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 11.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................29 9(JUI)2018 Land Services NW LLC Horsfall Vegetation Management Plan Page iv Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 9(JUI)2018 Land Services NW LLC Horsfall Vegetation Management Plan Page v Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan LIST OF DRAWINGS Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2 Existing and Historical Conditions Figure 3. Tree Wetland Buffer and Building Setback Line Figure 4 Mitigation Plan 9(JUI)2018 Land Services NW LLC Horsfall Vegetation Management Plan Page vi Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Wetlands on or In the Vicinity of the Subject Property Table 2. Observed Wildlife Occurrence Table 3a. Tree/Shrub Species Table 3b. Groundcover Species Table 4 Costs 9(JUI)2018 Land Services NW LLC Horsfall Vegetation Management Plan Page vii Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Photographs Appendix B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map Appendix C. Mason County National Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey Map Appendix D. USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map: Lacey Quadrangle Appendix E. Wetland Data Sheets Appendix F Wetland Rating Form For Western Washington Appendix G. WADNR Watercourse Shapefiles Appendix H Priority Habitats and Species Database Map and Data Appendix I Danger Tree Plan 9(JUI)2018 Land Services NW LLC Horsfall Vegetation Management Plan Page viii Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a study conducted on Parcel # 45870000400 at 17115 LAKE POINT DR SE in Mason County with the legal description of LAKELAND VILLAGE 7 LOT: 50 S 44/86 (Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to 1) identify and describe the streams or other priority habitats on-site and within 300 ft off-site of the property 2) identify impacts to wetlands or critical areas and their buffers, and 3) apply management and conservation measures to off-set any unavoidable critical areas or buffer impacts caused by the clearing of the property for a single-family residence. This project will occur within 200 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of Anderson Lake a shoreline of the "state", in a residential shoreline environmental designation and will therefore need to satisfy the review process required by the Mason Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Critical areas are within shoreline jurisdiction will be regulated under the SMP as well. Mason County and possibly other agencies that may evaluate impacts to critical areas from the proposed project will be able to utilize information in this report. Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 All Eno �1 _ 1Ftl•71iIINNIN lilt e.1, II gin, •1R1.�/� _ �`" i a -- Am Mai lk\ .� ■' I "Ins- ; LILLIS A 177 Rue 64 `.. �.� ••;..;`J• A Fq I�11.►�., " ��A=•y � i �J j c L � ■ ME IwV a. W& IN == FAIJ4i IWO- ' j 1 il - Olympia, N ,0 2,00 ON Feet :O . 1: - 12219500DO50 • 1 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 2.1 Historical and Current Land Use The property has historically existed as unmanaged vacant forest land. Recently, the previous owner had cleared the property in preparation for building a single-family residence. This has resulted in "Significant Vegetation Removal."Which is defined in the Mason SMP as. The removal or alteration of trees,shrubs,and/or ground cover by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or other activity that causes significant impacts to ecological functions provided by such vegetation. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds does not constitute significant vegetation removal. Tree pruning, not including tree topping, where it does not affect ecological functions,does not constitute significant vegetation removal. Since that time the current applicant has taken possession of the property and is interested in developing the lot with a single-family residence for their use. The neighboring properties have single-family residences with various appurtenances and driveways for ingress and egress (Figure 2). Mason County enforcement has issued a notice of violation to rectify the illegal unpermitted "significant vegetation removal". 3 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan �F z• w y ' Subject Property J. i JIk. h1 -: f `fib . �• Lake anaersoo "7 S�VIA t �) f" W t41 , Land Services NW Olympia. State Avenue NE#190 e Figure 2 Current Land Use 0 40 80 160 Feet � �Olympia.WA 98501 ; I360-481-4208 Parcel#122195000050 — 4 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Information Review Background Review Background information on possible wetlands was reviewed prior to field investigations and included the following: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map, USFWS Shapefile Data (Appendix B) Mason County Area Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973) National Resource Conservation Service Shapefiles (NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2018) (Appendix C) USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Maps (Appendix D) Mason County Shapefiles (Appendix E) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database (Appendix F) Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Database (Appendix G) United States Hydric Soils List (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991) Washington State Hydric Soils List (Iowa State University, 1995) Thurston County Code Chapter 24.30 and the Thurston Regional Shoreline Master Program 3.2 Analysis of Existing Information National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map (Appendix B), developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), identifies Anderson Lake. NRCS Soils Map The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the site (Appendix C) as containing: Bald Hill very stoney sandy loam (Non-hydric) On site samples verified soils similar to mapped soils. USGS 7/5 Minute TOPO Map The USGS has created 7.5 Minute Topo maps with significant hydrologic features as well as other man-made and natural forms This map shows Lake Lawrence to the south and west (Appendix D) Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan WADNR Natural Heritage Database The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage database did not identify sensitive plant species on the site or in the vicinity of the subject property. Field investigations did not yield any sensitive plant species on the site or in close proximity to the property WDFW PHS On the Web Database The WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Database did not identify any priority habitats or species in the vicinity of the subject property. It does identify waterfowl concentrations on Lawrence Lake (Appendix H). Since these maps are only general inventories based largely on aerial photographs, and because lakes areas change over time, a field investigation was necessary to ensure that all habitats and issues were identified. 3.3 Field Investigation Determination Guidelines Land Services Northwest LLC conducted a survey on June 6, 2018 conducting a walking traverse of the site noting stumps of significant trees found on site. Because the property had been cleared before the applicant purchased the property, it was not possible to determine the total amount of trees removed from the site since there was mechanical removal of some of the stumps to put in culverts and a driveway. During this site visit, reference vegetation found on undisturbed neighboring areas was noted to help re-establish the species composition of the site before the clearing event took place. A wetland was discovered on site and an investigation was performed using the Routine Wetland Determination for areas not significantly disturbed. This method was used because even though there was disturbance of the site, the area of wetland maintained a soil profile except on the very edge where the non -native soils were easy to identify as the soils were discontinuous near the surface. It did not appear that there was wetland fill that would diminish the functions and values of the wetland and the hydrology was consistent throughout the wetland and indicative of a slope wetland at the edge of a lake. Field Survey A property reconnaissance was performed June 10, 2018 to identify cut trees present on the subject property. Observations were made of the general plant communities, wildlife habitats, and the locations of potential streams and wetland areas. Present and past land- use practices were also noted, as were significant geological and hydrological features. Once likely cut areas were located, a gps point was taken with a Garmin 64 ST at the edge of the wetland. These locations were mapped (Figure 3) along with the Ordinary High Water Mark which was delineated using guidance from the Department of Ecology (ECY, 2016). Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy in Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist, 1973). 6 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan S 9� } 'M;,5, Wetland A Subject Property WU.11 'J '�W" Wll 1 T. A3 ,.,., WLV A i i Land Services NW 120 State Avenue NE#190 Figure 3 Olympia,WA 98501 Test Pits and Wetland Flags 0 30 60 120 Feet 360 481-4208 Parcel#122195000050 7 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Existing Conditions The subject property is relatively flat on the western portion where the driveway begins, but has a slope to the east at 2-5 percent toward Lake Anderson. The Ordinary High Water Mark was identified according to he methods found in "Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (ECY, 2016). Anderson Lake has an outlet which is controlled by a wier so we assume the lake level is relatively constant, but lake level information was not available. There is a sharp drop to the lake where the OHWM is assumed to be.. A wetland was discovered near the lakeshore that derives its hydrology primarily from a hillside seep. The are was recently cleared and vegetation has not been re-established. Silt fences have been installed to guard against discharge to waters of the state. 5.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Mason County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Under the Shoreline Management Act uses or activities that are within 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) are regulated under the relevant shoreline Master program and must be consistent with the SMA and the local SMP. Mason County has recently updated its shoreline master program. Currently, the Shoreline Environmental Designation (SED) Map. This map shows the subject properties within the residential SED (Figure 4). 4. 'Residential'shoreline environmental designation. a.Purpose.The purpose of the residential designation is to accommodate residential development in areas already developed with or planned primarily for residential uses. Intensive recreational uses and public access are appropriate,provided impacts to ecological functions are mitigated or avoided. b.Designation Criteria.Shorelines that are developed;characterized by small lot sizes;designated as rural residential 2.5, rural residential 5,Allyn UGA residential zones,or Belfair UGA residential zones;and have one or more of the following: i.Areas that are predominantly developed with single-family or multifamily residential development; ii.Areas planned and platted for residential development, but are not predominantly characterized by critical areas,floodplains and/or channel migration zones; iii. Areas with a proliferation of docks/piers and structural armoring; The property meets MCC 17.50.080.(4) with predominant Single-family residential among other things. 8 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan AVANW WAPr- C 0- n, ALLYN UGA ell Lake- Shoreline Environmental Designations Fc£i:7tr,fic F.tral c orbe-vor•:_; HO-L.rc -here is o, or Aq�_. _. .vhi-._"en•corn- ._, a- :��.:it -w -d h the eon ':?l e a•,dt: t,+.le=_ 4 5 Figure 4 Mason County SMP Shoreline Environmental Designations The primary use of the property will be single-family residential. Under the Table 17.50.090- k Project Classification Table grading for non water dependant uses is permitted with a conditional use permit, but since this is for an after-the-fact permit, the table recognizes that restoration can be approved without a conditional use permit, Residential housing in the residential SED is a preferred permitted use. 9 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 17.50.110 Ecological protection, critical areas, no net loss. This project will be consistent with the policies found in 17.50.110 A. Policies. 1. Ecological Protection, Critical Areas, No Net Loss. a.This program aims to protect against adverse effects on the public health, on the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters and their aquatic life by: i. Requiring that current ecological functions be identified and understood when evaluating new uses and developments; This report will attempt to protect against further adverse impacts of the development through a restoration plan to re-establish shoreline functions and values. ii. Requiring adverse impacts be mitigated in a manner that ensures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources. "No net loss" means that existing shoreline ecological functions are not degraded as a result of new development. This can be achieved through mitigation which involves first avoiding the impact altogether, then minimizing impacts where possible, and then replacing or compensating for unavoidable loss of functions and resources. Unfortunately, the applicant has inherited a situation which makes the avoidance of impacts impossible. They are providing a mitigation plan to re-establish functions and values to the nearshore in shoreline jurisdiction which will minimize any impacts over the lifetime of the project. iii. Ensuring that all uses and developments regulated under the Act, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from a shoreline substantial development permit, will not cause a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. As mentioned above, the restoration plan should re-establish functions to pre-graded value. iv. Preventing, to the greatest extent practicable, cumulative impacts from individual developments. The cumulative impacts of should be negligible under restoration contemplated by the SMP. v. Fairly allocating the burden of preventing cumulative impacts among development opportunities. Once established, the vegetation plan should be self-sustaining and create no burden of future cumulative impacts. vi. Including incentives to restore shoreline ecological functions where such functions have been degraded by past actions. Regulations. 1. No Net Loss and Mitigation. a. Except when specifically exempted by statute, all new shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from permit requirements, shall be 10 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan located, designed, constructed, conducted, and maintained in a manner that maintains shoreline ecological functions. The residence will conform with setback requirements of the SMP as well as maintain a vegetated shoreline which will provide for no net loss of shoreline functions and values. b. Proponents of new shoreline use and development shall employ measures to mitigate unavoidable adverse environmental impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline resources. c. Mitigation measures shall be applied in the following sequence of steps listed in order of priority: i. Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; ii. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; iii. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; Restoration will occur according to the requirements found in MCC 8.52.11.(H).d which states: (d) Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; The residence will have drainage and stormwater maintained in accordance with the appropriate Ecology stormwater manual. Splash blocks will disperse downspouts. v. Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; vi. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. d. In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable. e. Required mitigation shall not exceed a level necessary to assure that proposed uses or development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. g. Compensatory mitigation measures shall occur in the vicinity of the impact The mitigation will be provided on site. Impacts have now been avoided by the applicant, there were circumstances under which the applicant had no control. 2. Critical Areas. a. Applicability. i. Subject to exceptions listed below, the critical area provisions of the Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCC 8.52) adopted on August 3rd 1993 as Ordinance Number 77-93 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan and last amended on September 19, 2017 as Ordinance Number 51-17 are adopted by reference and shall apply within shoreline jurisdiction. ii. Critical area provisions do not extend shoreline jurisdiction beyond the limits specified in this SMP. For regulations addressing critical area buffers that are outside shoreline jurisdiction, see resource ordinance, Chapter 8.52 MCC. N/A iii. In the event provisions of MCC 8.52 are found inconsistent with standards and requirements in this program, this program shall govern, except as provided below. iv. Shoreline uses and developments shall be consistent with MCC Chapter 14.22 Flood Damage Prevention, as amended. Where provisions of the FDPO and the SMP conflict, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. v. The following procedural provisions differ from MCC 8.52 within shoreline jurisdiction: (a) Applications that are processed as a Mason Environmental Permit per MCC 8.52.190(C), and do not require a shoreline variance, shoreline substantial development permit, or shoreline conditional use shall instead be processed as a shoreline exemption. Noted (b) The general exemptions in section 8.52.200 do not apply. For exemptions to the SMP, see section 17.50.060(E) and WAC 173-27-045. For exemptions from the substantial development permit process, see section 17.50.400 and WAC 173-27-040. (d) Development applications that are processed according to the reasonable use exception provisions of MCC 8.52.190(K) or variance provisions of MCC 8.52.220 shall instead be processed as a shoreline variance. i. Buffers and setbacks in shoreline jurisdiction are consistent with requirements of MCC 8.52 and Table 17.50.110-A. The buffers will be restored and maintained according to MCC 8.52 and Table 17.50.110-A. ii. Unless otherwise specified, buffers shall be maintained in predominantly natural, undisturbed, undeveloped and vegetated condition. Regulated buffers shall not extend across lawfully established paved roads or hardened surfaces to include areas which are functionally isolated from the critical area The buffers will be restored and maintained according to MCC 8.52 and Table 17.50.110-A. iii. New shoreline development shall be located landward of the minimum shoreline buffer plus building setback, except as specified in this program or with the approval of a shoreline variance. These standards will be met. 12 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan iv. As authorized by MCC 8.52.170(E)(3)(b), special setbacks may be authorized for single- family residences on existing lots in certain circumstances without a shoreline variance. The Common line setback measures will be applied. v. If buffers for any critical areas are contiguous or overlapping, the buffers and setbacks that are most protective of shoreline ecological resources shall apply. Table 8.52.110(B): Ratings of Impact from Land Uses. Rating of impact from proposed changes in land use Examples of land uses that cause the impact High • Commercial • Urban • Industrial • Institutional • Retail sales • Residential (more than 1 unit/acre) • Conversion to high intensity agriculture ( dairies, nurseries and green houses, growing and harvesting crops requiring annual tilling, raising and maintaining animals) • High intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields) Moderate -Single-family residential (1 unit/acre or less) • Moderate-intensity open space (parks with biking, jogging, etc.) • Conversion to moderate intensity agriculture (orchards and hay fields) • Paved trails -Building of logging roads • Utility corridor or right-of-way shared by several utilities and including access/maintenance road Low • Forestry (cutting of trees only) 13 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan • Low intensity open space (hiking, bird watching, preservation of natural resources, etc.) • Unpaved trails • Utility corridor without a maintenance road and little or no vegetation management Table 8.52.110(C): Width of Buffer Required to Protect Category IV Wetlands. Wetlands scoring between nine and fifteen points on the wetland rating system. Wetland Characteristics Buffer Widths by Impacts of Proposed Land Use Score for all 3 basic functions is less than 16 points Low — 25 ft Moderate — 40 ft High — 50ft 14 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan PW 4W s f g* s .a i -- ;'Legend I 40ft buffer 15ftBSL 1 - Wetland+ Land Services NW 120 State Avenue #190 e Figure 4 Olympia,WA 98501 Moderate Land Use Intensity 0 25 50 100 Feet 360-481-4208 40-foot Category IV Wetland Buffer MCC 17.50.255 - Residential. Contains the policies and regulations that area relevant to the proposed project and restoration. The analysis of appropriate shoreline policies is in italics. I> Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan A. Residential Policies. 1. Single family residences are a priority use of the shoreline when developed in a manner that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. This project will, after restoration of the shoreline vegetation, maintain no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 3. Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facilities, should be provided in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations. The septic and water supply will be typical and in accordance with the state and local health regulations. 5. Residential development in shoreline areas should be designed to preserve natural drainage courses. Storm drainage facilities should be designed and installed to protect water quality, prevent erosion, and protect structures. Low impact development practices consistent with the most current adopted Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington are encourage for all projects, where feasible. The development and drainage will be in accordance with the most current adopted Stormwater management manual for Western WA. Low impact development using splash blocks, rain gardens and bioswales will be considered where appropriate. 6. Residential development on shorelines should be planned, designed and located to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for unavoidable adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions. This plan includes a restoration element which will lead to no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. All other elements of the project shall avoid and minimize any other impacts. 8. Residential structures should be located to minimize obstruction of views of the water from upland areas. The intent of this policy is to encourage the retention of views in and through new residential developments. This policy is not intended to prohibit residential development of a shoreline lot simply because it may impact or eliminate views from upland property. The structure will not obstruct views from upland areas. 9. Residential development along shorelines should be designed and sited to make shoreline stabilization measures unnecessary within the foreseeable future. The shoreline is relatively stable and should not require stabilization. 11.The overall density of development, lot coverage and height of structures should be appropriate to the physical capabilities of the site. Particular attention should be given to the preservation of water quality and shoreline aesthetic characteristics. Density should be consistent with density provisions of the county land use/zoning code and this program. The overall density of development, lot coverage and height is appropriate to the physical capabilities of the site ad meets the county land use zoning code and the SMP. 12. Accessory dwelling units should be allowed when no net loss of shoreline ecological functions would occur. 16 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan No accessory dwelling units are planned at this time. An analysis of residential regulations in the SMP is provided in italics. 3. Design and siting of residential development and activities such as clearing and grading shall not adversely impact water quality or ecological functions: a. Proposed residential subdivisions and other land uses and developments which may impact aquaculture operations shall provide facilities to prevent any adverse water quality impacts to such operations. All projects shall meet or exceed any stormwater design requirements in MCC 14.48 and 17.80 to avoid any risk of decertification of shellfish beds. Site preparation and construction in the vicinity of aquaculture operations shall not result in off-site erosion, siltation, or other reductions in water quality. Land uses on erosion hazard areas shall meet the requirements of MCC 8.52.160. The development will be consistent with these design requirements. b. Residential development shall comply with current Mason County on-site sewer system standards. The development will be consistent with these design requirements. c. Expansion of existing dwellings shall require strict compliance with current sewage system setback and design standards as per WAC 248-96. N/A d. Residential development and activities such as clearing and grading shall comply with buffers and setbacks consistent with MCC 17.50.110 (General Regulations), and requirements of MCC 17.50.340, shoreline stabilization. Deviation from buffer and setback requirements not specifically authorized shall require a shoreline variance. The development will be consistent with these design requirements. e. Residential developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation shall be minimized and any areas disturbed shall be restored to prevent erosion and other impacts to shoreline ecological functions. Vegetation removal on site occurred before the applicant took possession of the property. A restoration plan is proposed to make sure that the shoreline will retain previous shoreline functions. f. Waste materials from construction shall not be left on or adjacent to shorelines. No waste materials will be left on or adjacent to the shoreline. 5.2 Danger Trees 8.52.170 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 17 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan H. Danger Trees (felling of). The felling of danger trees are allowed within buffers without a habitat management plan provided the following conditions are met: (i)When it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the administrator that an imminent threat exists to public health or safety, or the safety of private or public property. Landowner shall provide to the administrator a written statement describing tree location, danger it poses, and proposed mitigation. Provided in Appendix J Danger Tree Removal Plan (ii)Should the imminent threat not be apparent to the administrator(as danger trees are defined in Section 8.52.030), the administrator may require the landowner submit a report from a professional forester or certified arborist. Found in Appendix / (iii)Before a danger tree may be felled or removed, with the exception of an emergency pursuant to Section 8.52.240, the landowner shall obtain written approval from the administrator. This approval shall be processed promptly and may not be unreasonably withheld. If the administrator fails to respond to a danger tree removal request within ten business days, the landowner's request shall be conclusively allowed. We will wait to remove the tree until the administrator approves (iv)Mitigation as approved by the administrator to include: a.The planting within the critical area or its buffer a total of six new native trees, each a minimum three years old. Should a report be submitted under subsection (6)(ii), it shall contain recommendations for suitable replacement trees; We will submit for 6 native trees that will be at least 3 years old for the removal of the cedar.A combination of Pacific dogwood(Corpus nuttallia) and River birch (Betula papyrifera). b.Tree trunks shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless a submitted report warrants its removal to avoid spreading disease or pests. This may be achieved by leaving at least twenty feet of the tree standing as a 'snag' or by leaving the trunk of the cut tree on the ground in as large of segments as possible to provide habitat. The branches from the cut tree may be removed to control fire hazard; and We would like to utilize the tree as shoreline protection by countersinking the tree and anchoring it in the nearshore. This will provide shoreline protection and utilize the tree for nearshore habitat. c. Additional mitigation may be required if three or more trees are to be felled on one property within a ten-year period. N/A 18 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 5.3 Common Line Setbacks (b) Common Line' on Residential Lots. The following are special provisions for buffers and setbacks for single family residential development on lots created prior to December 5, 1996, and which are located on saltwater or on a freshwater lake twenty acres or larger in size. (i)Where existing residences are on both sides of and within one hundred fifty feet of the lot line of the subject lot, and no more than two hundred feet from the shoreline OHWM, the setback on the subject lot is determined by an imaginary common line drawn across the subject lot that connects the shore-side roof lines of the first adjacent existing residences (Figure 3 and 4 in Appendix B); (ii)A common line mitigation plan may be prepared by the property owner or his/her designee and shall meet the requirements in Appendix B, or a habitat management plan shall be prepared by a qualified habitat biologist and meet the requirements in subpart J. Best management practices such as those in Appendix C shall also be implemented to limit impacts to the resource. (iv)As used in this section, a "residence" refers to the principal dwelling/residential structure and does not include outbuildings or other structures. Table B-2: Saltwater- Buffers and Setbacks Shoreline Commercial Residential Rural Conse Environmental Designations—.). Vegetated Buffer 50' 100, 100, 150' 150' Structural Setback 65' 115' 115' 165' 165' Appendix B Where existing residences are on both sides of and within one hundred fifty feet of the lot line of the subject lot, the setback on the subject lot is determined by an imaginary common line drawn across the subject lot that connects the shore-side roof lines of the adjacent existing residences (Figure B-3 and Figure B-4). 19 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan Water Body _Ot1Wh1 35'minimum V one a� UncovcreJj Common deck W to Veck New m ro House c ro 4' -- ---- ------r------- ------ --------- -- - 15 feet _ mac------ — ———— ——— -- ---- --Y — d c c J °Figure B-3 I a`� d The site plan has depicted the common line setback (Figure 5). 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Description The project consists a single-family residence, a driveway for ingress and egress, the of removal of a Western red cedar (Thuja plicata). This cedar will be placed on the shoreline and anchored with manta ray anchors or some other anchoring system in order to provide shoreline erosion protections and habitat in the nearshore. This should make shoreline modification unnecessary in the future. 6.2 Development Impacts No permanent impacts are proposed with the exception of the removal of approximately 1 Western red cedar tree from the property. It is expected that keeping with the shoreline provisions a buffer of ground cover and shrubs and trees will be maintained between the OHWM of Anderson Lake and the Common Line Setback from the single-family residence which will off set the removal of vegetation by the previous landowner. 6.3 Impact Avoidance and Minimization BMP's to limit impacts have already been installed. A silt fence has been installed and the work will be done in the dry season except for the planting which will be done in the fall to 20 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan ensure success. A cover crop of grass will be seeded or sheet mulch may be applied to reduce the chance of ersion and invasives. site. Staging sites will be at least 100 feet landward of the OHWM. The Western red cedar will be removed, but leave the stump in place. 6.4 Minimization of Water Quality Impacts The work has been conducted during a dry period and it does not appear that there is any mobilization of sediment due to erosion or soil disturbance. After removal of the logs, the applicant proposes to implement water quality and sedimentation best management practices (BMPs) to minimize sedimentation and protect water quality on-site and any bare areas will be planted with a cover crop of grass. Silt fences and straw waddles will be used where necessary. 7 .0 WILDLIFE Wildlife observed during the field investigations are typical of urban/suburban adapted species (Table 2). The European starling, possum, and other species adapted to urbanization may inhabit or visit the site for food and shelter. No evidence of State-listed, Federally-listed, or priority species was observed on the subject property or in the vicinity of the site based on the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and field observations. During the limited duration of the site reconnaissance and delineation, no evidence of the Federally-listed Bald Eagle, Marbled Murrelet, or Spotted Owl was observed on-site. No Federally-listed salmonid species are known to occur within the project area, based on the WDFW SalmonScape database, the WDFW PHS database, and site reconnaissance (Appendix H). 21 Land Services Nw LLC July 9,2018 W Western V Red Cedar 17-1 Tree To = Be COMMON SINE Removed � SETBACK W ,� PARCEL NO L v� 0 W 3 Zt J� LANDSERVICES NW Figure 5 ® WETLAND BUFFER 120 STATE AVE NE #190 COMMON LINE SETBACK Scale: 1"=50 OLYMPIA, WA 98501 MITIGTION PLANTING BOUNDARY (6591 SQ FT) 360-481-4208 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan Table 2. Observed Wildlife Occurrence Common Name Scientific Status Habitat Observation Comments Name I F BIRDS American Robin Turdus None Various Visual- Common migratorius Throughout site Black-Capped Poecile None Urban/ In trees Observed in trees Chickadee atrica illa Suburban American Crow Corvus None Urban/ Throughout Observed in trees brach rh nchos Suburban site Dark-Eyed Junco Junco hyemalis None Urban/ On ground in Observed in trees Suburban field Mallard duck (Anas None Urban/Subu In lake Common lat rh nchos) rban Steller's Jay Cyanocitta None Urban/ In trees Observed in trees stelleri Suburban MAMMALS AMPHIBIANS None observed REPTILES None observed EX:Extirpated SE:State None:No listing status FE:Federal Endangered Endangered None':This species has no state listing status,but FT:Federal Threatened ST:State it is classified as protected wildlife. FSC:Federal Species of Threatened EX:Extirpated Concern SC:State FC:Federal Candidate Candidate SS:State Sensitive SM:State Monitor 8.0 REVEGETATION AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 8.1 Vegetation Impacts Vegetation impacts have occurred and are difficult to ascertain the exact numbers of trees and shrubs removed, but the replanting plan waterward of the common setback line will establish trees at approximately 12 feet on center shrubs at 8 feet on center and groundcover plants and 2 feet on center where applied. Grass, mulch or erosion control will be provided for bare areas. 8.2 Revegetation Plan Concepts and Objectives The applicant proposes to provide mitigation for the removal of the vegetation waterward of the common setback line. A three foot walking path to the shore will be maintained to allow 77 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan egress to the shoreline should the applicant decide to install a dock in the future. The path will be outside of the buffer or in the outer 75% if necessary. Vegetation provides vital shoreline functions which were lost by removal of the trees. Appendix B Trees and shrubs provide: • Shade • Air quality functions • Water quality functions • Nutrient uptake • Habitat • Structure • Soil stabilization • Organic soil inputs • Aesthetic benefits The applicant proposes to revegetate with native trees shrubs and forbs that will benefit the indigenous macroinvertebrates and animals of the area. One of the problems with the trees on the lot that were removed is that the trees were large and in close proximity to the proposed residence. The subject property was unmanaged and had more trees than most parcels in the area. In order to prevent a dangerous situation from redeveloping on this lot, it is proposed that the applicant revegetates the property with trees that are relatively slow growing but will provide a canopy for shade and other shoreline functions, while not necessarily reaching the size and height of the Douglas firs and western red cedars. Since these trees were removed from the riparian upland interface, the trees provided benefits to both upland and aquatic environments. One study found that the fish in freshwater lakes in Wisconsin received most of their prey via allocthonous inputs from nearby trees while those lakes that did not have trees in the nearshore suffered from lack of prey resources (Weigel et al, 2003). Placement of willow trees and red osier dogwood near the water will provide many benefits to fishes and fisherpeople of the area. Waterfowl concentrations were noted during the site reconnaisance. In order to provide food sources for burrowing ducks like the wood duck, nut trees such as beaked hazelnut will be planted near the larger trees. Management of geese has been successful with the proper placement of vegetation that could provide hiding places for goose predators. Waterward of the willows, ground cover like small fruited bulrush will protect the shoreline from erosion and discourage geese from landing on shore. Mason County Appendix B has standards for planting, however since this is a restoration plan and the buffer needs replaced, we will utilize the buffer and the setback area for 23 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Western T Red Cedar Tree To Be COMMON LINE Removed SETBACK ' mow 1433 SFR 4943 sq 4119 sq fft sqft d -20 TI J LANDSERVICES NV FIGURE 6 Scale: 1" = 30' 120 STATE AVE NE 6190 CMOM LIFE SETBACK HNP OLYNPIA, VA 98501 RESTORATIM ZONES 360-481-42M (13,663 sq f t) Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan restoration (Figure 6). General zones 1-7 were established in order to provide certain physical structural and functional attributes to benefit humans and wildlife. An as built will be provided to establish the final result. This will allow discretion for microtopography and the availability of water to the plants and their preferred habitat. It will also allow for views and cover. Substitutions ay be needed if a plant is not available. The county will be consulted on any substutions and their appropriateness for installation. 24 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan Table 3a. Trees and shrubs Common Species Function Qua size Zone Type Cost Total Name ntity /per unit Shore pine Grows in 20 5 5 Upland Tree $20 $400.00 Pinus wetter gallo contorta areas n but narrow for view Bitter cherry Prunus Fruits 5 1 6 On edges Tree $7.5 $37.50 emarginata and gallo flowers n Serviceberry Amelanchier Berries 5 1 1 Shrub/t $7.5 $37.50 alnifolia and gallo ree flowers n Beaked Cory/us Food 5 1 5 along Shrub $7.5 $75.00 hazelnut cornuta source gallo zone 1 for wood n ducks Quaking Populus Food 5 1 7 Tree $7.5 $3750 aspen tremuloides and gallo habitat n Cornus Pacific Nectar 4 18- Along path Tree/s 7.5 $30.00 nuttalli dogwood 32 hrub inch Red osier Corpus alba Food 7 1 3 Seasonal Shrub $7.5 $52.50 dogwood and gallo water habitat n Pacfic Salix habitat 8 stak 3 Seasonal Shrub $7.5 $60.00 willow lassiandra es water Pacific Rhododendron Nectar 5 1 5 Shrub $7.5 $37.50 rhodedendr macrophyllum gallo 0 on n Salmonberr Rubis Fruit and 50 Bare 4 and 7 Shrub 2 $100.00 y spectabilis nectar root 25 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan Total 114 $867.50 Table 3b. Groundcover Small fruited Scirpus Food 180 plugs 2 in front of herb $2.00 $360. bulrush microcarpus and willows up to habitat western red erosion cedar protection Slough Carex obnupta Habitat 100 plugs 4 Herb $2.00 $200. sedge and food Kinnickinnick Arctostaphylos Food and 100 br 6 upper Herb/shrub $2.00 $200. uva-ursi erosion layer on rotection slopes Red Ribes Food and 20 Bare root 5, 6 and 1 Shrub $5.00 $100. flowering sanguinium habitat currant rotection Evergreen Vaccinium Food and 25 1 gal 5, 6 and 1 Shrub $5.00 $125. huckeberry ovatum habitat Salal Gaultheria Food and 120 Bare 6 Next to $2.00 $120. shallon erosion root/plugs Kinnickinnick Shrub/herb 545 1105 Table 4. Costs Labor $1,000 $2000 Mulch 200 $200 Monitoring w/re ort 5 ears 2500 $2500 Plants $1972.50 Total $6672.50 A bond will be provided as a surety to the County in lieu of a successful planting for 5 years. 8.3 Installation Plants will be sourced from a reputable nursery and will consist of native plants (no cultivars allowed). No fertilizer is proposed, but mulch may be used to promote moisture retention. All plants will be inspected prior to installation and any plants that appear to be in bad health will be returned and replaced with thriving plants. Trees will be planted at grade in holes 2-3 times the width of the container or root ball. Mulch will be applied around each tree 2-4 inches deep in a three-foot diameter around the tree with an edge to retain water. Rootbound trees will be cut with sharp shears on the bottom in an x pattern to promote root growth. Four cuts will be made vertically to allow roots to spread. Trees will be thoroughly watered in after installation. 26 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan Shrubs will be installed in a similar manner. Circular pits 12 inches wide will be dug for all groundcover. Rootballs will be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Plants will be planted at grade. A ring of soil around each plant will be made to prevent drying. The species selected are typical native northwest species that usually survive our summers, however it may be necessary to irrigate during the first two years to ensure survival. 8.4 Performance Measures The following performance measures will determine whether or not, the project is successful. Monitoring Monitoring will be conducted in the spring, shortly after leaf out to assure proper identification of plants. Reports will be sent out within 1 month of monitoring and management actions will occur during the summer. 4 Photo points will be set in year zero or as built and pictures will be taken that show the plant condition in four cardinal directions. The survival percentages will be provided, reasons for failure, contingencies will be developed in coordination with the county in response to any failures. Survival Survival counts will be derived from total planted plus volunteer native woody species. Herbaceous species will not be counted. Survival will be 100% for year 1. If dead or dying trees, shrubs are found to be greater than 20%, it will be replaced in year two-four. Total survival will be 80% by year 5, If the survival by year five is less than 80% including volunteers, the site will be planted to 80% and monitored for one more year. Invasive Plants The site will be monitored for invasive species within the designated planting area which will be determined during the as-built. Invasive species will be removed by hand unless a herbicidal treatment is necessary for removal as determined by the County. No invasive species will total more than 20% aerial coverage in the planting area. Contingencies If it appears that plant species survival standards are not being met, contingencies such as watering, species replacement, or other contingencies may be implemented upon approval by the Mason County Community Development Department. 27 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 8.5 Surety Bond A bond will be provided as a surety to the County in lieu of a successful planting for 5 years. 8.6 Forms of surety agreement. The property owner, applicant, or designee shall include with the agreement set forth in this chapter one or more of the following at the discretion of the approval authority: A. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Washington on a form approved by the county; B. Cash, deposited with the Thurston County treasurer; C. A letter of credit or irrevocable assignment of savings executed by a financial institution stating that the money is held for the stated purpose of the installation, monitoring, and/or maintenance and repair. (Ord. No. 14773, § 3(Att. B), 7-24-2012) 8.7 Release of surety. A. The surety agreement shall specify that the surety cannot be terminated or cancelled without written release by the approval authority. The approval authority shall release all or part of the unexpended portion of the surety, as appropriate, upon determining that activities subject to the surety agreement or bond have been completed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and the requirements of this title. B. Surety agreements for monitoring of such improvements together with any needed replacements or repairs as required under this title shall not be fully released for at least, five years for wetlands, following final acceptance of the improvements by the approval authority. In accordance with the surety agreement, the applicant will provide a surety of$6672.50 for the proposed planting plan. 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION On site vegetation was cut without permits and a proposal to attain after-the-fact permits (Shoreline Exemption)an MEP has been created. The project will not impact any wetlands or their buffers. The project as now proposed should result in "No net loss of shoreline functions and values". This project will use best management practices in order to prevent storm water impacts and provide a new residential unit that will result in sustainable existence with the natural resources that surround it. 10.0 LIMITATIONS This report was created with care and best professional judgment using the most current manuals and the best available science. This report is subject to interpretation and acceptance by local, and state regulators who have the final regulatory authority on mitigating revegetation plans 28 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan 11.0 REFERENCE Coward in, L.M., 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, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. December 5. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). 2015. The hydric soil technical standard. Hydric Soils Technical Note 11. https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_ DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_051608.pdf (accessed 19 September 2016). Thurston County. 1990. Thurston Regional Shoreline Master Program. Thurston County, Washington United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.). USDA,NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. WA Department of Ecology. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Mangement Act Compliance in Washington State. Washington Department of Ecology Publication #16-06-029 29 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Horsfall Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan USDA, NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 2/28/2018). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. http://Plants.usda.gov U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Lacey Quadrangle. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. August.2014 Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. Water Quality Assessment for Washington. Accessed April 30, 2017. http//fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wgamapviewer/default.aspx?res- 1280x720 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. Species of concern: State candidate species. WDFW. Olympia, WA. Weigel et al. 2003. Relative influence of variables at multiple spatial scales on stream macroinvertebrates in the Northern Lakes and Forest ecoregion, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology. 48, 1440-1461/ Blackwell Publishing 30 Land Services NW LLC July 9,2018 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan "r 1 r Y, .. .. - v" 4 i ' N f J�y Skunk Cabbage in Wetland Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan i.c� '`A Z � Mar• ':°J; �. i ..r�`,_. � - ' 4_ �:. yy�am,,..�,... � �'.g 4y •_rif °� /� _..r.�..� .. ...)/l�. 1R�yr�nrr..• �,.�, .af!.. �= nh - �l 1'•*.'fa 1�� - � s v-AC Ij ; 41 _-4.,5.'{' .t rJ,n`I.w �...,� i �� *,�.y11,��t+•sa� - -'g l .. -F,, i� 3•` .a. u �� .i:�� ?''•s�i"b-�'i... r°'r� �^ 1 4 r E� "� .;y�jai crt. N e�i Looking Upslope from Wetland Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 -.- ..- } � `3�" ,4 �'y +f l 7� � � � 'fit r � �t .. '� _ �;�' « � � ; . .--Y'�� .,, � . ,- - a 'b'. :yy.<. ,rg,�, .. ;ay S+; ¢ �. ..' .. _ � 3cr �� 't�R �' ��• •✓' .�` +ter �� 1 � f'.� i S ,lj%- .r. � z %�"'"" � � 1 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan ,t Wetland With Cedar to be Removed Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan APPENDIX B U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service NWI MAP Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan Awl L1UBH AEV gift PW -�_ Legend ' Q Urn (—WA WetlandsAMP e�MC Street CenteAines Parcels—A i Land Services NW 120 State Avenue NE#190 Appendix 6 Olympia,WA 98501 USFWS 0 25 50 100 Feet 360-481-4208 National Wetland Inventory Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan APPENDIX C MASON COUNTY NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAP Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 b Soil Map—Mason County,Washington (Appendix C Soil Survey Map) 511333 511340 51m 511au 5,1 5111 5114 511A 5114 5115 511520 511543 5115R) 1.7 * ` - POW f� a v ,a p ar nsrN +r er s4•N 511321 511341 511383 511380 511400 ii.:_h 5114 5114 514, 5115C 5115D 3 3 Map Scale:1a,190 t p1rl on A bndsape(11"x8.$)sfeet � N a 15 30 60 90 ANap pmlecwn:W b me tDr CnNrrmwd"eates:vdCS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 10N WC584 USpq Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2018 3� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Mason County,Washington (Appendix C Soil Survey Map) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 1:31,700. Q Stony Spot Soils Very Stony spot Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Q Soil Map Unit Polygons Well spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Soil Map Unit Points Other line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of Special Line Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Special Point Features scale. W Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map ® Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service �-1-►0 Closed Depression Web Soil Survey URL: N Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) Gravel Pit US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator •• Gravelly spot Major Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts • distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the O Landfill Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more A Lava Flow Background accurate calculations of distance or area are required. 4J6 Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s)listed below. Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area: Mason County,Washington Miscellaneous Water Survey Area Data: Version 13,Sep 7,2017 O Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales V Rock outcrop 1:50,000 or larger. + Saline Spot Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Apr 1,2016--Sep 27, 2016 Sandy Spot •• The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor 0 Sinkhole shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Slide or Slip A( Sodic Spot USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—Mason County,Washington Appendix C Soil Survey Map Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Eh Everett very gravelly sandy 7.1 93.6% loam,8 to 15 percent slopes W Water 0.5 6.4% Totals for Area of Interest 7.6 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/17/2018 T Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan APPENDIX D USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP : LACEY QUADRANGLE Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan � � ■ s ■ � � 1 r � f Subject Property '•'� . �:�� __�;'� t.;'�•. (Approx Loccation) • - y:S et :5:. ' ^�'~� ''}' :��1.i - •:'sue''"'•. � off'•'.: -%'1�.._.'.y:��•:i.:':*'�'_!,r•�.. ■ Land Services NW 120 State Avenue NE#190 e Appendix D Olympia,WA 98501 USGS 0 270 540 1.080 Feet 360-481-4208 Topo Map Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan Appendix E. Wetland Data Sheets Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Horsefall SFR City/County: Shelton/Mason Sampling Date: 6/6/2018 Applicant/Owner: Kevin and Deborah Horsfall State: WA Sampling Point: TP-1 Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section,Township,Range: Section 19 Townshio 22 Range 1W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope Subregion(LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ❑ No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: All parameters present VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum(Plot size:30ft) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: %Cover Species? Status 1 Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant q Species Across All Strata: (B) 50%= 20%_ =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum(Plot size: ) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1= — 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x3= 50%_ ,20%_ =Total Cover FACU species x4= — Herb Stratum(Plot size: ) UPL species x5= _ 1. Eauisetum arvense 60 y9_s FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Phalaris arundanacea 5 no FACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Spriraea douolasii 5 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ❑ 1—Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2-Dominance Test is>50% 6. ❑ 3-Prevalence Index is<3.0' 7 ❑ 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 11. — 50%=35,20%=14 70 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum(Plot size: ) 1. _ 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50%_—,20%__ =Total Cover Present? %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: 100 percent FAC or wetter US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Project Site: Hannukaine Short Plat SOIL Sampling Point:TP-1 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) °% Color(moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/1 100 M SiLo Silt loam 6-12 10YR 3/2 100 12-18 7.5YR4/2 85 10/YR4/6 15 c M SiLo Silt loam 'Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location*PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ® Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: At 2 indicator found HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required,check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(Al) ® Water-Stained Leaves(B9) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(89) ❑ High Water Table(A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A,and 413) (MLRA 1,2,4A,and 48) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns(810) ® Water Marks(B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(813) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(83) ® Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(86) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ® Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth(inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: Hydrology within 12 inches during the growing season Area disturbed and first couple of inches fill so met parameters after removing fill. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Horsefall SFR City/County: Shelton/Mason Sampling Date: 6/6/2018 Applicant/Owner: Kevin and Horsfall State: WA Sampling Point: TP-2 Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section,Township,Range: Section 19 Township 22 Range 1W Landfonn(hillslope,terrace,etc.): hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): 5 Subregion(LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsan NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes ❑ No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: All parameters present VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum Plot size:30ft Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: ( ) %Cover Species? Status 1 Number of Dominant Species 2. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant q Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 50%_ ,20%_ =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species lino/Shrub Stratum(Plot size: ) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100 (A/B) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1= — 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x3= 50%_ ,20%_ =Total Cover FACU species x4= — Herb Stratum(Plot size: ) UPL species x5= — 1. Eauisetum arvense 2 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Phalaris arundanacea 15Les FACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 3. Ranunculus reoens 15 Yes FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ❑ 1—Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ® 2-Dominance Test is>50% 6. ❑ 3-Prevalence Index is<3.0' 7 ❑ 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) it. — 50%=35,20%=14 70 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum(Plot size: ) 1. — 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50%_ ,20%_ =Total Cover Present? %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: 100 percent FAC or wetter US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Project Site: Horsfall SFR SOIL Sampling Point:TP-2 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0=6 10YR 3/2 100 M SiLo Silt loam 6-14 10YR 4/4 100 M SiLo Sift loam 141418 7.5YR4/6 100 M SiLo Silt loam 'Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol(Al) ❑ Sandy Redox(S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck(A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon(A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(TF2) ❑ Black Histic(A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix(F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No indicators found HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water(A 1) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(B9) ❑ Water-Stained Leaves(69) ❑ High Water Table(A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) (MLRA 1,2,4A,and 48) ❑ Saturation(A3) ❑ Salt Crust(1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns(B10) ❑ Water Marks(81) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) ❑ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits(62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) ❑ Drift Deposits(B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position(D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard(D3) ❑ Iron Deposits(B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants(D1)(LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth(inches): _ Saturation Present?(includes capillary fringe) Yes ElNo ® Depth(inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: No hydrology found within 12 inches during the growing season US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan Appendix F Wetland Rating Form For Western Washington Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 2 f a l i s •tii,�'� s �" `� ' �` /tea , ,,.�'4'$ #r 4'� %"'"°- � S" e 1 ✓f �,R., N �• ' it � �. �� Id 1 1 rryye� e•� - � y'y�. �� i'r Wii��i� r''.•+rt' :/R•�'~ :'r. � ''...r,:Ott' t,I `�+ 'J• - 'sty/r+�•y t c.�z �'�„ ale ,._r ?' .kr - `� X.-� '',• 4 .._-w. +��` .� �. � �s � .t jam. .�p,41-'i �"r' •t r''-_ r�. ege L .r L n d ' Wetland+A r `:i dtQ •+' �f .r,�s ` < ^ �` r ., Accessible—Ha t ! ' ! ''""d .« ,ti �''•�� Relat vely Und _ Li ,; �•' — _ '' t�?'.:• +:;' -'..� r •:.,� .':.�: , � ,ram �+.t•�;,. ;'��C� �;� ��; High Inten Land Services NW 120 State Avenue NE#190 1km and Accessible Habitat Olympia, WA 98501 0 437.5 875 1,750 Feet 360-481-4208 o� total 1km 787.181 Accesssible 39.42624 0.050085 0.050085 Hi Intensity 389.948 0.495373 Relatiely Undisturbed 209.928 0.266683 low moderate 187.305 0.237944 klilo!� h` a Y S" 1, N v( e p --� j r AIL w� egend 150 ft _- -- __-- �7Natiand+ Land Services NW 120 State Avenue NE #190 150 ft Land Use Buffer Olympia, WA 98501 0 20 40 80 Feet 360-481-4208 () July S,2018 303D Map Assessed Waters/Sediment Water _- Category 5-303d Category 4C Category 4B Category 4A Category 2 Category 1 Sediment —Category 5-303d Category 4C Category 4B —Category 4A Category 2 —Category 1 NHD Lake/Pond/Marsh —lake/pond —swamp/marsh —NHD Stream/River --Sub-Watershed(12 digit HUC) Miles Sources.Es,HERE.Garman.Int—ap,increment P Corp..GEBCO,USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,G-Base,IGN,Kadastar NL,Ordnance Survey,Esn 0 025 0.5 1 DEPARTMENT OF Japan.METI.Esn China(Hong Kong),swisstopo.O OpenStreetMap iiijECOLOGY State of W-Nngton , Saturated ' n. PEMC low- a= 1 0,0W ,- i * z: Pa, 1 5 egend �w: �Wetland+ Land Services NW 120 State Avenue NE #190 Hydro Periaod and Olympia, WA 98501 Cowardin Classification 0 5 10 20 Feet 360-481-4208 () Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland(or ID#): Wetland A Date of site visit: Jue 6, 2018 Rated by Alex Callender Trained by Ecology? ❑Yes El No Date of training Dec-13 HGM Class used for rating Slope Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ❑Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested(figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map 2009 NAIP OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions Elor special characteristics ❑) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I-Total score=23-27 Score for each Category II-Total score=20-22 function based Category III-Total score= 16- 19 on three X Category IV-Total score=9- 15 ratings (order of ratings FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat is not Water Quality important) List appropriate rating(H, K Q Site Potential L L L 9= H, H H Landscape Potential L M M 8= H, H, M Value L L L Total 7= H, H, L Score Based on 3 4 4 11 7= H, M, M Ratings 6=H, M, L 6=M, M, M 5=H, L, L 5=M, M, L 4=KL, L 3=L, L, L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above X Wetland Rating System for Western WA 2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Deoressional 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 H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 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 H 2.1,H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 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 H 2.1, H 2.2,H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 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 Slone Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure# Cowardin plant classes H 1.1,H 1.4 a Hydroperiods H 1.2 b Plant cover of dense trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 1.3 c Plant cover of dense,rigid trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 4.1 d (can be added to another figure) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) S 2.1,S 5.1 e 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2,H 2.3 f polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) S 3.1,S 3.2 303d Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) S 3.3 TMDL Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? O 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)? 0 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? O The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), p 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. O The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ❑ NO-go to 5 O 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. O 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number 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. 121 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 HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope+ Riverine Riverine Slope+ Depressional Depressional Slope+ Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number 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 1 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 0 (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 1 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > '/z of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > M!of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > '/4 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 abovel 2 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 0 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? 0 Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ❑1 -2=M E0=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, 0 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? 0 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 0 which the unit is found? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Value If score is: ❑2-4=H ❑ 1 =M E 0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number { 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> 118 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. 0 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 [D0=L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land 1 uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No= 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: pi =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., 0 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 0 conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Value If score is: ❑2-4=H ❑ 1 =M F)0=L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number 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[nay be combined for each class to meet the threshold of% ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ❑ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 0 FA 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 'Y,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 0 ❑ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 O Saturated only 1 types 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 ftZ. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 0 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. 0 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number 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) 1 ❑ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present(cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) ❑ At least%ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) O 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 abovel 1 Rating of Site Potential If Score is: ❑15-18=H ❑7-14=M QO-6=L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site? H 2.1 Accessible habitat(include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 0 %undisturbed habitat + ( 5 %moderate&low intensity land uses/2)=2.5% If total accessible habitat is: 0 > '/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: 26 %undisturbed habitat + ( 24 %moderate&low intensity land uses/2)=38% Undisturbed habitat> 50% of Polygon points = 3 2 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) 0 s 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: ❑ 4-6=H FA 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 0 ❑ 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)with in 100m points = 1 Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number 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 (orbs 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). lnstream: 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). LI 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. LJ 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 12 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met. 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 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? ❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching,filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) ❑ At least%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. ❑ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑ Yes= Cateciory I ❑ No = Cateqory H 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 SC2.2 ❑No-Go to SC2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No= Not WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? h_ftp://wwwl.d nr.wa.gov/nhp/lefdesk/datasearch/wnhr)wetlands.pdf ❑ Yes-Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 ❑ No= Not 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 = Cateaory I ❑ No= Not WHCV 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 14 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number in Table 4 provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy? ❑ Yes= Is a Category I bog ❑ No= Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 15 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Wetland name or number 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 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%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= CategorV I ❑ No = Catenory 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=Cateaory IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 16 WSDOT Adapted Form-January 14,2015 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan APPENDIX G WA DNR Hydrography Dataset Shapefiles Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 Zenker Vegetation Management Plan APPENDIX H PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES DATABASE MAP AND DATA Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018 JL WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE to PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT SOURCE DATASET: PHSPlusPublic Query ID: P180616234551 REPORT DATE: 06/16/2018 11.46 Common Name Site Name Priority Area Accuracy Federal Status Sensitive Data Source Entity Scientific Name Source Dataset Occurrence Type State Status Resolution Geometry Type Source Record More Information(URL) PHS Listing Status Notes Source Date Mgmt Recommendations Resident Coastal Cutthroat Occurrence/Migration NA N/A N Oncorhynchus clarki SWI FD Occurrence/migration N/A AS MAPPED Lines 54497 http:/twdtw.wa.gov/Wm/diversty/soclsoc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php? PHIS LISTED Resident Coastal Cutthroat Occurrence/Migration NA N/A N Oncorhynchus clarki SWIFD Occurrence/migration N/A AS MAPPED Lines 54575 http:/twdfw.wa.govlwlm/diverstylsoc/soc.htm http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub,php? PHIS LISTED DISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location offish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists,or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to vraition caused by disturbance,changes in season and weather,and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old. 06/16/2018 11.46 1 WDFW Test Map June 16,2018 1:19,842 0 0.15 U 0.6 mi PHS Report Clip Area POLY OTR_TWP ;-- —, rL�—� • PT l AS MAPPED TOWNSHIP 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 km Source:Es,,DgRalGlbe,GeaEye,EeMeta GeogepNw,CNES/Mb. — LN SECTION DS,USDA,USGS,AemGRID,IGN,and the GISU—Co wity Zenker Vegetation Management Plan APPENDIX I HAZARD TREE PLAN Land Services Northwest LLC June 25,2018