Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Wetland Deliniation, Restoration Plan - PLN General - 11/30/2003
■ WETLAND DELINEATION AND IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE GROTJAN PROJECT MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared for: Mason County Department of Community Development Courthouse Building 1, 411 N. 51h PO Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 Prepared by: AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 506 EDISON STREET SE, SUITE 100 OLYMPIA, WA 98501 (360) 754-3755 December 2002 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This partial wetland delineation and category determination was commissioned by Mr. Ronald Grotjan. The contact person for this project is Mr. Grotjan (360) 683-6139. Work as performed by Stacey Godin, Restoration Specialist of Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) on November 6-8, 2002. The report was reviewed by Michelle Fusman, Wetland Biologist of ATEC. The ATEC Project Manager for this study is Christian Fromuth, Principal. The contact person for this project is Christian Fromuth(360) 754-3755. '�&O-L�yj Stacey Godin Date J/� 4 Michelle Fusman Date ln�q t ;G C�_3 hris an romu Date TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Page Location 1 Site Description 1 Study Area Limits 2 METHODS 3 INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS Wetland Determination and Ratings 5 Vegetation 5 Soils 6 Hydrology, Streams, and Nearby Water Features 6 Fauna 7 Functions and Values 7 ' Applicable Regulations and Buffer Setbacks 9 IMPACT ANALYSIS 10 ' CONCLUSION 13 LIMITATIONS 14 REFERENCES 15 ' LIST OF TABLES AND APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES Tab. 1 Delineated Wetland Characteristics 5 Tab. 2 Functional Value Criteria 8 Tab. 3 Functional Value Rating 8 Tab. 4 Standard Vegetation Area Widths for Mason County 9 ' Tab. 5 Summary of Site Impact Areas 10 APPENDICES ' A. Figures Fig. 1 Regional Map Fig. 2 Vicinity Map Fig. 3 Delineation Map Fig. 4 Wetland Impact Areas Map Fig. 5 Assessor's Map Aerial Photo Soil Survey Map Wetland Delineation+Aerial Photo ?hotographs rlants Encountered On Site D. Definitions of Plant Indicator Status E. Field Data Sheets F. Wetland Rating Forms ' G. Species Letters 1 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington INTRODUCTION This study reports the results of a partial wetland delineation conducted on a portion of 80+ acre property associated with Lake Tenas off of Forest Service Road 24 adjacent to Olympic National Forest, Mason County, Washington. The entire property is recorded at the Assessor's Office as Parcel #4230275-00110 and is owned by Mr. Ronald Grotjan (Assessor's Map, Appendix A). The study was conducted by Stacey Godin, Restoration Specialist of Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) in November of 2002. This report has been prepared at the request of Mr. Grotjan. Site development plans for this site include: (a) road access enhancement to primitive camping and boat launch areas, (b) possible future cabin site, and (c) a micro hydroelectric power generator house. The objectives of the wetland study are several fold and include the following: (1) Determine the presence, extent, characteristics, classification, and functions and values of wetlands within a portion of the property. Hence, this is a "partial wetland delineation". (2) Determine buffer width required by local government ordinance; and (3) Perform an impacts analysis for recent site impacts (wetland and wetland buffer areas) performed without a permit. This impact analysis will provide the basis for later mitigation requirements. Once site wetland investigation commenced, it became clear that there were at least two distinctly separate generations of fill placement/impact to the wetland area covered by this study. Hence, objective (3) listed above was refined to determine the limits of recent impacts versus those that had occurred greater than ten years before present. Location The property is located off of U.S. Forest Service Road 24 (aka Jorsted Creek Rd) adjacent to the Olympic National Forest and Skokomish Wilderness Area, near Hoodsport, Mason County, Washington. From Highway 101 turn west on to Lake Cushman Rd. Follow Lake Cushman Road approximately 9 miles and turn left onto Forest Service Road 24 (aka Jorsted Creek Rd). Proceed on Forest Service Road 24 approximately 3 miles. Mr. Grotjan's property is located on the right-hand side of the road. The driveway entrance is clearly marked by two blazed orange conifer trees. Once on the driveway it will fork. Stay to the left at the fork to access the shop and mobile home area, or stay to the right fork to access the southwest portion of the property and Lake Tenas. The study area is situated in a portion of the SE '/4 of the SW '/4 of S2, T23N, R4W (W.M.). Regional and vicinity maps are included in Appendix A. Site Description The project area is mostly undeveloped. A trailer, shop and existing access roads are located on the property. The property is adjacent to undeveloped National Forest and Wilderness Forest Areas. This area is primarily used for recreational purposes such as camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, etc. Topographically, the wetland and lake are at the lowest points on the property. The wetland slopes very slightly toward the lake and the two are contiguous and hydrologically connected. The surrounding upland rises steeply, locally as much as ' 1 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington approximately 80%. Recently,the eastern portion of the property has been cleared and graded for the placement of a proposed hydroelectric system. The western portion of the parcel has been cleared of vegetation and re-graded to create a level area for human recreational use and a future cabin site (approximate area of fill is shown on Impact Areas Map in Appendix A). The remainder of the property is forested. An unnamed seasonal stream enters the property through the northeast corner from under the Forest Service Road 24. This stream is a tributary of Lilliwaup Creek and flows into the northern portion of Lake Tenas. Representative photos taken during field visits are included in Appendix B. Study Area Limits Only a portion of the wetland area present on site was delineated. Delineation work was limited to the impact area from work performed on site. This same area is the proposed location of the anticipated future site improvements mentioned above. 2 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington METHODS The vegetation, soils, and hydrology of anticipated wetland areas within the study area were examined according to a combination of the Routine and the Atypical Methodologies as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology 1997 DOE), which is consistent with the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Three types of flagging were used to mark the site. • Pink flagging imprinted with the words "WETLAND BOUNDARY" indicates the outer edge of the wetland. • Yellow flagging indicates data plot (DP) locations; and • Blue flagging indicates wetland impact area boundaries. Delineated wetland edges were marked at natural topographic inflection points at approximately 20-30 foot intervals with metal T-posts painted with orange tips and pink "Wetland Boundary" flagging. The wetland flagging was sequentially labeled as "A-I", "A- 2", etc. where "A" is a letter assigned to the single wetland being delineated at the site. Areas exhibiting positive indicators for the presence of the three diagnostic wetland parameters (wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation) were considered to be jurisdictional wetland. Field data sheets were completed at locations considered to be representative of the plant communities encountered, or otherwise critical to the wetland determination(Appendix E, Field Data Sheets). Paired data pits were utilized to show the location of the wetland edge in relatively undisturbed areas. Other data pits were documented using Atypical Situation data forms to characterize native conditions. Soil characteristics, hydrologic indicators, and dominant tree, shrub, and herb species were noted at each of the data plots. Data plots were marked with fluorescent yellow flagging and labeled DP-1 to DP-17 on wooden lathe. Data soil pits were hand dug at data plots #1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 to show upland and wetland undisturbed characteristics. Each data pit was dug to approximately 18-20 inches and examined for hydric soil indicators in the upper 12 inches, including organic soils, histic epipedons, sulfitic material, aquic or periaquic moisture regimes, reducing soil conditions, gleyed soils, and mottled and/or low chroma soils. In disturbed areas, data pits were dug using a backhoe to uncover native soils that were buried by the placement of fill. The backhoe pits are represented by data plots #2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14. The backhoe slots were all dug approximately 20 feet long and a minimum of 3 feet wide, with the depth varying with the depth of fill. Each pit was examined for hydric soil indicators in the upper 12 inches of the native soil layers, including organic soils, histic epipedons, sulfitic material, aquic or periaquic moisture regimes, reducing soil conditions, gleyed soils, and mottled and/or low chroma soils. In the disturbed/filled areas native soil 3 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. Olympia, Washington layers were defined as the pre-existing soils prior to the most recent placement of fill under the current ownership. Hydrology of the site was primarily evaluated by observations of surface and groundwater levels, soil saturation, drainage patterns, inundation, oxidized rhizospheres, and water-stained leaves. Evidence of adventitious rooting was also present of site. Vegetation was determined to be hydrophytic (adapted to anaerobic conditions) when more than 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL) (see Appendix D for definitions). Dominant plant species were determined separately in herb, shrub and tree strata. Delineated wetland boundaries were mapped by surveying. All wetland features on the map are approximate (Appendix A,Figure Wetland Map). Only a portion of the property and wetland on-site were delineated as indicated on the Wetland Map in Appendix A. 4 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Wetland Determination and Ratings Site investigations were conducted by Wetland Biologist Stacey Godin of Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) on November 6, 7, and 8, 2002. Only a portion of the wetland area on site was delineated. One wetland unit was identified within the study area and was labeled as "Wetland A". This same wetland extended beyond the study area limits. Summary characteristics of the wetland are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Delineated Wetland Characteristics Wetland General Est. On-Site Est. Total DOE Plant Community ID Property Area of Area of Rating Classes Location Wetland Wetland (I) Category A Northern 3± 10± acres 11 Emergent, portion acres Scrub/Shrub and Forested (1) This estimate included wetland area extending beyond study area limits. Wetland A was rated as a Category II wetland in accordance with the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (DOE, 1993) based on the accumulation of 38 habitat points on the DOE Wetland Rating Field Data Forms and on the DOE Wetland Rating Office Data Form (Appendix F). Within the study area, Wetland A is fundamentally a palustrine emergent and scrub-shrub seasonally flooded wetland associated with a small lake and a small seasonal stream that drains into the northern portion of Lake Tenas. The entire wetland (including non-study area portions) is approximately 10+ acres in size and contains an emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested plant community. The acreage was estimated using aerial photography taken in 1997 prior to impacts. Vegetation A list of the predominant plant species encountered in wetland and upland areas within the project area is provided in Appendix C. No plant species listed in Field Guide to Washington's Rare Plants (Washington Natural Heritage Program, 2000) were observed within or adjacent to the project area in the normal course of performing this delineation. The on-site portion of Wetland A contains emergent and scrub/shrub vegetation dominated by slough sedge (Carex obnupta), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense), bur-reed (Sparganium emersum), mudwort (Limosella aquatica), dagger-leaf rush (Juncus ensifolius), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), cattail (Typha latifolia), field mint (Mentha arvensis), marestail (Hippuris vulgaris), speedwell (Veronica catenata and Veronica scutellata), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), red alder saplings (Alnus rubra), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), and nootka rose (Rosa nutkana). Also present but not dominant was yellow pond-lily (Nuphar lutea) among the emergent community. 5 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington The off-site portion of Wetland A contains emergent, scrub/shrub and forested plant communities. The emergent and scrub/shrub communities appear to be dominated by slough sedge (Carex obnupta), marestail (Hippuris vulgaris), yellow pond-lily (Nuphar lutea, dagger-leaf rush (Juncus ensifolius), hardback (Spiraea douglasii), and willow(Salix ssp.). The forested community appears to be dominated by western red cedar(Thuja plicata), red alder(Alnus rubra), and pacific nine-bark (Physocarpus capitatus). The associated Lake Tenas is an open aquatic bed with floating-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton natans). The surrounding upland is forested with dominant plant species including Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla), western redcedar(Thuja plicata), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder(Alnus rubra), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), bracken(Pteridium aquilinium), sword fern(Polystichum munitum), vine maple (Acer circinatum), Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense), and salal (Gaultheria shallon). Soils Soils for the study area are included in the soils mapping performed in the Soil Survey of Mason County Area, Washington (Ness and Fowler, 1960). The mapping shows the study area to include three mapped soil series: Hoodsport gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15%percent slopes (non-hydric); Grove gravelly sandy loam, 15-30% slopes (non-hydric); and McMurray peat, 0-2% slopes (hydric). McMurray peat soils are associated with an occurrence of a high water table. Site observations made during the delineation generally agree with the soil survey mapping. The soil survey map for the project area is included in Appendix A. The northwestern and northeastern portions of the parcel contain recent fill material as indicated on the Wetland Impact Areas Map (Appendix A). Pre-existing fill material was also observed within the project area. Fill observed on-site will be further discussed in the Impacts Analysis portion of this report. Hydrology, Streams, and Nearby Water Features Wetland A is functionally a seasonally flooded wetland associated with Lake Tenas. An aerial photo taken in July of 1997 (prior to impact) shows inundation in the wetland during the growing season. At the time of fieldwork, soil inundation and saturation within the first 12" of native soil were observed within Wetland A. The natural hydrology of the wetland (within the study area) has been altered by a recently installed berm. The berm location is included on the Wetland Impact Areas Map in Appendix A. Hydrology impacts to the wetland will be further discussed in the Impacts Analysis portion of this report. There is a seasonal stream that flows through the northeast portion of the parcel into Lake Tenas. 6 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington Fauna The project is adjacent to the Olympic National Forest and Skokomish Wilderness Area. The project area can be expected to be used by a variety of wildlife species. In November of 2002, ATEC received data from state and federal agencies regarding the potential presence of listed, candidate, sensitive and priority species and habitats within and near the project area. Agency fish and wildlife data responses are presented in Appendix G. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database list does not list any priority anadromous/resident fish within Wetland A, the seasonal stream, nor in the associated Lake Tenas. The database does identify regular, large concentrations of elk occurring within the vicinity of the project area. In addition, the wetland is mapped as occurring within a spotted owl management circle established territory. The wetland is located near the edge of the defined established territory. Melbourne Lake, which is approximately one and a half miles southeast from the project area, is a documented breeding occurrence for common goldeneye. A Wildlife Heritage point for the pileated woodpecker(state species of concern) breeding occurrence is documented over one mile south of project area. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) have identified that wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the project. These wintering activities occur from October 31 through March 31. It is also documented that marbled murrelets occur in the vicinity of the project. Nesting activities for marbled murrelets occur from April 1 through September 15. USFW have documented occurrences of Northern spotted owls in the vicinity of the project. Nesting activities for northern spotted owls occur from March 1 through September 30. It is also documented that bull trout may occur in the vicinity of the project. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural (DNR) Natural Heritage Program does not show any records for rare plants or high quality ecosystems in the vicinity of the project area(Appendix G). A search of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) web-site indicated that Puget Sound chinook, a federally listed threatened species; Hood Canal Summer Run chum, also a federally listed threatened species; and Puget Sound coho, a federal candidate species may occur within the vicinity of the project area. Functions and Values Wetlands are known to perform significant functions in the ecosystem, some of which are of immediate value to human society. Criteria used regionally to evaluate the functional value of this site wetland are shown in Table 2. The criteria are general guidelines for evaluating the degree of which wetlands perform these functions and are not intended to override professional judgement on individual sites. Applying the Table 2 criteria, Wetland A was given an overall low, moderate, or high rating for each function by evaluating the number of qualities falling into the defined functional value categories. The evaluation applies to on-and off- site portions of the wetland system and takes into consideration both current and likely 7 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by:Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington future uses of the site and vicinity. Assessed function ratings of Wetland A are shown in Table 3. Table 2. Wetland Functional Assessments WETLAND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FUNCTION Low Rating Moderate Rating High Rating Water Quality <50%vegetation density; 50-80%vegetation density; >80%vegetation density; Improvement <5 acres; 5-10 acres; >10 acres; no proximity to pollutants adjacent to non-point downstream from point pollutants discharges Stormwater and <5 acres; 5-10 acres; >10 acres; Floodwater Control remote areas; rural areas; urban and developable <I0%woody cover; 10-30%woody cover areas; permanently flooded; >30%woody cover; unconstrained outlet seasonal hydroperiod; constrained outlet Hydrologic Support Isolated depression; Open drainage system; Open tidal systems; Temporarily saturated or Seasonally flooded Permanent saturation or inundated inundation Groundwater <5 acres; 5-10 acres; >10 acres; Recharge isolated depression; seasonally flooded permanent inundation; temporarily saturated or several feet deep; inundated; permeable substrate impermeable substrate Natural Biological Low species diversity; Moderate species diversity; High species diversity; Support Small size; Medium size; Large size; One vegetation layer; Several vegetation layers Many vegetation layers; No unique or water Unique species; dependent species' Water dependent species Derived from Reppert et al. 1979 and Adamus et al. 1983. z "Unique"means sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species. ' "Water-dependent"refers to use by animals that require wetlands or open water,such as aquatic plants and fish. Table 3. Wetland Function Ratings of Wetland A Based on Table 1 Criteria and Best Available Data for Site WETLAND WETLAND FUNCTION RATINGS Water Quality Stormwater& Hydrologic Groundwater Natural Improvement Floodwater Support Recharge Biologic Control Support A Low- Moderate- Moderate Moderate High Moderate High 8 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington Wetland A is large in size (10.00± acres). It is well vegetated with>80% cover, consisting of <30% woody cover. It is not connected to any pollutants, which makes the wetlands water quality improvement a low-moderate rating. It has a seasonal hydroperiod associated with Lake Tenas, which is a constrained outlet. Due to these factors, Wetland A has a moderate to high potential for stormwater and floodwater control. The wetland is seasonally flooded which is functionally connected to Lake Tenas. Wetland A is underlain by a peat soil. It has moderate potential for hydrologic support and moderate potential for groundwater recharge. Natural biologic support potential is high. The wetland contains three vegetation layers with high species diversity. Applicable Regulations and Buffer Setbacks The project area wetland and its associated buffers are regulated by Mason County in their natural resource ordinance (Ordinance No. 77-93, 1999). Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Washington Department of Ecology under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act are generally required if wetlands are to be directly manipulated by filling or dredging (including excavation). Neither of these agencies directly regulates activities that would occur only in wetland buffers. Mason County regulations require the establishment of undisturbed vegetative areas surrounding wetlands. The standard vegetated area widths are included in the table below. Table 4. Standard Vegetation Area Widths for Mason County Wetland Category Standard Vegetation Area Widths* I 125 feet II 85 feet III 50 feet IV 25 feet *Standard buffer widths do not include any required building setbacks. The on-site wetland is a Category II wetland with a standard vegetation area width (buffer) of 85 feet. The vegetation area limits are included on the Wetland Map (Figure 3, Appendix A). Vegetation areas disturbed during construction may require replanting with native vegetation. Compensatory mitigation is not required for permitted activities within the vegetation area that do not impact the wetland. 9 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington IMPACT ANALYSIS Site development plans for this site include: (a) road access enhancement to primitive camping and boat launch areas, (b) possible future cabin site, and (c) a micro hydro-electric power generator house. Mr. Ronald Grotjan purchased the property in 1998. A shop and a trailer are present on the site. A Category II wetland, lake, and seasonal stream are located in or near the proposed project area. Site preparation for this project has recently occurred on site. Clearing, dredging and grading for this project has impacted the hydrology, vegetation, and soil parameters to both the wetland and the associated buffer. The impacts can be categorized into ten different impact areas. These areas are mapped on the Wetland Impact Areas Map located in Appendix A. Table 5. Summary of Site Impact Areas IMPACT AMT.OF AMT.OF ,,IMPACT TYPE OF DEGREE OF TO AREA AREA AREA IMPACT IMPACT(1) WETLAND/ IMPACTED IMPACTED BUFFER s .ft. (acreage) I-1 Grading High Buffer 5,930 .14 I-2 Fill & Dredging High Wetland 4,117 .09 I-3 Fill Med Buffer 1,985 .05 I-4 Fill Low Wetland 1,549 :04 I-5 Fill Med Wetland 2,589 .06 1-6 Fill & Dredging Med Wetland 7,327 .17 I-7 Fill Med Wetland 3,963 .09 1-8 Grading High Buffer 31,435 .72 1-9 Gradin High Wetland 12,367 .28 1-10 Fill Hi h Wetland 11,169 .26 TOTAL AMOUNT OF AREA'IMPACTED= 82,431 s .ft.; 19 acres (1)Degree of Impact: High= Raw/Fresh Disturbance within 1-2yrs; Medium= Recently Disturbed within 2-5yrs; Low=Existing Impacts Present over 5yrs ago Impact Area I-10 Approximately 11,169 square feet (sq.ft.) of clean fill was placed directly in the southern portion of the wetland adjacent to Lake Tenas. A berm was created by placing fill across the wetland lengthwise from east to west, approximately 10' wide by 100' long and 4' in height from the wetland elevation. The placement of this berm disturbed emergent wetland vegetation and altered the hydrology to the wetland. Two culverts were installed in the berm to assist the wetland hydrology,however the berm has significantly constricted the hydrologic connection of this portion of the wetland with the open water portion of the lake. Wildlife habitat was also impacted by the creation of the berm. See Figure P-1 in Appendix B. The degree of impact is high. 10 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington Impact Area 1-5 Approximately 3,889 sq. feet of clean fill was placed along the northern perimeter of the wetland to enhance a primitive access road connecting the eastern end of the property to the western portion. The fill placement impacted emergent wetland vegetation. There is existing fill from another source in this location that has previously impacted the wetland. See Figure P-5 in Appendix B. The degree of impact is medium. Impact Area 1-3 Approximately 1,985 sq. feet of clean fill was placed in the northern perimeter of the wetland buffer to enhance the primitive access road. The fill placement impacted scrub/shrub wetland buffer vegetation. Existing fill from another source previously impacted the wetland in this location. Impact Area 1-8 & I-9 This area, located in the western portion of the property, was cleared and graded for the placement of a cabin. Upland fill was placed in the wetland edges and in the 85' wetland buffer was graded. Approximately 31,435 sq. feet of wetland buffer was impacted and approximately 12,367 sq. feet of emergent wetland were impacted. There is no vegetation remaining. Some woody debris from the upland was cleared and pushed into the wetland. Native wetland soils have been buried by approximately 3 ft. of fill material. The vegetative buffer has been buried by 5 ft. of new fill on top of existing fill. Erosion of the new fill into the wetland buffer area was observed during the wetland delineation work. The degree of impact is high. See Figures P-2, P-3, and P-10 in Appendix B. Impact Area I-1 The eastern portion of the wetland was graded for the purposes of a hydroelectric system and an access road from the existing shop area to the wetland. The placement of clean fill impacted the emergent and shrub wetland communities. All vegetation has been removed. Approximately 5,930 sq. feet of wetland was impacted. Clearing of the woody debris from this area was pushed into the wetland edge. Approximately 9' of clean fill was placed on top of the wetland native soil. The degree of impact is high for this area. Impact Area I-2 This area is adjacent to Impact Area 1-1. A leveled footprint was created by the placement of fill. Approximately 4,117 sq. feet of fill impacted the wetland emergent and shrub communities. No vegetation is remaining. Adjacent to this footprint (to the south) is a wide dredged hole approximately 10' ft. deep. The wetland vegetation area has been disturbed and bare soil exists. The degree of impact is high. See Figures P-7 and P-8 in Appendix B. Impact Area I-4 Placement of fill throughout an approximate area of 1,549 sq. feet was done using a backhoe in this area. The topography of the wetland community has ruts from the backhoe equipment. There is evidence of pre-existing fill, which has previously impacted this area of the wetland. The emergent vegetation is starting to re-colonize with mares tail, slough sedge, bur-reed, 11 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia,Washington pink water speedwell and dagger-leaf rush. The native soils have been buried by the fill. The degree of impact in this area is low due to the pre-existing fill material in the impact area. Impact Area I-7 The placement of approximately 3,963 sq. feet of fill has impacted the emergent wetland community. This area is located on the northern tip of the wetland. This portion of the wetland was inundated with water in an aerial photo taken in July of 1997. Impact Area I-6 This area of the emergent wetland has a dredged hole and ruts from the equipment used to dig this hole through the wetland. There is a 4" layer of fill placement. The emergent vegetation has been impacted but is starting to re-colonize. There is a surface layer of native peat existing on the new fill. The total area of this impact area is 7,327 sq. feet. There is evidence of pre-existing fill in this area,which has previously impacted the wetland. The degree of impact is medium in this area. Other Impact Areas Woody debris from the site preparation work was piled in several locations within the emergent portion of Wetland A. The debris piles are identified on the Wetland Impact Areas Map in Appendix A. Summary of Area of Impact The total area of wetland and wetland buffer impacted by site preparation activities is—82,431 sq. feet. Of this number, —43,081 sq. feet of the emergent wetland and— 39,350 sq. feet of wetland buffer were impacted. 12 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington CONCLUSION This study reports the results of a wetland determination conducted on an 80.43-acre parcel off of FS Rd 24 near Hoodsport, Mason County, Washington. Mr. Grotjan is proposing a road access enhancement to primitive camping and boat launch areas, possible future cabin site, and a micro hydroelectric power generator house on the property. ATEC partially delineated the boundary of a single wetland located within the northeastern and northwestern portion of the study area, which was designated Wetland A. Wetland A is estimated to have a total area of approximately 10 + acres, of which approximately 5+ acres fell within the study area. The northern, eastern and western boundaries of the wetland were delineated on-site. Wetland A was rated a Category II wetland using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington(DOE, 1993). The wetland contains emergent, scrub-shrub, forested, and aquatic bed plant communities. Emergent and scrub-shrub communities were observed within the study area. Wetland A is functionally a seasonally flooded wetland associated with Lake Tenas. Wetland A is assessed as having a low to moderate potential for water quality improvement, moderate potential for hydrologic support and groundwater recharge, moderate to high potential for stormwater and floodwater control, and high potential for natural biologic support. Site preparation for the proposed development activities recently occurred on site. Clearing, dredging and grading for this project has impacted the hydrology, vegetation, and soil parameters to both the wetland and the associated buffer. The total area of wetland and wetland buffer impacted by site preparation activities is—82,431 sq. feet. Of this number, 43,081 sq. feet of the emergent wetland and— 39,350 sq. feet of wetland buffer were impacted. 13 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for the use of the client, its affiliates, lenders and assigns, their consultants, and various agencies. It should be recognized that delineation of wetland boundaries is an inexact science and different individuals and agencies may disagree on exact boundaries. Any results and conclusions within this report represent our professional judgement based on the most recent information provided from publications, maps, aerial photos, and field investigations as defined within the scope of services. The final determination and acceptance of jurisdiction and concurrence with the wetland boundaries as delineated is the responsibility of the various resource agencies that regulate development in and around wetlands. This report and the delineated wetland boundaries will be reviewed by the appropriate agencies prior to any construction activities. 14 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. Olympia, Washington REFERENCES Adamus, Paul R., 1983. A Method of Wetland Functional Assessment: Vol.II, FHWA Assessment Method. Report No. FHWA-IP-82-24, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Cooke, Sarah S. ed. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Mason County. 1998. Mason County Resource Ordinance. Ordinance No. 77-93 (Revised 12/21/99). Wetland regulations 17.01.070. Shelton, WA. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Switchboard to ESA Listing Pages. Detailed species information and ESU maps. Accessed November 1, 2002. Internet address: http://www.nwr.noaa.2ov/Isalmon/salmonesa/syecyrof.htm. Ness, A.O. and R. H. Fowler. 1960. Soil Survey of Mason County Area, Washington. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Washington Agricultural Experiment Stations. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, Biological Report 88 (26.9), St. Petersburg, Fla. Reed, P.B. et al. 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9), St. Petersburg, Fla. Reppert, Richard T., Wayne Sigleo, Eugene Stakhiv, Larry Messman, and Caldwell Myers. 1979. Wetland Values—Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Fort Belvoir, Virginia: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Institute. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1990. Washington Hydric Soil List. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical report Y-87-1, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 15 Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. Olympia, Washington U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Washington Regional Guidance on the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Public Notice dated May 23, 1994. District Regulatory Branch, Seattle, WA. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). December 2002. Letter from USFWS (FWS REF: 1-3-03-SP-0207) listing threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat in the vicinity of the Grotjan Project dated December 3, 2002. US Geographic Services (USGS). 1981. Topographic Map, Mount Washington Quadrangle, Washington—Mason County (7.5 Minute Series). US Department of the Interior. Scale 1:24 000. Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). 2001. Field Guide to Washington's Rare Plants. In cooperation with Washington Department of Natural Resources and Spokane District U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management. Olympia, WA. Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). November 2002. Letter from WNHP listing threatened or endangered plant species or communities in the vicinity of the Grotjan Project dated November 18, 2002. Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System— Western Washington. Second Edition. Publication 93-74. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology(WDOE). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication 96-94. Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). November 2002. Letter from WDFW listing priority species and habitat in the vicinity of the Grotjan Project dated November 15, 2002. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1997. Aerial Photography. Scale 1: 12 000'. 16 APPENDIX A Figures AGIIA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,INC.(ATEC OLYMPIA.WASHINGTON o SCALE: I"=12,50W TOWNSHIP: 23N RANGE: 4W SECTION: 2 WM ` SKOKOMISH = � aY.■.■1610, 927 t a AREA,.� VII,DERNESS ° ' ! r • ®c F.l. TENAS K 1 , LANE , vvv A tawpppt T_. - 1•� ' - .III. LAN f'III II II is ".- Z I/1 MAD 9MMUL74n ft Ialw : F e�o Esic w i -4fllwj�l" ,rse■■Ea ' , ' AIIV , jawNSfWsN a la a,a ii�s` tLANE VL i5 2YfcwMPLl jT i 27 20 26,125 ampt � SOIJMM: 199E ROADRUNNER STREET ATLAS MASON COUN17 5w eDtM SIRM SE FIGURE: ltEGMXuL MM stm too GYOVAN WIT AND DELIIMMM 0L"f% W. Sm FOREST SERVICE RD 14,1NASM COUNTY,WAS UNGTON I ,►�,►TFJFIFlA ENVIHONL*WAL CONSULTING,INC.(ATEC OLYI MR&WASHINGTON I SCALE is=24,00 - ITUVINSE MPI- 23N RANG: 4w SE('iM- 2 way I TL*N `,„�S7 A .G_ i "i � �tl!� ,r•R";. l:�,i !� � � '�� `�a, � p �flu'p't 1a s . e .a I _ NETS a —�4 P _ r .� a — 1 n , A � r M &5 T to Nr APEAD SOURCE_USES QUADRANGIE MOUNT WA&UNGTON QUAD 5W 6015 M SMM SE V C Nr Y MAP SW IE lw GWTJANi wrn AND DlLM4llON aIMmk Sk Sam FORM S KRVWX RD 24 MASON COUNTY,W IEL (3" 754-3755 NAME: C:\ATEC—CAD\Atec Pro'ects WET LANDS GROTJAN GROTJAN.dwq DATE: DEC 15 2000 11ME: 1:17 PM NOTES: *THE WETLAND STUDY WAS PERFORMED BY ATEC WETLAND SPECIALISTS USING THE METHODOLOGY DESCRIBED IN THE "WASHINGTON STATE WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION MANUAL" (WDOE 1987). WETLANDA I LINEATION A STACEY GODIN 11 06 02, 11 07 02 do 11 OB 02 MICHELLE FUSMAN, CHRISTIAN FROMUTH — REPORT REVIEWERS -WETLANDS WERE RATED USING THE "WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND RATING SYSTEM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON' (WDOE 1993). •STANDARD BUFFER WIDTHS FOR MASON COUNTY WERE APPLIED BASED ON "MASON COUNTY INTERIM RESOURCE R ORDINANCE" (CHAPT. 17 AMENDED 8/29/2000) 65 FpOS BV *WETLAND BOUNDARY LIMITS WERE SURVEY LOCATED BY ATEC STAFF (ALL FEATURES APPROXIMATE). -PARCEL MAP AND/OR PROPERTY BOUNDARY REFERENCES ARE / BASED ON LANDMARKS AND DATA PROVIDED BY PROPERTY OWNER/ MANAGER. -THE WETLAND DELINEATION STUDY QDP5S-O AREA OVERLAPS MASON COUNTY TAX PARCEL A �- 8 \OT�G NUMBER: 4230275—00110 -DATA POINTS WERE SKETCHED IN TO APPROXIMATE LOCATION. ,pp9 PROPERTY CORNER .� ! ! ... .. .Y. 7 ! * A3 0 APPROXIMATE OFFSITE co'n ! ! EXTENSION OF - - -W ; WETLAND BOUNDARY Z coy' - - ! ! QDP3 A18 LAKE - -- � -- � � �- TENAS Q AE3 -+y APPROXIMATE OFFSITE EXTENSION OF "" .. WETLAND BOUNDARY MAP LEGEND ! ! PALUSTRINE S/S WETLAND / BACK HOE INSPECTION HOLE PALUSTRINE ' �• EMERGENT COP# — DATA POINT WETLAND ��E q (2)A# — WETLAND BOUNDARY POINT WETLAND TER 9 TBM SURVEY TEMPORARY BENCH MARK MAGNETIC NORTH �J (DO NOT DISTURB) 0, 100, 200' —wL — WETLAND BOUNDARY I I I 1"=100' —wee— 85 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER T 23N R 4W S 2 GTOTJAN WETLAND A SHEET aru�,�,rti oeaa DESIGNED x x APPROVED PARTIAL WETLAND DELINEATION DRAWN E.Z. 1215 nth DELINEATION MAP DIGITIZED CHECKED M.F. IUU102 OF: AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. REVISED C.F. 12 ,s o2 CON 0 NAME: C:\ATEC—CAD\Atec Pro'ecta WET LANDS GROTJAN GROTJAN.dwq DATE: DEC 15 2000 TIME: 1:17 PM NOTES: S: *THE WETLAND STUDY WAS PERFORMED BY ATEC WETLAND SPECIALISTS USING THE METHODOLOGY DESCRIBED IN THE "WASHINGTON STATE WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION MANUAL" (WDOE 1987). WETLANDDELINEATION STACEY GODIN 11 06 02, 11 07 02 do 11 08 02 \ MICHELLE FUSMAN, CHRISTIAN FROMUTH — REPORT REVIEWERS \ -WETLANDS WERE RATED USING THE 'WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND RATING SYSTEM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON" (WDOE 1993). 1 -STANDARD BUFFER WIDTHS FOR MASON COUNTY WERE ' RECENT EARTHWORK APPLIED BASED ON 'MASON COUNTY INTERIM RESOURCE - CUT / FILL AREA ORDINANCE" (CHAPT. 17 AMENDED 8/29/2000) -WETLAND BOUNDARY LIMITS WERE SURVEY LOCATED BY ATEC STAFF (ALL FEATURES APPROXIMATE). // ` r, APPROXIMATE -PARCEL MAP AND/OR PROPERTY BOUNDARY REFERENCES ARE PROPOSED LOCATION BASED ON LANDMARKS AND DATA PROVIDED BY } t OF POWERHOUSE PROPERTY OWNER/ MANAGER. ems— � �\ (12'X20') *THE WETLAND DELINEATION STUDY AREA OVERLAPS MASON COUNTY TAX PARCEL ^--� \ NUMBER: 4230275-00110 1-5 \ PROPERTY CORNER 1-3 : I .:off APPROXIMATE OFFSITE I— I{AJI EXTENTION OF \ �. .�. .. WETLAND BOUNDARY 1-5 _ � --- 1-10 PQ,RTY T0RNAEr_ PROXIMATE) LAKE LARGE FIR TREESAl It � //j /� - TEN AS '.. �J• .. � APPROXIMATE OFFSITE EXTENTION OF WETLAND BOUNDARY r MAP LEGEND I III=IT_ WOODY DEBRIS BACK HOE INSPECTION HOLE PALUST— — — EMERGENT —wL — WETLAND BOUNDARY [[" ,.,.�, 1 EMERGENT WETLAND —wLs— 85 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT AREA DIRT ROAD OPYN WATER WE LAND MAGNETIC NORTH - 0' 100' 200' PALUSTRINE I-# : DELINEATED IMPACT AREAS TO WETLAND I 1 I # S/S WETLAND AND/OR BUFFER (IF ANY) 1"=100' T 23N R 4W S 2 OOOee Oeoa00000 ROAD IMPACT AREA ROAD IMPACT AREA IN WETLAND IN BUFFER 506 FDiSON ST.SE-St..100 GROTJAN WETLAND DESIGNED x x DATE OLYMPIA,WA.08WI - APPROVED SHEET JO 75,-3755 PARTIAL WETLAND DELINEATION DRAWN E.Z. .._-- 12/8/02 WETLAND IMPACT AREAS MAP DIGITIZED CHECKED M.F. _ 12/11/02 OF: AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. REvASED C.F. 12/15/02 CON 0 AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,INC.(ATEC OLYMPIA,WASHINGTON 0 TOWNSHIP 23N RANGE: 4W SECTION: 2 W.M_ 31&000 42 000 - I - ' N 23 10 WIT L K �0 I �►a W"K7 S- o o o / o J '� A O rn 1 \A 19 O 40 4 ti �cp o 0 p L. a 13 c 21 r � o a u 1 I o ;�12 TENAS LAKE = J A 7 S- 6?0;tP o 22 SOURCE:MASON COUNTY ASSESSOR OFFICE PARCEL#42302-75-00 1 1 0 5W EDRM STREET SE FIGURE: ASSESSOR MAP SUTE 100 GROTJAN WETLAND DELU4F.ATION OLvmnk WA. SM FOREST SERVICE RD 24,MASON COUNTY,WASMNGTO TEL (360) 754-3755 AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,INC.'TEC OLYMPIA,WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP- 23N RANGE:4W SECTION: 2 W.M Yam. r.�.r,.,.. t�-�-r.}1 �.�.:r_ ►�ya�'��'y,x�r.'i. -�!"`R -k f. K ����.���Jsy-- r f�.I ��H",a��-� Fr- ��� .0.:r^'•�" �",�7'�e'.� Jy �.�r3r/1t,i =rt 01-0 506 EMSM STREET SE MURE: AERULPHOTO SuiE too GAO?JAK WBTLAND DBI1riMI" OLYMIPW Wk s m FOREST SERVICE RD 24,MASON COUNff,WASFM(; M- (360) 754-3755 AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING,INC.(ATEC OLYMPIA.WASHINGTON 0 TOWNSHIP: 23N RANGE: 4W SECTION- 2 W.M -------- -- JECT A 1 iiL i1 ! � - 1 � I �t3 • i F� f� } ` r m lid t E f MAP DNIts SOII,NAME Gm GROVE GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES lid HOODSPORT GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM,5 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES Me MCMURRAY PEAT,0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES NOTE_MAP FOR LOCATING SOIL MAP UNM ONLY MAP NOT TO SCAM SOURCE_SOIL SURVEY OF MASON COUNTY AREA,WASMNGTON,SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE(19601 506 EOtM STREET SE FIGt1RE: SOII.SURVEY MAP SUITE too OLYMPIA. WA. 98501 GROTJAN WETLAND DELINEATION TEL (360) 754-3M FOREST SMVIC19 RD 24,MASON COUNnr,WASFUNGTOR - mm-aKx"199ar R F r"` i.. ha - *s IV -41 L .r } I Aka r' F ...� * _ • 1. EDISM STREET SE FIGURE: SLATE 11 GROTJAN WETLAND OLYMPI& WA. 9W WETLAND DELINEATION + AIR PHOTO 7 .1 APPENDIX B Photos Grotjan Wetland Delineation Prepared by Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. (ATEC) FIGURE P-1 View of Impact Area I-10(looking east). r FIGURE P-2 View from Impact Area 1-8(looking southeast)into the offsite forested wetland community. RIVERS FISH HABITAT WETLANDS WATERSHEDS MARINE SHORELINES A� AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. TEC 506 Edison Street SE•Suite 100• Olympia,Washington 98501 T.(360)754-3755 • F: (360)754-3431 • E-Mail:atec@aguatierra.net www.aguatierra.net Grotjan Wetland Delineation Prepared by Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. (ATEC) FIGURE P-3 View of Impact Area I-8(looking west). ►. FIGURE P-4 View of Impact Area I-7(looking north). RIVERS FISH HABITAT WETLANDS WATERSHEDS MARINE SHORELINES A AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. TEC, 506 Edison Street SE• Suite 100 • Olympia,Washington 98501 T. (360)754-3755• F: (360)754-3431 • E-Mail: atec@aguatierra.net www.aguatierra.net Grotjan Wetland Delineation Prepared by Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) FIGURE P-5 View of Impact Area I-5(looking northeast). 3 � c, �.. e FIGURE P-6 View of Impact Area I-1 at proposed site of hydroelectric generator house. View of access road to shop area. RIVERS FISH HABITAT WETLANDS WATERSHEDS MARINE SHORELINES A --� AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. TEC 506 Edison Street SE • Suite 100• Olympia,Washington 98501 T. (360)754-3755 • F: (360)754-3431 • E-Mail:atec@aguatierra.net www.aguatierra.net Grotjan Wetland Delineation Prepared by Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) lei NOW- FIGURE P-7 View of Impact Area I-2(looking west). FIGURE P-8 View of Impact Area 1-2 (looking south). RIVERS FISH HABITAT WETLANDS WATERSHEDS MARINE SHORELINES AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. TE(� 506 Edison Street SE •Suite 100 • Olympia,Washington 98501 T: (360)754-3755• F: (360)754-3431 • E-Mail:atec@aguatierra.net www.aguatierra.net Grotjan Wetland Delineation Prepared by Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) k . FIGURE P-9 Representative photo of Palustrine Emergent Wetland Class fkxikinu west acmcc wetland). y FIGURE P-10 View of Impact Area I-8(looking northwest). RIVERS FISH HABITAT WETLANDS WATERSHEDS MARINE SHORELINES AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. TEC 506 Edison Street SE • Suite 100 • Olympia,Washington 98501 T:(360)754-3755 • F: (360)754-3431 • E-Mail:atec@aguatierra.net www.aguatierra.net Grotjan Wetland Delineation Prepared by Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) FIGURE P-11 View into Inspection Hole renrecentative_ R ' a OVA ,r FIGURE P-12 View of Impact Area I-1 (looking west). This is a buffer area impacted. RIVERS FISH HABITAT WETLANDS WATERSHEDS MARINE SHORELINES AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. TEC 506 Edison Street SE • Suite 100 •Olympia,Washington 98501 T. (360)754-3755• F: (360)754-3431 • E-Mail:atec@aguatierra.net www.aguatierra.net APPENDIX C Plants Encountered On Site Grotjan Wetland Delineation and Category Determination Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) WETLAND INDICATOR STATUS OF PLANTS ENCOUNTERED NI=not an indicator NL=not listed Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status ** Stratum:HERBS Carex obnupta SEDGE,SLOUGH OBL Cirsium arvense THISTLE,CANADIAN FACU+ Epilobium angustifolium FIREWEED FACU- Equisetum arvense HORSETAIL,COMMON FAC Hippuris vulgaris MARESTAIL OBL Gaultheria shallon SALAL FACU Geum macrophyllum AVENS,LARGELEAF FACW+ Juncus ensifolius RUSH,DAGGER LEAF FACW Limosella aquatics MUDWORT OBL Ludwigia palustris WATER-PURSLANE OBL Mentha arvensis MINT,FIELD MINT FAC Nuphar polysepalum POND-LILY,YELLOW OBL Ocnanthe sarmentosa WATER PARSLEY OBL Polystichum munitum FERN, SWORD FACU Pteridium aquilinium FERN,BRACKEN FACU Rubus ursinus BLACKBERRY,TRAILING FACU Sparganium emersum BUR-REED,NARROW LEAF OBL Typha latifolia CATTAIL OBL Veronica catenata SPEEDWELL,PINK WATER OBL Veronica scutellata SPEEDWELL,MASRSH OBL ** Stratum: SHRUBS Acer circinatum MAPLE, VINE FACU+ Comus stolonifera RED-OSIER DOGWOOD FACW Physocarpus capitatus PACIFIC NINE-BARK FAC+ Rosa nutkana NOOTKA ROSE FAC Salix ssp. WILLOW FAC Spiraea Douglasii DOUGLAS SPH;AEA FACW ** Stratum:TREES Acer macrophyllum MAPLE,BIG-LEAF FACU Alnus rubra ALDER,RED FAC Pseudotsuga menziesii FIR,DOUGLAS FACU Thuja plicata CEDAR,WESTERN RED FAC Tsuga heterophylla HEMLOCK,WESTERN FACU- FILE:ATEC/PROJECISd EWISCO/SWOFFARDVWLDELIN.r= 1 APPENDIX D Definitions of Plant Indicator Status DEFINITIONS OF PLANT INDICATOR STATUS (Reed, 1988) Indicator Indicator Definition Category Symbol OBLIGATE OBL Plants that occur almost always (estimated probability WETLAND >991/o) in wetlands under natural conditions, but which PLANTS may also occur rarely(estimated probability <1%) in uplands FACULTATIVE FACW Plants that occur usually (estimated probability>67%to WETLAND 99%) in wetlands, but also occur(estimated probability PLANTS 1%to 33%)in uplands. FACULTATIVE FAC Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability PLANTS 33%to 67%)of occurring in both wetlands and uplands. FACULTATIVE FACU Plants that occur sometimes (estimated probability 1%to UPLAND PLANTS <33%) in wetlands, but occur more often(estimated probability>67%to 99%) in uplands. OBLIGATE UPL Plants that occur rarely(estimated probability >99%) in UPLAND PLANTS wetlands under normal condition. Positive and negative signs following the Indicator Symbol are regionally designated modifiers of the indicator status. A positive (+) sign indicates an increased frequency, and a negative sign(-)a decreased frequency, of occurrence in wetlands. (Reed, 1988) APPENDIX E Field Data Sheets HYDROLOGY I ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): JnundJ.dARY Indicators: I Project/Site: ❑Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge Applicant/Owner: �gerial Photographs—Sl'1t�.JS turaled in Upper 12" ❑Other f cutD I n ElWater Marks ( Investigator(s): ElNone Available 111017 ❑Drift Lines Date: I I I IQ Q_Z Community ID: ❑Sediment Deposits County: FIELD OBSERVATIONS: —� ❑Drainage Patterns in Wetlands ty� , �m`���� Transect ID; Depth of Surface Water: © (in.) I 1 State: L1) Pf Plot ID: Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators Depth to Saturated Soil:�yt,) ❑Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12' I I Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO �Kvater Stained leaves Wetlan rology Present? Local Soil Survey Data j Is the site significantly&recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES NO Yes No ❑FAC-Neutral Test I REMARKS: ❑Other(Explain in Remarks) Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain in final remarks) Yes No I '------------------------------------- -------------r - _2 ll Q, )� �1Q�" ClQ� IS p70�� � VEGETATION - nmsbf- k Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicaatto --------------------------------------------------------- I I I 1. �_�X�y. gbY1lAlOtt)l ��� SOILS e Map Unit Name 2 -- Drainage Class: ('1� I 3. (Series and Phase) , 1.�-- Taxonomy(Subgroup): Field Observati nfirm 4. Y , YkLrh ��L PROFILE DESCRIPTION Mapped Type: Yes No 6.j L 1 1710-.Z ( C Ly1 6Z _ Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture, 1 , 7. eQ,(,c a S P 4 11 in CA r / Aa j Inches( Horizon Munsell Moist) MunselMoist) Abuntlance/Contrast OConcretions1Structure,etc. 10. Percent of Dominant Species that are fislic RIC SOIL INDICATORS ( OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-) 1 ` Istosol ❑Reducing Conditions ❑Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis Epipedon jaleyed or Low-Chroma Colors `Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO ❑ Sullidic Odor ❑Concretions ,❑`Listed on National Hydric Soils List I REMARKS: ❑Aquic Moisture Regime High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I �� tr2 S Q►�� rill r1o�' (,�01 Yu 1'LO, REMARKS: n --------------------------------------------------------- WETLAND DETERMINATION hid+-�Iqg� Ql�-eu.� a hu�v�. Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Y No Is this sam oint a Wetland? � , Wetland Hydrology Present? No Yes No Hydric Soils Present? es No I U wl TU(�1.V1(JL REMARKS: CL Gl.a + -}a,IZQ,rI -�Mffl x et„S HYDROLOGY I ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators: I I/' Pro)eeVSlte: n� a n W� - r El Stream.Lake or Tide Gauge ❑Inundated Applicant/Owner: ^ '�Yl✓ 1n Aerial Photographs aturated in Upper 12' other ater Marks-tm bV_VSI'� I Investigator(s): LS't77tC'I?t 1 rD(11NN ❑None Available lDrift Lines Date: ` d2 Community IDASK Ob FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ❑Sediment Deposits County: � 1 Transact ID: ❑Drainage Patterns In Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: (In.) I I State:_ JAI h Plot ID: � 2- Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators Depth to Saturated S �l: h) (in.)- . }ol ❑Oxidized Root Channels In UPPER 12' I ' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? U "aj LAC s-601 ❑Water Stained leaves YES NO Wetlan drology Present? ❑Local Soil Survey Data Is the site significantly&recently disturbed?(A 1r�i 1 SiItuation) YES NO Yes No ❑FAC•Neutral Test i pN to REMARKS: � t ��-Q-1'1 r� ❑Other(Explain In Remarks) Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain In final remarks) YES NO L� ` � � LU��„ �_I ,' �1 QP'1� � �Yl'�. ------------------------------------------- •- d( I � VEGETATI---------O-N-- L® - L r 1J01 fz�'*A bt& Pt Dominant Plant Species _ Stratum Indicator --------- ---- rYlc c L -�j._.�------- I I 1. au.a aG `L 1 shy FACV l SOILS n - S ,I^ FRC„ / Map Unit Name �` l,(1►�l,L�� P�. � 2•-�r�S `-�n l,fl I t'Q _ �.g_y,�L -i-LLC1LY Drainage Class: 3._&nt)A n tki I aAQ1_1 �_ (Series and Phase) T � �b FC'C� Taxonomy1 4• 't2 >Il 1 Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No 5 b rN PROFILE DESCRIPTION 6. P►'bIUk-0-�C`Lt_}�'uCl —,� V Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture, I I 7, 1 � vichas Horizon (Munsetl Mast) (Munsell moist) Abundance/Controsl Concretions Structure etc. �' �2 u 5� 8.qV (� (LI IS rt�.�V"0. 9. t,�MRJN5M&__�b- --1 — Percent of Dominant Species that are HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS ( I OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-) Hlstosol ❑Reducing Conditions ❑Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Histic Epipedon XGleyed or Low•Chroma Colors ❑Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑ Sullidic Odor ❑Concretions ❑Listed on National Hydric Soils List ( REMARKS: ❑Aquic Moisture Regi Le igh Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Present? Yes No •�,�, �1 l ' '{-yam �n n , T(� REMARKS: WETLAND DETERMINATION - I !� 10 IMHydrop ��rWelland ylicHy Vegetation Present? No Is this yarn Dint a Wetland? bA- not ,.toki,,,,v � `, ( I 1_ �� A 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yas No Yes No I (•J�.JJ y.�l�l u 'Ud,y�, cJUW 1/w O,J 11J- Hyaric Soils Present? No REMARK:: I y nUPhnX_ (�� C`* , dc �Vt I C0JCf .� N uPl . a P1L C(r a - us wetland► �S HYDROLOGY ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators:—��lQ„ I / Project/Site: ❑Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge ❑Inundated Applicant/Owner: 04) �erial Photographs ❑Saturated in Upper 12' Other ❑Water Marks Investigator(s): ❑None Available ❑Drift Lines I Date: t! I(�2 Community ID: y P L-- ❑Sediment Deposits 1 C7b0 Transact ID: FIELD OBSERVATIONS: County: ❑Drainage Patterns In Wetlands Depth of Surface Water. •�- (in.) I I State:— �� Plot ID:- Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators '"�A- i —�' Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ❑Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12' I l Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YE ❑Water Stained leaves S NO Wetland Hydrolyg resent? ❑Local Soil Survey Data f Is the site significantly&recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES REMARKS: NO Yes C No� ❑FAC-Neulral Test I ❑Other(Explain In Remarks) , Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain in final remarks) YES �, nn I l `--------------------------------------------------- Ia�rnti� �� 1 I� �V�X- , 1 1� �t �S VEGETATION Dominant Plant Sneciea Stratum Indicator ---------------------------- � II �. Cf'G it -}tr �.�SOILS S t eS t r� QSL �L- Map Unit Name ►f �'(� 14.I h/ �tN braina a Class: I I 3.2, r I la F � (Series and Phase) Taxonomy4. l Field Observatio onflrm I 5 2 l�)( ; n PROFILE DESCRIPTION Mapped Type: es No 5 ' 1 Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mollie Texture, I 7. t he 1'�C') r-� t 1 — ch`s Horizon (Munsell Mast) (Munsell Most) Atwntlenca/Contrast Concrenons Structure etc. 7--�1L� e u�.]L_+ Percent of Dominant Species that are O o/ HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS i OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-) ° ❑ Hlstosol ❑Reducing Conditions ❑Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Histic Epipedon ❑Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NO y ❑Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Sullidic Odor ❑Concretions ❑Listed on National Hyddc Soils List ( REMARKS: ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑High Organic Streaking In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils I „ 1<< o �1 1 h qua_ -PREHydricMARKS: Soil Present? Yes No I T lit l�dL t REMARKS: -C4iU(I�X/Y I 1lLkl� WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this sampling poln"etland? Welland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes No I Hyaric Soils Present? Yes o REMARKS: DATA FORM 3 ATYPICAL SITUATIONS Applicant Application Projec t ,� Name: /n1^ Number: Name: Q NA Location: I I V� � l.(J Plot Number: �p Date A. VEGETATION: ' r 1. Type of Alteration: it lw hU 2. Effect on Vegetation: (. u\�Y1�, 3. Previous Vegetation: 21a P L - S DP 3 5.49 (Attach documentation) ALICCAt 06,04 Ck, y ,$ 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation? es ISY� 7ryfNo B. SOILS: (� 1. Type of Alteration: 0 Ql lM�,i "Si C�Uyed �� new i"1II 2. Effect on Soils: Cb 1 3. Previous Soils: afm-du i-riam (tl'd MC"1 AILffow (Attach documentation) 4. Hydric Soils? Ges R No C. HYDROLOGY: 1. Type of Alteration: �(�('�Y11C,V1t�(� w Inn( MA Y).d Ok U 2. Effect on Hydrology: S 1 I 3. Previous Hydrology: Mk nO& ZhDhS %Xyj YU1diTAWto (Attach documentation) 4. Wetland Hydrology? Qes (t n No Characterized By: -205- W71, 1995 r V 4jI HYDROLOGY i f I/ ROUTINE WETL ND DETERMINATION-DATA FOR 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators: —n�rLQ I Pro)ecUSlte: ❑Strearn,Lake or Tide Gauge ❑Inundated AppliCanUOwner: J� El Aerial Photographs ❑Saturated in Upper 12- ❑Other ❑Water Marks I Investigator(s): ❑None Available ❑Drift Lines I Date: I❑ I_/-"1 L%Z_ Community ID:- fie UPL El sediment Deposits FIELD OBSERVATIONS: County:Drainage Patterns in Wetlands 9Transect ID: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) I I State: Plot ID: Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators _ 11SL� Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ❑Oxidized Root Channels In UPPER 12' I l DO Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO ❑Water Stained leaves Wetland Hydrolt"sent? ❑Local Soil Survey Data ( Is the site significantly&recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES NO Yes No ❑FAC•Neutral Test I I ❑Other(Explain In Remarks) Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain in final remarks) YES No REMARKS: `---------------- ,no �'QGT(� / ,l�S , VEGETATION v Dominant Plant Soecies Stratu Indicstor --------------------------------- --- > SOILS �,I'>� 2. 4 0 Zt ss�► Map Unll Name _1Y etz Aj LL �ClSrainage Class:.f�'� Sr�o r t n�c�ye (Series and Phase) 3. :t�IJX� a _�( K Taxonomy(Subgroup): 4. r U CS I U lS U`.( 9 P): Field Observati onfirm •t Mapped Type. Yes No I I 5 L ty� S �-- PROFILE DESCRIPTION 8, r(✓t Y10��'(,lYl —iS�),C,t� - 1 1 Depth Matrix Color I Mottle ) Mottle Texture, I I 7• r( Lu tILL h o r-- lurches Horizon (Munsell Masl Munsull Moist Abuntlance/Contrest Concretions Slruetwe etc. _ 12�lc� Y 8.-1 - 1 g. PLI / I)W71 rYt A.r1L7WI) , h;-b P19C u I 10. Percent of Dominant Species that are 0 % HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS I OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-) ❑ Hlstosol ❑Reducing Conditions ❑Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑Listed on Local Hydric Soils List I HydrOphytiC Vegetation Present? Yes NO ❑ Sullidic Odor ❑Concretions ❑Listed on National Hydric Soils Ust I REMARKS: . ❑Aquic Moisture Regime ❑Hi h Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ' ln Hydric Soil Present? Yes No REMARKS: no Vwdnc, �o�l i ICA �S C S C, New w- 0gc_ ------- •------------------ WETLAND DETERMINATION �p l i CaJ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this sampling pojrSt a 1r !land? (� YU Hyaric Hydrology Present? Yes Yes No J I �� ; _ _ +- REMASoils Present? Yes .(�lh\.,� REMARKS: � 1 HYDROLOGY ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe In Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators: I I/' Project/Site: ❑Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge ❑Inundated .I Aerial Photographs Applicant/Owner: ❑ °gra Saturated in Upper t2' "L1 p I Other ElWater Marks Investigator(s): C ' ❑None Available 9Drainage Drift Lines Date: Community ID:FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Sediment Deposits-&� deb Op/ j�� � Court Patterns in Wetlands/ _ County: Transact ID: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) I I State:—I& A Plot ID: i P 4(D Depth to Free Water in Pit:7-�--(in.) SECONDARY Indicators —• Depth t Saturated�p,(1:�(in.)- ❑Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12' 1r U' w �U;t+t- S�CIk S " ❑Water Stained leaves I Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? rEs No Wetly rology Present? ❑Local Soil Survey Data Is the site significantly&recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES NO Yes No PFAC-Neutral Test REMARKS: ❑Other(Explain in Remarks) I Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain In final remarks) YES NO •--------------- -------- VEGETATION I t Strallu Indicator -------___- -- . __�__.r s _� —�� SOILS /�J � l Map Unit Nam C/ l ��l�ri I 2 �k1 L LO (YVIP i� C` L. Drainage Class:_� 3 �YYL�X -11 �L (Series and Phase) Taxonomy(Subgroup): Field Observatio s onfirm 1 4. 2 — Mapped Type: es No I I 5• C 0 a - PROFILE DESCRIPTION 6. '2Yl L5 , - J Depth Matrix Color Monte Mottle Texture, I 7. ��•� 1 �h tc V V (uichus Horizon (Munsell Mast) (Munsnll Moist) Abundance/Conuasl Concretions Slrudure etc, I a. r (Dl C)n I +���_SI U� �J 1 I g._/ W I Q)^a-Pa (, Ilb-la ro L- t D. I Percent of Dominant Species that are U O HT ❑RIC SOIL INDICATORS OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-) Islosol 0 Reducing Conditions Organic Streaking In Sandy Solis EJ Hisdc Epipedon ❑Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑Listed on Local Hydric Soils List I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑ Sullidic Odor C]Concretions ❑Listed on National Hydric Soils List I REMARKS: (7 Aquic Moisture Regime ❑High Organic Streaking In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Preq, 1 Yes No I I I +�J�h 0" 1 f�� (AC1 q►UW t ( , REMARKS:- {-j l�l � I I� IA�1 1 �1 v ________ I d ��}�,��hec=� �rn�ur l ux1 dabris ------------------ o WETLAND DETERMINATION I � �� � `c )„n� I V,U Hydrophytie Vegetation Present? No Is this sam olnt a Welland? IU�`J���` Welland Hydrology Present? No Yes No I S� Q a �/ �,$� pvQ�� / Hydric Soils Present? es No to( ("I I_ REMARKS: J "-{�1 t7U ► l 1' I'(vfio WO&KGI Q, I 1 (,(pland v 4 ,brush ptl ►KQ . 4\tl ''� ' DATA FORM 3 ATYPICAL SITUATIONS Applican � � Application Project Name: . C���r(4�1" Number: Name: Location: (,�GOr� (;tj Plot Number: l)lr" 4-1 Date: A. VEGETATION: 1. Type of Alteration: 2. Effect on Vegetation: nI&T,f (A LTUaAA7 L-110 - CUO r 3. Previous Vegetation: S CUtitL CLS ` (Attach documentation) - co ynan-LA± 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes No B. SOILS: 1. Type of Alteration: AU /2�Q/ Q,rr Qflt 2. Effect on Soils: C.i",�-kd 3. Previous Soils: Ag1,1'11C�U �-7 I G1,Upk' y�� i r T' (Attach documentation) � '�-� 4. Hydric Soils? Yes No C. HYDROLOGY: 1. Type of Alteration: 2. Effect on Hydrology: 3. Previous Hydrology: (Attach documentation) _ 6Q �;'- �, r/�LL�CI ak0(, 4. Wetland Hydrology? Yes No Characterized By: 'T C UGu4— t -205- WTI, 1995 HYDROLOGY I ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators: I /' ProjecVSite:� In IA in O ❑ Crea 09ra aturated in Upper i2'm.Lake or Tide Gauge ❑Inundated erial Photographs Applicant/Owner: P ❑Other Water Marks I Investigator(s): r ❑None Available ❑Drift Lines Date: Community ID: FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Cl sedimentSediment Deposits ( Coun : r ❑Drainage Patterns In Wetlands Transect ID: nn Depth of Surface Water: — (in.) I I State: (&4 Plot IDI� T"S Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators Depth to Saturated Soll:_J (in.) ❑Oxidized Root Channels In UPPER 12' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO —0)1 �-{(�,LS 6f, �1-(} ❑Water Stained leaves I wetlan rology PrLssent? Xoval Soil Survey Data ( Is the site significantly&recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES NO Yes No `�FAC-Neutral Test , I REMARKS: '[CCjj Other(Explain In Remarks) Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain in final remarks) YES tNO '------------------------------------------- VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum IndicatoSOILSr ---------------------------------------- I I 1. t?.1`1tt4-he �kkcb 13L Map Unit Name Drainage Class:!L I 2 (Series and Phase) I 3• �l%L111�1. - L Taxonomy(Subgroup): Field Observatio firm ( 5. 11 I, •�- t�L`�11 1 S - {1 � Mapped Type: Yes No QI°�jt� PROFILE DESCRIPTION I 1 6 (k� I -�1 —=)5L Depth Matrix Color Mottla Mottle Torture, I ], C 1 inches Honzon unsell Moist) Munsell MWet) Abuntlrrnce/Contrast Concretions Structure etc. 8. I I s. y19` 0_/ 4erl-'c 1 a -! 6-6L I Percent of Dominant Species that are / HXDRIC SOIL INDICATORS I I OBL, FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-} X Hislosol ❑Reducing Conditions ❑Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Hlstic Epipedon ❑Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors *isled on Local Hydric Soils List I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑ Sullidie Odor ❑Concretions ❑Listed on National Hydric Soils List I REMARKS: L7 Aquic Moisture Regime ❑High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 1 1 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I �C L �/ a�J �OL � REMARKS:- fi Gc �,40/,1a--h- I _-_ _i_� r�LCzcceSs_/L i v ����' ��1v,u v L� Fc,� WETLAND DETERMINATION - - - ^- 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Is this sa ling lilt a Weiland? / Weiland Hydrology Present? No Yes No n Hyaric Soils Present? Yes No I it REMARKS: I HYDROLOGY I ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINA TI O N-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators: ,y�Y�� I l' Project/Site: 0 Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge ❑Inundated AppliCanUOwner: Werial Photographs ❑Saturated in Upper 12' I IC I Other ❑Water Marks Invesligator(s): _❑ 1�' None Available ❑Drift Lines I Date:-- 1 / 2 Community 0196,P 5 ❑ Sediment Deposits FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ❑Drainage Patterns In Wetlands County: Cl G� Transect ID: (� Depth of Surface Water: (in.) I I State: Plot ID:- r Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators yl� � i Depth to Saturated Soll: (in.) ❑Oxidized Root Channels In UPPER 12' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ❑Water Stained leaves YES NO Welland Hydroesent? ❑Local Soil Survey Data ` Is the site significantly&recently disturbed?(Atypicai Situation) YES Yes No ❑FAC•Neutral Test I REMARKS: ❑Other(Explain in Remarks) Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain in final remarks) YES NO VEGETATION `� Stratum IndIcato SOILS --------------- I I 1, , {lRjJ3 f ,v. _��AA /arrr►� �- Map Unit NameHb `_ f✓f"�YGI�rZIL Drainage Class: w� 2 t- �� (Series and Phase) g I 3• 4)U 1CkS Taxonom (Subgroup): 4• G� Y` � Y( 9 P) Field Observatio onfirm 1 Mapped Type: Yes No ' I 5 ZAA PROFILE DESCRIPTION g• Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture, I i 7, Q niches Horizon Munsell Mast) �Muri MW—sI) Abundance/Contrast Concretions Structure etc. - e. v C�j�urn n LAUD ( � i � 1 l g .�41'.L� 10. I Percent of Dominant Species that are HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS ( OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAG-) L7 Hlstosol ❑Reducing Conditions ❑Organic Streaking In Sandy Solis ❑ Hislic Epipedun ❑Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 0 Sullidic Odor ❑Concretions ❑Listed on National Hydric Soils list ' REMARKS: ElAquic Moisture Regime ❑Hi h Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils tt Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I REMARKS: WETLA-------N D-•-------------- -------------------------- DETERMINATION I I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is;his sampling poin Wetland? Welland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes No I Hyoric Soils Present? Yes No REMARKS: � 1 I , HYDROLOGY ( ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators: I J Project/Site: � � i ✓1 W e ❑Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge ❑Inundated 0.✓t El Aerial Aerial Photographs Saturated in Upper 12' I ❑Other ❑Water Marks Investigator(s): ❑None Available ❑Drift Lines I Date: )) I����— Community ID: l JPX 12i ❑Sediment DepositsQ��-� FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ❑Drainage Patterns in Wetlands County. Transect ID: Depth of Surface Water: (In.) I ( State: Wa_ Plot ID: b P # 10 Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ❑Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12' I 1 Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? fFAC-Neutral ater Stained leaves BYESS NO Wetiarology Present? cal Soil Survey Data { Is the site significantly$recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) NO No Test , REMARKS: ❑Other(Explain In Remarks) Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain In final remarks) YES NO `-------------------------------------- VE ON Dominant rat In • GETATI to I PI•nt St»cies -------------------------------------------------------" I 1. �/�S f1 t j0'�G� ah�iA� 19 SOILS l�W/'%Lry _��t C Qb t91orL�p o` { �[— Map Unit Name- ) t 2.Drainage Class: I I 3, rud u.CG', C t&_ y� f� Gr_ 3 Series and Phase —_�'tSL Taxonomy(Subgroup): Field Observatio onfirm 4'—L�r vy-� il Mapped Type: es No I 5. r 1 l f burn hai �— PROFILE DESCRIPTION 6. Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture, I I �- inches Horizon Mu sell Mast) M sell Molsl) Abundance/Conlrasl Concretions Structure etc. 8. /!dam' ifi� U T l s. 10. ` I Percent of Dominant Species that are HY RIC SOIL INDICATORS I HL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-) �O Istosol ❑Reducing Conditions ❑Organic Streaking In Sandy Solis Histic Epipedon ❑Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors I I HydrophytiC Vegetation Present? Yes No y ❑Listed on Local Hydric Soils List g ❑ Sullidic Odor ❑Concretions ❑Listed on National Hydric Soils List REMARKS: 0 Aquic Moisture Regime ❑High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Present? as No REMARK Q� f�U /V?lr oSvl r 1 ------- - --------------------- WETLAND DETERMINATION I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Is this sarrtalr^�/nt a Wetland? Welland Hydrology Present? s No Yes No I Hyaric Soils Present? e5 No I 1 REMARKS: DATA FORM 3 ATYPICAL SITUATIONS Applicant Application Project / Name: Number: Name: " M Location: fi_)Ot'> W Plot Number: �{?� Date: A. VEGETATION: 1. Type of Alteration. 2. Effect on Vegetation: f')6Y _ t-le-MC 10'c tgs rt'rn(JVrJ 3. Previous Vegetation:244a OUL# lop# 8 (Attach documentation) 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes No B. SOILS: v I. Type of Alteration:_'0�1 'ga cQ/M�t" i 2. Effect on Soils: 6r1 3. Previous Soils: 017)Un2u (Attach documentation) 4. Hydric Soils? Yes No C. HYDROLOGY: 2 1. Type of Alteration: 1 2. Effect on Hydrology: i 3. Previous Hydrology: (Attach documentation) 4. Wetland Hydrology? Yes No Characterized Bv:� -205- WTI, 1995 DATA FORM 3 ATYPICAL SITUATIONS Applicant Application Project Name: Number: Name: V � Location: l� � Plot Number: �� l�j Date: A. VEGETATION: q 1. Type of Alteration: 1 q. 2. Effect on Vegetation: nI-AZ oark,w'uZ4 3. Previous Vegetation: I , (Attach documentation) ._ 'N, 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes No B. SOILS: 1. Type of Alteration: .e 2. Effect on Soils: bC14.1 rla�'V_cl z is 3. Previous Soils: (Attach documentation) 1. 4. Hydric Soils? Yes No C. HYDROLOGY: 1. Type of Alteration: be.('rY,_ 2. Effect on Hydrology:xj 71 � i \j 3. Previous Hydrology: (Attach documentation) 4. Wetland Hydrology? Yes No Characterized By: -205- WTI, 1995 DATA FORM 3 ATYPICAL SITUATIONS Applicant Application Proje ' , T� DL Name: Al � Gy 1 Number: Name: W-J, Location: MgQjt) 1 Ct� • Plot Number: p� [per Date: Nt I CA 102. Sa,� ots P A. VEGETATION: (,D (3 H- 1. Type of Alteration fi ,C) U 2. Effect on Vegetation: 3. Previous Vegetation: (Attach documentation) 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes No B. SOILS: 1. Type of Alteration: - -fi�:� �'� ;I i' .fi' 2. Effect on Soils: 4:� 3. Previous Soils: j 1 . (Attach documentation) i 4. Hydric Soils? Yes No C. HYDROLOGY: 1. Type of Alteration: 2. Effect on Hydrology: 3. Previous Hydrology: (Attach documentation) 4. Wetland Hydrology? Yes No Characterised B,: 77 r rz-,1.,L'X--� i -205- WTI, 1995 HYDROLOGY I ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators:"- I , Project/Site: �' r r' r(Y ❑Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge ❑Inundated El Aerial ` N� 1 Aerial Photographs ❑Saturated in Upper 12' ❑Other ❑Water Marks I Investigator(s): OIl U, ❑None Available ❑Drift Lines Date: i I /,I p•Z Community ID: ❑Sediment Deposits FIELD OBSERVATIONS: County: �� Transact ID:❑Drainage Patterns In Wetlands D: I Depth of Surface Water. (in.) I I State: � Plot ID: +-�� Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators- I V-1 R_ Depth to Saturated SOII: (in.) ❑Oxidized Rool Channels In UPPER 12' I 1 Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? <^� ❑Water Stained leaves YES ) NO Welland HydronNo resent? ❑Local Soil Survey Data Is the site significantly$recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES SN Yes ❑FAC•Neutral Test ❑Other(Explain In Remarks) ' Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain in final remarks) YES REMARKS: -------------------------------------- ----------- VEGETATION Dominant Plant Spades Stratum Indieftr -------------------------------- I I 1. 2( �h d.AA b FOC solLs "��� Il ---------------- 2. C-� �n-7 -r----- MapUnitName �G1Y0lU U 1 ainag Class�I 3. Q✓_.Ue /iQ C' (Series and Phase) _� Taxonomy(Subgroup): Field Observati�^F 4• � n r(/P � An Mapped Type:' Yes No I I I 5• PROFILE DESCRIPTION 1 g, Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture, I I I ], urchas Horizon Mu sell Masl) (Munson Moist) Ab d ii/Contrrsl Concretion Struetur etc. go •(' Q a. I � � g. 1 10. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS ( OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-) o�O ❑Hislosol ❑Reducing Conditions O Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils C1 Hisllc E i don O Listed on Local Hydric Soils List H dro h IC �ffir1 P Pe p Gleyed or Low•Chroma Colors I Y P Yt� Vegetation Present? Ces) 0 Sullidic Odor ❑Concretions ❑Listed on National Hydric Soils Ust I REMARKS: Aquic Moisture Regime ❑Hi h Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils I Hydric Soil Present? Yes No REMARKS: -------.--------INATIO-----N----- WETLAND DETERM I Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? 0-1Is this sampling I elland? Welland Hydrology Present? Yes o Yes No I Hydric Soils Present? Yes o REMARKS: CUa P. ISt) r1 t HYDROLOGY ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM(� 1987 MANUAL RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): P MARY Indicators: I ` ProJ@CVSIte: ❑Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge undated i—`tD ❑Aerial Photographs ��� Applicant/Owner: og aturated in Upper 12- ❑Other ❑Water Marks ( Investigator(s): o GnD)CL _-n ❑None Available ❑Drift Lines I Date:—_ t 1 Community FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ❑Sediment Deposits Count❑Drainage Patterns In Wetlands y: ' '\^(�" Transect ID: f� Depth of Surface Water: (In.) I I State: (d l�!- Plot ID: Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators 11 Depth to Saturated Soil:SiLl1Ll ) ❑Oxidized Root Channels In UPPER 12' Do Normal Circumstances exist on❑Water Stained leaves the site? YEs NO WetlandJ4ydrology Present? ❑Local Soil Survey Data Is the site slgnificanUy&recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES N lllf Y No ❑FAC-Neutral Test ) REMARKS: P ❑Other(Explain In Remarks Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain in final remarks) YES �to/17 PA1C� e f'1 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Soecles Stratum indicator ---------------------------------------------------�-- I �.- (ll Se i-u�n U2d14� KLLP-40 F-lA-e— SOILS {�{� Map Unit Name! ' ' `�� / LU f , I I 3 1 Drainage Class: h �� p (Series and Phase) Y lL� Taxonomy(Subgroup): Field Obsetvatio onUrm 4• Urno-ztka - Mapped Type: es No i 5• PROFILE DESCRIPTION 1 g, Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle 1 ` Texture,M Ceti Most) M ' I I ], aceonttast Concretions Slructure etc. 8. J 1 9. 1 10. Percent of Dominant Species that are f�� HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS OBL, FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-) % Hlslosol ❑Reducing Conditions O Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils l_J Hislic Epipedon ❑Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ❑Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No D Sultidic Odor ❑Concretions ❑Listed on National Hydric Soils List I REMARKS: v Aquic Moisture Regime _p High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ' i Hydric Soil Present? Yes o I REMARKS: D ----------------INA--TI--ON---------------•--------------------- WETLAN DETERM I i Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Is this$a n oint a Wetland? Welland Hydrology Present? No Yes No I Hyaric Soils Present? es No REMARKS: HYDROLOGY I ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMI/NATION�DAnTI FORM 1987 MANUAL l RECORDED DATA(Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY lndicatoigr (,uryT I ` ProjecYSite: ❑Stream,Lake or Tide Gauge ❑Inundated Applicant/Owner: ❑Aerial Photographs ❑Saturated in Upper 12' ❑Other ❑Water Marks Investigator(s): ❑None Available ❑Drift Lines Date: 1 Community ID: 04 ► ❑Sediment Deposits y� FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ❑Drainage Patterns in Wetlands County: / 1 � TranseCt ID;:� Depth of Surface Water: (in.) ���, I I State: Q Plot ID: i) 44 Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) SECONDARY Indicators _ � Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ❑Oxidized Root Channels In UPPER 12' I ' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES No ❑Water Stained leaves Welland Hydros r sent? ❑Local Soil Survey Data + Is the site significantly&recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES NO Yes No ❑FAc-Neutral Test I Is the area a potential Problem Area?(Explain in final remarks) YES NO REMARKS: ❑Other(Explain in Remarks) / `------------------------------------------------------- — — ylGsl�e lT/ �Q L bp-* � � VEGETATION (� Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator soil`s-------------------------------- - --------- ,�� y Map Unit NameC- 921/�a(QVe��e� y 1� nage Class: �� I 3 p / n q �n � (Series and Phase) 4 43 ul 441 ev3 u 0-'1 PoLuk Taxonomy(Subgroup): Field Observati nfirm t PROFILE DESCRIPTION Mapped Type: Yes No I I 5. A re L�� S�1 �.�-r Urptlt Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture, I I 7. finches Horizon (Munsell Mast) (Munsell Molsl) Abunoance/Contrast Concretions Struct a etc. graud6dwdu I 1 s. 10. Percent of Dominant Species that are HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS 1 OBI-,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-) I11510sol ❑Reducing Conditions O Organic Streaking In Sandy Solis EJ Histic Epipedon ❑Gleyed or Low•Chroma Colors I HydrophytiC Vegetation Present? Yes t O Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Sullidic Odor ❑Concretions ❑Listed on National Hydric Soils List I REMARKS: L7.lquic Moisture Regime ❑HI Organic Streaking in S,trdac��M Soils Hydric Soil Present? Yes No kL REMARKS: ----------------------- WETLAND DETERMINATION Hyarophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this sampling pot nd? Welland Hydrology Present? Yes N,.-) Yes No I Hydric Soils Present? Yes No REMARKS: APPENDIX F Wetland Rating Forms Wetlands Rating Office Data Form Background Information: Name of Rater: GDC�V-Affiliation: Date: I Z- Name of wetland(if known): Government Jurisdiction of wetland: aw cl Location: 1/4 S: of 1/4 S: s v" SEC: o2 TWNSHP: �23/V RNGE: y SOURCES OF INFORMATION: (Check all sources that apply) Site visit: _USGS Topo Map:X NWI map: Aerial Photo:/- Soils survey:, Other: Describe: When office and/or field data forms are completed enter Category here: ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS BELOW. If the source agency Data Category identifies the wetland as satisfying any of the questions below, Source (the highest circle the category in"CATEGORY"column. qualifies) Category I Questions A. Is the wetland in a Section and Subsection that has been docu- DNR- Yes: Next mented as a habitat that performs a life support function for any State Natural estion or Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species? Heritage; No: Go to For the purposes of this rating system,"documented"means the and Question D wetland is on the appropriate state database. WDW NOTE: The rating of a wetland is incomplete in most cases without this documentation. B.Does the wetland contain individuals of Federal or State-listed DNR- Yes: Category I Threatened or Endangered plant species; OR Natural No: N ,8 Does the wetland contain documented occurences of federal Heritage' Question or state-listed Threatened or-Endangered wildlife and species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife? WDW C. Does the wetland contain documented occurences of State or WDW; Yes:Category I Federally listed Threatened or Endangered fish species,OR races WDF o:Ne� of fish,managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife Question or the Washington Department of Fisheries? 10 i' Wetlands Rating Office Data Form(continued) D. Is the wetland already on record with the Washington Natural DNR- Yes:Cat ory I Heritage Program as a high quality native wetland? Natural No: Next— Heritage uesti E. Does the wetland contain documented regionally significant WDW Yes: Category 1 waterfowl or shorebird concentration areas? o: Next Question F. Is the wetland documented as a Category I Wetland of Local Local Yes: Category I Significance? Government !Question Next Category II Questions G. Is the wetland in a Township,Section and Subsection that has DNR- ex been documented as a habitat for any State listed Sensitive plant Natural estion or animal species? Heritage NO -Go to Program; Question K and WDW H. Does the wetland contain individuals of State-listed Sensitive DNR Yes:Cat.U plant species? Natural No: Nexi Heritage ueslion= I. Does the wetland contain documented occurences of federally or WDW Yes: Cat.H state-listed sensitive wildlife species? orNe '� Question_ J. Does the wetland contain documented occurences of state or WDF Yes: Cat.II federally listed Sensitive fish species? WDW o:Next . Question K. Does the wetland contain priority species or habitats documented WDW Yes. Cam, by Washington Department of Wildlife's Priority Habitats and No: Next Species Program ? Question L. Is the wetland documented as a Category H Wetland of Local Local Yes: Cat. 11 Significance? Government No: Next Question Category III Questions M. Is the wetland documented as a Category III wetland of local Local Yes: Cat.III significance. Government No: go to Rating Field Data Form 11 s Wetlands Rating Field Data Form Background Information: Name of Rater: S�L� Ulj GW�..0 7 Affiliation: �T Date: 1 I Name of wetland(if known): �����015+1 - G C(yA10Y1 Government Jurisdiction of wetland: I t kks?) c i Location: 1/4 Section: �l= of 1/4 S: Section: 2 Township: 2�'�Range:y1 w Sources of Information: (Check all sources that apply) Site visit: USGS Topo Map: X NWI map: Aerial Photo: _Y_Soils survey: Other: Describe: When The Feld Data form is complete enter Category here: 0.1. High Quality Natural Wetland Circle Answers Answer this question if you have adequate information or experience to do so. If not find someone with the expertise to answer the questions. Then, if the answer to questions la, lb and lc are all NO,contact the Natural Heritage program of DNR. Ia.Human caused disturbances. Is there significant evidence of human-caused changes to topography or hydrology of the wetland as indicated by any of the following conditions? Consider only changes that may have taken place in the last 5 decades. The impacts of changes done earlier have probably been stabilized and the wetland ecosystem will be close to reaching some new equilibrium that may represent a high quality wetland. 1 al. Upstream watershed> 12% impervious. Yes: go to Q.2 1a2. Wetland is ditched and water flow is not obstructed. Yes: o to .2 1a3. Wetland has been graded, filled,logged es: go to la4. Water in wetland is controlled by dikes,weirs,etc. Yes: go to Q.2 lay. Wetland is grazed. Yes: go to Q.2 1 a6. Other indicators of disturbance(list below) Yes: go to Q.2 No: go to lb. 25 E r . lb Are there populations of non-native plants which are currently present, YES: go to Q.2 cover more than 10% of the wetland, and appear to be invading native No:go to Ic. populations? Briefly describe any non-native plant populations and Information source(s): lc. Is there evidence of human-caused disturbances which have visibly YES: go to Q.2 degraded water quality. Evidence of the degradation of water quality NO:Possible Cat I include: direct(untreated) runoff from roads or parking lots; presence, contact DNR- or historic evidence, of waste dumps;oily sheens;the smell of organic chemicals;or lifestock use. Briefly describe: 0.2. Irreplaceable Ecological Functions: Does the wetland: to all: go to Q.3) ® have at least 1/4 acre of organic soils deeper than 16 inches o to 2a and the wetland is relatively undisturbed;OR [IIf the answer is NO because the wetland is disturbed briefly describe: Indicators of disturbance may include: -Wetland has been graded,filled,logged; - Organic soils on the surface are dried-out for more than half of the year; -Wetland receives direct stormwater runoff from urban or agricultural areas.]; OR ® have a forested class greater than 1 acre; (DES �;o to 2b OR ® have characteristics of an estuarine system; YES: Go to 2c OR ® have eel grass, floating or non-floating kelp beds? YES: Go to 2d 2a. Bogs and Fens Are any of the three following conditions met for the area of organic soil? 2a.1. Are Sphagnum mosses a common ground cover(>30%) and the cover of invasive species (see Table 3) is less than 10%? Is the area of sphagnum mosses and deep organic soils> 1/2 acre? YES: Category I Is the area of sphagnum mosses and deep organic soils 1/4-1/2 acre? YES: Category H NO: o to 2a.3 2a.2. Is there an area of organic soil which has an emergent class with at least one species from Table 2, and cover of invasive species is< 10% (see Table 3). Is the area of herbaceous plants and deep organic soils> 1/2 acre? YES: Category I Is the area of herbaceous plants and deep organic soils 1/4-1/2 acre? YES: Category II t NO: Go to 2a.3 26 2a.3. Is the vegetation a mixture of only herbaceous plants and Sphagnum r mosses with no scrub/shrub or forested classes? Is the area of herbaceous plants,Sphagnum, and deep organic soils> 12 acre? YES: Category I Is the area of herbaceous plants, Sphagnum, and deep organic soils 1/4-1/2 acre? YES: Category H NO• Go to Q.3. Q.2b. Mature forested wetland. 2b.1. Does 50%of the cover of upper forest canopy consist of evergreen YES:Category I trees older than 80 years or deciduous trees older than 50 years? NO:Go to 2b.2 Note:The size of trees is often not a measure of age, and size cannot be used as a surrogate for age (see guidance). 2b.2. Does 50% of the cover of forest canopy consist of evergreen trees older YES: Go to 2b.3 than 50 years, AND is the structural diversity of the forest high as NO: Go to Q.3 characterized by an additional layer of trees 20'-49'tall, shrubs 6'-20', tall,and a herbaceous groundcover? 2b.3. Does <25% of the areal cover in the herbaceous/groundcover or YES: Category I the shrub layer consist of invasive/exotic plant species from the list on p. 19? NO: Go to Q.3 Q.2c. Estuarine wetlands. 2cl. Is the wetland listed as National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, YES:Category I National Estuary Reserve,Natural Area Preserve,State Park,or NO: Go to 2c.2 Educational, Environmental or Scientific Reserves designated under WAC 332-30-151? . . . . . 2c.2. Is the wetland>5 acres; . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES:Category I Note: If an area contains patches of salt tolerant vegetation that are 1)less than 600 feet apart and that are separated by mudflats that go dry on a Mean Low Tide,or 2) separated by tidal channels that are less than 100 feet wide; all the vegetated areas are to be considered together in calculating the wetland area. or is the wetland 1-5 acres; . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES: Go to 2c.3 or is the wetland< 1 acre?. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES: Go to 2c.4 r 27 2c.3. Does the wetland meet at least 3 of the following 4 criteria: . . . . . . . . YES: Category I NO:Category II -minimum existing evidence of human related disturbance such as diking,ditching, filling,cultivation,grazing or the presence of non- native plant species(see guidance for definition); -surface water connection with tidal saltwater or tidal freshwater; - at least 75% of the wetland has a 100'buffer of ungrazed pasture, open water, shrub or forest; -has at least 3 of the following features: low marsh;high marsh;tidal channels; lagoon(s);woody debris; or contiguous freshwater wetland. 2c.4.Does the wetland meet all of the four criteria under 26. (above)?. . YES: Category II NO:Category III Q.2d. Eel Grass and Kelp Beds. 2d.1. Are eel grass beds present?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES:Category I NO:go to 2d.2 2d.2. Are there floating or non-floating kelp bed(s)present with greater than YES:Category I 50% macro algal cover in the month of August or September?. . . . . . . . . NO:Category II Q.3. Category IV wetlands. 3a. Is the wetland:less than 1 acre aild, hydrologically isolated and, comprised of one vegetated class that is dominated(>80% areal cover) YES:Category IV by one species from Table 3 (page 19)or Table 4(page 20) NO go to 3b 3b. Is the wetland: less than two acres and,hydrologically isolated, with one vegetated class, and>90% of areal cover is any combination of ago :Category IV species from Table 3 (page 19) to 3c 3c. Is the wetland excavated from upland apd a pond smaller than 1 acre S: Category IV without a surface water connection to streams,lakes,rivers,or other NO o to Q.4 wetland, and has<0.1 acre of vegetation. 28 Q.4. Significant habitat value. Answer all questions and enter data requested. Circle scores that qualify 4a. Total wetland area acres 1gints Estimate area, select from choices in the near-right column, and score in the >200 6 far column: 40-200 5 10-40 . 4 Enter acreage of wetland here I O acres, and source:G12Y1 t (5 1 -5 0.1 - 1 1 <0.1 0 3 4b. Wetland classes: Circle the wetland classes below that qualify: Open Water: if the area of open water is> 1/4 acre Aquatic Beds: if the area of aquatic beds> 1/4 acre, Emergent: if the area of emergent class is> 1/4 acre, #of classes Points 1 . . . . . . .0 Scrub-Shrub: if the area of scrub-shrub class is> 1/4 acre, 2 . . . . . . . 3 3 . . . . . . . 6 Forested: if area of forested class is> 1/4 acre, (2D. . . . cr) 5 . . . . . . .10 Add the number of wetland classes,above,that qualify, and then score according to the columns at right. e.g. If there are 4 classes(aquatic beds,open water,emergent& --� scrub-shrub), you would circle 8 points in the far right column. 4c. Plant species diversity. For each wetland class(at right)that qualifies in Class #species in class Points 4b above,count the number of different plant species Aquatic Bed 1 0 you can find that cover more than 5% of the ground. T You do not have to name them. 2 >3 3 Score in column at far right: e.g. If a wetland has an aquatic bed class with 3 species, Emergent 1 0 an emergent class with 4 species and a scrub-shrub 2-3 1 class with 2 species you would circle 2, 2, and 1 in the 4-5 2 far column. >5 Note: Any plant species with a cover of>5% qualifies for points within a class, even those Scrub-Shrub 1 0 that are not of that class. 2 1 Cr D C72 >4 3 Forested 1 0 2 1 34 2 >4 29 4d. Structural diversity. If the wetland has a forested class,add 1 point if each of the following classes is present within the forested class and is larger than 1/4 acre: -trees>50' tall . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES - 1 -trees 20'-49' tall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fS 1-shrubs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -herbaceous ground cover. . . . . .. . . . . . . 1 Also add 1 point if there is any"open water"or"aquatic bed"class immediately next to the forested area(ie. there is no scrub/shrub or emergent vegetation between them). YES - 1 4e. Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between High-5 wetland classes is high, moderate,low or none? If you think the Moderate- 3 amount of interspersion falls in between the diagrams score accordingly Low- 1 (i.e. a moderately high amount of interspersion would score a 4, None-0 while a moderately low amount would score a 2) none low low . . . . . . . , moderate moderate high 4f. Habitat features. Answer questions below, circle features that apply, and score to right: Is there evidence that the open or standing water was caused by beavers YES = 2 Is a heron rookery located within 300'? YES = 1 Are raptornest/s located within 300'? YES= 1 Are there at least 3 standing dead trees (snags)per acre greater than y 10" in diameter at"breast height"(DBH)?. (YES= 1 Are there at least 3 downed logs per acre with a diameter > 6" for at least 10' in length? YES = 1 Are there areas (vegetated or unvegetated) within the wetland that are ponded for at least 4 months out of the year, and the wetland has not qualified as having an open water class in Question 4b. ? YES=2 30 4g. Connection to streams. (Score one answer only.) (` 4g.1. Does the wetland provide habitat for fish at any time of the year AND l does it have a perennial surface water connection to a fish bearing stream. YES=6 4g.2 Does the wetland provide fish habitat seasonally AND does it have a seasonal surface water connection to a fish bearing stream. YES=4 4g.3 Does the wetland function to export organic matter through a surface water connection at all times of the year to a perennial stream. YES=4 4g.4 Does the wetland function to export organic matter through a surface water connection to a stream on a seasonal basis? YES=2 4h.Buffers. Score the existing buffers on a scale of 1-5 based on the following four descriptions. If the condition of the buffers do not exactly match the description,score either a point higher or lower depending on whether the buffers are less or more degraded Forest,scrub, native grassland or open water buffers are present for more than 100'around 95%of the circumference. Score=5 Forest,scrub, native grassland,or open water buffers wider than 100' for more than 1/2 of the wetland circumference,or a forest,scrub, grasslands,or open water buffers for more than 50'around 95%of the circumference. Score=3 Forest,scrub,native grassland,or open water buffers wider than 100' for more than 1/4 of the wetland circumference, or a forest,scrub,native grassland, or open water buffers wider than 50'for more than 1/2 of the wetland circumference. Score=2 No roads,buildings or paved areas within 100'of the wetland for more than 95%of the wetland circumference. Score=2 No roads,buildings or paved areas within 25'of the wetland for more than 95% of the circumference,or No roads buildings or paved areas within 50'of the wetland for more than 1/2 of the wetland circumference. Score= 1 Paved areas, industrial areas or residential construction(with less than 50' between houses) are less than 25 feet from the wetland for more than 95% of the circumference of the wetland. Score=0 31 4i. Connection to other habitat areas: Select the description which best matches the site being evaluated. -Is the wetland connected to,or part of, a riparian corridor at least 100'wide connecting two or more wetlands;or,is there an upland connection present>100' wide with good forest or shrub cover (>25%cover)connecting it with a Significant Habitat Are ? - CCfU Lt(CIcd +r, �„—SLLe-PA CC—,t t 6Ri'' YES=5 �i 1� ► rC YIn�j cck.e c�nntc-ht'1) -�v &sue we HotAds -Is the wetland connected to any other Habitat Area with either 1)a forested/shrubS� corridor< 100'wide,or 2) a a corridor that is> 100'wide, but has a low vegetative cover less than 6 feet in height? YES= 3 -Is the wetland connected to,or a part of, a riparian corridor between 50- 100' wide with scrub/shrub or forest cover connection to other wetlands? YES=3 -Is the wetland connected to any other Habitat Area with narrow corridor(<100') of low vegetation(<6'in height)? YES= I As the wetland and its buffer(if the buffer is less than 50' wide) completely isolated by development(urban,residential with a density greater than 2/acre,or industrial)? YES =0 Now add the scores circled (for Q.Sa - Q.5i above) to get a total. Is the Total greater than or equal to 22 points? -- YES= ategory II �..� NO=Category III r 32 APPENDIX G Species Letters State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N,Olympia,WA 98501-1091-(360)902-2200:TDD(360)902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building,1111 Washington Street SE,Olympia,WA Date: NOV 5 M2 Dear Habitats and Species Requester: Enclosed are the habitats and species products you requested from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). This package may also contain documentation to help you understand and use these products. These products only include information that WDFW maintains in a computer database. They are not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife, nor are they designed to provide you with guidance on interpreting this information and determining how to proceed in consideration of fish and wildlife. These products only document the location of important fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is important to note that habitats or species may occur on the ground in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site-specific surveys are frequently necessary to rule out the presence of priority habitats or species. Your project may require further field inspection or you may need to contact our field biologists or others in WDFW to assist you in interpreting and applying this information. Generally, for assistance on a specific project, you should contact the WDFW Habitat Program Manager for your county and ask for the area habitat biologist for your project area. Refer to the enclosed directory for those contacts. Please note that sections potentially impacted by spotted owl management concerns are displayed on the 1:24,000 scale standard map products. If specific details on spotted owl site centers are required they must be requested separately. These products are designed for users external to the forest practice permit process and as such does not reflect all the information pertinent to forest practice review. The Forest Practice Rules adopted August 22, 1997 by the Forest Practice Board and administered by the Washington Department of Natural Resources require forest practice applications to be screened against marbled murrelet detection areas and detection sections. Marbled murrelet detection locations are included in the standard priority habitats and species products, but the detection areas and detection sections are not included. If your project is affected by Forest Practice Regulations, you should specially request murrelet detection areas. WDFW updates this information as additional data become available. Because fish and wildlife species are mobile and because habitats and species information changes, project reviews for fish and wildlife should not rest solely on mapped information. Instead, they should also consider new information gathered from current field investigations. Remember, habitats and species information can only show that a species or habitat type is present, they cannot show that a species or habitat type is not present. These products should not be used for future projects. Please obtain updates rather than use outdated information. August 2002 Because of the high volume of requests for information that WDFW receives, we need to charge for these products to recover some of our costs. Enclosed is an invoice itemizing the costs for your request and instructions for submitting payment. Please note that sensitive information (e.g., threatened and/or endangered species) may be included in this request. These species are vulnerable to disturbances and harassment. In order to protect the viability of these species we request that you not disseminate the information as to their whereabouts. Please refer to these species presence in general terms. For example: "A Peregrine Falcon is located within two miles of the project area". If your request required a sensitive Fish and Wildlife Information Release Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and you or your organization has one on file, please refer to that document for conditions regarding release of this information. For more information on WDFW you may visit our web site at www.wa.gov/wdfw or visit the Priority Habitats and Species site at www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm. For information on the state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as high quality wetland'and terrestrial ecosystems, please contact the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program at PO Box 47014, Olympia Washington 98504- 7014, by phone (360)902-1667 or visit the web site at www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/fr/nhp/Wanhp.html. If you have any questions or problems with the information you received please call me at (360) 902-2543 or fax (360) 902-2946. Sincerely, 6--J JJ Lori Guggenmos, GIS Programmer Priority Habitats and Species Enclosures August 2002 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT IN THE VICINITY OF T23R04W SECTION 2 Report Date: November 14, 2002 PHS POLYGON FORM LIST - CROSS REFERENCE REPORT IN THE VICINITY OF T23R04W SECTION 2 FORM NUMBER/ PHSPOLY# PHS CODE*USE CODE ----- ----------------- EE EIVED 2 900000 3 900954 CEEL*RLC- 4 901090 BUCL*B- PHS POLYGON - SPECIES AND HABITAT LIST PHS FORM# PRIORITY PHS CODE COMMON NAME USE CODE USE DESCRIPTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 900,000 900,954 YES CEEL ELK RLC REGULAR LARGE CONCENTRATION 901,090 YES BUCL COMMON GOLDENEYE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE Form number 900000 indicates presence of PHS is unknown or the area was not mapped. Form numbers 909998, 909997, or 909996 indicate compilation errors. YES under the "PRIORITY" column indicates that the species or habitat is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. WILDLIFE HERITAGE POINT - SPECIES LIST AND REPORT IN THE VICINITY OF T23R04W SECTION 2 QUADPT PRIORITY SPPCODE COMMON NAME USE CODE USE DESCRIPTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4712342003 YES DRPI PILEATED WOODPECKER B BREEDING OCCURRENCE YES under the "PRIORITY" column indicates that the species or habitat is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. quadpt: 4712342003 sppcode: DRPI use: B name: PILEATED WOODPECKER year: 1979 class: SA accuracy: C state status: SC fed status: township - range - section: T23N R04W S10 occur#: 19 seqno: 1 general description: PILEATED WOODPECKER NESTING IN CEDAR SNAG IN LILLIWAUP SWAMP, 2 ADS SIGHTED,1 IN CAVITY,l ON NEAR BY BRANCHES OF SNAG. Note: If known occurences of spotted owls and marbled murrelets exist they will be displayed on the accompanying map, however, detailed information for them are not included in this report. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - PHS POLYGON REPORT Report Date: 11/14/2002 form: 900,954 species/habitat: CEEL species use: RLC season: W accuracy: 1 sitename: LILLIWAUP ELK WINTER RANGE general description: LILLIWAUP SWAMP ELK WINTER RANGE source: SCHROER, GREG, RAGON, MIKE, BERNTHAL, CAROL, COREA, GINNA date: 12 89 code: PROF synopsis: OBSERVED USE AND COUNTS. form: 901,090 species/habitat: BUCL species use: B season: S accuracy: 1 sitename; MELBOURNE LAKE general description: CAVITY NESTING DUCKS - OBSERVED DURING BREEDING SEASON source: GORSLINE, JERRY WEC date: 05 90 code: PROF synopsis: WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PRIORITY ANADROMOUS AND RESIDENT FISH PRESENCE REPORT FROM THE STREAMNET DATABASE IN THE VICINITY OF T23R04W SECTION 2 Report Date: November 14, 2002 PRIORITY ANADROMOUS FISH PRESENCE CODE COMMON NAME STREAM NAME STREAM LLID RECORD DATE SOURCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SRCT Searun Cutthroat Lilliwaup Creek 1231128474634 01-01-90 WDFW Staff PRIORITY RESIDENT FISH PRESENCE CODE COMMON NAME STREAM NAME STREAM LLID RECORD DATE SOURCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCT Resident Cutthroat Jorsted Creek 1230485475263 07-15-97 WDFW Staff CCT Resident Cutthroat Lilliwaup Creek 1231128474634 07-15-97 WDFW Staff RBT Rainbow Trout Lilliwaup Creek 1231128474634 02/05/90 WDFW Staff CCT Resident Cutthroat Stream name(s) not in database 1230998474989 07-15-97 WDFW Staff RBT Rainbow Trout Stream name(s) not in database 1230998474989 02/05/90 WDFW Staff CCT Resident Cutthroat Washington Creek 1231422475700 07-15-97 WDFW Staff The fish information in this report only includes information that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. This information only documents the location of important fish resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory of the fish species in the state. Fish are identified as priority by WDFW if they meet one of three criterion as listed in the Priority Habitats and Species List. The list is available by contacting WDFW Priority Habitats and Species section at (360)902-2543 or it is available on our web site at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm. To insure appropriate use of this information users are encouraged to consult with WDFW biologists. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF ` Natural DOUGSUTHERLAND atu ra I Resources Commissioner of Public Lands v November 18, 2002 Stacey Godin ATEC 506 Edison St SE— Ste 100 Olympia WA 98501 SUBJECT: Grotjan Wetland Delineation—Mason Co. (T23N R04W S02) We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on significant natural features in your project area. Currently, we have no records for rare plants or high quality ecosystems in the vicinity of your project. The information provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on existing information in the database. In the absence of field inventories, we cannot state whether or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare species; there may be significant natural features in your study area of which we are not aware. The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for information on the state's rare plants as well as high quality ecosystems. We have begun to add information to our database on selected groups of animals of conservation concern, such as freshwater mussels, butterflies and bats. However, to ensure that you receive information on all animal species of concern, please contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091, or by phone (360) 902-2543. If you have internet access,please visit our website for more information. Lists of rare plants and their status, as well as rare plant fact sheets, are available for download from the site. You will find us listed under Programs& Topics on the WA DNR homepage at www.wadnr.gov. Please call me at (360) 902-1667 if you have any questions, or by E-Mail: sandra.moody@wadnr.gov. ncerely, 4 Sandy Swope Mood , nvironmental eview Coordinator Washington Natural Heritage Program Asset Management& Protection Division,PO Box 47014,Olympia WA 98504-7014 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE 1 PO BOX 47000 1 OLYMPIA,WA 98504-7000 TEL:(360)902-1000 1 FAX:(360)902-1775 1 TTY:(360)902-1125 '� '° Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER L"0 O�PQ��ENT OF Ty�i2� � 9 United States Department of the tnterior O 7 .A FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE �'gRCH 3 �$s� Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 534-9331 DEC 0 3 200z Dear Species List Requester: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are providing the information you requested to assist your determination of possible impacts of a proposed project to species of Federal concern. Attachment A includes the listed threatened and endangered species, species proposed for listing, candidate species, and/or species of concern that may be within the area of your proposed project. Any Federal agency,currently or in the future,that provides funding,permitting,licensing,or other authorization for this project must assure that its responsibilities under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), are met. Attachment B outlines the responsibilities of Federal agencies for consulting or conferencing with us. If both listed and proposed species occur in the vicinity of a project that meets the requirements of a major Federal action (i.e., "major construction activity"), impacts to both listed and proposed species must be considered in a biological assessment (BA) (section 7(c); see Attachment B). Although the Federal agency is not required, under section 7(c), to address impacts to proposed species if listed species are not known to occur in the project area, it may be in the Federal agency's best interest to address impacts to proposed species. The listing process may be completed within a year,and information gathered on a proposed species could be used to address consultation needs should the species be listed. However, if the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat, a formal conference with us is required by the Act(section 7(a)(4)). The results of the BA will determine if conferencing is required. The Federal agency is responsible for making a determination of the effects of the project on listed species and/or critical habitat. For a Federal agency determination that a listed species or critical habitat is likely to be affected(adversely or beneficially) by the project, you should request section 7 consultation through this office. For a "not likely to adversely affect" determination, you should request our concurrence through the informal consultation process. Candidate species and species of concern are those species whose conservation status is of concern to us,but for which additional information is needed. Candidate species are included as an advance notice to Federal agencies of species that may be proposed and listed in the future. Conservation measures for candidate species and species of concern are voluntary but recommended. Protection provided to these species now may preclude possible listing in the future. For other federally listed species that may occur in the vicinity of your project,contact the National Marine Fisheries Service(NOAA Fisheries)at(360)753-9530 to request a list of species under their jurisdiction. For wetland permit requirements, contact the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Federal permit requirements and the Washington State Department of Ecology for State permit requirements. Thank you for your assistance in protecting listed threatened and endangered species and other species of Federal concern. If you have additional questions,please contact Yvonne Dettlaff(360) 753-9582. Sincerely, Ken S. Ber , Manager Y Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Enclosure(s) ATTACHMENT A November 14, 2002 LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, CANDIDATE SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF CONCERN THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED WETLAND DELINEATION PROJECT IN MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON (T23N R4W S2) FWS REF: 1-3-03-SP-0207 LISTED Wintering bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephal us)may occur in the vicinity of the project.Wintering activities occur from October 31 through March 31. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)may occur in the vicinity of the project. Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) occur in the vicinity of the project. Nesting activities occur from April 1 through September 15. Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) occur in the vicinity of the project. Nesting activities occur from March 1 through September 30. Major concerns that should be addressed in your biological assessment of the project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species; 2. Effect ofthe project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species,and foraging tareas in all areas influenced by the project; and 3. Impacts from project construction(i.e.,habitat loss,increased noise levels,increased human activity)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. PROPOSED None ATTACHMENT B FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SECTIONS 7(a) AND 7(c) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED SECTION 7(a) - Consultation/Conference Requires: 1. Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs to conserve endangered and threatened species; 2. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS)when a Federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened species to ensure that any action authorized,funded,or carried out by a Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The process is initiated by the Federal agency after it has determined if its action may affect(adversely or beneficially) a listed species; and 3. Conference with the FWS when a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or an adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. SECTION 7(c) - Biological Assessment for Construction Projects Requires Federal agencies or their designees to prepare a Biological Assessment(BA)for construction projects only. The purpose of the BA is to identify any proposed and/or listed species that is/are likely to be affected by a construction project. The process is initiated by a Federal agency in requesting a list of proposed and listed threatened and endangered species(list attached). The BA should be completed within 180 days after its initiation (or within such a time period as is mutually agreeable). If the BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the species list, please verify the accuracy of the list with the Service. No irreversible commitment of resources is to be made during the BA process which would result in violation of the requirements under Section 7(a) of the Act. Planning, design, and administrative actions may be taken; however, no construction may begin. To complete the BA,your agency or its designee should(1)conduct an onsite inspection of the area to be affected by the proposal, which may include a detailed survey of the area to determine if the species is present and whether suitable habitat exists for either expanding the existing population or potential reintroduction of the species; (2) review literature and scientific data to determine species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological requirements; (3) interview experts including those within the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, state conservation department, universities, and others who may have data not yet published in scientific literature; (4) review and analyze the effects of the proposal on the species in terms of individuals and populations, including consideration of cumulative effects of the proposal on the species and its habitat;(5)analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation measures; and (6) prepare a report documenting the results, including a discussion of study methods used,any problems encountered,and other relevant information. Upon completion,the report should be forwarded to our Endangered Species Division, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503-1273. * "Construction project" means any major Federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment(requiring an EIS), designed primarily to result in the building or erection of human-made structures such as dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This includes Federal action such as permits, grants, licenses, or other forms of Federal authorization or approval which may result in construction. •. tit- . a r},' b.. ��-M. /,ter.: ��, ��. ,'r� ¢�� -�.r"1 — _ _ � a ��� � ..� .-. � - � ,� of :. GROTJAN WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN Prepared for: Mr. GROTJAN 102 POND LANE SEQUIM, WA 98382 Prepared by: AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 506 EDISON STREET SE, SUITE 100 OLYMPIA, WA 98501 360/754-3755 November 2003 GROT UN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Name: Grotjan Wetland Restoration Project Site Location: The property fronts on U.S. Forest Service Road 24 adjacent to Olympic National Forest. The nearest town is Hoodsport, in Mason County,Washington. Public Land Survey: Section 2,Township 23 North, Range 4 West,W.M. Mason County Parcel#4230275-00110. USACOE Ref. #: 200300108 Property Owner: Mr. Ron Grotjan 102 Pond Lane Sequim,WA 98382-8922 Project Staff: Stacey Godin, Restoration Specialist, Curtis Wamback, Wetland Biologist and Christian Fromuth, Hydrologist and Project Manager. Project Description: This Wetland Restoration Plan(WRP)was prepared to correct unpermitted wetland impacts on approximately 0.92 acres (40,492 square feet) of wetland and 0.9 acres (39,350 square feet) of surrounding buffer. The site is located near Lake Cushman in Mason County,Washington. Regulatory agencies reviewing this document include Mason County,Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), and United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACOE). Lead regulatory authority is by Mason County Department of Community Development. This WRP was prepared by Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. (ATEC) based on site investigations,topographic survey, and findings in a prior report"Wetland Delineation and Impact Analysis"(ATEC, 2002). - 1 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purpose and Background 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location 2 2.2 Site Description 2 2.3 Wetland Description 2 2.4 Wetland Regulations 2 3.0 IMPACTS 3 3.1 Areas of Impact Summary 3 4.0 RESTORATION PLAN 3 4.1 Wetland Fill Removal 4 4.2 Large Woody Debris 4 4.3 Wetland Buffer Restoration 4 4.4 Reshaping Excavated Pools 4 4.5 Grading Plan 5 4.6 Revegetation Plan 5 4.7 Hydrologic Support 6 4.8 Restoration Schedule 6 5.0 FUNCTION ANALYSIS 6 5.1 Function Rating 6 5.2 Current Site Function and Analysis 7 5.3 Wetland Impacts and Reduced Function 8 5.4 Wetland Mitigation and Improved Function 9 6.0 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS 10 6.1 Goals 10 6.2 Success Criteria and Performance Standards 10 6.3 Monitoring 11 6.3.1 Vegetation 11 6.3.2 Hydrology 11 6.3.3 Wildlife 11 7.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY 12 8.0 AS-BUILT PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION 12 9.0 CONCLUSION 12 10.0 REFERENCES 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS(CONTINUED) LIST OF TABLES Page Tab. 1 Impacts and Proposed Restoration 3 Tab. 2 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-Quantitative 8 Performance Assessment APPENDICES Appendix A- Figures Regional Map Vicinity Map Aerial Photo Assessor Map Wetland Impact Areas Map Planting Zone Map Grading Plan Map Appendix 13- Photos Appendix C- Restoration Planting Details Appendix D- Plant Material List GROTJAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Background Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC)prepared this Wetland Restoration Plan(WRP)at this request of Mr. Ron Grotjan to correct unpermitted wetland impacts on his property located in Mason County, Washington. This WRP is in compliance with Mason County Resource Ordinance(MCRO) 17.01.200(I)and MCRO 17.01.070(1)(1). The approach taken with this WRP is based on a prior report by ATEC, "Wetland Delineation and Impact Analysis"(ATEC, 2002)and on-site meeting discussions between ATEC staff, landowner,and State and County regulatory agency staff. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The property is located adjacent to U.S. Forest Service Road 24(Jorsted Creek Rd)adjacent to the Olympic National Forest and Skokomish Wilderness Area, near Hoodsport, Mason County, Washington. Mr. Grotjan's property is located on the southern side of Forest Service Road 24 approximately three miles east of the intersection of Lake Cushman Rd and Forest Service Rd 24. The access road entrance of Mr. Grotjan's property is clearly marked by two blazed orange conifer trees adjoining Forest Service Rd 24. The site is in a portion of the SE '/4 of the SW '/4 of S2,T23N, R4W(W.M.). Regional,vicinity,and assessor maps are included in Appendix A. 2.2 Site Description The project area is undeveloped, other than a mobile trailer,pole barn, and existing access roads. The property is adjacent to National Forest land. Topographically,the wetland and lake are at the lowest points on the site. The wetland and the lake are contiguous although partially separated by an earth fill berm and of roadway. Upland areas located near the wetland have maximum slopes approaching 50%. The eastern slope adjacent to the wetland was cleared and graded for the placement of a proposed hydroelectric system. The western slope adjacent to the wetland was cleared of vegetation and re-graded to create a level area for recreational use and a once planned cabin site. The remainder of the upland on the property is forested. An unnamed seasonal tributary of Lilliwaup Creek enters the property through the northeast corner under the Forest Service Road 24 and flows into Lake Tenas. 2.3 Wetland Description The wetland is rated as a Category II wetland that is nearly 10 acres in size containing forested, scrub/shrub,and emergent plant communities. The on-site portion of the wetland was delineated in December 2002 by ATEC. The on-site portion of the wetland is approximately 3 acres in size containing emergent and scrub/shrub plant communities. The wetland is functionally a seasonally flooded wetland associated with Lake Tenas. The wetland extends off-site to the south-east and is connected by continuous surface water with Lilliwaup Swamp, a 225 acre wetland(Boeholt,2003). 2.4 Wetland Regulations This restoration plan has been prepared in accordance with requirements under Mason County Section 17.01.070(I) `Restoration' in the `Wetland' chapter and Section 17.01.200(I) `Restoration' in the `Enforcement' chapter. Mason County requires restoration of wetland and associated buffer impacts to be restored to pre-project conditions. Under Section 17.01.200(I), "mitigation shall be implemented to achieve a no net loss of wetlands in terms of acreage, function and value." Under the same section,the restoration action must" . . . recreate,as nearly as possible,the original wetlands or vegetation area in terms of acreage, function,geographic location and setting." No compensatory mitigation ratio is required because recent wetland fills will be removed and because wetland ratios are reserved for allowable wetland alterations that require mitigation under 17.01.070(F). - 2 - GROTJAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 3.0 IMPACTS 3.1 Areas of Impact Summary Sensitive area impacts include approximately 40,492 square feet(0.92 acres)of wetland and approximately 39,350 square feet(0.9 acres)of wetland buffer. A portion of this wetland impact area includes new gravel surfacing placed on a pre-existing gravel road installed under prior ownership. Mr. Grotjan and this WRP are not required to restore this area of wetland amounting to 2,589 square feet. The hydrology, vegetation,and soils of the wetland and associated buffer were impacted during initial site development. These impacts to the site were broken out into areas defined by location and degree of impact and labeled I#1 —I#10(see Wetland Impact Areas Map in Appendix A). Representative photos from 2002 of Impact Areas are included in Appendix B. 4.0 RESTORATION PLAN Wetland and buffer restoration will occur in 9 delineated impact areas within and surrounding Wetland A. Actions will include: removal of wetland fill, revegetation with native plant species,distribution of large woody debris(LWD),and reshaping of excavated pools and upland slopes. Table 1 summarizes restoration activities by impact area. Those areas are delineated on two maps, Planting Zone Map and the Grading Plan Map,both included in the Appendix A of this report. Three additional impact areas(I- 11 — I-13)are also shown and mapped. These areas are to be revegetated as an erosion control measure in compliance with the Mason County Resource Ordinance Chapter 33 Excavation and Grading. Table 1: Impacts and Pro osed Restoration Impact Area and Location Type of Impact Proposed Restoration Approximately 5,930 square feet of buffer was cleared The buffer slope will be replanted with native upland buffer and graded. Up to appoximately 9 feet of fill was vegetation and erosion control seed mixture. Fill will be removed. I-1-Buffer placed on top of native soils.Clearing of upland LWD LWD pushed into buffer will be dispersed evenly to create habitat. was pushed into buffer. Approximately 4,117 square feet was filled and cleared Remove fill from wetland and re-plant with scrub/shrub wetland of vegetation.An excavated hole approximately 6 feet communities. Re-shape deep,bowl-shaped depression and import deep by approximately 120 square feet was cut. peat if needed to restore soil profile. I"pushed into wetland will I-2-Wetland remain to create habitat features and improve wetland functions. Approximately 1,985 square feet of area filled in the Remove fill and re-plant with upland buffer species to restore 1-3-Buffer northern perimeter of wetland. buffer. Placement of 1,549 square feet of fill.Backhoe ruts in Enhance by planting scrub/shrub wetland vegetation. Fill material wetland. will not be removed to avoid re-disturbing recovering wetland vegetation. Backhoe ruts were no longer present and natural I4-Wetland wetland topography appears to be reforming. I-5-Wetland Approximately 2,589 square feet of clean fill was Improvements to pre-existing roadway considered exempt from placed on top of a pre-existing primitive access road. restoration. The roadwa re-existed Mr.Grot'an's ownership. Approximately 7,327 square feet of emergent wetland. Fill material will remain in this area. To remove fill would result in Contains a dredged hole and a 4"layer of fill greater impact to wetland. This area will be enhanced by planting placement.Emergent vegetation impacted and is emergent and scrub/shrub wetland species. It is recommended that 1-6-Wetland starting to re-colonize. Surface layer of deposited peat the outer slopes of the dredged deep bowl-shaped depression be sediment on new fill. Evidence of pre-existing fill contoured to match wetland topography,and that the deep bowl- under prior ownership in this area shaped depression itself is left to provide habitat for amphibians. Pre-existing placement of approximately 3,963 square Remove f fill and re-plant with emergent and scrub/shrub wetland I-7-Wetland feet of fill in emergent wetland and scrub/shrub buffer. species. - 3 - GROTJAN RESTORA77ON PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environtnental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 Impact Area and T f Impact Location Type o Pact Proposed Restoration Upland fill was placed at wetland edge. 85 foot Remove fill and re-grade slope to 2:1(pre-disturbance conditions). wetland buffer was cleared and graded. Approximately Re-plant with erosion control seed mixture and native upland buffer I-8-Buffer 31,435 square feet of wetland buffer was impacted. vegetation.Scarify soil prior to revegetation. Vegetative buffer buried by 5 feet of new fill on top of existing fill. Approximately 12,367 square feet of clearing,grading, Remove fill within wetland to current surface layer of native soils- 1-9-Wetland and fill. Some LWD from the upland was cleared and and re-plant with native emergent and scrub/shrub species. The pushed into the wetland. LWD will be removed if it does not meet ATEC specifications described in this report. Approximately 11,169 square feet of clean fill was Remove fill to cement surface layer of native peat soil. Replant area placed directly in the southern portion of the wetland with native emergent plant species.Culverts will be removed to I-10-Wetland adjacent to Lake Tenas. An approximately 10 foot restore wetland hydrology. wide by 100 foot long and 4 foot high berm was created by placing fill across the wetland,altering wetland hydrology and covering wetland plants and soils. Two culverts were placed through berm. 4.1 Wetland Fill Removal Wetland fill will be removed from areas I-2, I-7, 1-9,and 1-10 to expose underlying hydric soils and to restore pre-existing wetland conditions. This fill material will be removed to the greatest extent practicable without disturbing the underlying peat soils. A thin"veneer"of fill material is expected to remain(less than 3 inches thick). An excavator will be used to remove fill from wetland and shall minimize: entrance into wetlands and compaction of peat soils. Fill material placed in 1-10 to construct an unauthorized road will be removed to restore wetland characteristics and wetland hydrology in this impacted area. Old wetland fill associated with wetland alterations in 1-6 and 14 that occurred during prior ownership of the property will remain. This old fill material has taken on hydric soil characteristics and has provided a substrate supporting native wetland plants. Removing this old fill would create additional wetland impacts to soils, hydrology, and especially established wetland vegetation. 4.2 Large Woody Debris Large woody debris (LWD)and brush piles placed in Wetland A without authorization will remain in place to provide additional habitat for amphibians, songbirds, and small mammals. However, one large pile of wood debris located in 1-1 will be re-dispersed within the wetland to provide greater habitat opportunities for wildlife and to improve biological wetland functions (see Section 5). The LWD will also provide slow nutrient release to the wetlands, contribute to peat soils, create wildlife viewing opportunities, and introduce an aesthetic component to the relatively featureless emergent wetland. During the 28 August 2003 wetland reconnaissance, wildlife species including Pacific chorus frog, American robin, rufus-sided towhee,and several species of sparrows and finches were observed utilizing the LWD and brush piles as habitat. 4.3 Wetland Buffer Restoration Wetland buffer restoration will occur in 1-1, 1-3, and 1-8. Buffer restoration will involve the re-sloping of graded areas (in I-1 and 1-8)to an interface of 2H:1 V along with restoration by planting native vegetative species. Buffer slopes shall be seeded and covered by straw to prevent erosion, if final slope appears to be unstable. 4.4 Reshaping Excavated Pools Unauthorized excavation occurred in the wetland that resulted in deep bowl-shaped pools. An excavated pool at the eastern tip of 1-6 is deep and bowl-shaped and within I-2 a 6 foot deep by approximately 120 square foot pool was excavated. Although, excavated pools in this wetland provide excellent egg-laying and tadpole habitat for the Pacific chorus frog and the Northwest salamander, both pools will be reshaped - 4 - • GROTJAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 to provide enhanced habitat for these amphibian species,which thrive in shallow pools isolated from carnivorous fish and other amphibian-eating species. The pool in I-6 would be partially filled with native peat soils and re-sloped to side slopes of 4H:1 V to form a shallow pool preferred by native amphibian species. Emergent vegetation will be planted at the edge of the pond to provide egg-laying substrate for native amphibian species. This enhanced amphibian habitat will allow for the accelerated propagation of amphibians in the pond, which are prey species for many other wetland and upland species near the on- site wetland. The pool in 1-2 will be reshaped to provide a 4H:1 V slope ratio, similar to that of the pool located in I-6. Currently, the pool in I-2 provides habitat for native amphibian species. This habitat would be preserved and enhanced to continue and improve the colonization and propagation of these amphibian species. 4.5 Grading Plan Excavation and grading will be used to restore wetland buffer slopes to 2H:1 V in areas I-1 and I-8. Upland slopes beyond areas I-1 and 1-8 will be restored to 3H:1 V grade to intersect with existing conditions and by present hydrology. Impact area I-11 is a sandy gravelly slope and at equilibrium(angle of repose). Impact area I-12 will be graded locally to blend all slopes to the prevailing 2H:1 V and 3H:1 V overall condition. Impact area I-13 will be treated the same as I-12. The grading work described under this restoration plan also addresses requirements of Mason County Grading Permit standards under Chapter 33 of County Ordinance. Restoration related grading will not exceed 5000 cubic yards of material. Following grading all upland slopes will be revegetated with native conifers and erosion control seed mixture. 4.6 Revegetation Plan Cleared and impacted wetland and buffer vegetation areas will be restored through plantings. The plant species were chosen based on their presence in the wetland system, value to wildlife,and value as a buffer to ensure long-term viability to the wetland. A detailed planting plan identifying the planting zones and detailed installation specifications is included in Appendix's A and C. The planting layout within each zone shall be randomly mixed between species. Trees are to be planted at an overall spacing of approximately 10 feet on center, and shrubs and ground cover are to be planted at an overall spacing of approximately 3 feet on center. Cuttings taken from on-site vegetation will have an overall spacing of approximately 3 feet on center. Seedlings and/or transplants for emergent wetland plant zone will have an overall spacing of approximately 2 feet on center. Type 1 Planting Zone: Emergent Wetland In emergent wetland areas,emergent wetland species will be planted. These species include slough sedge (Carex obnuta),hardstem bulrush(Scirpus acutus), dagger-leaf rush(Juncus ensifolius)or other native emergent plant species that are readily available from nurseries. Emergent plant species will be installed in areas subsequent to wetland fill removal to restore the native emergent plant community. Type 2 Planting Zone: Scrub/Shrub Wetland In wetland areas dominated by scrub/shrub vegetation,red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), and Douglas spirea(Spirea douglasii) will be planted. The scrub-shrub zone is slightly higher in elevation than the emergent zone. These species are all currently on-site and are successful. It is recommended that cuttings be used whenever possible. Type 3 Planting Zone: Upland Wetland Buffer Upland areas within the wetland buffer will be planted with Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga mepziesi),western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla), vine maple(Acer circipatum), bracken fern(Pteridium aquilinium),and dull Oregon grape(Mahonia aquifolium)to restore the wetland buffer with native plant species that occur on adjoining land. - 5 - GROTJAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 Type 4 Planting Zone: Upland Slope The upland sloped areas will be replanted with 100%native conifers to include Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)and western hemlock(Tsuga heterophylla). Erosion Control Erosion control and native grass seed mixtures will be seeded in disturbed buffer and upland slope soils to reduce erosion and limit the establishment of noxious weeds and other invasive species. Species to include must satisfy the following criteria: ■ Effective erosion control ground cover; • Anv non-native erosion control species must be non-persistent over time; • Species that will support transition over time to shrub and tree communities; and ■ All species selected shall be well suited to existing moisture and soil conditions. It is recommended to use a seed mixture of 90%annual rye grass with 10%Lupine mix. 4.7 Hydrologic Support Hydrological support for restored wetlands would be maintained through the removal of fill material from hydric soils. The restored wetland areas will be hydrologically supported in the same manner as the pre- disturbance wetlands. Hydrologic support to all site wetlands comes from direct connection to Tenas Lake. 4.8 Restoration Schedule Restoration work can begin upon agency approval of this restoration plan. The re-grading of buffer and upland slopes may begin after Mason County Land Modification Permit(LMP)is issued. Following removal of wetland fill, re-shaping of excavated pools,and the redistribution of LWD, restoration planting installation and erosion control seeding can be performed. 5.0 FUNCTION ANALYSIS 5.1 Function Rating Wetlands, in general, provide many valuable ecological and social functions, including 1) stormwater storage, 2)groundwater recharge, 3)erosion control, 4)water quality improvement, 5)natural biological support, 6) overall habitat functions, 7) specific habitat functions, and 8)cultural and socioeconomic value. These functions were semi-quantitatively assessed using the wetland and buffer functional analysis methodology modified from Cooke Scientific Services, Inc. (Cooke, 2000). The scores from the analysis of each parameter are summarized in Table 2. Score tables are included in Appendix F. Wetland function ratings may be similar for both jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetlands as well as surrounding upland buffer areas. Given a specific wetland and/or buffer area polygon or delineation, however, not all functions are performed to the same degree or value. Several procedures have been developed for assessing the importance and magnitude of functions and include the Wetland Evaluation Technique(WET, Adamus and Stockwell 1983, Adamus et al. 1987),the Hydrogeomorphic assessment method (HGM, Brinson 1993; Brinson et al., 1994; Brinson et al., 1995; Brinson, 1995; Brinson et al. 1995; and Brinson, 1996; Brinson and Rheinhardt, 1996), the Habitat Evaluation Procedure(HEP, USDI- FWS 1978),and numerous regional and/or local procedures. Although HGM has recently been embraced by the COE for assessing wetland functioning,this procedure is still in the development stage and its application is preliminary depending on geographic location and wetland type. Further,this method requires an extensive data set that is beyond the scope of this project. Similarly,WET requires an extensive data set to drive the models,again, beyond the scope of this project. DOE has developed a method for assessing wetland functioning in the lowlands of western Washington. This method is a comprehensive approach requiring substantial input data, which is also beyond the scope - 6 - GROVAN RESTORATLON PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 of this project. However, the descriptions of wetland functioning and the factors and parameters considered by that method are very helpful in interpreting the functioning of the subject wetlands and buffer areas. Cooke Scientific has developed a rapid approach towards wetland functional assessment, the Semi- quantitative Assessment Methodology(SAM, Cooke Scientific, 2000). Being semi-quantitative,this method allows for numerical rating of functions typically performed by wetlands. The methodology is scientifically based in that its application requires a prior understanding of how wetlands function. Advanced experience and scientific objectivity of wetland scientist applying the method is essential for an accurate rating. The SAM method has been modified to provide a percentage of a total numeric score for each function. The percentage represents a value for that particular function. The value is a useful index to evaluate the change in functions before and after wetland modifications. 5.2 Current Site Function Analysis Based on this semi-quantitative method, wetland functions were lost as a result of the wetland and wetland buffer alterations. These alterations took of the form of: 1)clearing of native vegetation and grading within the wetland and its buffer, 2)filling in peat wetland areas with mineral soils, and 3) creating a berm across the wetland,altering the wetland hydrology. However, specific habitat functions improved based on the increased habitat structure and diversity created through the incorporation of LWD into the emergent wetland. Excavated pools within the wetland also increased the habitat value of the wetland by providing additional habitat. These introduced habitat features (i.e., brush piles and large woody debris)provide shelter and breeding territory for wildlife and time-released nutrient dispersal to wetland. The Pacific chorus frog and Northwest salamander benefit from introduced woodpiles and created pools located in the wetland. Birds, such as the Rufus-sided towhee, use the brush piles as territorial perching and breeding habitat,as observed on site. California quail were observed at the edge of the wetland utilizing brush piles and overhanging vegetation as habitat. Some of the larger brush piles can be re-distributed for optimum habitat utilization. The reshaping of the excavated ponds will provide a greater habitat value by allowing emergent vegetation to overhang the water for amphibian egg masses and for aquatic insect habitat without potential for fish-trapping. This restoration plan will preserve and enhance these new habitat features, as well as restore lost wetland functions through the removal of fill and the restoration of native plant species. Thereby,the restored wetland would have improved biological functions over the strictly emergent pre-existing wetland. Because of the increased number of species that would utilize the introduced habitat features and the benefit from a more structurally diverse ecosystem, the aesthetic character of the wetland would be enhanced, improving the cultural/socio-economic functions of the wetland and its buffer. - 7 - GROTJAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 Table 2. Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-Quantitative Performance Assessment' Wetland A Values Difference in Values Function pre- Existing Restored Existing Restored Restored existing Altered Minus Pre- Minus Pre- Minus existing existinp. Existing Stormwater Capacity Moderate Moderately Moderate low -13% None +13% (63%)* (50%) (63%) Groundwater Moderately Moderately Moderately Support High High High -4% None +4% (79%) (75%) (79%) Erosion Control/ Very High Moderately Very High Shoreline Protection High -25% None +25% (100%) (75%) 100%) Water Quality Moderate High Very High Improvement to Low -100/0 None 10% (95%) (85%) (95%) Natural Biological Moderately Moderate High Support High -8% +6% +14% (77%) (69%) (83%) Overall Habitat Moderately Moderately Moderately Functions low low High None +20% +20% (55%) (55%) (75%) Specific Habitat Low Moderate Moderate Functions +19% +19% None 42% (61%) (61%) Cultural/ Low Low Moderately Socioeconomic low None +8% +8% (46%) (46%) (54%) 1. Methodology based on and modified from Cooke,2000 Very High 901/0to 100% Moderately low 50%to 59% High 80%to 89% Low 40%to 49% Moderately high 70%to 79% Very Low 30%to 39% Moderate 60%to 69% Negligible <30% 5.3 Wetland Impacts and Reduced Function Stormwater Capacity. The value of the stormwater capacity function has decreased by-13%because of 1)disturbance in the vegetated buffer, 2) loss of tree cover at the periphery and buffer of the wetland, and 3)the reduction in size of the vegetated buffer. Vegetation soaks up and retains water into the growing season. Without this vegetation, quick runoff and accelerated evaporation would act to reduce the capacity of stormwater storage and maintenance through the growing season. Groundwater Support. As with stormwater capacity, the groundwater support function is reduced as a result of disturbance and vegetation loss in the wetland and its buffer. Evaporative drying of soils and quick runoff during storm events would prevent prolonged water storage in soils. However, since groundwater support primarily is a function of the expansive groundwater table,the value of this function only decreased by a small amount(4%). Erosion Control and Shoreline Protection. The change of vegetative cover at the shoreline from trees and shrubs to sparse emergent vegetation has decreased the erosion control and shoreline protection function of this wetland by -25%. A combination of trees, shrubs and emergent vegetation provide the greatest shoreline protection. Without this shoreline protection, erosion is imminent. ' - 8 - GROVAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. -- - November 2003 Water QuahU Improvement. Because vegetation provides some biofiltration in wetlands,the loss of vegetation in portions of the on-site wetland and associated buffer has decreased the value of this wetland by-10%. Also, mineral fill material that was placed in the wetland is not able to store water and water- borne contaminants as the native peat soils can. The sandy fill material allows for the quick runoff of water and water-borne contaminants before biofiltration and the microbial breakdown of nutrients that would occur in peat soils. Natural Biological Support. The loss of vegetation in portions of the wetland and buffer has reduced the biological support function of the wetland by-8%. Lost vegetation is potential habitat for a number of wildlife species. Layers of vegetation, number of plant species, and connectivity with vegetated buffers has diminished in the on-site wetland as a result of clearing. However,habitat features, such as downed logs and brush piles, compensated for some of the lost natural biological support function. Inadvertently, the clearing activity supplied this relatively featureless wetland with large woody debris and brush piles, providing some natural biological support,accumulation of organic material, and habitat features. Overall Habitat Functions. The clearing of vegetation reduced value of this function;however, the increased refugia, namely brush piles, down logs, and ponds, compensated for functions lost from clearing. Refugia is an important habitat feature used by wildlife species to take shelter from predators. Specific Habitat Functions. Increased refugia(i.e.,brush piles, down logs, and ponds)has enhanced the structural diversity of the featureless wetland and its buffer,allowing a greater number of wildlife species to utilize this area as habitat. A greater number of prey species, including amphibians, reptiles, songbirds, small mammals, can propagate hidden in the refugia. These species are prey for predators, such as coyote, birds of prey, raccoons, skunks, and opossums. This increased compliment of wildlife species would provide a greater diversity of species that could be supported within this wetland complex. Cultural and Socioeconomic. Because this wetland is on private property and public access is limited, no change in this function is expected. 5.4 Wetland Mitigation and Improved Function Storm-water Capacity. The value of the stormwater capacity function would be restored with the replacement of vegetation and restoration of peat soils. Groundwater Support. As with stormwater capacity,the groundwater support function would also be restored with the replacement of vegetation and restoration of peat soils. Erosion Control and Shoreline Protection. As with stormwater capacity and groundwater support,the erosion control and shoreline protection function would also be restored with the replacement of vegetation and restoration of peat soils. Water Quality Improvement. Because vegetation provides some biofiltration in wetlands, the replacement of vegetation in portions of the on-site wetland and its buffer would restore the value of this wetland to its pre-disturbance value. The restoration of peat soils would allow the storage and biofiltration of water and water-borne contaminants. Natural Biological Support. Mitigation is expected to improve the natural biological support function beyond pre-existing conditions(- 6%). Not only would the vegetation be restored; however,habitat features, such as downed logs and brush piles, would be retained to provide natural biological support, accumulation of organic material, and refugia. Overall Habitat Functions. Vegetation and soil restoration would restore functions to pre-existing levels; however, because refugia, namely brush piles, down logs, and ponds, would not be removed from the - 9 - GROVAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 wetland and buffer areas, overall habitat functions is expected to improve by 20%over pre-disturbance conditions. Refugia is an important habitat feature used by wildlife species to take shelter from predators. Specific Habitat Functions. Increased refugia(i.e., brush piles, down logs, and ponds)has enhanced the structural diversity of the featureless wetland and its buffer,allowing a greater number of wildlife species to utilize this area as habitat. A greater number of prey species, including amphibians, reptiles, songbirds, small mammals, can propagate hidden in the refugia. These species are prey for predators, such as coyote, birds of prey,raccoons, skunks, and opossums. This increased compliment of wildlife species would provide a greater diversity of species that could be supported within this wetland complex. Cultural and Socioeconomic. Because of the increased aesthetic value of the restored wetland and increased wildlife habitation and use,the cultural and socioeconomic function of the wetland would improve. The value of this function would increase by 8%. 6.0 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS 6.1 Goals Goal 1: Restore functions to a Category H wetland in compliance with the guidelines presented in MCRO Section 17.01.070(I)(1). Objectives: • Remove recent unauthorized wetland fill to expose underlying peat soils and replant with native vegetation to restore character of wetland, • Remove unauthorized wetland buffer fill and re-plant native vegetation to restore the nature character of wetland buffer, • Retain and reconfigure existing I" (snags, downed logs, and stumps) in Wetland A and its buffer as wildlife habitat, • Plant a variety of native conifers in the buffer to accelerate the natural rate of forest succession and structural diversity, • Plant a wide variety of native species to restore wetland and buffer vegetation, and • Re-slope buffer by 2:1 to prevent erosion and stabilize slopes. Goal 2: Replace wetland and buffer functions lost due to clearing,grading, and filling that impacted approximately 40,492 square feet of wetland and approximately 39,350 square feet of buffer area. Objectives: • Restore and enhance a structurally diverse Category II wetland to pre-disturbance conditions in compliance with the guidelines presented in MCRO Section 17.01.070(1)(1). • Retain and reconfigure existing LWD (snags, downed logs, and stumps) in Wetland A and its buffer as wildlife habitat, • Plant a variety of native conifers in buffer to accelerate the natural rate of forest succession, • Plant a wide variety of herbaceous species to restore wetland and buffer vegetation, • Remove constructed berm and culverts to restore wetland hydrology, and • Reshape and replant an excavated pool located in I-6 to enhance amphibian habitat. 6.2 Success Criteria and Performance Standards Success of plant reestablishment within restoration areas will be evaluated on the basis of survival and percent cover. For woody planted species, success will be based on at least an 80%survival rate of all planted trees and shrubs, or at least 80%cover of equivalent recolonized native species, by the end of the - 10 - GROVAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 three-year monitoring period. Success for herbaceous species will be based on an 80%cover of desirable plant species by the end of the three year monitoring period. Exotic and invasive species will be maintained at levels below 20%total cover. These species would include: Himalayan blackberry(Rubus discolor), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), nightshade(Solanum dulcamara), reed canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea),and Scot's broom(Cytisus scoparius). Removal and control of these invasive species will be achieved through routine maintenance within the restoration areas. 6.3 Monitoring Performance monitoring for the restoration is required for a period of up to three years with annual reports submitted to Mason County [MCRO 1 7.01.200(1)(2)], and the reports will include: a)photo- documentation, b)estimates of percent vegetative cover,plant survival and undesirable species, c)water quality and hydrology, d)wildlife usage, e)an overall qualitative assessment of project success for the wetland mitigation, and(f) recommendations for additional or corrective measures to be taken to ensure the success of the restoration. Monitoring visits will take place during spring and fall months annually. The results from both annual monitoring visits will be evaluated and combined into one annual summary report for Mason County director for a period of up to three years. 6.3.1 Vegetation Restoration plantings will be visually analyzed for success and condition each year. Permanent vegetation photo sampling points were established at key visual vantage locations to incorporate all representative plant communities(see Restoration Plan Planting Zone Map in Appendix A for Photo Monitoring Point Locations). All monitoring will be conducted by a qualified biologist. The same specified photo sampling point angles and targets are to be repeated during each monitoring visit. 6.3.2 Hydrology An assessment of areas restored to native hydric soils will be analyzed for wetland hydrology each year. The enhanced amphibian pool will be monitored for habitat value as soils settle and plant species mature. Erosion and sedimentation caused by unstable slopes will be monitored as a possible water quality and wetland impact. During each monitoring event,an assessment will be made of the water regime within the restoration area to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist within both the wetland and its buffer. Intensive methods of monitoring hydro-period and elevations of surface water and soil water are not recommended for this project. Restoration work is occurring within an established wetland with well established and uninterrupted connectivity to both surface and groundwater sources. Tenas Lake and the tributary stream will continue to provide supporting flow to the wetland. During monitoring visits the location of all removed fill and the removed berm will be visually inspected for uniform distribution of water flow patterns and inundation depths relative to the surrounding "undisturbed"wetland. Observations will be reported and any required recommendations shall be made. 6.3.3 Wildlife Each restoration area within the wetland will be visually assessed for presence of fish, birds, amphibians, and invertebrates. Observations shall be recorded on the habitat and locations used by each species. Other indirect observations such as tracks, nests, song, or other indicative signs will also be recorded. - 11 - GROTJAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 7.0 MAINTENANCE(M) AND CONTINGENCY(C) Performance standards for site restoration will be compared to monitoring results. Evaluations of success will be provided. If required, maintenance and/or contingency actions will be prescribed. Typical responses are listed below and accompanied by a letter(M)or(C)to specify type of response. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event(unless otherwise noted). 1. Replace dead plants with the species or substitute species meeting goal and objectives (C); 2. Re-plant areas after failure course is identified(e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.)(C); 3. Perform corrective measures, as necessary, to provide adequate hydrology to support the desired wetland plant community(C); 4. Excavate, as needed, to correct alterations of surface drainage patterns in fill removal areas (C); 5. Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants twice yearly by manual or chemical means approved by Mason County. Use of herbicides or pesticides within site should only be implemented if other measures failed or are considered unlikely to be successful. Prior agency approval is required(C & M); 6. Clean-up trash and other debris within site twice-yearly(M); and 7. Selectively thin and prune woody plants to meet goal and objectives (e.g., removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs and thinning of volunteer trees such as red alder) (M). A restoration specialist will be on site during key phases of project implementation to ensure that construction meets proposed restoration design prior to project completion and to evaluate wetland and buffer vegetation plantings for quality. Key phases include: 1) Pre-construction site layout with installer to establish clear understanding of site layout, interpretation of plans, management of any changes/modifications, and methods to be used; 2) Inspection of completed site grading prior to proceeding with revegetation and demonstration of vegetation installation methods and delineation of hydro-period plant community transition zones; 3) Inspection of installed vegetation; and 4) Final inspection of all installed items, erosion control, and as-built plan review. 8.0 AS-BUILT PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Following completion of construction activities, an as-built plan for the wetland mitigation area will be provided to Mason County. The plans will identify and describe any changes in grading, planting or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. 9.0 CONCLUSION A Category II wetland and associated buffer was impacted through grading, vegetation removal, and excavation. The total area of wetland and wetland buffer impacted is approximately 82,431 square feet. Of this total number, approximately 40,492 square feet of wetland and approximately 39,350 square feet of buffer were impacted and will be restored. As part of this restoration plan, impacted areas will be restored through re-planting with vegetation, removal of fill in buffer and wetland areas,and re-shaping slope contours. These impacts to the wetland and buffer have both increased and decreased the overall functions of the wetland. Stormwater capacity, groundwater support, erosion control and shoreline protection, water quality improvement, natural biological support, overall habitat functions, and specific habitat functions will all be replaced and essentially enhanced after restoration is completed. - 12 - GROVAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 10.0 REFERENCES Adamus, P.R. and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment. Offices of Research, Development and Technology, Federal Highway and Works Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,Report No. FHWA-IP-82-23. Adamus,P.R.; E.J. Clarain,Jr.,RD. Smith,and RE.Young. 1987.Wetland Evaluation Technique(WET); Volume 11: Methodology. Operation Draft Technical Report Y-87- . U.S.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS.206 pp.plus appendices. Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. (ATEC). 2002.Wetland Delineation and Impact Analysis. December 2002. Boeholt,Ann. 2003. Letter dated May 6,2003 to Scott Lonagnecker of Mason County Department of Community Development from Ann Boeholt,Wetland Specialist of WA DOE Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program regarding shoreline jurisdictional status of Tenas Lake, Mason County. Brinson,M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Brinson, M.M. 1995. The HGM Approach Explained.National Wetlands Newsletter 17(6):7-13. Brinson, M.M. 1996. Assessing Wetland Functions Using HGM. National Wetlands Newsletter 18(1):10-16 Brinson, M.M.,F.R. Haner, L.C. Lee,W.L. Nutter,R.D. Rheinhardt, R.D. Smith, and D. Whigham. 1995. A Guide book for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessment to Riverine Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS,USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-11. Brinson, M.M.,W. Kruczynski, L.C. Lee,W.L. Nutter,RD. Smith, and D.F.whigham. 1994. Developing an approach for assessing the functions of wetlands. p.615-624. In W.J. Mitsch(ed.) Global Wetlands: Old World and New, Elsevier Sciences B V., Amsterdam. Brinson, M.M. and R.D. Rheinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 16:69-76. Cooke, S. S. 2000. Wetland and Buffer Functions: Semi-quantitative assessment methodology(SAM). Cooke Scientific Services INC. Final Working Draft May 2000. Cowardin,L.M.,V. Carter,F.C.Golet,and E.T.LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31,Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,Miss. Federal Register.June 20, 1997.National Action Plan to Implement the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions. FR 62(1 19):33607-33620. Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. December 5. - 13- GROVAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting,Inc. November 2003 Hitchcock,C.L.and A.Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Mason County Planning and Land Services. 2000. Mason County Wetland Atlas G.I.S.Map.NW%. Township 20N,Range 4E,W.M. Plot Date Feb.2000. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1,National Technical Information Service,Springfield,VA. Washington State Department of Ecology(WDOE). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology Publication#96-94. Olympia,WA. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. March. - 14- AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.(ATEC OLYMPW WASHINGTON SCALE: 1"a 12,500' TOWNSHIP: 23N RANGE: 4W SECTION: 2 W.M. t t � �`h5,... 1 �.•` s t a �•i y a i D a s s 135 SKOKOMISt1 f J •- '0 i+wyw�ar y i s a t s i a ' y „is a is a iM '-p OJ 1 'y WILDERNESS - �•�r T24N ' - T23N ' ' ;CRUX T2X" f Lmm , t mot;- -- `' t • _• tr - n to L'uN +•i D �'� n r r t y/-��� r i wi Ulu ' � t rr�asYR QIA7 J D� SAD —� --- -- -- ------— -----------_. A __ 7 i •wcE CUSHKU N s a a :n a 123 f s K STATE L3 % ' LAKE �a a :a it D i?• l,1f WRB1 Ry p »t•• i ;a t � IM•f 0.' 1106R SOURCE: 1998 ROADRUNNER STREET ATLAS MASON COUNTY 5W E)tSON STRM r SE FIGURE: RKCAONAL MAP R X IE 100 GROVAN WBTLAND DELUCKATION a044A' 9�. 7EL. (360) 754-3755 FORM SERVICB RD 24,MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON AQUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.(ATEC OLYMPU►,WASHINGTON 0 , SCALE: 1"=24,000' TOWNSHIP: 23N RANGE: 4W SECTION: 2 WM � Z N. ;i 'ABM (919 911 _ VETS t _ /--79•40 13 -1;- atto 1 1 enams Lake A SOURCE:USGS QUADRANGLE MOUNT WASHINGTON QUAD sae e)mm STWU SE FIGURE: VICMM MAP SunE 100 GROVAN WETLAND DELINEATION 000K MIA. WSM FOREST MVICE RD 24,MASON COUNTY,WAS�tG?o 7EL (3W) 754-3M AQUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.(ATEC OLYMPIA,WASHINGTON 0 TOWNSHIP: 23N RANGE: 4W SECTION: 2 W.M. 3160000 4?.&000 - --- — --- 23 cJSN �Ao� 1 ^ -7"o . K `�V " a ' q �B 9)1.l -7 0 0 01 0 o , ' 0 6 T 19 0 ti a 14 r- 0 2 p0 r - '" 0 10 o I I o 12 TENAS 5. Do I LAKE �S- OOA�o 22 7 SOURCE:MASON COUNTY ASSESSOR OFFICE PARCEL#42302-75-00 1 1 0 506 MISON SiREI SE FIGURE: ASSESSOR MAP SUr E 100 GROTJAN WETLAND DELINEATION sm M- (36 7 m. 4837 FOREST SERVICE RD 24,MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTO TFl. (380) 754-3755 AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.(ATEC OLYMPIA,WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP: 23N RANGE:4W SECfl0N-. 2 W.M. €:t� eK.'>f�� t..''(f���f.���1! r n'�S'7a�� ::��t �.f�.�.'�" z�f.,�0 �•�t,,/I,,'� �-1, :V__ � � .yk�J�y�>Tr��� 1'� ♦ fir. �� -s-f ,I. { :a..w.fi r��� ��,r ✓y_'�,f3£� K.! '� 'r �. r 8jr'���t a .� f L1'' • ,mot .. .,.• � -�t<-�--��" ��'''^^ ,+ r•••r' ',� ,�' ,.o,� �,.�� s .Utz � Fy � // �..L*. •r ti•r) ^'•a i yl fy ,[� 4 j.'�'rf r. 1rk', f� r } r ...lt APT. ".r w E'f yL", ':� ?J^ Y .#J,y,•o��"'?g. Y �r'�" X'"r`i�!'r �. '' '' yr•o�'.�-�riv.i z i.r'} u��:�ryr/.�. � �r'n � /ti .a�F s f�M"� Tv � J=y^+^ri Y.M���` tyf.. y 1 w•��.•.J t�a' �M 8y6'>':4r!` 4'"'•t ��"'h.� �"'�tiy�iy �r,-.l�r r'�J.` �'•y''r`Fj Yet.of���•�y-���,i�s'E'r�� ��- � ��jy - �"" +.nT;�w.�-�ti",r .4':'M•��,�f`•t�Jl'��'Y�y�++)'><l{h_:JFY��u�' `' `��+• yt'.� � -i- �y� � a fM .♦ F �fsl:+�37' r!Y'i� L 3� �<:.. ��`j'� ' ., • tp Or 'F. 5W EoWN sir SE FIGURE: AFJtL4LPHOTO sum too GRMJAN WETLAND DELMATION OLII AR& WA. 9W FOPJ=SERVICE RD A MASM COUNTY,WAsMG TEL (M) 7U--37.% ` i� 3f F^;� ♦ t?�lF s�oS� }r �+�t+� yb :f� 4j� �' {[ I If 46 SW •_Trr f `�;.`�!f - ,q�,ii1•. .S"ga, h, Se t y..ti q s i:e •Yi ~, �Sjy .�. a,,. ,' r• -��+ f `r�r"'+y��,,,r '` r.3��y�,� 'a $z, lav ♦ -IN Alp AW A4 '11.5 •�^f' LtUl LY To r r �� �� � J S• Ty 4 .T .i�'6 ,y, ,�.. Rk�g2 i t.,tl'F"} YiY t'• °� O"k) NAME: C:\ATEC-CAD\Atec Pro cte WET LANDS GROTJAN GROTJAN.dw DATE: DEC 15 2000 TIME: 1:17 PM NOTES: *THE WETLAND STUDY WAS PERFORMED BY ATEC WETLAND SPECIALISTS USING THE METHODOLOGY DESCRIBED IN THE "WASHINGTON STATE WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION MANUAL" (WDOE 1987). STACEY GODIN 11 06 02 11 07 02 do 11 08 02 MICHELLE FUSMAN, CHRISTIAN FROMUTH - REPORT REVIEWERS -WETLANDS WERE RATED USING THE 'WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND \1 RATING SYSTEM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTOW (WDOE 1993). -STANDARD BUFFER WIDTHS FOR MASON COUNTY WERE RECENT EARTHWORK APPLIED BASED ON "MASON COUNTY INTERIM RESOURCE CUT / FILL AREA ORDINANCE" (CHAPT. 17 AMENDED 8/29/2000) ` •WETLAND BOUNDARY LIMITS WERE SURVEY LOCATED BY ATEC STAFF (ALL FEATURES APPROXIMATE). APPROXIMATE -PARCEL MAP AND/OR PROPERTY BOUNDARY REFERENCES ARE PROPOSED LOCATION BASED ON LANDMARKS AND DATA PROVIDED BY / /1!/ t` — OF POWERHOUSE PROPERTY OWNER/ MANAGER. (12'X20') *THE WETLAND DELINEATION STUDY AREA OVERLAPS MASON COUNTY TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 4230275-00110 1-5 PROPERTY CORNER 1-3 s I I m�Al�Cllf1 t \ APPROXIMATE OFFSITE \ = y y -- - y - EXT WETLAND AND OF I- � BOUNDARY �. — - - - 1-5 IL CULVERTS�(APPRbXIMATE) LAKE LARGE FIR TREES TE N A S IRS APPROXIMATE OFFSITE EXTENTION OF `•,� ����� Y ,,; WETLAND BOUNDARY MAP LEGEND III-1- I=u I I I I—I =1 T WOODY DEBRIS / BACK HOE INSPECTION HOLE PALUSTRINE _wt_ WETLAND BOUNDARY EMERGENT WETLAND —w+e— 85 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT AREA _ DIRT ROAD EN }+, MAGNETIC NORTH WETLANW TER 0' 100' 200' PALUSTRINE I# : DELINEATED IMPACT AREAS TO WETLAND I I I i i S/S WETLAND AND/OR BUFFER (IF ANY) 1"=100' T 23N R 4W S 2 ROAD IMPACT AREA ROAD IMPACT AREA oo° o0 IN WETLAND IN BUFFER ' "kst mwloo GROTJAN WETLAND DESIGNED �c x ^� a��� "° 3m PARTIAL WETLAND DELINEATION DRAWN E.Z. is/e/oz APPROVED SHEET WETLAND IMPACT AREAS MAP DIGITIZED TITLE CHECKED M.F. 12/11/02 OF: AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. REVISED C.F. ,2L5L2 DON I NAME: C:\ATEC-CAD\Atec Pro cts WET LANDS GROTJAN GRADING PLAN.dw DATE: NOV 3 2003 TIME: 5:47 PM NOTES: 1) DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY SURVEYED BY ATEC INC. 2) ALL PROPERTY LINE/MARKER REFERENCES ARE BASED ON MARKERS FOUND IN FIELD OR REPORTED BY PROPERTY OWNER/ MANAGER. 3) PROJECT AREA OVERLAPS MASON COUNTY TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 4230275-00110 4) LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) SHALL BE PRESERVED THROUGH OUT SITE AND OPPORTUNISTICALLY PLACED AS HABITAT FEATURES ® DIRECTION OF RESTORATION SPECIALIST. I - 13 �s PROPERTY CORNER I-2 I -3 \ APPROXIMATE OFFSITE EXTENTION OF WETLAND BOUNDARY I-4 I-5 I-6 WETLAND A I- 10 I- 7 SP PERTY CORNER ' CULVERTS TO BE REMOVED LAKE 0 LARGE FIR TREES _(� TE N A S 1 - 12 �2 l _ ••1 t (r!� 1\1 ti :REMOVE FILL FROM BUFFER. REGRADE TO MATCH SURROUNDING. 1 -2 :REMOVE FILL. RESHAPE EXCAVATED HOLE AS DESCRIBED FOR 1-6 1-3 :REMOVE FILL. SMOOTH GRADE TO MATCH ADJACENT BUFFER AREA GRADE WETLAND BOUNDARY INFO. I —4 :NO MODIFICATIONS TO GRADE REQUIRED WETLAND BOUNDARY I-5 :NO MODIFICATIONS TO GRADE REQUIRED — 85 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER 1 -6 :FILTOL4HEM INS. STEEP IV AND PEAT SIDE CUTSLOPES MATERIAL TO BEEXCAVATED INSTALLED AS FILLA MATERIAL SHAPED IMPACT AREAS TO WETLAND N DEEPEST PART OF HOLE. I-� � AND/OR BUFFER 1 - 7 :REMOVE FILL. ROAD PRE-EXISTING 1-8 :RESTORE SHORELINE SLOPES TO 3H : IV I -9 :REMOVE WETLAND FILL. AVOID DISTURBING UNDERLYING PEAT SOILS. RESIDUAL FILL (2-3 INCH LAYER MAX) ALLOWED TO REMAIN AS NEEDED TO AVOID DISTURBING PEAT LAYER. I- 10'REMO(2 3 INCHTLAND FILL.LAYER MAX)AALOLIOWED TTO BING REMAIJN DER AS L EEDEDE TO AOVO D D SSTURBING 1 PEAT LAYER. :EXISTING SAND AND GRAVEL SLOPE® REPOSE. (SIDE SLOPE 1H : IV) STABILIZE MAGNETIC NORTH W/ DOUGLAS FIR AND EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX. I- 1 2:NO GRADING CHANGES ol 100' 200 I- 13:NO GRADING CHANGES 1"=100'T 23N R 4W S 2 sW EMSM ST.SE-Stn 100 GROTJAN WETLAND DESIGNED x 0ATE a""`a � z APPROVED SHEET (WO)75-s,SS RESTORATION PLAN DRAWN J.H,_ „"s,oa TITLE A T E C GRADING PLAN MAP DIGrnZED CHECKED C.F. DF: AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. REVISED x x CON r NAME: C:\ATEC-CAD\Atec Pro cts WET LANDS GROTJAN GROTJAN.dw DATE: NOV 3 2003 TIME: 5:47 PM NOTES: 1) DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY SURVEYED BY ATEC INC. 2) ALL PROPERTY LINE/MARKER REFERENCES ARE BASED ON MARKERS FOUND IN FIELD OR REPORTED BY PROPERTY OWNER/ MANAGER. 3) PROJECT AREA OVERLAPS MASON COUNTY TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 4230275-00110 4) LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) SHALL BE PRESERVED THROUGH OUT SITE AND OPPORTUNISTICALLY PLACED AS HABITAT FEATURES ® DIRECTION OF RESTORATION SPECIALIST. >` PHOTO MONITORING POINT 91 "`' PROPERTY CORNER C r 6)*__ APPROXIMATE OFFSITE w,...•:' s :. - 3 !y! : `t EXTENTION OF WETLAND BOUNDARY �` 1N rr � r PHOTO MONITORING POINT PERKY CORNER "" `• ' '•• i� i. max.1 .. /"J r ram/ � r(AEPROXIMATE) r r LAKE TENAS LARGE FIR TREES r ........ ............... .' { .. S .:.4.. . ..�... .. .. .:.. .. ... ....r.... ._ r \ 1- 12 APPROXIMATE OFFSITE EXT OF ,;,.;• /r _ WETLAND BOUNDARY PLANTING ZONES WETLAND BOUNDARY INFO. TYPE 1 PLANTING ZONE WETLAND BOUNDARY ! ! ! ! ! PALUSTRINE ® EMERGENT WETLAND SCRUB/ SHRUB WETLAND 85 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER TYPE 2 PLANTING ZONE SCRUB/ SHRUB WETLAND j_•# : IMPACT AREAS TO WETLAND ROAD PRE-EXISTING AND/OR BUFFER TYPE 3 PLANTING ZONE Photo m v n s to c- 7o I(1, PALUSTRINE UPLAND WETLAND BUFFER + _. ry, EMERGENT EMERGENT WETLAND TYPE 4 PLANTING ZONE UPLAND SLOPE OPEN WATER WETLAND MAGNETIC NORTH 0' 100' 200' I I I 1"=100' T23NR4WS2 5°°W DATE a,p;%Wx mm GROTJAN WETLAND DESIGNED x X__ APPRovEn SHEET 300)75/-3755 RESTORATION PLAN DRAWN J.H. 11/03l47 TITLE A T PLANTING ZONE MAP DIGMZEo EC CHECKED S.G. 11/0/o3 OF: AGUA TIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. REVISED x . OO++ Grotjan Restoration Plan Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) Impact Area#1 Total area=5,930 square feet Planting Species Planting Condition Area Total Distance (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 3 Douglas fir(Pseudotsu a menziesii) 10' O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 3000 33 3 western hemlock(Tsu a hetero h !la) 10' O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 3000 33 3 vine nu le(Ater circinatum) 3' O.C. plugs or bare root 1800 210 3 bracken fern(Pteridium a uilinium) 3' O.C. bare root or rooted stock 1800 210 3 dull Oregon grape(Mahonia a ui olium) 3' O.C. bare root or rooted stock 1800 210 lox 10=l oo sf 5930sf/100sf=60 trees + 5%=63 trees 3 x 3=9sf 5930sV 9sf=660 understory—60 trees=600 understory +5%contingency=630 understory Impact Area#2 Total area=4,117 square feet Planting Planting Area Total Species Distance Condition (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 2 red-osier dogwood(Corpus stoloni era) 3' O.C. live stake— 18" length, %2-3/4"diameter 1377 161 2 Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3'O.C. live stake— 18" length, %2-V diameter 1377 161 2 Douglas spirea(S irea dou lasii) 3' O.C. live stake— 18" len 1/2-W diameter 1377 161 3 x 3=9 4117 sf/9sf=460 cuttings+5%contingency=483 live stakes 1 Grotjan Restoration Plan Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) Impact Area#3 Total area= 1,985 square feet Planting Planting Area Total Species Distance Condition (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 3 Douglas fir(Pseudotsu a menziesii) 10' O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 1000 10 3 western hemlock(Tsu a hetero hvlla) 10' O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 1000 11 3 vine maple(Ater circinatum) 3' O.C. plugs or bare root 657 70 3 bracken fern(Pteridium a uilinium) 3' O.C. bare root or rooted stock 657 70 3 dull Oregon grape(Mahonia a ui olium) 1 3' O.C. bare root or rooted stock 666 70 lox 10=100 sf 1985 sf/100 sf=20 trees+5%contingency=21 trees 3 x 3=9 sf 1985 sf/9 sf=220 understory—20 trees=200 understory+5%contingency= 210 understory Impact Area#4 Total area= 1,549 square feet Planting species Planting Condition Area Total Distance (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 2 red-osier dogwood(Corpus stoloni era) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"len 1/2-3/4"diameter 513 60 2 Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"len 1/2-W diameter 513 60 2 Douglas s irea(S irea dou lasii) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"len '/2-1/4"diameter 513 1 60 9 x 9=9sf 1549sf/9sf=172 live stakes+5%contingency=180 live stakes 2 Grotjan Restoration Plan Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) Impact Area#6 Total area=7,327 square feet 5,849 square feet=planting zone 1 1,478 square feet=planting zone 2 Planting Planting Area Total Species Condition Distance (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 1 slough sedge(Carex obnuta) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 1948 511 1 hardstem bulrush(Scir us acutus) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 1948 512 1 dagger-leaf rush(Juncus ensi olius) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 1948 512 2 red-osier dogwood(Cornus stoloni era) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18" length, '/2-3/4"diameter 495 57 2 Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"length, 1/2-3/4"diameter 495 57 2 Douglas s irea(S irea dou lasii) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"len '/2-3/4"diameter 495 58 2x2=4sf 5849sf/4sf=1462 seedlings+5%contingency= 1535 seedlings 3 x 3=9sf 1478 sf/9sf=164 live stakes+5%contingency=172 live stakes Impact Area#7 Total area=3,963 square feet 266 square feet=planting zone 1 3,697 square feet=planting zone 2 Planting Planting Area Total Species Distance Condition (sq,ft) Qty Zone(1) 1 slough sedge(Carex obnuta) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 92 23 1 hardstem bulrush(Scir us acutus) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 88 22 1 dagger-leaf rush(Juncus ensi olius) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 92 23 2 red-osier dogwood(Cornus stoloni era) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"len '/2-3/4"diameter 1224 143 2 Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"length, '/2-3/4"diameter 1233 143 2 Douglas s irea(S irea dou lasii) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"len '/2-3/4"diameter 1 1233 144 2 x 2=4 sf 266sf/4 sf=66 seedlings+5%contingency=70 seedlings 3 x 3=9sf 3697 sf/9sf=410 live stakes+5%contingency=430 live stakes 3 Grotjan Restoration Plan Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) Impact Area#8 Total area=31,435 square feet Planting Planting Area Total Species Condition Distance (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 3 Douglas fir(Pseudotsu a menziesii) 10, O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 15700 165 3 western hemlock(Tsu a hetero h lla) 10' O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 15700 165 3 vine ma le(Ater circinatum) 3' O.C. plugs or bare root 10476 1112 3 bracken fern(Pteridium a uilinium) 3' O.C. bare root or rooted stock 10476 1112 3 dull Oregon grape(Mahonia a ui olium) 3' O.C. bare root or rooted stock 10476 1113 10 x 10=100 sf 31435sf/100sf—314 trees+5%contingency—330 trees 3 x 3=9 sf 31435 sf/9sf=3492 understory—314 trees=3178 understory+5%contingency=3337 understory Impact Area#9 Total area= 12,367 square feet 8,367 square feet=planting zone 1 4,000 square feet=planting zone 2 Planting Planting Area Species Distance Condition (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 1 slough sedge(Carex obnuta) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 2789 732 1 hardstem bulrush(Stir us acutus) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 2789 732 1 dagger-leaf rush(Juncus ensi olius) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 2789 733 2 red-osier dogwood(Corpus stoloni era) 3' O.C. live stake— 18"length, /2-3/4"diameter 1332 155 2 Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3' O.C. live stake—18"length, %2-3/4"diameter 1332 155 2 Douglas s irea(S irea do u lasii) 3' O.C. live stake— 18"len /2-3/4"diameter 1332 156 2 x2=4sf 8367sf/4sf=2092 seedlings+5%contingency=2197 seedlings 3 x 3=9sf 4000sf/9sf=444 live stakes+5%contingency=466 live stakes 4 ," t `zS- 1CLt,:. ,:.}iv .ar.,. ;)y,-.. :!� ,.�•V+r.r..•{'yy�,R a t;' ,; n)tS;i'±. ;ii t :, .�,; ,;<;1,� �.Q C� T;i�•.6 et:fp+ i� ;ai��y _ {;tstJs+;tc� �i ? ,�, rs✓:J tJ 1;;•?t' !,' f,i t:. } .f f - r Jr;�, <r,I'C; '�� rJ;.y� „.. ,,..•p V� ! _ - — t,)f -- ;i. �� 1�!( ix_ f�lSiaj itti)J<< L � 9 JS) t `Si 111•'1d( l St" 1 -. S, (f.l_• -.} __.. _. ex.,ililit; omjioi);u; :.F:�i^ t,�;;Jit.li�,J :�'::1 ..V ±.+AS'.:. —. .._. .....;••O C,; ~� - ��G6t�ttrC:�,t,�Uc�.. •� � � .;,': GC!'I�r v ::1.•. r V ,'51... 1..{J.t .....rl�tilli+�•.t' F +)C �:!- ' .t (aj�lt{llttlF+ #�t�iJ;tttsi � � Ji.4.i , �. Jt'ii.i:�I_ •_ %<;!t;ir ,'.. � :':iy, 1"'t �;t:i(;j:i1G r,!: •flay;+ :+.3sP . J'i' .- t 'lU' y S •it'i. }'; `�>:f'+ . .. 'ter•' t .,,•FU+,'A:•n;/. ::�CIIr,', .y-_•_:.t::l..r.(.)1_� I1.! .; "'PtyJ FIC`StJr'+ (•:'..`- '`. rl t. •t', (}r r!;f'. . l? C):y•fy„Vtt`(i.Zp) �r. 4.t`.t•-.�C.! jr'T.FI(',a°i1.. . .t• r a ...t i iJ e,;L''. J<;,;J {i, if?t,�f.';7t ' - i r ' It _�J`i.! .i'.iil tx.r J�i'-5., .(,...�tt Sr,•. ', r .•�f;. i r, ' iJ ( f ' �I,1.ttCe t1.'t' �.t't3t.�eisss;a 1 i t 1xiC'{AL!a.; 1� y!T'!1.`� (u." igo KJ;r�c)t'?fit:•t; �,� '!; Grotjan Restoration Plan Prepared by: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) Impact Area#10 Total area= 11,169 square feet Planting Planting Area Total Species Distance Condition (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 1 slough sedge(Carex obnuta) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 3724 977 1 hardstem bulrush(Scir us acutus) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 3724 977 1 dagger-leaf rush(Juncus ensi olius) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 3724 978 2 x 2=4sf 11169sf/4 sf=2792 seedlings+5%contingency=2932 seedlings Impact Area#11 and#12 Total area=52,803 square feet Planting Species Planting Condition Area Total Distance (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 4 western hemlock(Tsu a hetero hylla) 10, O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 2640 277 4 Douglas fir(Pseudotsu a menziesii) 10' O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 2640 277 10 x 10=100sf 52803sf/100sf=528 trees+5%contingency=554 trees Impact Area#13 Total area=8,508 s uare feet Planting Species Planting Condition Area Total Distance (sq.ft) Qty Zone(1) 4 western hemlock(Tsu a hetero h lla) 10' O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 4200 44 4 Douglas fir(Pseudotsu a menziesii) 10' O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 4300 45 10 x 10=100sf 8508sf/100sf=85 trees+5%contingency=89 trees 5 l +rf.fE i.Jj 1+.1 tt.} iirur 1r +.`lyt , ..� •fi i-�-� Xf 1Ll J'iJ -w;o:Ll�ru _ 1 1 t i.: •s Ali. t �)tt,r:lfi i ? ( FtIFfl1'1IFlt7 �SULltf+a � 1�i`11d2itfF f '�t,•'.!I ! �irj.ij r .Loc'E� :+..t:l .. 8'.(rr,ecft ►L^ iKJ _ - -- -- . ._.� -Pviff1:w WV 4 : i,h„y �iittii^9, l�afi-t s�t���.� a„^•. ::r.:...r.fr-� .-i fu,�, LOW fit+ i I•'elf,tII iKr;)t:�.� _s t •;�tsa yytt� ;, r'..,ct1 is(,.. .lvf�,Iij (HG€(.LI+ttl. i ! 1 �lr:i�lltf.r. tit!• , t•�t+ . �i�+t,Y.ft:% (.tYiltiitbUJi } - i�l�i<rtlu� l:i:l�>ti�uro t . yt.t •, L,tt,bt .�.•':,i} ••:!'i i': Yil t rk�Ct`iLf�<:fl [Eld l i��� � - i tj M . ."... } d( L.7��c I"'�ftSYCtt7 Ft;'t�`Hi<..;i� 1 L -.✓!•.i;fi�lyj..,',•li:'iifj.='lli2 t �;1 r3_7, (Lt t t .,r ;• t i 1. w b .. `. f. .`.(t'�!(•!C.1k�tSSLS} t 1. �, � ?!Y;!�il{IF� t it �:IItS :1(,i1�.f!N,�fiC�{ ttkt;),U'y5liit S (i i •-"F.�s�tt(?: ilalir;i�•;i�j --r" t . `rtu' .f r f '(�li.i`I lf'G �t''F61 � (�) •' , (on(prioll f �sul�ttr• � s ..1'IJit��ll.'. �(d,'1 �•t)E:rs I�Y't �i-t•`i�ltt t�if:1)`3LCt1 i�t •:�kn5 ,L:r-.t.t.:-t �,17!,(i.C,ifl<, .:; 1� ( t12;�t:�)ti;ii' ltsC � i 4'.S,t t�1.Ct,3N1: {j(.-•jt.i.`;�C�3J 11l`�iJ LEFT SIDE a COMPASS DIRECTION: RIGHT SIDE - COMPASS DIRECTION: l TRANSPORT SIDE CREST WIDTH SIDE TRANSPORT 0 0 nr ZONE WIDTHS WIDTH WIDTH > I (LEFT) (LEFT) (RIGHT) (RIGHT) -p D � D �> .. g C m q) :x) Y MATERIAL -A- X "i Q TRANSPORTED SEDIMENT 1F MATERIAL -B" �1 TRANSPORTED SEDIMENT Z Z > W K 8fo FIN rn MATERIAL "C" Z FABRIC LAYER IF PRESENT TYPICAL WETLAND iO SURFACE n v -non•ex(sv Z cnvNOTESY �-n (1) THIS IS A TYPICAL DRAWING, ACTUAL SATE CONDITIONS WILL VARY. THIS IS INTENDED AS A COMMUNICATION TOOL ONLY. SEE NARRATIVE FOR SITE C DETAILS. THIS DRAWING MAY BE EDITED BY HAND TO FIT SITE CONDITIONS. F ITEM i (FT)SI NOTES 0 MATERIAL A � MATERIAL B Q •Q�{ n 0 MATERIAL C ^ v SIDE SLOPE Y SIDE SLOPE WIDTH (RIGHT) rn SIDE SLOPE X N SIDE SLOPE WIDTH (LEFT) TRANSPORT ZONE (RIGHT) TRANSPORT ZONE (LEFT) CREST WIDTH TYPICAL WETLAND FILL: BERM / ROAD PRISM ENTERING WETLAND (TYPICAL - SECTION) NTS VARIES, DEPENDING ON DAPS N RtPRAP.� e LIVT:STAKES OR UVE POSTS UP TO 16 LONG AND 1'-4' DIAMETER WITH RPRAP 6 AT LEAST TWO LATERAL BUDS ABOVE GRADE C BOTTOM OF STAKES TO K IN NATIVE SOM. D UNDER DROUGHTY SOL CONDITIONS OR ARID AREAS BOTTOM SHALL CONTACT STATIC WATER m _ LEVEL OR CAPILLARY FRINGE. �o m n v m m m - ORDINARY HIGH WATER Z mz y � t- zmz OT STREAM C m ROCK TOE KEY BED (SEE PLAN SHEET FOR DIAMETER. O.Ir-J' n ROCK INSTALLATION) MAX. EXPOSUlK B' OR I/S TOT UD47H LEAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO TYPICAL INSTALLATION OF JOINT PLANTING -24' BUDS EXPOSED NOT TO SCALE TAMP SOIL AROUND CUTTING MIN. BUMAU INSTALL SRO"CONfl10L KART 'a' OR 4 PRIOR TO STAKE hSTALLATRONI PER TOTAL LENGTH MANUFACTURERS REOOWADIDATIONS. MACE MIL4% M CUT NECESSARY TO INSTALL STAKES, STAPLE CUT SEAMS TOGETHER AND SECLALE BLANKET AS EXI511H0 SOIL NOTE.• AVOID S111PPING 71NE DARK OR p NEEDLESS BRUISING OF STAKES DURING ■ d ein-( INSTALLATION. UK AN MLON BAR OR n. STAR DRILL TO PREPARE HOMOS MR THE STAKE. DO NOT UK AXE OR REM FOR WSTALLMIO STAKES N HOLES. USE DEAD BLOW HAMMER OR WOODEN MALLET. LIVE STAKE INSTALLATION DETAIL I ( I I NOT TO SCALE I ' I , APPENDIX D Plant Materials List GROTJAN RESTORATION PLAN Prepared By: Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ATEC) November 2003 Appendix D: Plant Materials List Planting Planting Total Total Zone(1) Species Distance Condition Area Qty ft on center s ,ft 2 1 slough sedge (Carex obnuta) 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 8553 2243 1 hardstem bulrush Scir us acutus 2' O.C. seedling/transplant 4825 2243 1 dagger-leaf rush(Juncus ensi olius) TO.C. seedling/transplant 4829 2246 2 red-osier dogwood Cornus stoloni era 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"length, ''/2-3/a"diameter 4941 576 2 Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"length, '/z-'/4"diameter 4950 576 2 Douglas s irea(S irea dou lasii) 3' O.C. live stakes— 18"length, '/2-3/4"diameter 4950 579 3 Douglas fir Pseudotsu a menziesii 10, O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 19700 206 3 western hemlock(Tsu a hetero h !la) 10, O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 19700 208 3 vine maple Acer circinatum 3' O.C. plugs or bare root 13113 1392 3 bracken fern(Pteridium uilinium) 3' O.C. bare root or rooted stock 13113 1392 3 dull Oregon grape Mahonia a ui olium) 3' O.C. bare root or rooted stock 13122 1393 4 western hemlock Tsu a hetero h lla 10, O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 6840 321 4 Douglas fir Pseudotsu a menziesii 10, O.C. seedlings—prefer plugs or bare root 6940 322 (1) Planting Zones: 1 =Emergent Wetland;2=Scrub/Shrub Wetland;3=Upland Wetland Buffer,4=Upland Slope. (2) Total quantities include 5%contingency. 1