Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Wetland and Stream Delineation Revised - PLN General - 10/10/2007
r23'S'L is eoe?Cn ... I II II REVISED REPORT WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATION PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON CENTER SITE BELFAIR,WASHINGTON OCTOBER 10, 2007 FOR PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON CENTER III Wetland and Stream Delineation File No. 16264-001 -01 October 10, 2007 Prepared for: Pacific Northwest Salmon Center P.O. Box 3238 Belfair, Washington 98528-9341 Attention: Neil Werner Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 1550 Woodridge Drive SE Port Orchard, Washington 98366 (360) 769-8400 Ge ineers, Inc. Greg J' Ilington Biolo ist Joseph O. Callaghan Senior Biologist Gam- I Lisa A. Berntsen, PWS Principal GJA:JOC:LAB ORCH\16\16264001\01\Finals\1626400101 R.doc Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email,text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Copyright©2007 by GeoEngineers,Inc. All rights reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT LOCATION........................................................................................................................ 1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECTSCOPE..............................................................................................................................2 METHODS....................................................................................................................................................2 PAPERINVENTORY..........................................................................................................................2 FIELDDELINEATION.........................................................................................................................2 STREAM CLASSIFICATION...............................................................................................................4 WETLAND PARAMETERS.................................................................................................................5 HydrophyticPlants.....................................................................................................................5 HydricSoils................................................................................................................................5 Hydrology...................................................................................................................................6 WETLANDEVALUATION...................................................................................................................6 Wetland Classification and Categorization Assessment...........................................................6 WetlandFunctional Assessment...............................................................................................7 WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING..........................................................................................8 RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................9 PAPERINVENTORY.......................................................................................................................... 9 SITE DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 10 WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING........................................................................................ 12 STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION...................................................................................... 13 STREAM PARAMETERS ................................................................................................................. 13 StreamClassification............................................................................................................... 13 WETLAND CATEGORIZATION AND EVALUATION................................................................................. 13 WETLAND PARAMETERS............................................................................................................... 14 WetlandA................................................................................................................................ 14 WetlandB................................................................................................................................ 15 WetlandC................................................................................................................................ 16 WetlandD................................................................................................................................ 16 WetlandE................................................................................................................................ 16 WetlandF................................................................................................................................ 17 WetlandG................................................................................................................................ 17 WetlandH................................................................................................................................ 17 WetlandI.................................................................................................................................. 18 WetlandJ................................................................................................................................. 18 WetlandK................................................................................................................................ 18 WetlandL................................................................................................................................. 19 WetlandM................................................................................................................................ 19 WetlandN................................................................................................................................ 19 Wetland0................................................................................................................................ 19 WetlandP................................................................................................................................20 WetlandQ................................................................................................................................20 WetlandR................................................................................................................................21 File.'v'o. 16264-001-01 Page i GWENGINEERS� October 10,2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. WetlandS................................................................................................................................21 WetlandT ................................................................................................................................22 WetlandU................................................................................................................................22 WetlandV................................................................................................................................22 WetlandW...............................................................................................................................23 WetlandX................................................................................................................................23 WETLAND EVALUATION.................................................................................................................23 Wetland Characterization ........................................................................................................23 Wetland Functional Assessment.............................................................................................26 WetlandA-1 .............................................................................................................................26 WetlandA-2.............................................................................................................................26 WetlandA-3.............................................................................................................................27 WetlandA-4.............................................................................................................................27 WetlandA-5.............................................................................................................................28 WetlandB................................................................................................................................28 WetlandC................................................................................................................................29 WetlandD................................................................................................................................29 WetlandE................................................................................................................................29 WetlandF ................................................................................................................................30 WetlandG................................................................................................................................30 WetlandH.............................................................................................................................. 31 WetlandI..................................................................................................................................31 WetlandJ.................................................................................................................................32 WetlandK................................................................................................................................32 WetlandL.................................................................................................................................32 WetlandM................................................................................................................................33 WetlandN................................................................................................................................ 33 Wetland0................................................................................................................................34 WetlandP................................................................................................................................34 WetlandQ................................................................................................................................35 WetlandR................................................................................................................................35 WetlandS-1 .............................................................................................................................35 WetlandS-2.............................................................................................................................36 WetlandT................................................................................................................................36 WetlandU................................................................................................................................37 WetlandV................................................................................................................................37 WetlandW...............................................................................................................................38 WetlandX................................................................................................................................38 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................................38 LIMITATIONS..............................................................................................................................................39 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................39 File No. 16264-001-01 Page H GEOENGINEERS- October 10,2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. List of Tables Table 1. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area Development Standards......................................................5 Table 2. Ratings of Impact from Land Uses.................................................................................................7 Table 3. Wetland Categories and Buffers....................................................................................................7 Table 4. Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Wells Hydrology...................................................................... 12 Table 5. Stream Classification ................................................................................................................... 13 Table 6. Categorization of Wetland Features............................................................................................24 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Streams and Wetland Map Figure 3. Soil Survey Map APPENDICES APPENDIX A— SITE PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX B — SITE MAPS APPENDIX C —WETLAND DATA SHEETS APPENDIX D— SHALLOW GROUNDWATER WELL MONITORING DATA APPENDIX E— WETLAND RATING FORMS File No. 16264-001-01 Page iii GEoENGINEERS-0 October 10,2007 REVISED REPORT WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATION PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON CENTER SITE BELFAIR, WASHINGTON FOR PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON CENTER INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) was contracted by the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center (PNSC) to perform wetland and stream delineation services at the proposed PNSC property in Belfair, Washington. Twenty-nine wetland features and one stream feature were identified and delineated within the property boundary. GeoEngineers evaluated and categorized wetland and stream features on the property in general accordance with Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCRO) 17.01.040-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and MCRO 17.01.070-Wetlands. Shallow groundwater data was collected to determine positive wetland hydrology in areas that are disturbed by agricultural activities. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located in the southern portion of Belfair, Washington which is located in the northeastern portion of Mason County(Figure 1 —Vicinity Map). The proposed property(site)consists of five parcels which include parcels 123325000026, 123325000087, 123325000088, 123325000089 and 123325000090. The site is approximately 90 acres in size and is bordered to the west by the mouth of the Union River and Lynch Cove. A dike is located between the Union River and the subject property and a walking trail associated with the Theler Wetlands Center has been developed on top of the dike. Several single-family residences, a barn and associated outbuildings are located to the south and east of the site with some forest land interspersed along the property boundaries. Highway 3 is located approximately 600 feet to the east of the site and the property is accessed by Roessel Road, which runs through the center of the property. A gated entrance is located at the southern portion of the property on Roessel Road. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)own the land to the north of the site, which is open to the public. The project is located in Section 32 of Township 23 North, Range 01 West of the Willamette Meridian. The local jurisdiction and lead environmental review is Mason County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The PNSC is proposing to develop the subject property into a salmon and wetland habitat learning center for use by the public,universities and government agencies. The site has been divided into two halves for the purpose of this report. The eastern half of the site is located to the east of Roessel Road and the western half of the site is located to the west of Roessel Road. The PNSC is proposing to develop the eastern half of the site with several educational buildings, parking spaces and stormwater facilities. The western half of the site has been identified for restoration of salt marsh habitat that historically occupied this area. A dike is located along western edge of the property adjacent to the mouth of the Union River. This dike prevents saltwater from flowing onto the property from the Hood Canal. Proposed restoration of the western half of the site will include breaching the dike in several locations to allow tidal waters associated with Hood Canal to inundate historical salt marsh wetlands on the site. A salmon bearing stream, identified as Mindy Creek, is located on the northern portion of the property. Mindy Creek enters the site from the northeast and flows north off site where it connects with the Union River. The creek has been impacted by historical agricultural practices on the property and contains a File No. 16264-001-01 Page 1 October 10,2007 CiEOENGINEERS- limited riparian corridor through most of the site. The portion of Mindy Creek within the property boundaries is also being proposed for restoration. A new entrance road has been proposed on the eastern side of the property. The entrance road will provide direct access to the site from Highway 3. A wetland and stream assessment was performed within the offsite area to the east to identify potential wetlands and the least impacting route for the access road. This wetland and stream delineation report summarizes the wetland and stream investigations on and adjacent to the property. PROJECT SCOPE GeoEngineers was retained by the PNSC to delineate wetlands and streams on the proposed Salmon Center property and prepare a delineation report. This report documents the findings of the field investigation and the results associated with the wetland and stream assessments. This report specifically includes: • A review of national and county wetland inventory data, county soils data, previous reports associated with the project and other relevant background data for the project area; • Documentation of the vegetation, soil and hydrologic conditions associated with the existing wetlands on the property; • Shallow groundwater monitoring well data from 39 wells on the site; • Determination of the wetland category and stream typing according to MCRO; • Determination of required buffer widths according to MCRO; • Wetland functional assessment of all wetlands using Cooke Scientific Services Semi-quantitative Assessment Methodology(SAM); and • Compile wetland information from previous reports and the field reconnaissance's into one comprehensive report. METHODS PAPER INVENTORY The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (1989) recommends a thorough review of existing information regarding a particular site prior to conducting the fieldwork. GeoEngineers scientists conducted a search for pertinent and applicable data and maps. Reviews were conducted of the 1994 United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map, the 1987 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)National Wetland Inventory (NWI)maps,the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1960 Soil Survey of Mason County, Washington and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS) maps of known stream types for Mason County (DNR 2002). GeoEngineers also reviewed recent aerial photographs to determine changes in cover and land use practices that have occurred in the project area (USGS 1990 & Mason County 2005). FIELD DELINEATION GeoEngineers biologists conducted a preliminary site visit on August 2, 2006 to perform a cursory assessment of onsite wetlands. On September 15, 2006 GeoEngineers biologists returned to the site to conduct a field investigation as to the potential presence and extent of wetlands on the property. A File No.16264-001-01 Page 2 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS__�g wetland feasibility study was prepared for the PNSC from these two site visits describing the potential presence of wetlands on the site(GeoEngineers 2006). GeoEngineers biologists visited the site to delineate existing critical aquatic features on June 18 through June 22, 2007 and August 2, 2007. The weather during the site visits varied from cloudy to sunny with temperatures ranging from 60°F to 80°F. All wetlands and uplands on the site had not been hayed prior or during the time of the site investigations. The region was experiencing average precipitation during the time of the delineations. Precipitation in Belfair, Washington two weeks prior to and during the week of the delineations totaled 0.44 inches (Accuweather 2007). As defined in MCRO (2006) Wetland 17.01.070C, wetland delineation methods used during the entire course of the on site delineations followed the guidelines for the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) as well as the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual ([USACE] 1987). A thorough field review of each wetland and the surrounding hydrology was performed. Upon discovery of a wetland indicator, GeoEngineers biologists examined the area for presence of all three wetland parameters — hydrophytic plant species, hydric soils and positive hydrology. Based upon positive confirmation of the three wetland parameters, a sample plot was established. When changes were noted in plant community composition, hydrology or topographic position, additional sample plots were established to characterize the site. Upland plots were also established to characterize the upland conditions. In areas where a clear topographic break was not a direct indicator of the wetland boundary, upland plots were established to determine the location of the wetland boundary. Additional shovel probes were conducted in any areas where primary indicators of wetland hydrology including visual observations of saturated and inundated soils was not apparent,but hydrophytic vegetation was present,to determine the presence of hydric soil and/or indicators of wetland hydrology. These indicators include but are not limited to drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, water marks, oxidized rhizospheres, water stained leaves, algal mats, stream gauge data and flood predictions and historic records. Sample plot locations were flagged with red and white flagging, given a corresponding number and locations surveyed. The edges of each wetland were flagged with pink flagging to denote the boundary. Photographs of each wetland are located in Appendix A. The site was examined for stream channels exhibiting sign of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as outlined in the USACE OHWM Identification Manual (2005). When an indicator of the OHWM was observed, a thorough investigation of the area was performed to identify additional indicators. The OHWM of the stream was then flagged with orange flagging to denote the boundary of the stream. Photographs of streams identified on site are located in Appendix A. The site also contains agricultural drainage ditches that were constructed by hand throughout the site. GeoEngineers biologists examined the drainage ditches for signs of habitat, hydrology and direction of flow. It appears that the majority of the drainage ditches drain into the southwest corner of the site and eventually drain into the Union River through a tide gate during low tide. The drainage ditches were examined for signs of an OHWM associated with stream channels according to the USACE OHWM Identification Manual (2005). None of the drainage ditches on site were observed to exhibit an OHWM; therefore, none of the drainage ditches were classified as streams. The drainage ditches were also examined for signs of hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation associated with wetlands. The drainage ditches met all three parameters and are classified as wetlands in this report. However, agricultural activities associated with the current haying operation on site have removed vegetation from these ditches since our formal field delineation. A jurisdictional determination by reviewing agencies will File No. 16264-001-01 Page 3 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS- be required to determine the regulatory status of these drainage ditches. Photographs of the drainage ditches are located in Appendix A. GeoEngineers prepared a sketch of the wetland and drainage ditch boundaries and submitted the figures to AES Consultants, Inc. for surveying. A wetland and stream delineation map (Appendix B-1) was created for reference. A general description of our findings is provided below. Site photographs are provided in Appendix A and detailed information for each sample plot is provided on wetland data sheets in Appendix C. STREAM CLASSIFICATION Mason County requires the classification of all streams under their regulation to follow the DNR Stream Typing System as established in Washington Administrative Code Section 222-16-030. GeoEngineers categorized all streams on site according to the Mason County current water typing system. The current water typing system categories are briefly described as following: • Type S: those streams inventoried as"shorelines of the state". • Type F: those segments of streams not classified as Type S with high fish, wildlife, or human use. • Type SP: streams that are proposed for consideration if any specific streams are identified that are significant in terms of anadromous fish and recommended to be protected by a larger buffer. • Type Np: those segments of natural waters within bankfull width of defined channels that are perennial non-fish habitat streams. • Type Ns: all segments of natural waters within bankf ill width of defined channels that are not Types S, F, or Np and are seasonal,non-fish habitat streams. The classification of streams was based upon an evaluation of stream structures and function. Streams on site were delineated according to the USACE regulatory guidance letter on OHWM identification (USACE 2005). Specifically,the characteristics identified for each stream included: • Determination of flow regime(seasonal or perennial flow), • Channel width at ordinary high water discharge, • Stream gradient, • Potential use as fish habitat, and • Shelving, scouring, sediment deposits, changes in plant community, litter and debris and matted or absence of vegetation, Stream buffers were identified according to the criteria set forth in MCRO 17.01.110 D2 Table 3. Mason County stream buffers applied to this project are identified below. File No.16264-001-01 Page GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 -v Table 1. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area Development Standards Stream Type Buffer Type"S" 150 feet Type"F" 150 feet Type"SF 200 feet Type"Np" 100 feet Type"Ns" 75 feet Saltwater and Lakes over 20 acres 100 feet WETLAND PARAMETERS Wetlands are identified by the clear presence of three physical parameters. These parameters are hydrophytic plant species, hydric soils, and positive hydrology. A detailed description of each of these parameters is provided below. Hydrophytic Plants Hydrophytic plants are species that generally prefer areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils sufficient to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present (Ecology 1997). The relative strength of an individual species' preference for wetness determines the indicator status for that species. The USFWS has determined wetland plant indicator status; a summary of this information for areas west of the Cascades is contained in Reed et al. (1993). To meet the wetland criteria established in Ecology(1997)and the USACE(1987), hydrophytic vegetation must exceed fifty percent of the total dominance measure for each vegetative stratum (tree, shrub or herbaceous layer). When more than 50 percent of the dominant species in each unit of vegetation have a wetland indicator status of obligate wet (OBL), facultative wet (FACW), or facultative (FAC), the vegetation unit meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Plant nomenclature generally follows The Flora of the Pacific Northwest(Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). Hydric Soils Hydric soils are soils that are saturated or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper layer (USDA 1999). Prolonged anaerobic soil conditions lead to a chemically reducing environment. The chemical reduction of some soil components (e.g., iron and manganese oxides) leads to the development of soil colors and other physical characteristics that are usually indicative of hydric soils (Ecology 1997). Hydric soils can be identified by the use of a color comparison chart. A commercial color chart of soils is produced by Kollmorgen (1988) and commonly used by wetland scientists. Soil color is typically identified by hue(ex. 1 OYR),value(ex. 2/)and chroma (ex. /1). Hue describes the soil based on its relation to the spectral colors(red,yellow, green, blue,purple or a mixture of these colors);value describes the degree of lightness;and chroma indicates the strength or purity of the color. These terms reflect the variable amount of moisture, organics, and overall composition of any given soil sample providing critical information on soil wetness and degree of saturation and inundation (Kent 1994). In general, the lower the number for chroma and value, the more likely the soil sample is to be hydric. The color chart is also used to compare mapped soil types (USDA 1960)with field observations. Redoximorphic concentrations are present in soils when hydrology creates reducing conditions. These concentrations are depletions of oxygen in the soil resulting in the File No. 16264-001-01 Page S October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS- accumulation of Iron and Manganese. The concentrations are typically colored yellow to red and appear as a sharp contrast in color to the native soil. Hydrology Hydrology is defined as the presence of water. The term "wetland hydrology" encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Numerous factors (e.g., precipitation, topography, soil permeability, plant cover and human disturbance) influence the hydrology of an area (Ecology 1997). Hydrology is often the least exact of the parameters, and indicators of wetland hydrology are sometimes difficult to find in the field. This is especially prevalent when wetlands are delineated in the summer months when springs or seeps may not be apparent. Under these conditions, indicators of hydrology are used as positive identification. Indicators such as drainage patterns, sediment deposits, dried algae, and water stained leaves or bark are examples of hydrology. The presence of these (or other) indicators, hydric soils,and hydrophytic vegetation confirm the presence of a wetland. WETLAND EVALUATION Several standard methods for evaluating wetlands functions and values were used in conjunction with professional experience to provide qualitative and quantitative characterization of the wetlands on site. Additionally, many reference materials were used to support these evaluations. These are cited where appropriate throughout the text to justify and explain the results of these investigations. Wetland Classification and Categorization Assessment Wetlands on site were classified using the Cowardin system (Cowardin et al. 1979). The Cowardin system describes wetlands by the plant communities, soils, and hydrologic regimes present. The hierarchical order identifies five major types of wetland systems: marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine. These systems are further stratified into classes and subclasses based on substrate materials, flooding regime, and vegetation life forms. Each class and subclass is then annotated with specific modifiers for water regimes, water chemistry, soil, and other special conditions. The naming convention from Cowardin has been adopted by the USFWS in their NWI maps. Wetlands on site were also categorized using the four-tiered rating system as set forth in the 2004 Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington(Ecology 2004) according to MCRO 17.01.070 El. Wetland categories are intended to capture the functions a wetland provides based upon landscape setting, wetland and vegetation classes, physical characteristics, and other value-based and function-based criteria to place wetlands into one of four categories. This system was developed to differentiate between wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, rarity and the functions they provide. The rating categories that are used as management standards were adopted by Mason County for the purpose of assigning buffer widths and limitations on activities that may impact the wetlands. Land use intensity, wetland categories and associated buffers as defined in MCRO 17.01.070 B through F are listed below. File No.16264-001-01 Page 6 October 10,2007 GEOE116�wEEltt� Table 2. Ratings of Impact from Land Uses Rating Examples les of Land Uses That Cause the Impact Based on Common Zoning Categories High Commercial, Urban, Industrial, Institutional, Retail Sales, Residential subdivisions with more than 1 unit/acre, New agriculture(high-intensity processing such as dairies, nurseries and green houses, raising and harvesting crops requiring annual tilling, raising and maintaining animals), New transportation corridors, High intensity recreation(golf courses, ball fields), hobby farms ...... ............ ........ Medium Single-family residential lots, residential subdivisions with 1 unit/acre or less, Moderate-Intensity Open Space(parks), New agriculture(moderate-intensity such as orchards and hay fields),Transportation enhancement projects Low Forestry, Open space(low-intensity such as passive recreation and natural resources preservation, minor transportation improvements) Table 3. Wetland Categories and Buffers Water Quality 24-32 Category Habitat>29 Habitat 20-28 & Habitat<20 Habitat<20 IV Low Impact: 25 ft -- -- -- Moderate Impact:40 ft High Impact: 50 ft _......... III Low Impact: 75 ft Low Impact:40 ft -- Moderate Impact: 110 ft __ Moderate Impact:60 ft High Impact: 150 ft High Impact: 80 ft II Low Impact: 150 ft Low Impact: 75 ft Low Impact: 75 ft Low Impact 50 ft Moderate Impact:200 ft Moderate Impact: 110 ft Moderate Impact: 90 ft Moderate Impact: 75 ft High Impact:225 ft High Impact: 150 ft High Impact: 100 ft High Impact: 100 ft I Low Impact: 150 ft Low Impact: 75 ft Low Impact: 50 ft Low Impact: 50 ft Moderate Impact: 225 ft Moderate Impact: 110 ft Moderate Impact: 75 ft Moderate Impact:75 ft High Impact: 250 ft High Impact: 200 ft High Impact: 100 f ft High Impact: 100 ft Wetland Functional Assessment GeoEngineers scientists used SAM to determine how well a wetland and its buffers function. This technique is designed to examine the presence of discrete functions and to determine how well a discrete wetland performs a particular function. The functional attributes analyzed are: • Flood/Stormwater Control; • Erosion/Shoreline Protection; • Natural Biological Support; • Specific Habitat Functions; • Base Flow/Groundwater Support; • Water Quality Improvement; and • General Habitat Functions. Each function is divided into three groups based on observed characteristics that, when totaled, determine the relative quality of the function being examined. These groups are as follows: Group I (higher quality File No. 16264-001-01 Page 7 October 10,2007 ird characteristics), Group 2 (medium quality characteristics), and Group 3 (lower quality characteristics). The sum of these characteristics is then expressed as a percentage of maximum possible points and an overall rating of High,Medium or Low is applied to the function. The purpose of SAM is to assist wetland professionals in identifying and quantifying a potential wetland function in an individual wetland. The term "potential' is important, because it is usually not possible to verify the presence of a function from a single site visit. A determination of the potential for a function to occur, based on the presence of physical characteristics that are conducive to that function, is all that can be determined in a quick evaluation. For example, we can tell that a site has good amphibian habitat, but it is not always possible, at every season,to tell whether amphibians are using that habitat. SAM is based on a system developed by Reppert(Reppert et al. 1979)that has been modified for greater applicability to Northwest wetland ecosystems. WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING Due to the disturbed nature of the agricultural fields, positive primary and secondary hydrology indicators within 12 inches of the surface were not identifiable throughout the majority of the site. Observations of hydrology during initial site visits were inconclusive and more extensive hydrological monitoring was deemed necessary to accurately describe the presence or absence of wetland hydrology. Wetland hydrology data was collected using shallow groundwater monitoring wells from March through June 2007. This groundwater data was incorporated into the wetland delineation determination process on June 18 through June 22, 2007 and August 2, 2007 to aide in the identification of the wetland boundaries on site. Documenting the presence of hydrology within 12 inches of the ground surface will aide in the confirmation or invalidation of marginal areas that were originally thought may meet wetland criteria. The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) and the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual define wetland hydrology criteria as areas in which soil conditions are seasonally inundated and/or saturated for a consecutive number of days greater than or equal to 5 percent of the growing season. When this level of saturation occurs within 12 inches of the surface, it promotes the establishment of hydrophytic vegetation and the formation of hydric soils. The USDA WETS table for Shelton, Washington states that there is a 50 percent probability that the air temperature will be 28°F or higher starting on April 6 and ending on November 19 of any given year (USDA 2002). Biological indicators indicating that the growing season has begun include the presence of two or more different non-evergreen vascular plant species growing in a wetland or surrounding areas that exhibit one or more of the following indicators: emergence of herbaceous plants from the ground, appearance of new growth from vegetative crowns, coleoptile/cotyledon emergence from seed, bud burst on woody plants, emergence or elongation of leaves on woody plants and/or the emergence or opening of flowers. In order to meet the criteria for wetland hydrology on site, groundwater must be present within 12 inches of the surface for 13 days once the growing season has begun. Thirty six shallow groundwater monitoring wells were initially installed by the PNSC with oversight from GeoEngineers on March 6, 2007. Since the site is relatively flat and heavily disturbed from agricultural activities, well locations were selected by GeoEngineers to determine the presence of hydrology in areas that contained vegetation varying from obligate to upland species. Shallow groundwater monitoring wells were placed in small depressions, on the edges of depressions, near the edges of the drainage ditches and in upland hummocks scattered throughout the site in order to collect sufficient hydrology data to conclude the presence of water within 12 inches of the surface. Hand measurements were taken of each well four times a week on three different days. Two measurements were taken,one during high tide and one during low tide, one day a week to identify if there was tidal influence on groundwater within onsite wetlands File No. 16264-001-01 Page 8 October 10,2007 CiEOENGINEERS� from the Hood Canal. Three electronic pressure transducers were also installed on April 9, 2007 to measure hour to hour fluctuations in the groundwater levels. Groundwater data was recorded through June 10, 2007 by both hand and pressure transducers. The data collected was analyzed and used in the delineation of wetlands in the agricultural fields. Monitoring well locations are shown in Appendix B-1- Wetland and Stream Delineation Map. RESULTS PAPER INVENTORY The digital data available from the 1987 NWI map indicates that the majority of the site is covered by wetlands(Figure 2). The wetland types documented on site are as follows: • PEMAH: Palustrine,Emergent, Temporarily/Permanently Flooded, • PEMCH: Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally/Permanently Flooded, • PFOC: Palustrine,Forested, Seasonally Flooded, • PFOA: Palustrine,Forested, Temporarily Flooded,and • PSSCH: Palustrine, Shrub-Scrub, Seasonally/Permanently Flooded. However, NWI maps are produced from aerial photographs and topographic maps and are subject to error. Recent changes in the nature of the vegetation and hydrology, as well as recent development activities in the surrounding area, are not reflected in the maps and must be considered when evaluating this site. The Soil Survey of Mason County, Washington (USDA 1960) identifies three soil types as being present within the boundaries of the site. Figure 3 (Soils Survey Map)depicts the locations of the three different soil types. The soil type along eastern portion of the site is Mukilteo peat, shallow over gravel, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Edmonds fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes is present in central portion of the site. This soil survey does not recognize the dike along the southwestern portion of the site and existing agricultural activities and lists the western portion of the site as tidal marsh, 0 to 2 percent slopes. All three soils are listed as hydric soils on the hydric soils list for Mason County(USDA 2001). Mukilteo peat, shallow over gravel, 0 to 2 percent slopes is a strongly acid brown peat, saturated to the surface throughout the year. It is a very poorly drained soil that has moderately high water movement in the most restrictive layer. A dense root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches below the surface. The seasonal zone of water saturation is about 9 inches during January, February, March, and December. The available water capacity is very moderate, the shrink-swell potential is low, it is not flooded and it is not ponded. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 40 percent. Edmonds fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes is a friable, medium to strongly acid soil located exclusively in the lower valley of the Union River. During most of the year the water table is within one foot of the surface. Edmonds find sandy loam can appear dark grayish-brown to light-gray with mottles of varying colors. The soil is poorly drained and water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. A dense root restrictive layer forms greater than 60 inches below the surface. The seasonal zone of water saturation is about 0 inches during January, February, March, April, May, November, and December. The available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is high, the shrink-swell potential is low, it is not flooded and it is not ponded. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. File No. 16264-001-01 Page 9 GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 � Tidal marsh, 0 to 2 percent slopes is reached by salt water during high tides. It is composed of various kinds of silt, but is mainly medium and fine textured material mixed with fibrous peat. These sediments contain excessive amounts of soluble salt. The soil is very poorly drained and water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. A dense root restrictive layer forms greater than 60 inches below the surface. The seasonal zone of water saturation is about 0 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October,November, December. The available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is high,the shrink-swell potential is low, it is frequently flooded and it is frequently ponded. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. The soil has a moderately saline horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. The soil has a slightly sodic horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. The 1994 topographic map from the USGS depicts that the site is relatively flat. The dikes on the western boundary of the site were not shown on any historic topographic map examined. The 1990 aerial photo from the USGS clearly shows the presence of the dike and agricultural fields on site. It appears from photographic interpretation that the land use and buildings on site have not changed in the past 17+years. The DNR FPARS map indicates that one stream runs through the northeast portion of the site from east to west(DNR 2006). SITE DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is approximately 90 acres in size and located where the mouth of the Union River meets Lynch Cover at the tip of the Hood Canal. The majority of the 90 acre site has been historically farmed for agricultural hay as well as pasture for livestock. A dike was built along the western and southern boundaries of the site to block tidal waters from the Hood Canal entering the site and numerous man- made ditches were constructed throughout the site to drain water from the agricultural fields. The site is primarily comprised of hay fields and all of the native vegetation has been removed from these fields and hay grasses have been planted. The top 10 inches of the soil in the agricultural fields has been disturbed on a regular basis for haying. This herbaceous plant community dominates the agricultural fields, but some forested areas exist in the eastern and southeastern portions of the site. Several existing structures are located on site including two single-family residences, a barn and several outbuildings. The topography of the site is relatively flat and the elevations of the fields are lower than the observed high tide elevations along the outer edge of the dike. The surrounding land use to the west consists of the Union River and WDFW public land on the western side of the river. WDFW also owns the land to the north and this land is also open to the public. A public walking trail associated with the Theler Wetlands Center runs along the southwestern, western and northwestern boundary of the site on top of the dike. The eastern and southeastern portions of the site are bordered by single-family residences and several small commercial businesses along Highway 3. Wetland and upland vegetation varies throughout the site based upon topography, soil type and land use. Two types of wetland vegetation communities are present onsite. Forested wetlands are located on the eastern and southeastern portion of the site. The forested layer in these wetlands is primarily comprised of red alder(Alnus rubra, FAC), western red cedar(Thuja plicata, FAC) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp. Trichocarpa, FAC). The shrub layer is comprised mainly of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC+), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FACW+) and red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera, FACW) with an herbaceous layer of skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum, OBL), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa, OBL), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus, OBL)and slough sedge(Carex obnupta, OBL). The herbaceous wetlands are located in the agricultural fields and are dominated by sawbeak sedge (Carex stipata, OBL), soft rush (Juncus effusus, File No. 16264-001-01 Page 10 GEOENGINEERS/ October 10,2007 FACW), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus, FACW+), silverweed (Potentilla anserine, OBL), slough sedge, meadow foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatis, FACW), short-awn foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis spp. Aequalis, OBL) and velvet grass (Holcus lanatus, FAC). The upland areas of the site are also generally located in the agricultural fields and were noted to contain sweet vernalgrass(Anthoxanthum odoratum, FACU),tall fescue (Festuca arundincacea, FAC-), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata, FACU, perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne, FACU), common timothy (Phleum pretense spp. Pretense, FAC-), colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris, FAC), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus, FAC), smooth hawksbeard (Crepis capillaris, FACU)and red clover(Trifolium pretense, FACU). Hydrological input into the forested wetlands along the eastern and southeastern portion of the site is fed from a high groundwater table and seasonal precipitation. Standing pockets of water were observed throughout the forested wetlands and the soil was saturated to the surface with areas of shallow inundation. The herbaceous wetlands in the agricultural fields are a mixture of a shallow groundwater and seasonal precipitation that ponds in topographic depressions. Soil type and permeability in these wetlands influence the amount of time that hydrology stays on the ground surface. Soils with clay and silts absorb water slower than sandy or loamy soil. The eastern portion of the site was noted to contain more silt in the upper 12 inches of the ground than the western portion of the site which contained more sandy soils. Redoximorphic concentrations were observed throughout the majority of the site in each soil type. However, due to the disturbed nature of the site from agricultural activities and the presence of relic soils from tidal influence before the dike was constructed, soils were examined for recent indicators of hydric conditions including oxidized rhizospheres, anoxic "rotten egg" odor, organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types. Drainage ditches are present throughout the entire site to drain the agricultural fields. The ditches on the western portion of the site drain to a tide gate on the southwest portion of the dike. The water in these ditches drain into the Union River during low tide events and backs up and fills the ditches during high tide. The tide gate has a functioning flap valve that allows only one directional flow, eliminating the free exchange of salt water and fish species into the southern drainage ditches. The tide gate appears to be a fish barrier and therefore fish use is not expected to occur in the southern drainage ditches. There was an OHWM associated with these ditches, which consisted of water marks and shifts in vegetation. Wetland vegetation primarily consisting of common cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL), hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus, OBL) and small-fruited bulrush was observed within the western drainage ditches. The eastern drainage ditches drain under the road to the west only when the water level raises high enough. Otherwise, the water drains subsurface or to Mindy Creek, a salmon-bearing stream, which flows through the northeastern portion of the site. These drainage ditches contained red alder, Pacific willow, cattail, hardstem bulrush, field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC) and small-fruited bulrush with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU) and stinging nettle (Urtica dioia spp. Gracilis, FAC+) along the upland edges. Photographs visually depicting the wetland and upland conditions can be found in Appendix A. After the formal delineation was completed, the drainage ditches on site were cleared of all vegetation to allow for optimal drainage of the agricultural fields. Vegetation was removed using hand tools and industrial mowers, piled in the northeastern upland portion of the site and burned. None of the soils or hydrologic connections were disrupted during the clearing event. These drainage ditches have been historically cleared of all vegetation approximately every ten years. Soil was also excavated out of these ditches in the 1980's to remove excess sediment that had migrated to the bottom of the ditches. Photographs visually depicting the drainage ditches before and after clearing can be found in Appendix A. File No.16264-001-01 Page 11 October 10,2007 CiEOENGINEERS—.r..I.) WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING Groundwater data was collected at 36 shallow groundwater monitoring wells located throughout the site. Data was collected four times a week beginning on March 6, 2007 and ending on June 10, 2007. This period was selected for monitoring because groundwater in each well will typically dry up during the summer months. The period of highest groundwater depths during the growing season is assumed to be at the beginning of the growing season and gradually drop through the spring and summer. According to the USDA WETS Table for Shelton, Washington, the growing season typically starts on April 6 and ends on November 19 (USDA 2002). However, biological indicators observed in the field suggested that the growing season started on March 9, 2007. Biological indicators observed included the emergence of herbaceous plants from the ground and bud bursts on woody plants. Therefore, the critical period for defining wetland hydrology is from March 9 through June 10. A review of groundwater data indicates that shallow groundwater depth on site fluctuates primarily in accordance with precipitation. Peaks in groundwater elevation coincide with precipitation events. Soil types observed during the installation of wells indicated the presence of a silty loam layer in the upper 24 inches on the eastern half of the site. Silty sands were observed in the upper 24 inches on the western half of the site. Shallow groundwater appears to be perched atop this less permeable silty loam layer and groundwater appears to percolate through the silty sand layer quicker. Inundation depths and wetland presence are largely determined by the heterogeneity of depth to the silty soil layer throughout the site. Data was compared to tidal data as well to determine whether tidal fluctuations affect shallow groundwater depth on site. Minor fluctuations ranging from one to three inches were observed in the hand measured and pressure transducer wells. These fluctuations are caused by the pooling of water in the drainage ditches when the tide gate is closed during high tide. Once the tide drops low enough for the tide gate to open, the water in the ditches drains out of the site. These minor water level fluctuations are not substantial enough to impact wetland hydrology onsite and we conclude that rainfall on top of a less permeable layer is the primary determinant for shallow groundwater elevation throughout the site. Twenty three out of the 36 groundwater monitoring wells met or exceeded wetland hydrology criteria. However,wells D-3,D-5,E-2,E-4,E-7,E-10, E-11,F-3,F-5 and F-6 met the hydrology requirements for wetlands but did not meet the wetland requirements for hydric soils and/or hydrophytic vegetation. Therefore, the areas surrounding these wells were considered upland. Data sheets depicting the vegetation and soils surrounding these wells are located in Appendix C-Wetland Data Sheets. Table 4 below outlines the wells that have positive wetland hydrology. Appendix D-Shallow Groundwater Well Monitoring Data depicts the groundwater level in each well. The hydrology data collected was used in the determination of the wetlands on site. Table 4. Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Wells Hydrology Well # Wetland Hydrology Well# Wetland Hydrology Well # Wetland Hydrology A-1 No A-2 No A-3 No - _ _._........................ _ A-4 No B-1 Yes B-2 No B-3 No B-4 No B-5 No C-1 ....................... _ . - .._....------ No C-2 No -- C-3 No ...................... .........__...-— .._...--- C-4 No C-5 Yes D-1 Yes D-2 --..............._ Yes D-3 Yes D-4 Yes D-5 Yes E-1 Yes E-2 Yes - --_........ ......_.... —..._._ E-3 No E-4 Yes E-5 Yes File No. 16264-001-01 Page 12 October 10,2007 CiEOENGINEERs- Table 4. Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Wells Hydrology (Continued) Well# Wetland Hydrology Well# Wetland Hydrology Well# Wetland Hydrology E-6 Yes E-7 Yes E-8 Yes E-9 Yes E-10 Yes E-11 Yes F-1 Yes F-2 Yes F-3 Yes F-4 Yes F-5 Yes F-6 Yes STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION GeoEngineers identified and delineated one stream (Mindy Creek) on site by documenting and verifying OHWM parameters. The wetland map (Appendix B-1) depicts the location of the OHWM boundaries. The OHWM of Mindy Creek was not delineated throughout the entire site since Mindy Creek is located within the Wetland A complex and the wetland buffers are larger than the identified stream buffer in the northeastern corner of the site. STREAM PARAMETERS Mindy Creek enters the site from the northeast and exits the site in the center of the northern boundary. Mindy Creeks flows into the Union River 450 feet to the north of where it exits the site. Tidal influence in the Union River from the Hood Canal almost reaches the northern boundary of the site through Mindy Creek. The OHWM of Mindy Creek was delineated starting where it leaves the site next to the culvert and ended where it meets the forested portion of Wetland A. The stream channel in between the OHWM was approximately two to three feet wide and two feet deep. A steep topographic break was present at the OHWM line. The OHWM was determined by topographic changes, scour lines and vegetation community composition. Mindy Creek flows year-round and high water typically occurs during the winter months. A riparian wetland is associated with Mindy Creek on both sides and this area contains wetland vegetation. The vegetation communities along Mindy Creek contained both shrub and herbaceous layers. The shrub layer is primarily composed of Pacific willow, hardhack,red alder and sitka willow. The herbaceous layer consisted of soft rush, slough sedge, lady fern and small-fruited bulrush. Site photographs of the creek bank and vegetation are located in Appendix A. Stream Classification Mason County has specified that all streams located in Mason County will be typed according to MCRO 17.01.110132. Table 5. Stream Classification Stream Surface Flow Classification Required Buffer Mindy Creek Perennial Type F 150 Feet WETLAND CATEGORIZATION AND EVALUATION GeoEngineers identified and delineated 29 wetlands(A-X)on site by documenting and verifying wetland parameters throughout the site. The wetland map (Appendix B-1) depicts the location of the wetland File No.16264-001-01 Page 13 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS� boundaries and associated sample points. Wetland specific information is contained in the wetland data sheets located in Appendix C. WETLAND PARAMETERS Wetland A Wetland A is a complex of several different hydrogeomorphic wetlands including slope, depressional and riverine. These wetlands are all connected via subsurface and overland water flow but were divided into their respective hydrogeomorphic classifications for rating purposes. A-1 Wetland A-1 is a 812,230 square feet(18.65 acres) sloped wetland located on the eastern half of the site. This wetland extends off site to the north, east and south. It contains a mixture of emergent, scrub-shrub and forested vegetation. The forested layer of the wetland is dominated by red alder, western red cedar and black cottonwood in the southeastern and eastern portions of the wetland on the outskirts of the agricultural fields. The shrub layer in the forested wetland is dominated by salmonberry,Nootka rose and Pacific willow and the herbaceous layer consists of skunk cabbage, water parsley and slough sedge. Pockets of standing water were observed throughout the forested portion of Wetland A and the soil was saturated to the surface in the area where no standing water was present. Soil color in this area consisted primarily of 10YR2/1. Portions of this wetland are located in the agricultural fields in the southeastern portion of the site. FAC, FACW and OBL species including field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC), meadow foxtail, colonial bentgrass, velvet grass, tall fescue, tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris, FACW-), soft rush and sawbeak sedge were observed in this area. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included anoxic "rotten egg" odor, organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Precipitation and a high groundwater table in this portion of the wetland is the main source of hydrology. Soil color in this wetland consisted of 10YR4/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. The texture of the soil was identified to be silt loam. One drainage ditch is included in the boundary of Wetland A-1. This ditch runs north and south along the eastern edge of the agricultural field and drains into Mindy Creek during high precipitation events. This ditch contained the same vegetation as the forested wetland but also contained Himalayan blackberry on the western side of the ditch. The ditch contains standing water and hydrology in the ditches originates from seeps and surface water draining from the fields. Soils in the ditch were also colored 10YR2/1. A-2 Wetland A-2 is a 69,999 square feet(1.61 acres) sloped wetland located in the northeastern corner of the site. FAC and FACW species including field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC), meadow foxtail, colonial bentgrass,velvet grass,tall fescue, tall buttercup(Ranunculus acris, FACW-) and soft rush were observed throughout all of the fields on site. However, wetland hydrology data collected from the monitoring well indicated that only certain portions of the field meet wetland criteria. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as soft rush, meadow foxtail and sawbeak sedge with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included anoxic "rotten egg" odor, organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer File No.16264-001-01 Page 14 October 10,2007 CiEOENGINEERS_ boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Precipitation and a high groundwater table in this wetland is the main source of hydrology. Soil color consisted of 10YR4/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. The texture of the soil was identified to be sandy silt. A-3 Wetland A-3 is a 33,698 square feet (0.77 acres) riverine wetland associated with Mindy Creek, located on the eastern half of the site. Mindy Creek runs through the northern portion of the site from east to west. The associated drainage ditches in the eastern portion of the site drain into Mindy Creek during high precipitation events. The riparian wetland associated with the creek contains Pacific willow, hardstem bulrush, small-fruited bulrush, sawbeak sedge, soft rush and cattail. Wetland A-3 contained standing pockets of water and the soil was saturated to the surface. Hydrology in this wetland originates from ditches draining the fields and over bank flooding from Mindy Creek. Soils in the wetland were colored 10YR2/1. A-4 Wetland A-4 is a 97,726 square feet (2.24 acres) sloped wetland located on the eastern half of the site. FAC and FACW species including field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC), meadow foxtail, colonial bentgrass,velvet grass,tall fescue,tall buttercup(Ranunculus acres, FACW-)and soft rush were observed throughout all of the fields on site. However,wetland hydrology data collected from the monitoring wells indicated that only certain portions of the fields meet wetland criteria. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as soft rush, meadow foxtail and sawbeak sedge with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included anoxic "rotten egg" odor, organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Precipitation and a high groundwater table in the eastern half of the site is the main source of hydrology for this wetland. Soil color in this wetland consisted of 10YR4/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. The texture of the soil was identified to be sandy silt. A-5 Wetland A-5 is a 22,030 square feet (0.51 acres) depressional wetland located on the eastern half of the site. This wetland is located in a drainage ditch for the agricultural fields. This wetland contained Pacific willow,red alder, Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis, FACW), cattail, soft rush and sawbeak sedge. A culvert located in the southwestern portion of the wetland drains this ditch into Wetland S-1 under Roessel Road. It is connected to Wetland A-4 which is a slope wetland; however, water drains into this drainage ditch from seeps and does not drain out. The wetland contained standing water and portions of the wetland were saturated to the surface. Hydrology originates from seeps draining the fields. Soils in the wetland were colored 10YR2/1. Wetland B Wetland B is a slope wetland and the delineated size is 19,832 square feet (0.46 acres). This wetland contains a mixture of mature red alder, hardhack (Spiraea douglash, FACW), small-fruited bulrush and false-lily-of-the-valley (Maianthemum dilatatum, FAC) in the portion of the wetland not located in the agricultural field. The field portion of the wetland contained velvetgrass, tall fescue, soft rush, field horsetail and sawbeak sedge. The delineated wetland boundary in the agricultural field followed the line of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as soft rush, meadow foxtail, sawbeak sedge, skunk cabbage and hardhack with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a topographic depression to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included anoxic "rotten egg" odor, File No.16264-001-01 Page 15 October 10,2007 CiEOENGINEERS—�g organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres and matted vegetation. A dense patch of Himalayan blackberry is located to the east of this wetland in the adjacent upland. Wetland hydrology originates from precipitation and a high groundwater table. Soils were noted to be 10YR3/1 in color in the wetland and standing water was observed 4 inches below the surface. Wetland C Wetland C is a slope wetland and the delineated size is 9,524 square feet (0.22 acres). This wetland contains only an herbaceous layer consisting of field horsetail, meadow foxtail, velvet grass and tall buttercup. Orchard grass and sweet vernalgrass were present on the edge of the wetland in the adjacent upland. A small topographic break, approximately six inches, was also observed around the boundary of the wetland. Monitoring well B-1 showed positive hydrology inside of the wetland and wetland the boundary was based off of a distinct topographic break, the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as soft rush, meadow foxtail and sawbeak sedge and recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Recent indicators of hydric soils included anoxic "rotten egg" odor, organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Wetland hydrology originates from precipitation and a high groundwater table. Soil color in the wetland consisted of 2.5Y5/1 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland D Wetland D is a depressional wetland located in the drainage ditch running east to west through the southeastern agricultural field. This wetland does not extend west across the road. It is 16,644 square feet(0.38 acres) in size and drains to the west under the road through a culvert only during times of heavy precipitation. Vegetation observed within the wetland consists of red alder, sitka willow,cattail,hardstem bulrush, small-fruited bulrush and water parsley. Himalayan blackberry and stinging nettle were present along the edges of the wetland. Wetland hydrology is fed from seeps draining the agricultural fields surrounding the ditch and direct precipitation. Standing water was present throughout the entire ditch but it was not observed to be flowing. Soils were noted to be comprised of silt and 10YR2/1 in color. Wetland E Wetland E is a depressional wetland with a delineated size of 17,599 square feet (0.40 acres). This wetland is located next to the northern single-family residence and the northern portion of this wetland resides in a maintained garden. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. A distinct vegetation shift was also noted at this break and vegetation in the wetland consisted of soft rush, Baltic rush, slough sedge,meadow foxtail and silverweed. Matted vegetation and algal mats were noted in the wetland indicating the presence of inundation during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site,we correlated the presence of FAC,FACW and OBL species such as soft rush, meadow foxtail slough sedge and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in the wetland were silty sand and the primary soil color consisted of 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. File No.16264-001-01 Page 16 GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 � Wetland F Wetland F is a small depressional wetland with a delineated size of 2,097 square feet(0.05 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the deepest portions of the wetland and a small topographic break was observed along the delineated boundary. Wetland vegetation included slough sedge and meadow foxtail. Monitoring well D-2 was located in the northeastern corner of this wetland. Hydrology data from this well confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail and slough sedge with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland consist of a silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland G Wetland G is a depressional wetland with a delineated size of 3,890 square feet (0.09 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland and a small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, Baltic rush, meadow foxtail, tall buttercup, silverweed and twinberry (Lonicera involucrate, FAC+). The twinberry in the wetland was observed to be less than 1-foot tall. Monitoring well D-4 was located in the eastern portion of this wetland. Hydrology data from this well confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as soft rush, meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as well data and a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland H Wetland H is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 1,053 square feet (0.02 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland and a small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, Baltic rush, meadow foxtail and silverweed. Wetland hydrology appears to primarily originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. The wetland boundary was determined by correlating the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y4/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. File No.16264-001-01 Page 17 GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 � Wetland I Wetland I is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 1,944 square feet (0.04 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, Baltic rush, meadow foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Monitoring well E-1 was located in the northeastern portion of this wetland. Hydrology data from this well confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site,we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as soft rush,meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data and a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y4/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland J Wetland J is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 2,043 square feet (0.05 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included Baltic rush, meadow foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. The wetland boundary was determined by correlating the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland K Wetland K is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 607 square feet (0.01 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, Baltic rush, velvet grass and slough sedge. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Monitoring well E-5 was located in the center of this wetland. Hydrology data from this well confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site,we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as soft rush,meadow foxtail and slough sedge with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data and a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. File No. 16264-001-01 Page 18 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS- Wetland L Wetland L is a mosaic of small depressional wetlands and the delineated size of the mosaic is 13,725 square feet(0.32 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of all of the wetlands. Vegetation observed within the wetland areas included soft rush, Baltic rush, meadow foxtail, short-awn foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of each wetland. Upland areas between the wetlands included vegetation such as tall fescue, sweet vernalgrass, birdsfoot trefoil, smoth hawksbeard and tall buttercup. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. The wetland boundary was determined by correlating the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland M Wetland M is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 1,387 square feet (0.03 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, meadow foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. The wetland boundary was determined by correlating the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland N Wetland N is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 3,778 square feet (0.09 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, meadow foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. The wetland boundary was determined by correlating the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland O Wetland O is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 7,736 square feet (0.18 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. File No.16264-001-01 Page19 GEOENGINEERS/ October 10,2007 Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, meadow foxtail, slough sedge and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Monitoring well E-6 was located in the northeastern portion of this wetland. Hydrology data from this well confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed i f FAC FACW and OBL species such as soft rush nature of the site,w a correlated the presence o p , meadow foxtail and slough sedge with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data and a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland P Wetland P is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 1,218 square feet (0.03 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, Baltic rush, meadow foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. The wetland boundary was determined by correlating the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y4/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland Q Wetland Q is a mosaic of small depressional wetlands and the delineated size is 26,401 square feet(0.61 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of all of the wetlands. Vegetation observed within the wetlands included soft rush,Baltic rush,meadow foxtail, short-awn foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of each wetland. Upland areas between the wetlands included vegetation such as tall fescue, sweet vernalgrass, birdsfoot trefoil, smoth hawksbeard and tall buttercup. Monitoring wells E-8 and E-9 were located in the northern and southern portion of this wetland. Hydrology data from both of these wells confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as soft rush, meadow foxtail and slough sedge with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data and a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. File No. 16264-001-01 Page 20 GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 � Wetland R Wetland R is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 3,024 square feet (0.07 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, Baltic rush, meadow foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. The wetland boundary was determined by correlating the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. The wetland boundary was determined by following the topographic break and identifying the presence of OBL species such as silverweed. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y5/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland S Wetland S contains two different hydrogeomorphic wetlands including slope and depressional. Both wetlands are connected primarily via subsurface flow but a small overland water flow is present on the eastern portion of the wetland. These wetlands were divided into their respective hydrogeomorphic classifications for rating purposes. S-1 Wetland S-1 is a depressional wetland controlled by a tide gate on the Union River. The delineated size of Wetland S-1 is 153,879 square feet(3.53 acres). This wetland is part of the drainage ditch system on the western portion of the site. The water in the ditch drains out into the Union River during low tide. The ditch fills up with water during high tide when the tide gate is closed. Vegetation in the wetland consisted primarily of hardstem bulrush and cattail. The southeast portion of the wetland contained water parsely, skunk cabbage, nootka rose and small-fruited bulrush. Wetland hydrology originates from precipitation and seeps draining the agricultural fields surrounding the ditch. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included anoxic "rotten egg" odor, organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were a silty and the color was 10YR2/1. S-2 Wetland S-2 is 10,333 square feet (0.24 acres) in size located in the northern tip of the agricultural field west of the road. This area contains emergent vegetation including soft rush, velvet grass, meadow foxtail, small-fruited bulrush and sawbeak sedge. A distinct topographic break was present along the boundary of the wetland. Monitoring well D-1 was located in the field in this portion of the wetland. Hydrology data from this well confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as soft rush, meadow foxtail and sawbeak sedge with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data and a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent File No. 16264-001-01 Page21 GEoENGINEERS/ October 10,2007 indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils were observed to be saturated about 8 inches below the surface and soil coloring consisted primarily of 2.5Y4/1 and 2.5Y5/2 with redoximorphic concentrations in the lower layer. Wetland T Wetland T is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 9,961 square feet (0.23 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, Baltic rush, velvet grass, meadow foxtail, short-awn foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Monitoring well F-1 was located in the northeastern portion of this wetland. Hydrology data from this well confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site,we correlated the presence of FAC, FAC W and OBL species such as meadow foxtail, short-awn foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data and a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. The wetland boundary was determined by analyzing the hydrology data, following the topographic break and identifying the presence of OBL species such as silverweed and short-awn foxtail. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y6/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland U Wetland U is a depressional wetland and the delineated size is 2,073 square feet (0.05 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included meadow foxtail, velvet grass, tall buttercup and slough sedge. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Monitoring well F-2 was located in the western portion of this wetland. Hydrology data from this well confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data and a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. The wetland boundary was determined by analyzing the hydrology data, following the topographic break and identifying the presence of OBL species such as silverweed. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y6/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland V Wetland V is a depressional and slope wetland and the delineated size is 8,456 square feet (0.19 acres). This wetland includes a small depressional wetland in the field, a small ditch which drains the wetland to the road and the roadside drainage ditch which transports water to the southern portion of the site. Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the western portion of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included soft rush, meadow foxtail, slough sedge and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater File No. 16264-001-01 Page 22 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS� table at the beginning of the growing season. The wetland boundary was determined by correlating the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail, slough sedge and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y6/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland W Wetland W is a depressional and slope wetland and the delineated size is 1,480 square feet (0.03 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included Baltic rush, meadow foxtail, tall fescue and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Monitoring well F-4 was located in the northeastern portion of this wetland. Hydrology data from this well confirmed the presence of wetland hydrology during the growing season. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, we correlated the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail, short-awn foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as monitoring well data and a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y6/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. Wetland X Wetland X is a depressional and slope wetland and the delineated size is 1,142 square feet (0.03 acres). Signs of inundation including matted vegetation and algal mats were observed in the bottom of the wetland. Vegetation observed within the wetland included Baltic rush,meadow foxtail,tall fescue, short- awn foxtail and silverweed. A small topographic break was observed along the boundary of the wetland. Wetland hydrology primarily appears to originate from precipitation and a high groundwater table at the beginning of the growing season. The wetland boundary was determined by correlating the presence of FAC, FACW and OBL species such as meadow foxtail, short-awn foxtail and silverweed with recent indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology as well as a distinct topographic break to determine the wetland boundary. Recent indicators of hydric soils included organic accumulation on the surface layer and diffuse soil layer boundaries between varying soil types and recent indicators of wetland hydrology included oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation and algal mats. Soils in this wetland were silty sand and the color was 2.5Y6/2 with moderate redoximorphic concentrations. WETLAND EVALUATION Wetland Characterization The wetland features were classified using both the Cowardin et al. (1979)and Mason County systems,as appropriate (Table 3). Mason County has specified under MCRO 17.01.070E that all wetlands located in Mason County will be rated under the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology 2004). The wetland rating forms for all wetlands on site are located in Appendix E. The proposed project will have moderate land use impact intensity since any new structures will be located on more than one acre and have a passive use that includes occasional maintenance. The buffers assigned by Mason County are depicted on the Wetland and Stream Buffer Map located in Appendix B-2. File No.16264-001-01 Page 23 October 10,2007 CiEOENGINEERS- Table 6. Categorization of Wetland Features Area: Cowardin Rating System Mason County Wetland square feet System Class Water Rating Required Buffer Feature (acre) Regime A-1 812,230 Palustrine Forested Seasonally Category III 110 feet (18.65) Flooded A-2 69,999 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (1.61) Flooded A-3 33,698 Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Category II 75 feet (0.77) Scrub-shrub Flooded — - .........._.. A-4 97,726 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (2.24) Flooded A-5 22,030 Palustrine Emergent, Permanently Category III 60 feet (0.51) Scrub-shrub Flooded _ ..............---- - B 19,832 Palustrine Emergent, Saturated Category III 60 feet (0.46) Scrub-shrub C 9,524 Palustrine Emergent Saturated Category IV 40 feet (0.22) D 16,644 Palustrine Emergent, Permanently Category IV 40 feet (0.38) Scrub-shrub Flooded E 17,599 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.40) Flooded F 2,097 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.05) Flooded File No.16264-001-01 Page 24 GEoENGINEERS October 10,2007 Table 6. Categorization of Wetland Features (Continued) Area: Cowardin Rating System Mason County Wetland square feet System Class Water Rating Required Buffer Feature (acre) Regime G 3,890 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.09) Flooded - -- — - — H 1,053 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.02) Flooded .__............ ....... 1 1,944 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.04) Flooded ... .......... 1 2,043 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.05) Flooded K 607 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.01) Flooded L 13,725 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.32) Flooded M 1,387 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.03) Flooded N 3,778 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.09) Flooded O 7,736 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.18) Flooded P 1,218 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.03) Flooded Q 26,401 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.61) Flooded R 3,024 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.07) Flooded _.— ._ . ......... _ -- ------ - S-1 153,879 Palustrine Emergent Permanently Category III 60 feet (3.53) Scrub-shrub Flooded S-2 10,333 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.24) Flooded T 9,961 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.23) Flooded U 2,073 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.05) Flooded File No.16264-001-01 Page 25 October 10,2007 GEOI:NGINEERS� Table 6. Categorization of Wetland Features (Continued) Area: Cowardin Rating System Mason County Wetland square feet Feature (acre) System Class Water Rating Required Buffer Regime V 8,456 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.19) Flooded ..._.__........._....- W 1,480 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.03) Flooded X 1,142 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.03) Flooded Y 5,584 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Category IV 40 feet (0.13) Flooded Wetland Functional Assessment GeoEngineers used the Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Quantitative Assessment Methodology (Cooke 2000) to determine the functions of the wetlands on site. Each individual function indicates its importance relative to the overall watershed system. Physical characteristics, topography, flow, site and watershed location,vegetation, species use and adjacent land use were considered in this assessment. Wetland A-1 Wetland A-1 was assessed as a slope wetland for the purpose of this functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions: • Flood/Stormwater Control Medium • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Medium • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement High • Natural Biological Support High • General Habitat Functions Medium • Specific Habitat Functions High Wetland A-1 has a high diversity of wetland classes and vegetation species within those classes. Dominant native vegetation provides valuable wildlife habitat and biological support. Primarily, water quality improvement and groundwater recharge are moderate functioning aspects of this wetland complex. Habitat functions are high due to an uninterrupted connection to estuarine and marine habitats. Wetland A-2 Wetland A-2 was assessed as a slope wetland for the purpose of functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. File No.16264-001-01 Page 26 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS_ • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Medium • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland A-2 has a low diversity of wetland classes and vegetation species within those classes. The hayed emergent vegetation provides limited wildlife habitat and biological support. Primarily, water quality improvement and groundwater recharge are the greatest functioning aspects of this wetland complex. Habitat functions are low due to the disturbed nature of the wetland and surrounding buffers. Wetland A-3 Wetland A-3 was assessed as a riverine wetland for the purpose of functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Medium • Natural Biological Support Medium • General Habitat Functions Medium • Specific Habitat Functions Medium The structural diversity of this wetland provides a medium functional rating for wildlife habitat. It provides low water functions due to the narrow channel and lack of woody vegetation. There is a medium diversity of vegetation within the wetland and associated buffers. Wetland A-4 Wetland A-4 was assessed as a slope wetland for the purpose of functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low i File No.16264-001-01 Page 27 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS� • Specific Habitat Functions Low The lack of persistent vegetation in this wetland provides a low functional rating for wildlife habitat. The size of this wetland and its lack of connection to streams lower its potential for stonmwater storage and support to hydrologic features to a low rating. Wetland A-5 Wetland A-5 was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Medium • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Medium • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Medium • Natural Biological Support Medium • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland A-5 does not provide significant wildlife habitat due to the disturbed nature of the wetland and buffers. The groundwater support rating is medium due to the high water table and saturation of the ground year round. Water quality improvement and stormwater control ratings are medium due to the potential to reduce flows coming from the fields. Wetland B Wetland B was assessed as a slope wetland for the purpose of functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Medium • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Medium • Natural Biological Support Medium • General Habitat Functions Medium • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland B provides moderate wildlife habitat even though it is located in an agricultural field. This wetland contains a forested canopy that partially connects to the Union River. This wetland helps slow down water velocity entering the wetland and recharges the shallow groundwater table. Therefore the rating for groundwater support and water quality improvement is medium. File No.16264-001-01 Page 28 October 10,2007 GEOEIKINEERS-0 Wetland C Wetland C was assessed as a slope wetland for the purpose of functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland C is a slope wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland D Wetland D was assessed as a slope wetland for the purpose of functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Medium • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Medium • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Medium • Natural Biological Support Medium • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland D does not provide significant wildlife habitat due to the disturbed nature of the wetland and buffers. The groundwater support rating is medium due to the high water table and saturation of the ground year round. Water quality improvement and stormwater control ratings are medium due to the potential to reduce flows coming from the fields. Wetland E Wetland E was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low File No.16264-001-01 Page29 GEoENGINEERS/ October 10,2007 • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland E is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland F Wetland F was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of functional assessment. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland F is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland G Wetland G was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low File No.16264-001-01 Page 30 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS� Wetland G is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wedand H Wetland H was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland H is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland I Wetland I was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland I is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. File No.16264-001-01 Page31 GEoENGINEERS October 10,2007 Wetland J Wetland J was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland J is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland K Wetland K was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland K is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland L Wetland L was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low File No.16264-001-01 Page 32 October 10,2007 G Eo E NG I N E E RS� • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland L is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland M Wetland M was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland M is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland N Wetland N was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low File No.16264-001-01 Page33 GEOENGINEERS/ October 10,2007 Wetland N is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland O Wetland O was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland O is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland P Wetland P was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland P is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. File No. 16264-001-01 Page34 GEoENGINEERS/ October 10,2007 Wetland Q Wetland Q was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland Q is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland R Wetland R was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland R is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland S-1 Wetland S-1 was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Medium • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Medium File No.16264-001-01 Page3s GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Medium • Natural Biological Support Medium • General Habitat Functions Medium • Specific Habitat Functions Low • Cultural/Socioeconomic Functions Low Wetland S-1 does not provide significant wildlife habitat due to the disturbed nature of the wetland and buffers. The groundwater support rating is medium due to the high water table and saturation of the ground year round. Water quality improvement and stormwater control ratings are medium due to the potential to reduce flows coming from the fields. Wetland S-2 Wetland S-2 was assessed as a slope wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low • Cultural/Socioeconomic Functions Low Wetland S-2 is a slope wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland T Wetland T was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low File No.16264-001-01 Page 36 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS-.rd) • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland T is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland U Wetland U was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland U is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland V Wetland V was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland V is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland File No.16264-001-01 Page 37 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS� provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland W Wetland W was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland W is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. Wetland X Wetland X was assessed as a depressional wetland for the purpose of this functional analysis. The following functional ratings were determined based on existing site conditions. • Flood/Stormwater Control Low • Base Flow/Groundwater Support Low • Erosion/Shoreline Protection N/A • Water Quality Improvement Low • Natural Biological Support Low • General Habitat Functions Low • Specific Habitat Functions Low Wetland X is a depressional wetland located in the agricultural field. The vegetation in the wetland is removed once a year for haying activities. Due to the removal of vegetation annually, this wetland provides low habitat value. The wetland is small in size providing minimal stormwater control, groundwater support and water quality functions. CONCLUSIONS This report and associated maps serve to formally describe and characterize the wetlands and stream on site and their functions. The majority of the project site has been altered from its native condition through agricultural activities and the construction of a dike and drainage ditches. A total of 29 different wetland File No.16264-001-01 Page 38 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS-0, areas were identified on site. The total wetland area located on site is estimated to be 31.1 acres. The majority of the wetlands are located in small topographic depressions in the agricultural fields. A combination of high groundwater table, seasonal precipitation and a confining layer near the surface has resulted in the creation of these wetlands. Wetland conditions were observed within the drainage ditches created to drain the fields. Water observed within these drainage ditches flow out during low tide events, but ponds at high tide when the tide gate closes. Many of the depressional wetlands associated with the agricultural fields appear to have no surface water connection to the ditches but may be connected through groundwater. The forested wetland observed on the eastern portion of the site extends off site and appears to connect to the Union River estuary. Mindy Creek is the only natural stream feature that flows through the site. It originates off site and flows through the site and into the tidally influenced portion of the Union River. According to our interpretation of the Mason County Stream Rating System, we classified the on site portion of Mindy Creek as a type"F"water that requires a 150-foot buffer. Wetlands and streams on site have been classified, rated and buffers identified according to Mason County regulations. GeoEngineers biologists performed habitat characterizations of the wetlands to identify areas of high and low-quality habitat in the wetland and surrounding buffer areas to identify buildable area on the site. Impacts to wetlands and buffers will be identified once the location of buildings, parking areas and the access road have been determined. These impacts and proposed mitigation measures will be identified in a separate mitigation report. LIMITATIONS GeoEngineers has developed this Wetland Delineation Report in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices for Wetland Delineations in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center, their authorized agents, and regulatory agencies following the described methods and information available at the time of the work. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. The information contained herein should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. REFERENCES Accuweather. 2007. Belfair, Washington. http://wwwa.accuweather.com/index.asp?partner--accuweather (Accessed July 27,2007) Cooke, S.P. 2000. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Quantitative Assessment Methodology. Seattle, Washington. Cowardin,L. M.,V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetland and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. Performed for Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service,U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 131pp. GeoEngineers,Inc.2006. Wetland Feasability Study Report.Pacific Northwest Salmon Center. December 27,2006. File No.16264-001-01 Page 39 GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 Hitchcock,L.C. and Cronquist.,A. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest an Illustrated Manual.University of Washington Press, Seattle Kent, D.M.(ed.). 1994.Applied Wetlands Science and Technology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. Kollmorgen Corporation. 1988. Munsell soil color charts. Munsell Color, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation. Baltimore. Mason County. 2005. Map Mason Map Viewer. httl2://mgpmason.co.mason.wa.us/website/mason/viewer.htm (Accessed July 27,2007) Mason County. 2006. Mason County Resource Ordinance, Section 17.01.070 Wetlands. December 27, 2006. Mason County. 2006. Mason County Resource Ordinance, Section 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. December 27,2006. Reed, P.B.,Jr., Peters, D., Goudzwaard, J., Lines, I. and Weinmann,F. 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest(Region 9). December 1993. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9),May 1988, Washington,D.C. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E.. Stackhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland values: concepts and methods of wetland evaluation. 1WR Res.Rep. 79-R-1,U.S.Army Engineers,For Belvoir,VA United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1,US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Viksburg. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. RGL No. 05- 05. United States Department of Agriculture. 1960. Soil Survey of Mason County, Washington. Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture. 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agric. Hdbk. 436,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C. 869 pp. United States Department of Agriculture. 2001. Hydric Soils List:Mason County, Washington. Natural Resources Conservation Service. hqp://www.wa.nres.usda.gov/technical/soils/hydric lists/hydsoil-wa-645.pdf (Accessed July 27, 2007) United States Department of Agriculture. 2002. WETS Station: Shelton, Washington. ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda. ov/support/climate/wetlands/wa/53045.txt (Accessed July 27, 2007) United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987.National Wetlands Inventory Map. Belfair, Washington; 1:24,000, 7.5-minute quadrangle. File No. 16264-001-01 Page 40 October 10,2007 GEOENG�NEERS� United States Geological Survey. 1994.Topographic Map. Belfair, Washington; 1:24000, 7.5-minute quadrangle. United States Geological Survey. 1990. Terraserver. http://www.terraserverusa.com/imaae.aspx?T=1&S=10&Z=10&X=2560&Y=26272&W=3 (Accessed July 27, 2007) Washington State Department of Ecology 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Maunaul. Publication#96-94. Olympia. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1989. A guide to conducting wetland inventories. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Version 2. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Forest Practices Application Review System. http://www3.wadnr.pov/dnrgpp5/website/fpars/viewer.htm (Accessed July 27,2007) File No.16264-001-01 Page 41 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERS-0 -NE McKnight Rd — Sendhill Park NE Davis Farm Rd a 2 i — �f NE•Fem�WaY i 0 l 0 m 0 LU ,Z Lars Lake ,y m� CE m 0 l0t•�a Z �y m -- y NLU SITE J Sys- j(/tt-KT O CD 4U N f �4iv J !I t —NE 300 i `r /1Ma.n-Co my T ti� v f p Beards Cove eeac7'F? s y ! d 5jf1 ! Z N E BYerly Dr Mn rrr f/ f n School Bellair E I NE Squire Ln, ' NE Alder Creek Ln-- a 10 — Natlie—_ E Judy In LL 0 p Clallam la Snohomish kano9ar N nr____ r_- -Ktsa ou91a f U \ 1 Mason r 1� _1"1 -�'-..,`•21 Ivttaas 2,000 0 2,000 ,Grays HarboA, Pierce ran o 1 4 f"� 1 p r Pacific ' Lewis ! Yakima f Feet � M I t — Yakima Ben�.� }akum Cowlitz I kamani l!•) T 6 Notes: Vicinity Map a1.The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2.This drawing is for information purposes.It is intended to assist in L showing features discussed in an attached document.GeoEngineers,Inc. a can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files.The master Pacific Northwest Salmon Center file is stored by GeoEngineers,Inc.and will serve as the official record of Belfair, Washington this communication. = 1 It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof,whether for U � personal use or resale,without permission. ° GWENGINEER� Figure 1 Data Sources: ESRI Data&Maps,Street Maps 2005. OLambert Conformal Conic,Washington State Plane North,North American Datum 1983 .� �PFOC PFOA � °' J - . SITE - ( f r PEMC I Pssc k I ; E2Em:USN i _t CO PFOA PFOc; t i C) CN 00 Q � �,. E2CI`•1�. PEffAN t E2EMN - Sf �� / PSSCPFOC H PEMCH f/JfJff l J/ l f / r i lvr - / E2EMN PUBHH PSSC E1USN �✓f/ t -0 E2AB/USN t x cli (f+ �3 Streams PFOA= Palustrine, Forested, Temporarily Flooded oE2EM/USN = Estuarine, Intertidal, Emergent/Unconsolidated Shore, Site Regularly Flooded E2EMN = Estuarine, Intertidal, Emergent, Regularly Flooded Z> E2EMP =Estuarine Intertidal, Emergent, Irregularly Flooded National Wetland Inventory Data 9 9 Y S PSSCH =Palustrine,Scrub-Shrub,Seasonally/Permanently Flooded N 1,000 0 1,000 o PEMAH= Palustrine,Emergent,Temporarily/Permanently Flooded wE o PEMCH= Palustrine,Emergent, Seasonally/Permanently Flooded Feet M 1` PFOC= Palustrine, Forested, Seasonally Flooded LO 77 Notes: Streams and Wetland Map 1.The locations of all features shown are approximate. L 2.This drawing is for information purposes.It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document.GeoEngineers,Inc. @ can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files.The master Pacific Northwest Salmon Center o file is stored by GeoEngineers,Inc.and will serve as the official record of this communication. Belfalr, Washington = 3.It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof,whether for U personal use or resale,without permission. IX Data Sources: Streams from Mason County.NWI data from Washington O State Fish and Wildlife(obtained October 2005).Aerial photograph G EO E N G I N E ER Figure 2 (June 1990,1 meter resolution)from TerraServer(obtained September 2006). Lambert Conformal Conic,Washington State Plane North,North American Datum 1983 Id / l • r �� I i / t Eh St r. ..i •1 t�� - J � � r'�. t Bor a �� I r f ' SITE 06 f j ♦ I 'Ea Ea Mi. Nj\ / ; ;'i , l , Ek i ` / / =,7 T r✓ f Ab Kf / - •� � t a; t � + �N 01 O o ® Site Mh = Mukilteo peat, shallow over gravel, 0%to 2% slopes. v Tn = Tidal marsh, 0% to 2% slopes. W ;E C3 Soils Boundary �S 9 Ea = Edmonds fine sandy loam, 0%to 2% slopes. o Eh = Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5% to 15% slopes. 2,000 0 2,000 Ea = Edmonds fine sandy loam, 0%to 2% slopes. CD Eh = Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5% to 15% slopes. Feet t- Notes: in 1.The locations of all features shown are approximate. Soils Survey Map 2.This drawing is for information purposes.It is intended to assist in a showing features discussed in an attached document.GeoEngineers, Inc. t can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files.The master `4 file is stored by GeoEngineers,Inc.and will serve as the official record of Pacific Northwest Salmon Center d this communication. Belfalf, Washington 3.It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof,whether for = personal use or resale,without permission. U Data Sources: NRCS soils data from United States Department of O Agriculture.U.S.topographic map from National Geographic Society G EO E N G I N E E R.� /// Figure 3 (obtained Sept.2006). �.i/ y�"-- Lambert Conformal Conic,Washington Slate Plane North,North American Datum 1983 0 GEOENGINEERS APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1 Photograph 2 Wetland A along main road looking northeast Wetland A in field looking east Photograph 3 Photograph 4 Wetland A drainage ditch on east side of fields looking Riparian portion of Wetland A associated with Mindy Creel south File No. 16264-001-01 Page A-1 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEERi ''%- �g �.�/ t''r� •��f'.r 11f",5'i Alt' tif;_. f�A� - *• • i MM 41 Photograph 5 Photograph 6 Wetland A looking north next to drainage ditch in the field Wetland A looking east in northern field i #4 y Photograph 7 Photograph 8 gorthern drainage ditch running east to west in Wetland A West side of Wetland B looking north looking east from road File No. 16264-001-01 Page A-2 GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 � f r I c' yf R\. Photograph 9 Photograph 10 Wetland B looking southeast at mature vegetation Wetland C looking west �, -A"' �e; Photograph 11 Photograph 12 Wetland D looking west Wetland E looking west File No.16264-001-01 PageA-3 GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 r 1 r �•/ t{� ( R�4"1��f,/��, Photograph 13 Photograph 14 Wetland F Wetland G ¢4Fh)W �5 p`I✓A •'y�}.� ' 'fit'. " N I �Iw il t�{+' f �f• .� �� �--`��`A •µdi Photograph 15 Photograph 16 Wetland H Wetland I File No.16264-001-01 Page A-4 GEoENGINEERS October 10,2007 •$i t x \in .1i Ai ; �. '\ �+ ahL 43 Q ► r.0 .. �w w\Fi71 1 • �g ; \� ti ; Photograph 17 Photograph 18 Matted vegetation and algal mats in Wetland I Wetland J INA f 7"pr ., 6 s a z r4 Photograph 19 Photograph 20 Wetland K Wetland L File No. 16264-001-01 Page A-S October 10,2007 GEOENGINEER� T ' / i � 71 f{ s Photograph 21 Photograph 22 Wetland M Wetland N { 6 X a. �. 1 i 4�`7 4� _•� �� c i q. b Photograph 23 Photograph 24 Wetland O Wetland P File No. 16264-001-01 Page A-6 October 10,2007 GEoENGINEERi kAlr� �'t' � �, /°�sp'��. �!/,t�•a 14��(��. ,. ,e a�+�J � ..�,}' � � i(la +y `i �s} �;IJ ► - @/dyr"�t{,�,fl t 'yFs Zns i 3`q�t.t -m+t� C�'_ � _ _ !. �* '� "'� !. ►n14�Cf t J�Y� / ,.�".y j.\ tA'f � _jryi it'Y�i, ■ X P� {tI j '�°/✓1,r; ! ,c9 ay p; t `° ' .i ,mot' Photograph 25 Photograph 26 Matted vegetation, algal mat and silverweed in Wetland P Wetland Q 8 k. t a, .+ � 4Si� ` . Jk.4�v{ Photograph 27 Photograph 28 Wetland R Wetland S in the southern portion of the site File No.16264-001-01 Page A-7 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEER� 1� I ' o� R t i. Photograph 29 Photograph 30 Wetland S in southwestern corner of site Wetland S next to tide gate Iz v v K x R 111w� P" q z S s Photograph 31 Photograph 32 Tide gate inlet in Wetland S Tide gate outlet in Union River File No.16264-001-01 Page A-8 GEOENGINEERS October 10,2007 -e .: Vol i lv/ir, je If Photograph 33 Photograph 34 Wetland S looking west Wetland S in the northern portion of the site in the field W' Photograph 35 Photograph 36 Wetland T Wetland U File No. 16264-001-01 Page A-9 GWENGINEERS/ October 10,2007 Y ,a itC �i r 6 { ti O-OF Photograph 37 Photograph 38 Wetland V Wetland W d $ 1 § Photograph 39 Photograph 40 Wetland X Cleared drainage ditch in northern tip of S-1 looking west File No. 16264-001-01 Page A-10 October 10,2007 GWENGINEERirw y Aft ; 4 Photograph 41 Photograph 42 Cleared drainage ditch in Wetland A-5 looking south Cleared drainage ditch in Wetland D looking east ZO �t s� M {" ���yy IVA *� 4,;W W � , -A }� LL per. ,h- s • sue: 1• 'kar.. ,1-... .lyY :i'Mi" .3-___. _�eL Photograph 43 Photograph 44 Cleared drainage ditch in Wetland S-1 along Roessel Cleared area along Mindy Creek looking south Road looking north File No. 16264-001-01 Page A-11 October 10,2007 GEOENGINEER) GEOENGINEERS APPENDIX B SITE MAPS ram_- � �' -, �►•. _��:_ .! y i v - A3 FAA At IF 1 ��M/Olm, 1 '. • • v u• MIAC- • • �"!!/® ®� �QIlM'-fm FK .n� a SO MOON MW S m \ L T NO j 457 SON IN 00 s� \I OWN.�,�\ . ♦•,\, \ .ter \ ``'\, \ IRK.VNI -�' It q•Q-^```♦ /i_ �\ �\,\�/'� \� �sr �\,Q� �\`►/ /�\ ,.`,�.\�l%�w, Al glaw PAN INS-1 IS ON WIA "VON SION SO h / ON, . `� INN MOXION \. \ \ \ �•,: \ mil. �' J .:w.. \ \5 \ � \-�.;\',`erg,-��`�,�� ♦�,'i L • GEOENGINEERS APPENDIX C WETLAND DATA SHEETS