Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MEP2020-00003 Wetland Deliniation Buffer Mitigation - MEP Permit / Conditions - 1/28/2020
f R Mason County Planning Division of Community Development Ce 615 W. Alder St. Bldg. 8 Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670 ext 352 www.co.mason.wa.us FMEP202,0-00003 MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT ESCRIPTION: MEP FOR BLD2019-01173 ISSUED: 01/29/2020 ESS: 150 NE RIDGETOP CT BELFAIR EXPIRES: 01/29/2025 PARCEL: 123194250060 APPLICANT: CHERYL LYNN SELGREN OWNER: CHERYL LYNN SELGREN 103 DORA AVE 103 DORA AVE BREMERTON,WA 98312 BREMERTON,WA 98312 1.360.479.9647 FEES: Paid Due Mason Environmental Permit $115.00 $0.00 Habitat Management Plan $300.00 $0.00 Review Fee Totals : $415.00 $0.00 CONDITIONS * Approved per dimensions and setbacks on submitted site plan. * Work must be done in the dry to help prevent disturbance of unstable soil layers and uncontrollable mass wasting. * All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be seeded,vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing or straw matting). * All construction and demolition debris must be removed from the beach after project completion. Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter or cause water quality degredation of State waters. * Temporary erosion control measures must be implemented to prevent water quality degradation of adjacent waters or wetlands. Silt fencing must be installed and maintained until upland vegetation has become established. Printed by:Marissa Watson on:01/29/2020 09:38 AM Page 1 of 2 { o Mason County Planning Division of Community Development ilb 615 W. Alder St. Bldg. 8 Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670 ext 352 www.co.mason.wa.us MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT MEP2020-00003 * Per the Wetland Delineation Report& Buffer Mitigation Proposal prepared by Crater Land Use Consulting dated January of 2020, there is a Category III wetland on site, buffer 110 feet plus 15 structure setback for total setback of 125 feet. In order to mitigate for the access road in the buffer, a .32 acre of additional buffer area contiguous to the northwestern side of the current buffer must be maintained as well. The destruction or alteration of wetlands and wetland buffers through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a designated wetland or buffer is prohibited, unless approved through a Mason Environmental Permit with mitigation through a wetland mitigation report. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of Laws and Ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state/local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. Issued By: Contractor or Authorized Agen Date: Printed by:Marissa Watson on:01/29/2020 09:38 AM Page 2 of 2 MASON COUNTY Mason County Permit Center Use: COMMUNITY SERVICES MEP `6 an -o0Cx�3 Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health Date Rcvd 615 W.Alder St.—Bldg.8,Shelton,Wa 98584 Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.352 ♦ Fax:(360)427-7798 MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT:$115 600.oo ❑ MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT WITH HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN:$1500 ❑ CONDITIONAL USE: $2000 Mason County Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC) ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32, 36.70A, 39.34,58.17,76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW. PLEASE PRINT 1. PROPERTY OWNER Name: & e` Y e Mailing Address: 3 b V' `e Work Phone: Email Address. L e w GO Home/Cell Phone: 3(6O 1+2( 2-� Fax#: N I If an agent is acting for the property owner during the permit process, complete#2. 2. AUTHORIZED AGENT N Name: 04K�4ex— jct4� Mailing Address: Work Phone: Email A Home/Cell Phone: Fax# 3. PROJECT SITE Site Address: `50 We Parcel#: ` �� -4Z - 5 bb O Legal Description: Directions to ite: , Attach a site plan showing the following: Lot Dillensions,Flood Zones,EAsting Structures,Fences, Water Lines,Driveways,Drainage Plans,Shorelines,Septic System,Topography,Proposed Improvements,Easements,North Arrow,and Scale. Also draw a separate topography diagram. Rev.August 2017 4. State which section requires permit: ❑ Long Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑ Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Landslide Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.100 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Area,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑ Erosion Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.104 ❑ Fish&Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter ❑ In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 17.01.110 XWetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 5. Identify current use of tW propert with existing improvements: _ l 0_,om-6.fiono E 6. Identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used,construction methods, principle dimensions,and other pertinent information(attach_Aadditional sheets, if needed)): lrve404'� LoC ' ,e vo Ve f -hc+tiLo uk., c a 6mwod - � 7. Des 'be why the action requiring this permit cannot be avoided. uJ�� bL�. c,o [6 cf t__cl Ervk � 8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area(circle one)? Yes No 9. Identify any surface water on or adjacent to property(circle one): Saltwater Lake Stream Pond (Wetland Drainage Ditch 10. Id existing septic/sewer connection (circle one): If septic is located on project site, include records. Connected to Septic Connected to Community Septic 11. Identify existing water supply(circle one): Public Water Supply Well 11. Type of Job(circle one): New Add Alteration Repair Demolition Other: m �1� I 2oZC7 Print Nae Signatuir D to Rev.August 2017 MITIGATION SITE PLAN CRATER LAND USE ^� `CONSULTING 676.4' �E I ..._ ....:...._.- •._.. .. ,,tom•:�=:=',a�u:_•:.: �,��.. i 100, 22' i I -1 34' -•155' -105' ' r— _ ' 104', NORTH Feet Legend 012.525 50 75 100 g Client: Cheryl Selgren Wetland A Wetland B Off-Site 20' Property Line Setback(County) Parcel: 1231942500060 110'Class 3 Wetland Buffer Proposed Driveway 25' Property Line Setback(County) Date: 1/20/2020 l Proposed Additional Buffer C Proposed Driveway in the Buffer Mason County Parcels Proposed New 15'Buffer Setback Proposed Building Footprint Wetland B On-Site Proposed Yard Area MITIGATION SITE PLAN CRATER LAND USE DETAIL OF PROPOSED SFR CONSULTING 100' 22' LO cV N r f 1 f t f ---14- 34' ----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ' I 1 ----- ' I , I , L0 I , LO I r I I 1 , 1 , 670.6' i 1 - - - - -- ---- -__ -- _--- —--—————— 1 ' NORTH --- -� Feet Legend 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 g Client: Cheryl Selgren Proposed Building Footprint 0 15' Building Setback(Wetland Buffer) Parcel: 1231942500060 Date: 1/20/2020 Proposed Yard Area -------- 25' Property Line Setback(County) Proposed Driveway 20' Property Line Setback(County) 110'Class 3 Wetland Buffer Mason County Parcels ...___._._.. . (� DESCRIPTION OF,ADDITICNAL EASEMENT AREA FOR INGRESS,EGRESS AND UTILITIES AN J D6SGRl PTION LIE BOUT EASEMENT ONE pUgRTER AND T04EE 5OUTI MLEST ZONE p/ARTER OFES OF VARYING.: E SOUT EASST ONE QUARTER OFR SECTION TER OF T 19,TOWNSHIP SEE STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED AB RECORDED 23 NORT14,RANGE i(LEST W11,IN MASON COUNTY,W4,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LI NDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.419465,RECORDS OF BEGINNING AT TE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 19,TPIENNCE S 1-07'12"W ALONC TkE WEST LINE OF SAID NORrkVEST ONE NOTF (� MASON COUNTY"S"INGTON CUARTER OF 9CUTNEA5T ONE CUARTEK 031,01 FEET,THENCE 6 70'25'59'E 121.71 FEET TO TE UESTERLY MARGIN OF A 60,0C FOOT EASEMENT FOR INGRESS EGRESS AND UTILITIES,AS SkO N ON SURVEY BY SCOTT MACINTOSH,BOCK 70, THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS A TOWTNER WIT"AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, PAGES 201 AND 202,AND TE TR1E POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID EASEMENT,TENCE 6?'S4'47"W ALONC TE UESTERLY RETRACEMENT OF LARGE LOT RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS O=RECORD. MARGIN OF SAID 60.00 FOOT EASEMENT 193.25 FEET TO TE P.C.OF A CURVE TO TE RIGHT TLIE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH SUBDIVISION NO.LRG 99-0014 AS BEARS N 81-05'13"W 7C9B9 FEET,TENCE SCUTNLLESTERLY ALONGE T AMC OF SAID CURVE AND TE UESTEIRLY MARGIN SLIOW ON SURVEY Or SCOTT OF 9AID 60ID0 F007 EASEMENT 197.14 FEET TO THE NORTERLY RIGHT CF W4Y OF SANDNILL ROAD AS SPOUN ON COUNTY MACINTOSH,BACK 20.PAGES 701 a ROAD PROJECT NO.1470,APPROVED APRIL 29,1"7,THENCE N 51'10'19"W ALONG SAID NORTERLY RIGHT OF UA4Y 27.13 4202. g FEET TO TE P.G.OF A CURVE TO TE LEFT TE RADIUS POINT OF UHICH BEARS 8 34'lb'S3"W 000.94 FEET,TENCE .-� NORTPUESTERLY ALONG TE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTERLY RIGHT OF WAY 11.46 FEET,TENCE N 2I76'M"E 791 FEET THENCE N 11'36'55"E 1150 FEET,THENCE N 2'54'27"E 25"FEET,THENCE N 3'56'SI"E 4212 FEET,THENCE N 9'43'40"E FOND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 86.41 FEET,THENCE N 14'43'16"E IIb.90 FEET TO TE T10/E POINT �E61NNING RESOURCES 2"IRON PIPE IW CAP AND"ROONITE POST AT CENTE N gg7g'J3'W IJ,1J.92 REC T N M759'20'W 13UP7 YEAS E OF SECTION 19 763,97 U - FOND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL a= 9ra 1 ANA OARSONI 977PEuvGAP AND DETAIL No SCALE LOT 4 d S 500 ACRES L� Ki NORTHEAST OOWER NORr"UEST 114, I n LINE TABLE �1Jy,�'f g 533 AC 60UT"EA6T 114 1�^C NO. BEARING o?DISTANCE 9 f , 4o Npl LI S 67'74'04"E 10075 6Js U�39 c' � .^ to 7 1 \ (� L2 6 70'19'49"E 5.70 u __ �• N g]'A4'00;E ebJ.JJ d L3 5 51'10'13"E 52,91 �'u N gl'tJ'tlCALC �T /\/��/� L4 5 5436'79"E 53®0 �^ LOT 3 6u.0 =g OCT 5 LL 9 J' L5 5 50'07'00"E 5377 m m Lb 6 4S'7645"E 53.43 m S1D0 ACRES 11 LOT 6 w wLL' (,.'f�p, / _11 ;1 ti� pj 615 W. AI lJ 6 tl 60'EASET LENT FOR LB N 406'103EE 7-0) ww 9 J I gl 5.15 ACIg9 a `Lgtr@@ / ,I2 I INY•RESS,EGRESS AND L9 N 11'35'65"E 1750 .'�= fi7" E , Im°dl b®'EASEMENT FOR INGRESS m ,1 I UrIL171E9 AS SFIOUN L10 N 0?'64'7l"E 751J6 L�� `.� gg4 7.7/jJ �• I^�I �SY EBOOK1TIES AS 70,PAGEa�01-202 E 6 ADDITIONAL EASEMENT 1 1 I^ i SURVEY 202 L1 N 039*43'4 E <66 S'o n' D Im BOOK 2e, � 1 zl L I7 N 09'49'40"E 86.41 z z z z AREA FOR INGRESS, I ( 9 8971'00'E 6J9.J0 REC EGRESS I UTILITIES / 1 LI3 N 11'43'16"E 116.90 �'� 6 g9'7?'SB-E 6lY.SJ CALC I I I I L14 S 07'S4'47"E 19375 L ? I I 609.0 L15 N SM0'13"W 21.13 , 5,03 ACRES I FOND ESM A6 BUILT'CENTERLINE S,D hI BAR I CAP OF ACCESS ROAD :4:j sJb?e'•a''s I�ql '� ^I I I I I LOT 7 JI I I OT74 Sse�cfD Iz I 5.05 ACRES 1 7,07 ACRES TO RAY 4[C I I 1� 1 EXCEPTION,SEE STATUTORY SAND"ILLRS TO OAD TERL NNE ' `� AA DEED A NO, L6 WE J6 D/TA/L 1�1 '01ci Ty 479465 fi I} q Si SEE SURVEY Or DEPARTMENT �rg.14 EX16rMG RKA1T 6 NATURAL RESOURCES BOCK 77, A �. WAY PER CRP NO. PAGES �``35�1 Ab. ` h'b J !Q 1410 SEE-U y MACINTOSH RD \\l ` / +0 \ SOUTHEAST CORNER 0,PAGE ?01 4 202, ♦�. �y9 SOUT"EA67 114 DOgI1C `\�l'f 1 amuff TYROAD PROJECT NO. x TED dPRIL 19 1997. / EXISTNNG RGM OF -�FOND ESM BAR.CAP PREVIOUS SUR✓£Y BOCK 16, WAY PER OOINTI' N tST114IS"E 135 FAGr1 ROAD PROJECT NO. \ COUNTY ROAD R JEC PER P W. - - 1410 K NO. ROAD PROJECT M'J.1170 GUR VE TABLE • •IS IICN BAR W/PLASTIC (�R SCALE. 1"=200 FEET NO DELTA RADIUS LENGTH YELLOW CAP SET 0 .FOUND AS NOTED `NaT 9 CI 30:20'23" 763,94 SIPS MEAS .FOUND 11/2"ORA"DISK N rttd�p 0 100 200 400 CI 3874'17" 163,94 512"REC B CENTERLINE MONUMENT 4L LAMO V C2 36'42'40" 23989 153.10 CALC REC RECORD DIMENSIONS PER SURVEY 1� C2 36'26'00" 239,09 15254 REC E6NJIA'1ENT AND PROCEDURES C3 14'32'41" 006,94 20535 BOOK?0,PAGES 701 1101 08-114DUG EQUI T:L1E7Z 6 BECOVD rk-- c lrE G4 36'04'14" 709.89 132.14 Q SET MAG PK NAIL V. ECM TOO'CAL IBRATED—AN 08•II<.9Mi RE■ MWCEDLIE:FIELD TIRAvPI¢!E C5 O'4B'41" 000.94 ll.<6 I?319 40 00030 19: HOLMAN r ASSOCIAM R"'E:y� .IOIroRr®.T.C,fE M/wEYge•J rfRrFCATE SURVEY FIgE.E1GNAL LAND MmeArro r ��QQ r'� TW KW DDR %,rQFIlM 6 A MYEY MODE Dr I'E A¢ FOR N11T YMM9%64 'w■ R®R.X RK010 T1MA DAt,StaL.V.IAt..4w N oaeE r"DDECTKH N CCTFp.,,I1Q 1NnI„M AldIIRElENrb 1M1014JI-"W PW:,N 0")491-20N FAX w nff W"Y RECOI ACT AT TI.Wa=T LF RON BYERS v x•II. sOCfC✓.A 4� T M0E..YF wr na I�a+wT wom EY DATE JOE ma "EJ DAYEL►IIGL.I'4X )RPN.PY.TIW................................. IN IdNb APRIL,20109 M-114 N/y 14 q. NW 23 I/4,SE 1 1 SW 1/4,9E I/4 . .....,,, ,. ,._. SECTION 19,TOWNSHIP 73 NORTH,RANGE 1 UEST WM. C40 sr M:U.E Mar CCIIVIY Af0?OR .. IDAIF ND!i!). . DC" I^.700' I w 1 Wetland Delineation Report & Buffer Mitigation Proposal Selgren Property — Mason County January of 2020 RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2020 615 W. Alder Street IrCRATER LAND USE CONSULTING Wetland Delineation Report & Buffer Mitigation Proposal Selgren Property — Mason County TAX PARCEL # 12319-42-50060 PREPARED FOR Cheryl Selgren 150 NE Ridgetop Ct. Belfair, WA 98528 PREPARED BY CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING 616 W Pine Street Shelton, WA 98584 509-942-9309 J� ���a , 112 6 2 0 Ryan ter Date Principal Consultant and Ecologist Table of Contents Chapter1. Introduction ............................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. General Site Conditions&Vicinity ........................................................................2 Chapter3. Proposed Project ...................................................................................................3 Chapter4. Methods .................................................................................................................4 Chapter 5. Current Site Conditions .........................................................................................5 5.1 Landscape Setting .................................................................................................5 5.2 Soils .......................................................................................................................5 5.3 On-Site Vegetation .................................................................................................5 5.4 Priority Habitats and Species .................................................................................5 5.5 Precipitation ...........................................................................................................6 Chapter6. Results ..................................................................................................................7 6.1 Critical Areas ..........................................................................................................7 6.2 Wetland A Findings ................................................................................................7 6.2.1 Vegetation ..............................................................................................8 6.2.2 Soils .......................................................................................................8 6.2.3 Hydrology ...............................................................................................8 Chapter 7. Regulatory Review & Mitigation ............................................................................9 7.1 Wetlands Title 8.52.110 (MCC) ..............................................................................9 7.1.1 Wetland A ...............................................................................................9 7.1.2 Wetland B .............................................................................................10 7.2 Wetland Buffer .....................................................................................................10 7.2.1 Buffer Modifications .............................................................................11 7.2.2 Wetland Buffer Width Averaging ..........................................................11 7.2.3 Mitigation for Wetland Impacts .............................................................12 Chapter 8. Best Management Practices ...............................................................................14 8.1 WDOE Source Control BMP ................................................................................14 8.2 Spill Prevention Control Measures .......................................................................16 Chapter9. Summary ..............................................................................................................17 Chapter 10. References & Resources ....................................................................................18 Figures Figure 1. Overhead View of Property........................................................................................2 Tables Table 1. Summary of Results and Total Area Calculations—Wetland A ................................1 Table 2. Summary of Associated Regulations from Applicable Agencies................................1 Table 3. Daily Weather January 2020.......................................................................................6 Table 4. Average Monthly Rainfall ...........................................................................................6 Table 5. On-Site Wetland and Buffer Estimates.......................................................................9 Table6. Wetland A Summary ................................................................................................10 Appendices Appendix A. Site Vicinity Map Appendix B. USDA NRCS Soil Type Map Appendix C. National Wetlands Inventory Map Appendix D. DNR Stream Type Map Appendix E. 303(d) Map Appendix F. WDFW PHS Map Appendix G. Wetland Delineation Site Map Appendix H. Drainage Basin Map Appendix I. Land Use Intensity 1 km Radius Appendix J. Critical Areas Buffers & Setbacks Appendix K. Mitigation Site Maps Appendix L. Current Site Conditions Photos Appendix M. Soil Log Photos Appendix N. Washington State Wetland Rating Forms Appendix O. Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix P. Qualifications Chapter 1 . Introduction Crater Land Use Consulting (CLUC) has been contracted by Cheryl Selgren (applicant) to conduct a wetland delineation for the development of an approximately 5.23-acre parcel (227,714 sq. ft.) located within Mason County, Washington. Fieldwork for this project was completed on January 5, 2020. The proposed future development is for the construction of a Single-Family Residence (SFR) and enhancement of an existing skid road to be used as a driveway. The property is located within the unincorporated areas of Mason County (tax parcel# 12319-42-50060). The purpose of this report and wetland delineation is to identify the presence of potentially regulated wetlands and their boundaries; fish and wildlife habitat; and potential priority species that may be found on or near the subject parcel. This report assesses potential impacts to identified critical areas from the proposed future development of the property for a single-family residential structure(s). In this report are wetland delineation findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the following: • Background information, research and identification of regulated critical areas on-site and within the project vicinity; • Site description, brief project description and areas of assessment; • Identification, delineation and assessment of potentially regulated critical areas on or near the subject parcel; • Prescriptive buffers, building setbacks and applicable development limitations; • Existing conditions site maps of the Selgren property detailing critical areas identified on-site; • Supplementary information necessary for regulatory review. • Mitigation Plan The tables below summarize the findings of this wetland delineation report: Table 1. Summary of Results and Total Area Calculations—Wetland A. Wetland Category Functions Habitat Prescriptive —Wetland —Buffer —Drainage Basin Score Score Buffer Area Area Area A III 16 5 110 feet 0.25 acres 2.12 acres 2.11 acres Table 2. Summary of Associated Regulations from Applicable Agencies Regulation Applicable to all Wetlands MCC Title 8.52.110 YES MCC Title 8.52.170 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) YES RCW 90.48 YES Federal Water Pollution Control Act YES 1 Chapter 2. General Site Conditions & Vicinity The subject property is located at 150 NE Ridgetop Ct, Belfair, WA 98528 (Range 1W, Township 23N, Section 19 W.M.). It can be accessed by heading northeast on State Route 300, turning left onto Sand Hill Road, and right onto Ridgetop Ct. (see Appendix A: Site Vicinity Map). The proposed project site is in the Kitsap Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (WRIA 15) and HUC unit # 171100180103 (Little Mission Creek — Frontal Hood Canal). This property is one of seven undeveloped lots on Ridgetop Ct.. Each are of a similar approximate shape and size. The Ridgetop Ct. development is almost entirely surround by large tracks of timberland, with the exception of several lots containing SFR development on the other side of Sand Hill Rd. The land use within the vicinity is generally rural residential and designated forest land (see Appendix I: Land Use Intensity). The subject parcel's terrain is slightly sloping, leading down toward a depressional area where runoff is collected (see Appendix H: Drainage Basin). Two wetlands were delineated on-site; Wetlands "A" and "B" (see Appendix G: Wetland Delineation). The Washington State Department of Natural Resources stream type maps do not indicate the presence of any typed streams within the vicinity of the subject property (see Appendix D: DNR Stream Type Map). Figure 1 below shows the general conditions of the site and approximate locations of on-site critical areas, proposed access road, and proposed location of the single-family development. The red and green lines indicate the approximate location of Wetland A and Wetland B located along the south property line. The orange lines indicated the proposed access road location and location of the single-family home. K +Y i Figure 1. Overhead View of Property (taken via drone on January 5, 2020). 2 Chapter 3. Proposed Project The purpose of this project was to determine the wetland boundaries and rate the wetlands to determine their class and any applicable prescriptive buffers. This information was then used to determine development limitations and provide the client/county with a Wetland Delineation Report addressing the regulated critical areas found on-site to meet permit requirements. The results of this wetland delineation and rating indicates that Wetland A is a Class III wetland, having a prescriptive buffer of width of 110 feet. Wetland B has been classified as "Not Regulated", and as per Title 8.52.110(13)(2)(b) Mason County Code(MCC), no buffer is required. The proposed project was reviewed, and careful consideration was given in order to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible with regards to regulated critical areas and their associated buffers. Sufficient area within the property is available for the proposed SFR; This report determined that there are approximately 1.49 acres (28.49% of the total parcel) appropriate for residential development (located outside of both wetlands, Wetland A's associated 110 foot buffer, and the 20-25-foot property line setbacks). A 100-foot by 100-foot area has been proposed for development of the SFR and a yard area outside of all critical areas, buffers, and setbacks (see Appendix K: Mitigation Site Map). The site contains an existing skid road that the applicant would like to develop into a driveway. The proposed driveway would be approximately 540 feet long by 20 feet wide, for a total area of approximately 10,795.2 sq. ft. (0.25 acres). A portion of the existing skid road/proposed driveway is within Wetland A's 110-foot buffer. The proposed development of a driveway within this 2.12 acre buffer would account for 0.16 acres (7.55% of the total buffer area). 0.32 acres of additional buffer area contiguous to the northwestern side of the current buffer is being proposed to mitigate for this impact. The wetland buffer mitigation measure described above is being proposed in accordance with MCC requirements found under Title 8 (see Chapter 7 of this report for more information). It is the opinion of this report that the proposed mitigation will support and maintain existing habitats and ecological functions associated with Wetland A. It appears likely that major impacts can be avoided to critical areas and their associated buffers if the 110-foot buffer is retained in its current vegetative condition, aside from minor improvements that will need to be made to accommodate the proposed driveway,and given that buffer enhancement measures will be enacted at a 2:1 ratio of added buffer area for buffer area lost. This project will include no additional clearing of native vegetation within the prescribed buffer. Construction that will be associated with the project will include minor internal road access improvements, minor earth moving activities, and the construction of a small single-family dwelling. The site currently has power available along NE Ridgetop Ct.,but there is not a well or septic system located on-site at this time.These features will be designed by a qualified professional and kept outside of critical areas, and buffers. Stormwater generated by the residential uses is not addressed within this report aside from a list of best management practices (BMPs) provided in Chapter 8;Any proposed impervious surfaces and associated runoff will be designed by a professional engineer, if required. 3 Chapter 4. Methods Crater Land Use Consulting investigated the parcels for the presence of regulated critical areas not already identified by outside sources. On January 5, 2020 the site was walked to identify potential jurisdictional wetlands and fish and wildlife habitats regulated under Title 8 (Resource Ordinance) MCC in addition to state and federal agencies. Wetland determinations were made using observable hydrophytic vegetation, indicators of hydrology, and the determinations of hydric soil conditions within the first 24 inches. This was done in accordance with Title 8.52.110(B)(3) of the MCC. Additional resources and data utilized were from the U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS) topographic map, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory(NWI), Washington State Department of Natural Resources(DNR),Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database, Mason County geographic information system (GIS), WDFW SalmonScape mapping tool, local precipitation data, and numerous orthophoto graphic resources and similar GIS mapping resources available from Esri ArcGIS. Background data used for each map is included and cited in the appendices of this report. The boundaries of Wetlands A and B were determined using the routine approach described within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and as modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010). The wetland boundaries were delineated based on information collected in the field using the Wetland Determination Data Form — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE, Version 2.0). Once the boundaries were determined based on observed site conditions, they were flagged within the subject property and mapped for use in ArcMap 10.2.2 via the use of a handheld GPS Unit(Garmin GPSMAP 78— Datum WGS 3). After the appropriate level of data was collected in the field to determine the wetland boundaries, additional data was collected for use in determining wetland functions for site potential, landscape potential and value. Taken together, this information was used to determine each wetland's overall category and habitat score using the parameters contained the Washington State Department of Ecology's "Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—2014 Update."This was necessary to determine the wetland rating and habitat score as it relates to the required prescribed buffer boundary for regulatory purposes as required under MCC. Orange flagging labeled "Wetland Boundary" was placed along the estimated boundary of Wetland A within the project area. Additional soil test pits were dug as necessary in various locations as spot checks to determine if soil conditions were changing along the estimated wetland boundary, though these were not marked out or recorded; These locations were consistent with the documented survey points. The line of delineation for Wetland A was driven by topography, underlying geological conditions and the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the wetlands ponded area. Wetlands were classified using the Cowardin classification system to determine characterization of the observed plant communities. The following classification of the wetland was based on observed wetland features in the field and other readily available resources. All wetlands were rated and categorized using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2014)and guidelines contained with Title 8 (Resource Ordinance), specifically Title 8.52.110 of the MCC. The completed wetland rating forms and wetland delineation map are provided in Appendices G and N. Based on the DNR Water Type Maps, there are no typed water bodies located within the wetland boundaries. 4 Chapter 5. Current Site Conditions 5.1 Landscape Setting The parcel is located within rural Mason County in the greater Belfair area just north of Hood Canal. The immediate vicinity surrounding the parcel is moderately developed with rural single-family housing, and forest land. Topography on-site is somewhat flat to slightly sloped leading down into the wetland depression area. The parcel is located within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15— Kitsap. The drainage basin is located in the Little Mission Creek — Frontal Hood Canal, HUC Unit # 171100180103. An area view of the subject parcel is located in Appendix A. 5.2 Soils The NRCS soil survey for Mason County indicates that the mapped soils on-site are of the Alderwood series (see Appendix B). The soil survey of Mason County indicates one on-site soil type (USDA, 1951, No. 9— Issued September 1960): 1. Ab — Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes: The Alderwood series consists of brown, well-drained, upland soils. They have developed from mixed gravelly glacial till dominated by acid igneous rock. The imbedded gravel is mainly granite and quartzite. Rainfall is 45 to 60 inches a year. The native vegetation is a dense forest consisting almost entirely of Douglas fir and a dense understory of salal, Oregon-grape, vine maple, and huckleberry. Northeast of the Hood Canal the understory is mainly rhododendron. Alderwood soils occupy the extensive rolling glacial moraines, and they are the dominant soils in the eastern part of the county. The Alderwood soils are associated with the somewhat excessively drained Everett and Indianola soils and with the moderately well drained Kitsap soils. Shelton and Hoodsport soils differ from the Alderwood soils in that they have developed under high rainfall and from glacial till having a much higher content of basic igneous rock. The Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes (Ab) is the most extensive soil of the Alderwood series. It occupies undulating to rolling moraines. 5.3 On-Site Vegetation The Selgren property is currently undeveloped. It is almost entirely forested outside of the scrub-shrub wetland areas that are identified within this report. The predominant tree species found within the upland areas is Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh— FACU), with a shrub and herb stratum dominated by evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum— FACU), salal (Gaultheria shallon— FACU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum— FACU) and trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus—FACU). The dominate plant species within the scrub-shrub wetland were alder (Alnus rubra— FAC) along its edge with hardhack (Spiraea douglasii— FACW) being the dominate species with slough sedge (Carex obnupta—OBL) and soft rush (Juncus effuses—FACW) also being prevalent. 5.4 Priority Habitats and Species The WDFW SalmonScape and PHS mapping tool did not indicate the presence of mapped priority habitats or species within 100 meters of the wetland. This information was used to answer question H.3.1 of the wetland rating form for Western Washington contained in the Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update(Effective Date of January 1,2015). 5 5.5 Precipitation Monthly precipitation data was obtained from the nearby Bremerton National Station https://www.wunderground.com/history/monthly/us/wa/port-orchard/KPWT (Table 3). According to this source, average daily precipitation for the month of January when fieldwork was conducted (as of January 21, 2020) was 0.35 inches. Total rainfall for the month to date was 7.42 inches. Table 4. (obtained from NOAA at www.weather-us.com)shows average cumulative rainfall totals for each month of the year.Typical rainfall for January is 10.3 inches. According to the data indicated in Table 3., precipitation for the month of January has so far been higher than average. Table 3. Daily Weather January 2020 — Bremerton/Port Orchard, WA (Weather Underground) Jan 01 Sat 044 Jan 07 'a-10 'a'13 Jan 16 Jan 19 Jan 22 Jan 25 jai 2& A-+ 50 1 45�\ 40 (Maxi 43' 35 (Avg) 4112'F 30 i1.Rirs 37`_ 25 Temperature(max) Temperature(Avg) Temperature(?din) 1.5 1 0.5 0.36 in 0 Precip � Precip(Avg) Table 4. Average Monthly Rainfall (NOAA) Rainfall(") 12 10 10.3" 8 8.2" 6 6.8" 4 4.2" 2 2.3" 1.T 2.5" 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 6 Chapter 6. Results 6.1 Critical Areas Two wetlands (Wetlands A and B) were identified as being located within the boundary of the Selgren property (see Appendix G: Wetland Delineation). The wetland boundaries were estimated based on aerial photos, fieldwork, field verification, and other resources listed in Chapter 4 of this report. The estimated total wetland area of both wetlands on-site is 10,865 sq. ft. (0.25 acres). The estimated total area of both wetlands on and off-site is 11,431.75 sq.ft. (0.26 acres). Wetland A is approximately 10,542.37 sq. ft. (0.24 acres) and is fully contained on-site. Wetland B is approximately 889.38 sq. ft (0.02 acres), of which approximately 322.63 sq. ft. (0.01 acres) are on-site. Wetland A is located slightly northwest of the property's center point. Wetland B is located across the southern property line, approximately 140 feet south of Wetland A. Both wetlands appear be seasonally flooded. Site investigative work consisted of a walk-through survey of all accessible areas on the property. Areas located off-site were investigated visually but were not trespassed upon, with the exception of the area surrounding Wetland B, where the entire wetland boundary was walked and recorded via GPS. The walk- through survey investigation was to determine potential wetland locations and to assess the habitats within and surrounding each potential wetland area. Based on the survey results it was determined that two (2) survey points would be appropriate to determine the boundary of Wetland A (see Appendix G). Given the small size of Wetland B, no survey points were necessary or taken. Field data analyzed in Subchapter 6.2 below does not include discussion of Wetland B as the impact rating used to determine the prescriptive buffer from Table 8.52.110(B)of the MCC, was not used to identify a prescriptive buffer width. See Chapter 7(subsection 7.1.2)for more information. The topography surrounding Wetlands A and B had slight slopes of approximately 5% percent grade heading down into the wetland depression areas. The wetland boundaries generally followed along the same changes in elevation within the area surveyed.These conditions were observed immediately adjacent to the project site and appear to be typical for the remaining portions of the Wetland B located along the south property line and off-site. The drainage basin for Wetland A was estimated to be 2.11 acres in total (see Appendix H: Drainage Basin Map). Both Wetlands A and B appear to be supported by both a fluctuating water table and via direct and indirect surface water sources. 6.2 Wetland A Findings Wetland A appears to be a Palustrine wetland complex with the following habitats: Scrub-shrub and Emergent Wetland (Persistent). The entire wetland was ponded with water with a small shallow section being located at the southwest end approximately 40 feet west of sample location AW1. It appears that this is where Wetland A may overflow during heavy rain periods. No defined channel was observed, and potential discharge appears to be in the form of sheet flow. Soft rush (Juncus effuses — FACW) was observed in this area out of the wetland boundary but was surrounded by a dominance of upland plant species. Soils were not observed to be hydric in this location. The National Wetlands Inventory does not show Wetland A or B as being mapped. As previously stated, the wetland hydrology appears to be seasonally flooded.The primary source of water contributing to the wetland appears to be from the identified drainage basin draining into the wetlands. The entire wetland appears to be contained within a depressional area having a distinct change in elevation from a slightly sloped area before heading into the wetland depressional area. The delineated boundary of this wetland generally followed this change in elevation. The boundary also appeared to be defined by an OHWM in most locations. Figures 1 through 13 in Appendix L shows what the wetland boundary looks like. 7 6.2.1 Vegetation The predominant hydrophytic vegetation observed within Wetland A along the wetland boundary were, alder (Alnus rubra — FAC), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii— FACW), sedge (Carex obnupta — OBL) and soft rush (Juncus effuses — FACW). The predominant vegetation observed within upland areas surrounding the wetland was Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii— FACU), salal (Gaultheria shallon — FACU), evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum— FACU) and sword fern (Polystichum munitum— FACU). 6.2.2 Soils A soil sample was difficult to extract from sample location AW1 as it was located within a ponded area. The entire area within the wetland boundary was ponded with water. Prior to the soil falling off the shovel, it did appear to be darker in nature than those observed in the upland location (Sample site AU1 and perk test holes). Some redox features were observed, but we were not able to confirm. The soil was generally of a gravelly sandy loam texture. This location is assumed to have hydric soils based on observed site conditions and the sample location meeting the vegetation and hydrology parameters. The wetland is similar to other wetlands that we have delineated in the region, which also leads us to believe the soil is hydric. Sample location AU1 was dug to a depth of 24 inches. From 0 to 4 inches,the Munsell color code was 7.5YR 2.5/2 and from 4 inches to 24 inches it was observed to have a color code of 5YR 3/4. No redox features were observed within the soil matrix. A picture of the soil sample is located in Appendix M. 6.2.3 Hydrology Sample location AU1 was observed to have Surface Water (Al), High Water Table (A2), Saturation (A3), Water Marks (61), Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138), Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) and Presence of Reduced Iron (C4). Surface water present at the sample location was observed to be six(6) inches and the deepest accessible area of the wetland had standing water to a depth of approximately four (4) feet. Field observation for Water Table Present is assumed to be the level of the ponded area. The observation for Saturation Present is assumed to be at the surface of the soil under the ponded area for portions of the year when precipitation is low. Overall, hydrology was observed as ponded water within the delineated boundary of the entire depressional wetland area (Wetland A). 8 Chapter 7. Regulatory Review & Mitigation The results of the field investigation identified two (2) jurisdictional wetlands on-site. Wetland A has a prescriptive buffer of 110 feet. No buffer is required for Wetland B per Title 8.52.110(13)(2)(b) of the MCC. There are approximately 1.49 acres of the 5.23 acre parcel located outside of critical areas, the buffer, and setbacks. Within this unencumbered area, an SFR and yard is being proposed that will occupy a 10,000 sq. ft. area in total. In order to access the home site,the applicant wishes to further develop an existing skid road that is partially located within Wetland A's buffer. The proposed residential development (Appendix K) was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas and buffers to the greatest extent possible. There are no direct impacts identified and/or proposed within the estimated jurisdictional boundary of either wetland on-site. The proposed driveway would be approximately 540 feet long by 20 feet wide, for a total area of approximately 10,795.2 sq.ft. (0.25 acres)0.16 acres of the proposed driveway is within the 2.12 acre buffer, accounting for 7.55% of the total buffer area. 0.32 acres of additional buffer area contiguous to the northwestern side of the current buffer is being proposed to mitigate for this impact. The buffer is being retained on the other side of the road to keep in place the exiting native vegetation. Although the road is being proposed to be located within the buffer, its location is down gradient from Wetland A. It is assumed that a culvert will be placed along the road south of the south-west end of Wetland A. This area seems to be a location of water overflow from Wetland A, which sheet flows across the low fairly flat ground that slopes away from the overflow location of Wetland A on the south-west end. This area slopes down to the south end of the property. No wetland conditions were observed in this area, but it is the opinion of this report that retaining this area of the buffer with native vegetation will help control natural runoff, thereby ensuring natural erosion control is retained in this area. Down gradient of Wetland A is Wetland B, which would benefit from this portion of the buffer being retained. This chapter will discuss the regulatory implications and consideration of the proposed residential development activity. No filling of on-site wetlands is proposed as part of this review or the proposed residential development. Avoidance and minimization measures to offset potential impacts to regulated buffer areas are to retain the vegetated wetland buffer when developing the property and to increase the total buffer area by 7.55% (a 2:1 mitigation ratio). By retaining the existing vegetative wetland buffer in its natural state and increasing the buffer, there will likely be no net loss of regulated habitat areas on-site. 7.1 Wetlands — Title 8.52.110 (MCC) Mason County Code(MCC)-Title 8.52.110-Table 8.52.110(A through F)lists each type of wetland category and provides a set of standards used in conjunction with the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington to determine what each individual wetland category is. The rating is based on the overall score obtained from calculating the total functional scores for water quality, hydrologic conditions and habitat. This information can be found in the subsection below (see Appendix N for supporting documentation). Wetland A and its associated buffer located Table 5. On-Site Wetland and Buffer Estimates. within the parcel account for a combined total of approximately 2.36 acres (102,570.7 sq. ft.). Wetland -Jurisdictional -Regulated Buffer Wetland Area Area Wetland B has no associated buffer and A 0.24 acres 2.12 acres occupies approximately 0.01 acres (322.63 sq. 10,542.37 sq.ft. 92,028.33 sq.ft. ft.) of the subject property. Specific information B 0.01 acres None required. for the on-site wetlands and buffer is provided 322.63 sq.ft. in Table 5. 9 7.1.1 Wetland A Wetland A was determined to be a Class III with an overall functional score of 16 and a habitat score of five (5). The impact rating used to determine the prescriptive buffer width from Table 8.52.110(D) of the MCC was identified as being"Moderate" based on surrounding land uses (see Appendix I: Land Use Intensity 1 km Map). Table 8.52.110(D) of the MCC indicates that a wetland with a habitat score of five (5) to seven (7) points has a prescriptive buffer of 110 feet. Table 6. below summarizes this report's findings for the wetland. There are no direct impacts identified and/or proposed within the estimated jurisdictional boundary of Wetland A. Table 6. Wetland A Summary Wetland Category Functions Habitat Prescriptive Drainage Score Score Buffer Basin Area A III 16 5 110 feet 2.11 acres 7.1.2 Wetland B As previously stated, given the small size of Wetland B, 0.02 acres(889.83 sq.ft.), no survey points were necessary or taken. According to Title 8.52.110(B)(2)(b) isolated wetlands under 1,000 square feet in total area, that are not associated with a riparian corridor or a shoreline of the state, and not being part of a mosaic or having essential habitat of a priority species are "Not Regulated." Although this wetland is located within approximately 140 feet to the south of Wetland A, it was determined not to be within an associated wetland mosaic. This determination was made after reviewing Section 4.3 (Identifying Wetland Units in a Patchwork on the Landscape) from the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2014 Update). Specifically, there was not greater than three patches of wetland area within 100 feet of each other. There are no direct impacts identified and/or proposed within the estimated jurisdictional boundary of Wetland B. Direct impacts to Wetland B are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers should fill be placed within its estimated jurisdictional boundary. 7.2 Wetland Buffer The 2.12 acre Wetland A buffer was not marked out along its perimeter, but can be measured on-site from each Wetland Boundary flag placed at intervals along the line of delineation. The existing 110-foot buffer area is fully vegetated and will be retained in its current condition aside from minor improvements that will need to be made to accommodate the proposed driveway, which is to be developed over the existing footprint of the skid road. No impacts to associated wetland buffers are being proposed aside from the driveway development. Buffer modification is being requested to allow for reasonable use of the property for the development of a single-family home and associated accessory structures being proposed outside of critical area boundaries. The proposed driveway location appears to be the most suitable location on-site to allow for reasonable use given that only approximately 28.49% (1.49 acres) of the total parcel is appropriate for residential development(located outside of both wetlands, Wetland A's associated 110 foot buffer, and the 20-25-foot property line setbacks). A portion of the unencumbered property will be occupied by a 10,000 sq. ft. area where the SFR and yard will be placed. Additional unencumbered area must be reserved for the septic system and well so that adequate separation between the two is possible so as to ensure that their placements are a sufficient distance away from critical areas and buffers. In addition, the eastern portion of the property contains the only area suitable for the SFR, as both Wetlands and Wetland A's buffer occupy the center and western portion of the property with very little area left for development. The site's access comes from Ridgetop Ct. on the western property line, which is 10 almost completely separated from the proposed SFR site by the aforementioned critical areas and buffers, as well as the southern property line setback. Given the topography, soil conditions, and general layout of the property, placing the driveway outside of its currently proposed location could prevent the applicant from enjoying reasonable use of their property if relief isn't granted if compliance is show with applicable relief measures. As previously stated, the site contains an existing skid road that the applicant would like to develop into a driveway. The proposed driveway would be approximately 540 feet long by 20 feet wide, for a total area of approximately 10,795.2 sq. ft. (0.25 acres). A portion of the existing skid road/proposed driveway is within Wetland A's 110-foot buffer. The proposed development of a driveway within this 2.12 acre buffer would account for 0.16 acres (7.55%of the total buffer area). 0.32 acres of additional buffer area contiguous to the northwestern side of the current buffer is being proposed to mitigate for this impact. For each sq. ft. of buffer impact two (2)sq. ft.of additional intact and mature habitat is being proposed as mitigation to be retained and protected in perpetuity. This represents a 2:1 mitigation ratio of added buffer area for buffer area lost. The area proposed as additional buffer is currently undeveloped and is of the same quality and plant stratum and the original buffer areas being proposed for development. 7.2.1 Buffer Modifications In order to allow for reasonable use of the property similar to surrounding areas and other such properties of like size, the below buffer modifications are being requested as reviewed under Title 8.52.110(Wetlands)of the MCC. Buffer modifications shall be approved by and at the sole discretion of Mason County and such requests will need to be submitted with a Mason Environmental Permit for review. 7.2.2 Wetland Buffer Width Averaging (Title 8.52.110(E)(c)(ii)) Title 8.52.110(E)(c)(ii): Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all the following are met: a. There are no feasible alternative to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging. Consultant Comment: As previously stated, the proposed driveway location appears to be the most suitable location on-site to allow for reasonable use given that only approximately 28.49% (1.49 acres) of the total parcel is appropriate for residential development (located outside of both wetlands, Wetland A's associated 110 foot buffer, and the 20-25-foot property line setbacks). A portion of the unencumbered property will be occupied by a 10,000 sq. ft. area where the SFR and yard will be placed. Additional unencumbered area must be reserved for the septic system, so that adequate separation between the two is possible and to ensure that their placement is a sufficient distance from critical areas and buffers. In addition, the eastern portion of the property contains the only area suitable for the SFR, as both wetlands and Wetland A's buffer occupy the center and western portion of the property with very little area left for development. The site's access comes from Ridgetop Ct.on the western property line, which is almost completely separated from the proposed SFR site by the aforementioned critical areas and buffers, as well as the southern property line setback. The road is being proposed over an existing skid road on-site located within the buffer.This area currently represents disturbance within the buffer where soils have been compacted and some vegetation was already removed from prior logging activities. It is the best location within the buffer on-site as it will avoid further disturbance within the buffer thereby focusing the road placement in areas already disturbed. Given the topography, soil conditions, and general layout of the property, placing the driveway outside of its currently proposed location could further damage undisturbed areas within the buffer. b. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetlands functions and values as demonstrated by a report from a qualified wetland professional. Consultant Comment: It is the opinion of this report and its findings that the proposed buffer modification will not result in degradation of existing wetland functions and values. As previously stated, the area proposed as additional buffer is currently undeveloped and is of the same quality and plant stratum and the original buffer areas being proposed for development. The proposed additional buffer area has habitat features that are associated with a mature forest having healthy underbrush growth of native vegetation. It has multiple habitat features that are not typically found in actively managed forest lands. Such features include large mature trees, mature mid canopy species and snags that could be utilized for fauna such as den areas and other similar 11 features. Including this area as part of the regulated buffer area for Wetland A will retain both connectivity between the wetland and surrounding habitat, as well as providing additional habitat area vital to wildlife species dependent on mature forest ecosystems that are associated with wetlands. The intent is to maintain the functions and values of both the wetland and its buffer to the greatest extent possible while still requesting reasonable use of the property. c. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging. Consultant Comment: The proposed development of a driveway within this 2.12 acre buffer would account for 0.16 acres (7.55% of the total buffer area) lost. 0.32 acres of additional buffer area contiguous to the northwestern side of the current buffer is being proposed to mitigate for this impact. This represents a 2:1 mitigation ratio of added buffer area for buffer area lost. The required buffer of 110 feet is not being requested to be reduced to allow the road, but for the road to cross through the buffer area to allow access to unencumbered areas not subject to the Resource Ordinance. Maintaining the full buffer width will have a long term benefit to allow for a healthy connectivity within the canopy through the road area as the forest matures and retains the existing vegetated area upslope of Wetland B. d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than'/4 of the required width. Consultant Comment: The existing skid road footprint and proposed driveway site runs through the southern (bottom) portion of the buffer, with buffer both above and maintained below the site. '/4 of the required (110-foot) buffer width is 82.5 feet. Approximately 128 feet (or 25%)of Wetland A's 515-foot delineated perimeter is less than 82.5 feet away from the proposed driveway site. The narrowest distance between the proposed driveway site and the boundary of Wetland A is approximately 43 feet, which is an outlier compared to the other 25% of Wetland A's boundary which would be under the 82.5-foot buffer distance threshold; Most points falling under the 82.5-foot threshold are 60 to 80 feet away. Based on what was observed in the field, the current state of existing vegetative buffers being healthy and the fact that a majority of the parcel is encumbered by Wetland A and its associated buffer, it is the opinion of this report that allowing reasonable flexibility within this standard would not degrade the overall functions and values of Wetland A. 7.2.3 Mitigation for Wetland Impacts (Title 8.52.110 fl) Title 8.52.110(F)(1): If wetland or wetland buffer impacts are proposed, the following sequence of review must be considered. (a) Avoid the impact altogether by not taking certain action or parts of an action. Consultant Comment: Impacts associated with reasonable use of the property are unavoidable as a majority of the parcel is encumbered by wetlands, an associated buffer and setbacks.As previously stated,the proposed driveway location appears to be the most suitable location on-site to allow for reasonable use given that only approximately 28.49% (1.49 acres)of the total parcel is appropriate for residential development(located outside of both wetlands, Wetland A's associated 110 foot buffer, and the 20-25-foot property line setbacks). A portion of the unencumbered property will be occupied by a 10,000 sq. ft. area where the SFR and yard will be developed.Additional unencumbered area must be reserved for the septic system, so that adequate separation between the two is possible and to ensure that their placement a sufficient distance from critical areas and buffers. In addition, the eastern portion of the property contains the only area suitable for the SFR, as both Wetlands and Wetland A's buffer occupy the center and western portion of the property with very little area left for development. The site's access comes from Ridgetop Ct. on the western property line, which is almost completely separated from the proposed SFR site by the aforementioned critical areas and buffers, as well as the southern property line setback. Modification to the buffer associated with Wetland A is necessary to avoid a regulatory taking and allow the landowner reasonable use of their private property. (b) Minimize the impact 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. Consultant Comment: Impacts will be minimized to the greatest extent possible by implementing best management practices (BMPs) to control stormwater runoff, and by controlling post-construction stormwater runoff from directly discharging into a waterbody of the state. See Chapter 8 for specific information on BMPs to be implemented. No additional land clearing outside of the minor development currently proposed to construct 12 the driveway, SFR and yard is necessary to allow for the development of the lot for a single-family use. (c) Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the sensitive areas. Consultant Comment: Necessary impacts within the existing buffers as identified within this report will be mitigated by providing additional high-quality forest habitat in other locations contiguous with the buffer to ensure no net loss of values and functions. The area proposed is located upgradient from Wetland A and the retention of this area would help protect water quality by retaining existing native vegetation to help control potential erosion from future development within this area, thereby keeping it protected as buffer area. (d) Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations. Consultant Comment: Applicant will take actions over time to ensure that existing vegetated buffer areas adjacent to the cleared area are maintained free of invasive plant species. This will ensure that adjoining buffer areas next to the proposed development are not a source of invasive and/or noxious weeds. (e) Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute areas and environments and replace the ecological processes and functions of the resource. Consultant Comment: To compensate for the impact within the prescribed buffer area this report proposes to reduce the buffer within the proposed driveway area (only) and include additional high-quality habitat adjacent to Wetland A's existing buffer in the northeast corner of the parcel. This would retain the existing 110 foot buffer adjacent to Wetland B. For each square foot of buffer impact, two (2)square feet of additional intact and mature habitat is being proposed as mitigation to be retained and protected in perpetuity. This represents a 2:1 mitigation ratio. (f) Monitor the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Consultant Comment: Landowner will ensure that potential impacts from the proposed single-family residential use will not encroach on adjoining critical area buffers to the greatest extent possible. Title 8.52.110(F)(2): As a condition of any permit allowing alteration of wetlands and/or wetland buffers, the county shall require that the applicant engage in the restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands and their buffers in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's actions. When the acreage required for compensatory mitigation is divided by the acreage of impact, the result is a number known variously as a replacement, compensation, or mitigation ratio. Methods to achieve compensation for wetland functions shall be approached in the following order of preference: restoration, creation, enhancement (defined in 8.52.030). Consultant Comment: As previously stated, the proposed development of a driveway within this 2.12 acre buffer would account for 0.16 acres (7.55% of the total buffer area). 0.32 acres of additional buffer area contiguous to the northwestern side of the current buffer is being proposed to mitigate for this impact. For each sq.ft. of buffer impact two (2) sq.ft. of additional intact and mature habitat is being proposed as mitigation to be retained and protected in perpetuity. This represents a 2:1 mitigation ratio of added buffer area for buffer area lost.The area proposed as additional buffer is currently undeveloped and is of the same quality and plant stratum and the original buffer areas being proposed for development. Title 8.52.110(F)(3): The overall goal of any compensatory project shall be no net loss of wetland functions and acreage._ Consultant Comment: Avoidance and minimization measures to offset potential impacts to regulated buffer areas are to retain the vegetated wetland buffer when developing the property and to increase the total buffer area by 7.55% (a 2:1 mitigation ratio). By retaining the existing vegetative wetland buffer in its natural state and increasing the buffer, there will likely be no net loss of regulated habitat areas on-site, or loss of any functions and values associated with Wetland A or its associated buffer. 13 Chapter 8. Best Management Practices In order to maintain the present quality of adjacent wetlands during project installation, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented. BMPs as defined by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) are physical, structural, and/or managerial practices that prevent or reduce the pollution of water. The following applicable BMPs shall be used to ensure that water quality is not degraded by erosion and sedimentation from rainfall at the site: 8.1 WDOE Source Control BMP Source control BMPs are detailed in the WDOE's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume 11 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (2019). The following source control BMPs shall be implemented for long-term protection of water quality at the site (full versions of the BMPs listed below should be consulted by the applicant and contractors. They can be accessed at h_ttps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wa/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SW MM WW.htm#Topics/Volum ell/ConstructionStormwaterBMPs/ConstructionSourceControlBMPs). BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation Purpose: The purpose of preserving natural vegetation is to reduce erosion wherever practicable. Limiting site disturbance is the single most effective method for reducing erosion. For example, conifers can hold up to about 50 percent of all rain that falls during a storm. Up to 20-30 percent of this rain may never reach the ground but is taken up by the tree or evaporates. Another benefit is that the rain held in the tree can be released slowly to the ground after the storm. Conditions of Use: Natural vegetation should be preserved on steep slopes, near perennial and intermittent watercourses or swales, and on building sites in wooded areas. BMP C102: Buffer Zones Purpose: Creation of an undisturbed area or strip of natural vegetation or an established suitable planting that will provide a living filter to reduce soil erosion and stormwater runoff velocities. Conditions of Use: Natural vegetation should be preserved on steep slopes, near perennial and intermittent watercourses or swales, and on building sites in wooded areas. BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding Purpose: Seeding reduces erosion by stabilizing exposed soils. A well-established vegetative cover is one of the most effective methods of reducing erosion. Conditions of Use: Use seeding throughout the project on disturbed areas that have reached final grade or that will remain unworked for more than 30 days. BMP C121: Mulching Purpose: Mulching soils provides immediate temporary protection from erosion. Mulch also enhances plant establishment by conserving moisture, holding fertilizer, seed, and topsoil in place, and moderating soil temperatures. Conditions of Use:As a temporary cover measure, mulch should be used: At all times for seeded areas, especially during the wet season and during the hot summer months. BMP C123: Plastic Covering 14 Purpose:Plastic covering provides immediate, short-term erosion protection to slopes and disturbed areas. Conditions of Use: Plastic covering may be used on disturbed areas that require cover measures for less than 30 days. BMP C124: Sodding Purpose: The purpose of sodding is to establish turf for immediate erosion protection and to stabilize drainage paths where concentrated overland flow will occur. Conditions of Use: Sodding may be used in the following areas: 1. Disturbed areas that require short- term or long-term cover, 2. Disturbed areas that require immediate vegetative cover. BMP C140: Dust Control Purpose: Dust control prevents wind transport of dust from disturbed soil surfaces onto roadways, drainage ways, and surface waters. Conditions of Use: Use dust control in areas (including roadways) subject to surface and air movement of dust where on-site or off-site impacts to roadways, drainage ways, or surface waters are likely. BMP C150: Materials on Hand Purpose: Keep quantities of erosion prevention and sediment control materials on the project site at all times to be used for regular maintenance and emergency situations such as unexpected heavy rains. Conditions of Use:A small commercial development project could have a roll of plastic and some gravel available for immediate protection of bare soil and temporary berm construction. BMP C151: Concrete Handling Purpose: Concrete work can generate process water and slurry that contain fine particles and high pH, both of which can violate water quality standards in the receiving water. Concrete spillage or concrete discharge to waters of the State is prohibited. Conditions of Use:Any time concrete is used, utilize these management practices. Concrete construction project components include foundations. BMP C153: Material Delivery, Storage, and Containment Purpose: Prevent, reduce, or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the stormwater system or watercourses from material delivery and storage. Minimize the storage of hazardous materials on- site, store materials in a designated area, and install secondary containment. Conditions of Use: Use at construction sites with delivery and storage of the following materials: Petroleum products such as fuel, oil and grease; Soil stabilizers and binders (e.g., Polyacrylamide); Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides;Detergents;Asphalt and concrete compounds;Hazardous chemicals such as acids, lime, adhesives, paints, solvents, and curing compounds;Any other material that may be detrimental if released to the environment. 15 BMP C162: Scheduling Purpose: Sequencing a construction project reduces the amount and duration of soil exposed to erosion by wind, rain, runoff, and vehicle tracking. Conditions of Use: The construction sequence schedule is an orderly listing of all major land- disturbing activities together with the necessary erosion and sedimentation control measures planned for the project. This type of schedule guides the contractor on work to be done before other work is started so that serious erosion and sedimentation problems can be avoided. 8.2 Spill Prevention Control Measures The following spill control measures will be followed: • Equipment will be cleaned and checked for leaks off-site daily before commencing work. • The contractor will supply the site with a portable bathroom if the site's existing (SFR) bathroom cannot be accessed to ensure that solid or liquid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution. • The contractor shall be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in the event of a hazardous spill. • The contractor shall be able to perform basic control, containment, and/or confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and personnel protective equipment available. Small spills, such as paint or oil shall be promptly and fully collected and disposed of at a suitable disposal site. In the event of a significant spill, a fish kill, and/or if fish are observed in distress the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's Area Habitat Biologist shall be notified immediately. 16 Chapter 9. Summary The impacts identified within this report are necessary to allow the applicant reasonable relief from the prescriptive standards in order to allow for the construction of a single-family residence and associated driveway. Relief is requested by the landowner to allow for reasonable use. It is the opinion of this report that the proposed mitigation will support and maintain existing habitats and ecological functions associated with Wetland A. It appears likely that major impacts can be avoided to critical areas and their associated buffers if the 110-foot buffer is retained in its current vegetative condition, aside from minor improvements that will need to be made to accommodate the proposed driveway, and given that buffer enhancement measures will be enacted at a 2:1 ratio of added buffer area for buffer area lost. This project will include no additional clearing of native vegetation within the prescribed buffer. 17 Chapter 10. References & Resources Binkley, D., and Greene, S. 1983. Production in mixtures of conifers and red alder: the importance of site tertility. In IUFRO symposium on forest site and continuous productivity. Edited by R. Ballard and S.P. Gessel. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-163, Portland Oreg., pp. 112-117. Cowardin, 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 document FWS/OBS- 79/31. 84 pp. Washington, D.C. Field Indicator of Hydric Soils in the United States, A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2010. United States Department of Agriculture. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 2nd Edition, 2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 882 pp. Seattle, Washington. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T., 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington-Revised, Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025 (2014 Update) Munsell Soil Color Charts, 2009. Munsell Color. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing. 528 pp. Vancouver, British Columbia. Richardson, J.L., & M.J., Vepraskas. Wetland Soils, 2001. Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes and Classification. 417 pp. Lewis Publishers. Tiner, W. R., 1999. Wetland Indicators, A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping. 392 pp. Lewis Publishers. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2019. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume 11 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Internet report. URL: fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/2019SWMMWW.htm#Top icsNolumell/ConstructionStormwaterBMPs/ConstructionSourceControlBMPs Washington State Department of Ecology. 2017. Washington State Coastal Atlas Map. Internet report. URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatias/tools/Map.aspx Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Fish Washington, Lowland Lakes, Mason Lake. Internet report. URL: https:Hwdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/308/ Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2014. FPARS ARCIMS mapping application. Internet report. URL: http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/appl/fpars/viewer.htm 18 Appendix A. Site Vicinity Map CRATER LAND USE SITE VICINITY CONSULTING Call VA Ila rG■ L4, . ..'',a of h y. t• �ys•'aj,r �;=.'v �+iri�ryr MPr ti'''i+�;L►Ji Abi \ . Er li �. I�Afi�ll ,I's' . jr !a fit'• :J Lug Ali ,�,. I=o �`i:.L,.�. ].�� /hl��i 1�`�i/7•'yl����' :�fi����C� � p.�{ e,til.. ca PY rLr1 Y�il��i,y 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Legend Client: Cheryl Selgren E= Subject Parcel DNR Identified Stream DNR Hydrography Wet Area Parcel: 1231942500060 Wetland A DNR Hydrography Open Freshwater Mason County Roads Date: 1/2/2020 Wetland B DNR Hydrography Open Saltwater Mason County Parcels SOURCES: Statewide NAIP 2017 3ft 4band Imagery USDA Mason County roads, parcels Washington State Department of Natural Resources Hydrography Watercourses&Waterbodies Appendix B. USDA NRCS Soil Type Map USDA NRCS Soil Type Map https://websoiIsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx YT V, I Ir jor 4 \\ 1 'k a 4 , Legend Mason County, Washington (WA645) Mason County, Washington (WA645) Approximate Subject Parcel Boundary Map Acres Unit Map Unit Name in Percent Symbol AOI of AOI Ab Alderwood gravelly 12.7 94.1% sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Eh Everett very 0.8 5.9% gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Totals for Area of 13.4 100.0% Interest Appendix C. National Wetlands Inventory Map National Wetland Inventory Map https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.htmI Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater y{ E) Estuarine and Marine Wetland ..�_ +•I' .jam /•y ,�f �:,. �••,'�'�!• �, ,,. . , � Freshwater Emergent Wetland ti, -,r ,�` 1� �•„�;: Freshwater Forested/Shrub • -: :.'�! Wetland " , f �rat ►_ ®J Freshwater Pond ' t Lake 42 Other a ( t S �•�• • • �`° ` ' Riverine h_ ; p. . / �Y f/.�• ,-�' �.• '��'. .t .mowVL70 is rw '� i•,r. 1 ,� • VIA ��• `-�Approximate Subject Parcel Boundary M Appendix D. DNR Stream Type Map Washington State Department of Natural Resources Stream Type Map https://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/defauIt.aspx X r 4 Water Bodies ',^dater Bodies M FlatslGravel Bars Ice Man Made Features Open Water Wet Area Streams Streams \ , — Type S t r 1, — Type F ! — Type N, Np, Ns U, unknown X X, non-typed per WAC 222-16 Approximate Subject Parcel Boundary Appendix E. 303(d) Map x J / 9.6 ro O r Oa Lela Cl :.�- .err �,•� , 'r• - Rd ol ,X • A l'�t, f SondlaN Polk UT � say� ��,' � � ,. •,�. �,. Y'k hE Jake Dr cc `V ,�.• e. r sew B1v ` w'f•: _ _ -• • J ,s ; LA Belfair Appendix F. WDFW PHS Map Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat Species (PHS) http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/ 00, t t+ 4 r. • n •'r Boundary Hybrid PHS Plus Public Nations Forest -Primary United Access • Spaces and HeDRai Points National Parknlonument -. _- Primary US a State Hghways Federal Secondary State a County Spec'es and HOW Lines State Freeway Ramp -Ste'&and Habitat Polygons As Mapped County Other Ramp Sensruve Species slid NOW occurrences Mas+.ed to Section or Townshp City Local Neghbomood Rural Tribe Cul-de-sac.Traffic Cede City Boundaries Parcel pOror mina access roads QUrban Growth Areas syyo �;Parcels QCounty Pedestrian tntey County Q PLS Townshps Ferry PLS Sections - Railroads t5O to 201,1 ly_ Water Resource Inventory Areas M Watemddes Topography and Street Legends are not available from ESRI --Fbven and Streams Appendix G. Wetland Delineation Site Map CRATER LAND USE WETLAND DELINEATION CONSULTING SW � rA., too lip* a '� � fir'• � '�'' , oil t- � I� s'+�, ; OW a Wetland A Hydroperiod sq ft acres %of wetland + - Occasionally (Seasonally) 10,542.37 0.24 100 - Flooded Feet 0 25 50 100 150 200 Approximate Area sq ft acres Client: Cheryl Selgren Legend Total Wetlands On-Site 10,865.00 0.25 Parcel: 1231942500060 Subject Parcel Wetland B On-Site Wetland A 10,542.37 0.24 Date: 1/2/2020 SOURCES: Soil Test Pits Wetland B Off-Site Wetland B 889.38 0.02 Statewide NAIP 2017 3ft 4band Imagery USDA Wetland A Mason County Parcels Wetland B On-site 322.63 0.01 Mason County parcels Wetland B Off-site 566.75 0.01 Appendix H. Drainage Basin Map CRATER LAND USE DRAINAGE BASIN CONSULTING . 40000 OWN I Feet 0 25 50 100 150 200 Approximate Area sq ft acres Legend Client: Cheryl Selgren Drainage Basin 91,987.37 2.11 Wetland Parcel: 1231942500060 Q Drainage Basin Date: 1/2/2020 Subject Parcel SOURCES: Wetland B Washington State Lidar Portal(DNR)puget_lowlands_2005 Mason County parcels and 10'contours 10'Contours Appendix I. Land Use Intensity 1 km Map LAND USE INTENSITY CRATER LAND USE 1 KM RADIUS CONSULTING s s r � s- � r v ' id r� Ism Client: Cheryl Selgren i Kilometers Parcel: 1231942500060 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Date: 1/2/2020 SOURCES: Statewide NAIP 2017 3ft 4band Imagery USDA Legend Mason County parcels - Undisturbed Habitat Wetland Approximate Area km2 %of 1 km buffer - Wetland B Total 1 KM Buffer 3.29 100.0 Subject Parcel High Intensity Land Use 0.15 4.6 Accessible Habitat Low-Moderate Intensity Land Use 0.36 10.9 Low-Moderate Intensity Undisturbed Habitat 2.96 90.0 - High Intensity Accessible Habitat 1.36 41.3 Mason County Parcels Appendix J. Critical Areas Buffers & Setbacks CRATER LAND USE CRITICAL AREAS BUFFERS CONSULTING 0 :�! ---Ul,(t •_:• -_..mill '_::.., , � . -_ lot a z 41*ji = �; Feet Legend Approximate Area sq ft acres 0 25 50 100 150 200 Client: Cheryl Selgren Wetland A Wetland B Off-Site Total Wetlands On-Site 10,865.00 0.25 Parcel: 1231942500060 110'Class 3 Wetland Buffer 20' Property Line Setback(County) Wetland A 10,542.37 0.24 Date: 1/2/2020 Wetland B 889.38 0.02 15' Building Setback 25' Property Line Setback(County) SOURCES: Wetland B On site 322.63 0.01 Statewide NAIP 2017 3ft 4band Imagery USDA Wetland B On-Site Mason County Parcels Mason County parcels Wetland B Off-site 566.75 0.01 Appendix K. Mitigation Site Maps MITIGATION SITE PLAN CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING 676 00: dl 100, 22' \` N N -14 34 155 -105' - ...... - � -_ --- ' -----------153' _104"- `n;� NORTH Feet Legend 012.525 50 75 100 g Client: Cheryl Selgren I Wetland A __ �I„ Wetland B Off-Site 20' Property Line Setback(County) Parcel: 1231942500060 110'Class 3 Wetland Buffer Proposed Driveway 25' Property Line Setback(County) Date: 1/20/2020 Proposed Additional Buffer Proposed Driveway in the Buffer Mason County Parcels Proposed New 15'Buffer Setback Proposed Building Footprint Wetland B On-Site Proposed Yard Area MITIGATION SITE PLAN CRATER LAND USE DETAIL OF PROPOSED SFRy. CONSULTING 100, 22' N N � O O N 34' -155' + ' -105' ; --------------------------- --------------------, , L0 L+ , - L-_ -------- -------- 104------------------------------- ----- - �153' _ '---------------- NORTH ---� Feet Legend 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 g Client: Cheryl Selgren Proposed Building Footprint 15' Building Setback(Wetland Buffer) Parcel: 1231942500060 Proposed Yard Area 25' Property Line Setback(County) Date: 1/20/2020 Proposed Driveway 20' Property Line Setback(County) 110' Class 3 Wetland Buffer Mason County Parcels Appendix L. Current Site Conditions Photos i; 1p 4` Figure 1.Wetland A boundary Figure 2. Wetland A boundary t- ir 17 AO Figure 3.Wetland A boundary Figure 4. Wetland A boundary a F« :s i Figure 5.Wetland A boundary Figure 6. Wetland A boundary �I i Figure 7. Wetland A boundary Figure 8. Wetland A boundary it Figure 9.Wetland A boundary.Area to the right of the red line is Figure 10. Bottom arrow shows proposed road site. Ar- where it appears water may sheet flow out of the wetland. row above indicates Wetland A approximate location. ra j a Figure 11. Small wetland (< 1,000 sq. ft.) located along Figure 12. Small wetland (< 1,000 sq. ft.) located along the south property line. the south property line. s Figure 13. Wetland A boundary and sample location AW 1. 40 Figure 14. Upland sample location (sample AU1). i tt 1 Appendix N. Washington State Wetland Rating Forms Wetland name or number Wetland A RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID#): Selgren - Wetland A Date of site visit: 1/5/20 Rated by Ryan E. Crater Trained by Ecology? V Yes No Date of training 10/17/19 HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?_Y V N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map See each individual map for specific source information. OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions V or 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 on three Category III—Total score = 16 - 19 ratings Category IV—Total score = 9 - 15 (order of ratings is not FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat important) Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings g = H,H,M Site Potential H M L H M L H M © 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential H M CD H M © D M L 7 = H,M,M Value H M L H M © H M © TOTAL 6= H,M,L Score Based on 6= M,M,M Ratings 6 5 5 16 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4= M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form- Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number Wetland A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7,the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated,you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply,and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 j YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour 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 your wet and 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 - o to 4 I YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - o to 5 IYES -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). S. 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number Wetland A NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 [YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO - go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit 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 Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than Z HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number Wetland A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)with no surface water leaving it(no outlet). points=3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 2 points=2 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points= 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points= 1 D 1.2.The soil 2 in below the surface(or duff layer) is true clay or true organic(use NRCS definitions).Yes=4 No=0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants(Emergent,Scrub-shrub,and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>95%of area points=5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>% of area points=3 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants>1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants<1/10 of area points=0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is>%2 total area of wetland points=4 Area seasonally ponded is>%total area of wetland points=2 Area seasonally ponded is<%total area of wetland points=0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16= H V 6-11 = M _0-5= L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.2. Is> 10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.3.Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 2.4.Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? 0 Source Yes= 1 No=0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 or 4= H _1 or 2= M V 0= L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly(i.e.,within 1 mi)to a stream,river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes= 1 No=0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes=2 No=0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is:V2-4= H 1= M 0= L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form- Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number Wetland A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it(no outlet) points=4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints=2 2 Wetland is a flat depression(QUESTION 7 on key),whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points= 1 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points=0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods:Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points=7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to<3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=5 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to<2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points=3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points=3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft(6 in) points=0 D 4.3.Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed:Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points=5 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points=3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points=0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points=5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 12 Rating of Site Potential If score is:\/ 12-16=H _6-11=M 0-5=L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes= 1 No=0 0 D 5.2. Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes= 1 No=O 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses(residential at 0 >1 residence/ac, urban,commercial,agriculture,etc.)? Yes=1 No=0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3=H _1 or 2=M V 0=L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1.The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources(e.g.,houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points=2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points= 1 0 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points= 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points=0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points=0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Value If score is:_2-4=H _1=M V0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form- Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number Wetland A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of%oc or more than 10%of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 oc.Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points=4 V Emergent 3 structures: points=2 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%ac to count(see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points=3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points=2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points= 1 O Saturated only 1 type present: points=0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to,the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species con 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 1 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. O 1 None=0 points Low= 1 point Moderate=2 points All three diagrams in this row ..« ... .. are HIGH=3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number wetland A H 1.5.Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags(dbh>4 in)within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2 m)and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft(1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33 ft(10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30 degree 2 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) Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants(see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18=H _7-14=M _�,/0-6=L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1.Accessible habitat(include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: %undisturbed habitat4l.34+[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]5.47 = 46.81 % If total accessible habitat is: >1/3(33.3%)of 1 km Polygon points=3 3 20-33%of 1 km Polygon points=2 10-19%of 1 km Polygon points= 1 < 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 89.97+[(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]5.47 = 95.44 Undisturbed habitat>50%of Polygon points=3 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and in 1-3 patches points=2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and>3 patches points= 1 Undisturbed habitat< 10%of 1 km Polygon points=0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If >50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points=( 2) 0 <_50%of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points=0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: V 4-6=H _1-3=M _<1=L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points=2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m(see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species(any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) 0 — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan,or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats(listed on next page)within 100 m points= 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points=0 Rating of Value If score is:_2= H _1=M V0=L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Wetland name or number Wetland A 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.dfdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft(100 m)of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac(0.4 ha). — Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest-Stands of at least 2 tree species,forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings;with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)>32 in(81 cm)dbh or>200 years of age.Mature forests-Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in(53 cm)dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay,decadence,numbers of snags,and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth;80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.158-see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 -see web link above). Instream: The combination of physical,biological,and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore,Open Coast Nearshore,and Puget Sound Nearshore.(full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report- see web link on previous page). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity,recess,void,or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,rock, ice,or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft(7.6 m)high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus:Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5-6.5 ft(0.15-2.0 m),composed of basalt,andesite, and/or sedimentary rock,including riprap slides and mine tailings.May be associated with cliffs. — Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife.Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 20 in(51 cm)in western Washington and are>6.5 ft(2 m)in height. Priority logs are> 12 in(30 cm)in diameter at the largest end,and> 20 ft (6 m)long. Note:All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 Appendix O. Wetland Determination Data Forms WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Selgren City/County: Belfair,Mason Sampling Date: 1/5/20 Applicant/Owner: Cheryl Selgren State: WA Sampling Point: AU1 Investigator(s): Ryan E.Crater,Lee Boad Section,Township, Range: 19,23N, 1W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR): A Lat: 47°23.056 Long: 122°51.039 Datum: WG5 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Ab-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No _ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N ,or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes Y No Are Vegetation N Soil N ,or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map sho ing sampling oint locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No x Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 50 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 16.7% (A/B) 10 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Polystichum munitum 35 Y FACU Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 Y FACU OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3. Gaultheria shallon 40 Y FACU FACW species 0 x 2= 0 4. FAC species 50 x 3= 150 5. FACU species 175 x 4= 700 35 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: 225 (A) 850 (B) 1. Rubus ursinus 60 Y FACU 2. Prevalence Index =B/A= 3.78 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. _ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9_ _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 60 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5" ) be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 0 =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 Present? Yes No x Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: AU1 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 0-4 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 4-24 5YR 3/4 100 '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(Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x Depth(inches): Remarks:Sample location was fully submerged in water as was the entire wetland within its delineated boundary.Soil sample was difficult to extract being that it was under water. Due to the prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation the soil is assumed to be hydric.Soil that was able to be viewed prior to melting away in the water,appeared darker than the upland soil sample. Redox features were observed as being concentrated within the matrix. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, Surface Water(Al) (except MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 46) High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(1310) Saturation(A3) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(131) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Sediment Deposits(B2) Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(133) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _ Algal Mat or Crust(64) Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(135) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No _ Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No _ Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes _ No _ Depth(inches): Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 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: Selgren City/County: Belfair,Mason Sampling Date: 1/5/20 Applicant/Owner: Cheryl Selgren State: WA Sampling Point: AW1 Investigator(s): Ryan E.Crater, Lee Boad Section,Township, Range: 19,23N, 1W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Depression Local relief(concave,convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 5 Subregion(LRR): A Lat: 47°23.056 Long: 122°51.039 Datum: WG5 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Ab-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N ,or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes Y No Are Vegetation N Soil N ,or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map sho ing sampling oint locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes x No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 10 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 100% (A/B) 10 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Spiraea douglasii 35 Y FACW Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species 40 x 1 = 40 3. FACW species 45 x 2= 90 4. FAC species 10 x 3= 30 5. FACU species 0 x 4= 0 35 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column Totals: 95 (A) 160 (B) 1. Carex obnupta 40 Y OBL 2. Juncus effusus 10 Y FACW Prevalence Index =B/A= 1.68% 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. x 2-Dominance Test is>50% 7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0' 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting g. _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5° ) be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 0 =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0* Present? Yes x No Remarks:*Sample was located within the wetland,but the location of fully submerged underwater. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: AW1 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' LocZ Texture Remarks '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(Al 2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(177) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Depth(inches): Remarks:Sample location was fully submerged in water as was the entire wetland within its delineated boundary.Soil sample was difficult to extract being that it was under water. Due to the prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation the soil is assumed to be hydric.Soil that was able to be viewed prior to melting away in the water,appeared darker than the upland soil sample. Redox features were observed as being concentrated within the matrix. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves(139) Water-Stained Leaves(69)(MLRA 1,2, x Surface Water(Al) (except MLRA 1,2,4A,and 46) 4A,and 413) x High Water Table(A2) Salt Crust(611) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) x Saturation(A3) Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) x Water Marks(61) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along _ Sediment Deposits(62) x Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Drift Deposits(133) x Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _ Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Soils(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _ Iron Deposits(135) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks(136) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) x Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes x No _ Depth(inches): 6 Water Table Present? Yes No _ Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes _ No _ Depth(inches): Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:The entire wetland was ponded with water within its delineated boundary.Water depth at the deepest accessible point was four(4)feet. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0 Appendix R Qualifications All field inspections, wetland delineation determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland Delineation Report were prepared by, or under the direction of Ryan E. Crater. Ryan E. Crater Principal Consultant and Ecologist Professional Experience: 14 years Ryan Crater is a professional land use planner and ecologist with a diverse background including but not limited to land use regulations, critical area regulations, performing fish surveys, habitat assessments, habitat monitoring, stream habitat assessments, plant surveys and wetland delineations. Ryan also has approximately 10 years of experience as a planner reviewing wetland delineation reports and verifying their results in the field. Ryan earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology from the Evergreen State College in 2005 and an associate degree in Environmental Science from Clover Park Technical College in 2003. While attending Clover Park, he received formal wetland delineation training both in the classroom and in the field. In October 2019, he completed the 2-day Coastal Training Program Course entitled "Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System (2014) in Western Washington". Ryan also received additional wetland delineation training while he was a Wetland Biologist Intern for the Washington State Department of Transportation. He has also taken additional graduate level courses in salmonid behavior and life history from the Evergreen State College.