HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetland Mitigation Plan - PLN General - 3/12/2004 r
Hendrickson Road Proposal and Wetland Mitigation Plan
Prepared for:
Kevin Hendrickson
11631 North Dogwood Lane
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning
PO Box 2854
Belfair, WA 98528
(360)-620-0618
leeboad@hctc.com
RECEIVED
MAR 12 2004
426 W. CEDAR ST,,
Table of Contents
Hendrickson Road Proposal and Wetland MitilZation Plan
1.0 Introduction......................................................................2
2.0 Project Description..............................................................2
3.0 Property Description... .........................................................2
3.1 Site Specific Assessment of Wetland Function.....................2
4.0 Applicable Setbacks............................................................4
5.0 Potential Development Impacts................................................4
5.1 Vegetation Buffer Displacement and Disturbance.................4
5.2 Wetland Displacement................................................4
5.3 Noise Pollution.........................................................5
5.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity...................5
6.0 Mitigation Involving Wetland Creation......................................5
6.1 Location of Created Wetlands.......................................5
6.2 Reference Sites.........................................................5
6.3 Created Wetland Details.............................................5
6.4 Wetland Vegetation Zone Considerations........................6
6.5 Best Management Practices.........................................7
6.6 Culvert Placement...................................................7
8.0 Monitoring.....................................................................7
9.0 Conclusion.....................................................................7
Recommended Citation:
Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning. February 2004. Hendrickson Road Proposal
and Wetland Mitigation Plan. Belfair, WA. Prepared for Kevin Hendrickson.
1.0 Introduction
At the request of Kevin Hendrickson, Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning has been
hired to develop a plan for an access driveway on Parcel 323355000064 located in
Tahuya, Mason County Washington. The project is mapped in a portion of Section 35 of
Township 23 North, Range 3 West.
A field review was performed during January and February, 2004 in which wetlands were
categorized and boundaries identified. Three jurisdictional Category III Scrub shrub
wetlands span the entire width of the property and extend onto adjacent properties. The
road will have to cross these wetlands in order to access to the southern half of the parcel,
which consists of usable upland and lakefront.
Prior to formal project development a portion of the northern most wetland was filled to
provide access to the property from Tee Lake Road.
The focus of the work has been to identify existing wetlands and establish a plan for a
driveway that minimizes and mitigates impacts to wetlands on site.
2.0 Proiect Description
The proposed access road will have a width of 10-feet and span from the Tee Lake road
to the southern third of the parcel. The total lineal distance of the road is approximately
1,800 feet. Fill will be placed within sections of jurisdictional Category III wetlands
which span the entire width of the parcel.
3.0 Property Description
The ownership is part of a series of long narrow parcels. The property is 100 wide and
1,900 feet long spanning from Tee Lake Road to the shoreline of Tee Lake. The upland
section of the property consists of a second growth conifer stand. Access roads
associated with adjacent ownerships have been constructed over many of these wetlands,
however no adjacent landowners are willing to sell or provide any access easement to the
owner of the subject parcel (Conversation between Lee Boad and landowners on
February, 28).
A wetland reconnaissance was performed during January of 2004 identifying wetland
boundary locations and wetland types throughout the parcel. Three scrub shrub wetlands
were identified. These areas are supported hydrologicaly by precipitation and ground
water drainage through well-drained Alderwood soils surrounding the site. Soil within
identified wetlands is Mukilteo Peat which is a poorly drained highly acidic hydric soil.
Isolated wetlands of this size with these characteristics are regulated as category III
wetlands in Mason County. A formal wetland delineation report is attached which
includes routine methodologies, findings, and technical data.
2
3.1 Site Specific Assessment of Wetland Function
For the purpose of creating wetlands with equal values of existing wetlands, a series of
functions have been assessed for the identified wetlands on site. Created wetlands will be
designed to function at an equal capacity of existing and displaced wetland zones.
Hydro geomorphic (HGM) Classification
The wetlands on the parcel qualify as receptor wetlands receiving their water principally
from precipitation and groundwater from the surrounding watershed.
Wetland Contribution to Critical Functions
These wetlands represent part of a series of wetlands that collectively play an important
ecological role in the Tahuya Peninsula ecosystem. The following is a summary of the
functional values considered in the site-specific assessment of the wetlands existing on
the Hendrickson property:
Flood Protection (high contribution)-During storms and periods of heavy rain or spring
snow melt,these wetland types serve as natural reservoirs for conveying excess water,
slowing the movement of water through the watershed. Filling of wetlands throughout
the Tahuya Peninsula has likely contributed to increased flooding,by increasing
discharge over shorter periods of time.
Sedimentation Control(moderate contribution)—The high density of vegetation existing
in these wetlands plays a significant role in sediment filtration mechanism by decreasing
water velocity. Due to the topography of the area surface water only leaves these
wetlands during extreme flooding events. During these events suspended particles settle
in these wetlands and do not enter fish bearing habitats.
Maintenance of Water Quality(high contribution) —The organic soils(12"-20")existing
within these wetlands provide an abundance of suitable habitat for Microorganisms
which break down and use nutrients. This significantly reduces levels of natural and
human-induced pollution into water as it filters through the wetland. Chemical processes
in the soil also provide the capability to immobilize chemicals and heavy metals. Water
leaving these particular wetlands either through groundwater or surface water is likely
cleaner than water entering the wetlands.
Recharging of Groundwater Supplies(moderate contribution)-This function is especially
important where groundwater is the sole-source of drinking water. Because of the
prevalence of water wells supporting various residences throughout the Tee Lake area,
this is an important consideration of all wetlands surrounding the Tee Lake area. The
wetlands on site individually are likely not high contributors to groundwater recharge.
Maintenance of Surface Flows(low contribution)- Wetlands frequently serve as
groundwater discharge sites,thereby maintaining the quality and quantity of surface
water supplies. This function is not characteristic of these particular wetlands due to their
isolated nature.
3
Fish and Wildlife Habitats(low contribution)- Many species of fish and wildlife depend
on wetlands for critical parts of their life cycle. The wetlands on site support no
populations of salmonides. Limited open water habitat beneficial to waterfowl species
only exists in the northern most wetland on a seasonal basis. Suitable habitat for
macroinvertebrate and amphibian populations exists in all three wetlands. This is
supported by the prevalence of vegetation cover and deep organic soils.
Biological Diversity Relative to Other Wetland Types (low contribution)-These wetlands
are an important component of the overall landscape and contribute to the biological
diversity of the area. However,vegetation diversity within these wetlands is limited(>
80%Spiraea douglasii)along with the presence of open water habitat. The biological
diversity existing within the identified wetland zones is marginal in comparison to other
wetland types that occur throughout the region.
4.0 Applicable Setbacks
This site is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 identifies Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas adopted by Mason County. Ordinance
17.01.070 identifies wetland mitigation requirements,Vegetation Areas, and required
setbacks also adopted by Mason County.
Applicable setbacks and mitigation requirements for this project are as follows:
Habitat Type Mitigation req. Buffer Building Setback
Category III wetland 1:2 50 15
5.0 Potential Development Impacts
5.1 Vegetation Buffer Displacement and Disturbance
The road will be constructed through 2,500 square feet of wetland vegetation zone
consisting of a second growth conifer stand.
Created wetland zones will be located within areas currently regulated as vegetation
buffer zones by Mason County. Tree and vegetation removal will be necessary to
establish wetland contours within the landscape. The expansion of existing wetlands will
also correlate with the expansion of regulated vegetation buffer zones which will mitigate
for displaced vegetation buffer.
5.2 Wetland Displacement
Approximately 200 cubic yards of fill will displace approximately 900 square feet of
functional wetland surface area. A wetland creation plan has been provided to mitigate
for lost wetlands.
5.3 Noise Pollution
An increase in noise from construction activities is anticipated during daylight
construction hours. This will likely not impact any bald eagles. The project is located
4
more than 2,600 feet from any observed nesting sites. No roosts have been observed or
documented within the radii of concern.
5.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity During Construction
The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended
sediment within the project area. Best Management Practices have been recommended to
reduce the potential for temporary increases in suspended sediment and turbidity.
6.0 Mitigation Involving Wetland Creation
As required by the Mason County Wetlands Ordinance, 1,800 square feet of additional
wetland surface area will be created on site in areas that historically were not wetlands.
Created wetland areas will maintain hydrology,plant communities,hydric soil
conditions, and site specific functions consistent with what naturally occurs within
existing wetlands located on the parcel.
6.1 Location of Created Wetlands
A plot map is enclosed showing the location of proposed wetland creation zones. These
areas have been selected based on the following criteria:
1) Wetland Hydrology potential
2) Relationship to other habitat types
3) Connectivity to existing wetlands
4) Amount of work required to establish a wetland in the given area
5) Accessibility
6) Potential wetland functions upheld by proposed site
Non-wetland sites used for wetland creation are located adjacent to existing wetlands for
the purpose of expanding wetland zones as opposed to adding additional isolated wetland
patches.
6.2 Reference Sites
Wetland zones on the subject parcel have been used as reference sites in the design of
expanded wetlands. A Site Specific Assessment of Wetland Function has been
completed to determine target characteristics of soil,vegetation, and hydrology and edge
profile in created wetland zones (see attached Reference Site Wetland Edge profile).
6.3 Created Wetland Details
I Wetland Contours(See attached Constructed Wetland Edge Detail)
Edges - Wetland edge contours will be constructed to mimic contours found in reference
sites. Reference wetland transition zones throughout the site maintain a gradient of 12%-
20%over a horizontal distance of 13 to 20 feet. Slope gradient of the constructed
wetland edges will fall within these parameters.
5
Depth-Depth of constructed wetlands will be equal to existing wetlands. As constructed
wetlands will represent extensions of existing wetlands this will allow created wetland
zones to be supported by hydrology of existing wetlands.
II Hydric Soil
Wetlands on site are supported by deep organic soils to a depth of 12-20 inches (Mukilteo
Peat). This material can be removed from areas to be filled and used in created wetland
zones. This will allow created wetlands to maintain hydric soil characteristics consistent
with existing wetlands. Because of the 1:2 mitigation requirement,hydric soil depth in
created wetland zones will be '/2 the depth of existing wetland zones due to soil
availability. Conditions of prolonged saturation in created zones will allow hydric soil
characteristics to eventually mimic conditions in existing wetland zones.
III Vegetation
Critical functions of wetlands on site are supported by dense thickets of Spiraea
douglasii. Created wetlands will be characterized by the vegetation density and species
type equal to existing wetlands. This will insure that equal functions are upheld by
created wetlands that existed in displaced wetlands. The high recruitment potential
provided b adjacent wetland insures high success probability of this being achieved
P Y J g P h' g
independent of supplemental planting within created wetlands. Exotic species control
will be required for this to be successful.
IV Hydrology
Constructed wetland zones will be supported by hydrological processes associated with
wetlands from which they are being expanded upon.
6.4 Wetland Vegetation Zone Considerations
Approximately 2,500 square feet of wetland vegetation zone will be displaced by the
proposed access road. Additional disturbance to the vegetation area will be caused by the
operation of heavy equipment necessary for wetland creation.
Additional wetland vegetation area will be created with the onset of additional wetland
surface area. Upon completion of wetland and road construction, a follow up site review
will be completed to determine the extent of vegetation disturbance adjacent to created
wetland zones and the need for plantings. Disturbed areas will be replanted with plant
species currently identified throughout the site.
Disturbed areas requiring supplemental native plantings will be replanted to achieve the
following densities:
Trees- 10' on center
Shrubs-5' on center
Ferns- 3' on center
6
These densities have been selected to provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse
plant community similar to what occurs on site. All planting should occur during winter
dormancy. The optimum time for planting is during February and March.
6.5 Best Management Practices
Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows:
• Perform work during dry weather
• Install silt fencing around the work area within 50-feet of the wetland to prevent
erosion and siltation of waters.
• Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent
feasible.
• Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment
should occur off site. Don't store any fuel, lubricants, chemicals,or hazardous
substances overnight within the project area.
• Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.
• Comply with all permits and requirements of the government authority or agency.
6.6 Culvert Placement
Although these wetlands are not characterized by significant amounts of surface water
movement, it is recommended that 18"-24" culverts be placed under each filled wetland
area to maintain hydraulic connectivity throughout the zone. The culvert installed in the
area filled prior to project development has been improperly placed, elevating the water
on the upslope side of the wetland and lowering the level on the down slope side of the
wetland. This culvert will be reset to restore natural water movement.
8.0 Monitoring
Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following project completion and
maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1)
condition of created wetland areas(Soil,Vegetation, Hydrology); 2)the use of the site by
wildlife species; 3) any disturbance caused by the project and its effect on protected
zones and associated aquatic habitat; 4)any occurrence of exotic species within the
created wetland zones; 5) any corrective measures deemed necessary to provide desired
conditions within the wetland or buffer. 6)The need for supplemental plantings in areas
adjacent to created wetland zones. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of
three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual report and submitted
to the Director of Mason County Department of Community Development.
9.0 Conclusion
This project involves constructing an access road approximately 1,800 feet long and 10-
feet wide. There will be approximately 900 square feet of wetland and 2,500 square feet
7
of regulated vegetation buffer zone displaced by gravel road. Mitigation includes 1,800
square feet of wetland and associated vegetation buffer to be added onto existing
wetlands on the property.
Preservation measures, Best Management Practices,wetland creation, establishment of
vegetation buffers associated with newly created wetlands, and monitoring associated
with this project have all been described.
I trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing
me as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions feel free to call.
Lee Boad
Habitat Management Planning
PO Box 2854
Belfair, WA 98528
360-620-0618
leeboad(2( hctc.com
Attached: Applicable Literature
Plot Map A
Plot Map B
Plot Map C
Reference Site Wetland Edge Profile
Constructed Wetland Edge Detail
Wetland photographs
DNR Photo
Wetland Delineation Report
Technical Data
8
Applicable Literature
Admiral,A.N., J.M. Morris, T.C. Brooks, J.W. Olson, M.V. Miller. 1997. Illinois
Wetland Restoration and Creation Guide. Illinois Natural History Survey - Special
Publication 19. Champaign, Illinois.
Allen, J.A., Keeland, B.D., Clewell, A.,Kennedy, H. 1999. Guide to Bottomland
Hardwood Restoration. U.S. Geological Survey.
Bartoldus, C.C. 1999. A Comprehensive Review of Wetland Assessment Procedures: A
Guide for Wetland Practitioners. Environmental Concern Inc., St. Michaels, Maryland.
Galatowitsch, S.M. and A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Restoring Prairie Wetlands: An
Ecological Approach. Iowa State University Press,Ames, Iowa.
Horner, R.R. and K.J. Raedeke. 1989. Guide for Wetland Mitigation Projects Monitoring.
Report Number WA-RD 195.1. Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle,
WA.
Kentula,M.E., Brooks, R.P., Gwin, S.E.,Holland, C.C., Sherman,A.D., and J.C. Sifneos.
1992. An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation.
Island Press, Washington,DC.
Wenzel, T.A. 1992. Minnesota Wetland Restoration Guide. Minnesota Board of Water
and Soil Resources,Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Payne,N. 1992. Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of Wetlands. McGraw-
Hill, Inc. NewYork,New York.
9
Hendrickson Wetlands
•� 'y+�f i c s w�� j'J ti
4
•7 �`f f(M�>- �d'2'•^Q� 'r��1���1f'6�w i �.Y .�. ���4Ta1+t�._
fst�+i. z�.ti�.'. ,. ,���j� ',z�a�;y �`'V r ..fi. -r' �? ✓ed�
qJ ' \\• ,,r` t A. 7 i r yHa.#4ta�.°^'s,�';► 'J.
f t .�.° ��.+. d t.+f 1 j 1�`'yp, •s �v:. r
�a,'�j y� �'Y��•y ����` S,�b�.at .A°. � ��'�`lP ��i K .}`'fit��t 'c 1>'�"�:. ,"44`.r� n i'� •+,",
4til• aGY.. `1�1 i r ��x T �� d t �:tM�r�'•. q,� t i.xc
A,
�,
ii•7�t,r• t �..Yy r� t..
LIU
Figure 1. Scrub shrub wetlands identified on parcel
a * r �� Y 3 •' �� vim"1�s } 'Y
1Y.
m
9`
i�� �rv�lti.�x a+¢3-�f�t ..... as d - kn "!r i,��^,�,f`'. � ,. ...o-. �.a.r-.,'',i,`r.. •.� .
Figure 2. Wetland area filled prior to formal project developement
r +M • � � t � •'i,'` �.tom! �` fF Ov
r i� C ..l. "i ,� .. }fir`;�� _ # ��r,. •i
Zf
A IV
r g 1► •,.-�;�, T t•„ ���•.r it +� � � �� �;� .,,r�.,+ � ! �s t /'� �.
L *
qw
Oki
#f " ) r
w a .. j ,5•
or
.&-ve
got
'� fir�* , .� � ♦ '� r T + # c s
OIL
Wetlands
Proposed Road _ �" !": Of . r �.Ow . �.
Approximate — ` d �' ' r tr%r �•:
Property Lines ,�, •, y`rr ti' f a►
�' � � ?'` tom•*� �
''• +fir .• ''
J.
Deference Site Wetland � cie Profile
fee bake Shore Acres I.o� #64
Wetland I �dqe profile
77=;
Wetland III �dqe profile
20
Wetland Pottan
Wetland PandM4
Wetland 11 Fdge profile 14: 50pe Z 1,
Wetland DORM
wetlald Pa is-4
12% Slope
Wetland POROm 13
Com5tructcJ WctlamJ �Jqe Profile
fee fake Shore Acres Lot #64
�xist►nq Wetland �dqe 5oll Lager Profile
hi5tinq gravelly Sandy loam
hi5tinq Mukilteo peak xistir�q c�-avelly tdl
proposed Wetland �Jqe Soil Lager profile
rropmed slope oradiA
between 12%-20%
Zkcmere a
hi5tinq Mukilteo peat Added Mukilteo peat
Gravelly +ill
Parcel 3233000064
Wetland Delineation Report
Prepared for:
Kevin Hendrickson
11631 North Dogwood Lane
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning
PO Box 2854
Belfair, WA 98528
(360)-620-0618
leeboad@hctc.com
Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning
PO Box 2854 •Belfair,WA 98528 . 360-620-0618 • leeboadnhctc.com
To: Kevin Hendrickson
11631 North Dogwood
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Parcel 323355000064
Lot 64 of Tee Lake Shore Acres
Introduction
At the request of Kevin Hendrickson a wetland reconnaissance was performed on the
above referenced property by Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning. The work has
been requested as part of a preliminary plan involving the placement of a gravel driveway
across sections of suspected wetland zones. The site is located adjacent to Tee Lake in
Tahuya,Mason County Washington. The Delineation was competed during February of
2004. All field work and reporting associated with this project was completed by Lee
Boad. The following is a summary of methodology and findings. Technical data is
attached.
Methods
Field Review
A field review of the above referenced parcel was performed on February 15, of 2004.
The focus of the review was to identify wetland boundaries and characterize wetland
communities existing on site.
Wetland Delineation
Wetland delineation followed a routine methodology based upon the Washington State
Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997)requiring positive indicators for
wetland soil, hydrology, and plants.
Wetland hydrology was determined through observation of field indicators and
conditions dug in pits within the study area.
Presence of hydric soil was determined by soil conditions in several pits dug around the
suspected wetland. Soil inspection included comparison with the Munsell Color Charts
(1992). General soil characteristics were derived from information contained within the
Soil Survey of Mason County, Washington.
Occurrence of wetland vegetation was determined through species identification,
estimation of dominance and then assignment of wetland indicator status. Indicator
status was assigned based on the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands
(1996).
1
Wetland Category Rating
Guidelines set forth in the Washington State Wetlands Rating System— Western
Washington Second Edition were used to establish a category rating for the wetland.
Results
Site Description
The study site consists of a narrow ownership spanning 100' east/west and 1,900 feet
north/south. The property is bordered to the north by Tee Lake Road and to the south by
the shoreline of Tee Lake. Landscape topography is flat, progressing to moderate slopes
towards Tee Lake. Three scattered wetlands occurring in isolated pockets span the width
of the parcel.
One wetland community type was identified within each wetland site:
- Spiraea douglasii(Scrub shrub community)
The soil mapped and identified within the wetland site is Mukilteo Peat, which is a very
poorly drained hydric soil. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is mapped directly adjacent
to and surrounding the wetland sites and is a well drained upland soil.
Each wetland site is located in low pockets of landscape topography. Wetland hydrology
is likely supported by groundwater input through well drained Alderwood soils coupled
with precipitation.
Category III Wetlands
Each wetland identified throughout the three parcels represented isolated wetland
habitats. Positive indicators of soil, hydrology, and vegetation were field verified
throughout each wetland. Each identified wetland maintains a significant habitat value
less than 22-points according the Wetlands Rating Field Data Form, qualifying them as
Category III Wetlands. Factors influencing this rating include fish and wildlife habitat
features, interspersion between wetland classes, association with fish bearing water,
surface water connection to other waters, and structural diversity. A plot map is enclosed
showing the location of identified wetlands.
Boundary Description
Wetland boundaries exists at the toe of the slope located on the northern and southern
edges of the Spiraea patches. Distinct changes in vegetation and soil characteristics
coupled with a moderate change in landscape provide an easily recognizable boundary
between wetlands and non-wetlands. Several soil pits dug throughout uplands and
wetlands confirmed this location as the wetland boundary. The wetland boundaries to the
east and west were not flagged as they extend beyond the study site. A reconnaissance
was performed in these areas to confirm wetland isolation.
Other Waters Identified
Tee Lake borders the southern edge of the property. This is a deepwater aquatic habitat
with scattered wetlands along shoreline sections. Field review of the Tee Lake shoreline
was not completed as part of this study to the lack of information need.
2
Summary
The total wetland zone within the parcel totals approximately 10,000 square feet. This
includes three isolated scrub shrub spiraea swamps underlain by organic soils. Other
regulated water on site includes Tee Lake,which qualifies as a deepwater aquatic habitat.
Setbacks for these wetlands include a 50-foot vegetation buffer with an additional 15-foot
building setback. Mason County requires a 1:2 mitigation ratio for any wetland
displacement such as filling or dredging.
I trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing
me as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions feel free to call.
Lee Boad
Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning
PO Box 2854
Belfair WA 98528
Phone(360)-620-0618
Attached: Plot Map
Technical Data
Enclosed: Billing
3
Routine Wetland) Determination
DATA FORMA (Revised)
WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Parcel 323355000064 Date: 2/15/04
County: Mason
Applicant/owner: Kevin Hendrickson State: Washington
Investigator(s): Lee Boad S/T/R: Sec. 35 T23N, R3W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Suspected Wetland 1
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? No Transect ID: A
Is the area a potential problem area? No Plot ID: Wetland 1
VEGETATION (For*strata, indicate T =tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V= vine)
Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator
Spirea douglasii S >50 FACW
Alnus rubra T <20 FAC
Carex amplifolia H <20 FACW+
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: >50%
Check all indicators that apply and explain below:
X Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation X Wetland plant database
❑ Morphological adaptations X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
X Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% of plant species are FAC or FACW(+) in the study area.
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? No Water Marks: Yes Sediment Deposits:
On: Alder Stems
Based on: February Drift Lines: yes Drainage Patterns: Yes
Depth of inundation: Ranging from 3inches to Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: Yes
greater than 24 inches Channels<12in.:
Depth to free water in pit: < 0 inches FAC Neutral: Yes Water-stained Leaves: yes
Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches
Check all that apply& explain below: Other(explain):
❑ Stream, lake or gage data
X Aerial photographs
❑ Other
Wetland hydrology present?Yes
Rationale for decision/remarks: Primary and secondary indicators present
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Mukilteo peat shallow over gravel Field observations confirm mapped type? yes
Profile Description
Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile
inches Horizon Munsell moist Munsell moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description)
0-6 10YR2/2 Peaty Muck
6-14 10YR3/1 Mucky Peat
14-16 10YR4/3 Gravelly Till
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
X Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma<_2 with mottles
❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Sulfidic Odor X High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑Aquic Moisture Regime ❑Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=1) matrix ❑ Other(explain in remarks)
Hydric soils present?Yes
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Indicators present
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes
Hydric soils present? Yes
Wetland hydrology present? Yes
Is the sampling point within a wetland?
Rationale/Remarks: Positive for all three parameters
NOTES:
lRevised 4/97
Routine Wetland Determination
DATA FORM.1 (Revised)
WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Parcel 323355000064 Date: 2/15/04
County: Mason
Applicant/owner: Kevin Hendrickson State: Washington
Investigator(s): Lee Boad S/T/R: Sec. 35 T23N, R3W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Suspected Wetland 1
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? No Transect ID: A
Is the area a potential problem area? No Plot ID: Wetland 2
VEGETATION (For*strata, indicate T=tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V=vine)
Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator
Spirea douglasii S >90 FACW
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: >50%
Check all indicators that apply and explain below:
X Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation X Wetland plant database
❑ Morphological adaptations X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
X Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% of plant species are FAC or FACW(+) in the study area.
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? No Water Marks: Yes Sediment Deposits:
On: Alder Stems
Based on: February Drift Lines: yes Drainage Patterns: Yes
Depth of inundation: Ranging from 3inches to Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: Yes
greater than 24 inches Channels<12in.:
Depth to free water in pit: < 0 inches FAC Neutral: Yes Water-stained Leaves: yes
Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches
Check all that apply& explain below: Other(explain):
❑ Stream, lake or gage data
X Aerial photographs
❑ Other
Wetland hydrology present?Yes
Rationale for decision/remarks: Primary and secondary indicators present
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Mukilteo peat shallow over gravel Field observations confirm mapped type? yes
Profile Description
Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile
(inches) Horizon Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) size and contrast structure, etc. (match description)
0-6 10YR2/2 Peaty Muck
6-14 1OYR311 Mucky Peat
14-16 10YR4/3 Gravelly Till
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
X Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma<_2 with mottles
❑ Histic Epipedon }] Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Sulfidic Odor X High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=1) matrix ❑ Other(explain in remarks)
Hydric soils present?Yes
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Indicators present
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes
Hydric soils present? Yes
Wetland hydrology present? Yes
Is the sampling point within a wetland?
Rationale/Remarks: Positive for all three parameters
(VOTES:
Revised 4/97
Routine Wetland Determination
DATA FORM -1 (Revised)
WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Parcel 323355000064 Date: 2/15/04
County: Mason
Applicant/owner: Kevin Hendrickson State: Washington
Investigator(s): Lee Boad S/T/R: Sec. 35 T23N, R3W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID. Suspected Wetland 1
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? No Transect ID: A
Is the area a potential problem area? No Plot ID: Wetland 3
VEGETATION (For*strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V=vine)
Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator
Spirea douglasii S >90 FACW
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: >50%
Check all indicators that apply and explain below:
X Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations
areas of prolonged inundation/saturation X Wetland plant database
❑ Morphological adaptations X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
X Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Greater than 50% of plant species are FAC or FACW(+) in the study area.
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? No Water Marks: Yes Sediment Deposits:
On: Alder Stems
Based on: February Drift Lines: yes Drainage Patterns: Yes
Depth of inundation: Ranging from 3inches to Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: Yes
greater than 24 inches Channels<12in.:
Depth to free water in pit: < 0 inches FAC Neutral: Yes Water-stained Leaves: yes
Depth to saturated soil: 0 inches
Check all that apply & explain below: Other(explain):
❑ Stream, lake or gage data
X Aerial photographs
❑ Other
Wetland hydrology present?Yes
Rationale for decision/remarks: Primary and secondary indicators present
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Drainage Class: very poorly drained
Mukilteo peat shallow over gravel Field observations confirm mapped type?yes
Profile Description
Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile
(inches) Horizon (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description)
0-6 10YR2/2 Peaty Muck
6-12 10YR311 Mucky Peat
12-14 10YR413 Gravelly Till
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
X Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma<_2 with mottles
❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Sulfidic Odor X High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions [] Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=1) matrix ❑ Other(explain in remarks)
Hydric soils present?Yes
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Indicators present
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes
Hydric soils present? Yes
Wetland hydrology present? Yes
Is the sampling point within a wetland?
RationaWRemarks: Positive for all three parameters
NOTES:
Revised 4197
Routine Wetland Determination
DATA FORM•1 (Revised)
WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Parcel 323355000064 Date: 2/15/04
County: Mason
Applicant/owner: Kevin Hendrickson State: Washington
Investi ator(s): Lee Boad S/T/R: Sec. 35 T23N, R3W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? No Transect ID: A
Is the area a potential problem area? No Plot ID: Upland 1
VEGETATION (For"strata, indicate T=tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V= vine)
Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species 'Stratum % cover Indicator
Gaultheria Shallon S >20 N/I
Psuedatsuga menzesii T <20 FAC
Pinus monticola T >20 FACU-
Thuja plicata T <20 FAC
Tsuga heterohylla T >20 FACU-
Vaccinium ovatum S N/I
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: < 20%
Check all indicators that apply and explain below:
❑ Visual observation of plant species growing ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations
in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database
❑ Morphological adaptations X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
X Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Not more than 50% of dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? No Water Marks: No Sediment Deposits:
Based on: February Drift Lines: No Drainage Patterns: No
Depth of inundation < 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: Yes
Channels <12in.:
Depth to free water in pit: < 0 inches FAC Neutral: Water-stained Leaves:
Depth to saturated soil: > 16 inches
Check all that apply &explain below: Other(explain):
❑ Stream, lake or gage data
X Aerial photographs
❑ Other
Wetland hydrology present? No
Rationale for decision/remarks: Negative for all three parameters
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Drainage Class: Well Drained
Alderwood sandy-gravelly loam Field observations confirm mapped type? yes
Profile Description
Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile
(inches) Horizon (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) size and contrast structure, etc. (match description)
0-12 10YR 416 gravelly-sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles
❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=1) matrix X Other: Field Inspection revealed no h dric soil indicators
Hydric soils present? No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: No indicators
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? No
Hydric soils present? No
Wetland hydrology present? No
Is the sampling point within a wetland? No
RationalelRemarks-, No indicators
NOTES:
Revised 4/97
r
Routine Wetland Determination
DATA FORM ? (Reprised)
WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Parcel 323355000064 Date: 2/15/04
County: Mason
Applicant/owner: Kevin Hendrickson State: Washington
Investigator(s): Lee Boad S/T/R: Sec. 35 T23N, R3W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? No Transect ID: A
Is the area a potential problem area? No Plot ID: Upland 2
VEGETATION (For*strata, indicate T=tree; S= shrub; H = herb; V= vine)
Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator
Gaultheria Shallon S >20 N/1
Psuedatsuga menzesii T <20 FAC
Pinus monticola T >20 FACU-
Thuja plicata T <20 FAC
Tsuga heterohylla T >20 FACU-
Vaccinium ovatum S N/I
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, &FAC: < 20%
Check all indicators that apply and explain below:
❑ Visual observation of plant species growing ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations
in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database
❑ Morphological adaptations X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Not more than 50% of dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? No Water Marks: No Sediment Deposits:
Based on: February Drift Lines: No Drainage Patterns: No
Depth of inundation < 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey:
Channels<12in.:
Depth to free water in pit: < 0 inches FAC Neutral: Water-stained Leaves:
Depth to saturated soil: > 16 inches
Check all that apply&explain below: Other(explain):
❑ Stream, lake or gage data
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
Wetland hydrology present? No
Rationale for decision/remarks: Negative for all three parameters
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Drainage Class:
Alderwood sandy-gravelly loam Field observations confirm mapped type? yes
Profile Descri tion
Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile
(inches) Horizon (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) size and contrast structure, etc. (match description)
0-12 10YR 416 gravelly-sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma<_2 with mottles
❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=1) matrix X Other: Field Inspection revealed no h dric soil indicators
Hydric soils present? No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: No indicators
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? No
Hydric soils present? No
Wetland hydrology present? No
Is the sampling point within a wetland? No
Rationale/Remarks: No indicators
NOTES:
Revised 4197
Routine Wetiand Determination
DATA FORM I (Revised)
WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Parcel 323355000064 Date: 2/15/04
County: Mason
Applicant/owner: Kevin Hendrickson State: Washington
Investi ator(s): Lee Boad S/T/R: Sec. 35 T23N, R3W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? No Transect ID: A
Is the area a potential problem area? No Plot ID: Upland 3
VEGETATION (For*strata, indicate T =tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V= vine)
Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator
Gauttheria Shallon S N/i
Psuedatsuga menzesii T FAC
Pinus monticola T FACU-
Thuia plicata T FAC
Tsuga heterohylla T FACU-
Vaccinium ovatum S N/I
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: < 20%
Check all indicators that apply and explain below:
❑ Visual observation of plant species growing ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations
in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation [] Wetland plant database
❑ Morphological adaptations X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities
❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: Not more than 50% of dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? No Water Marks: No Sediment Deposits:
Based on: February Drift Lines: No Drainage Patterns: No
Depth of inundation < 0 inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey:
Channels<12 in.:
Depth to free water in pit: < 0 inches FAC Neutral: Water-stained Leaves:
Depth to saturated soil: > 16 inches
Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain):
❑ Stream, lake or gage data
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
Wetland hydrology present? No
Rationale for decision/remarks: Negative for all three parameters
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : . Drainage Class: Well drained
Alderwood sandy-gravelly loam Field observations confirm mapped type? yes
Profile Description
Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile
(inches) Horizon (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) size and contrast structure, etc. (match description)
0-12 10YR 4/6 gravelly-sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma<_2 with mottles
❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma(=1) matrix X Other: Field Inspection revealed no h dric soil indicators
Hydric soils present? No
Rationale for decision/Remarks: No indicators
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? No
Hydric soils present? No
Wetland hydrology present? No
Is the sampling point within a wetland? No
Rationale/Remarks: No indicators
NOTES:
Revised 4197