HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHX2024-00016 MFG Home, Wetland Analysis and Mitigation - SHX Application - 4/26/2024 1
h
RECEIVED:
RECEIVED
A MASON COUNTYpLANNINC
I COMMUNITY SERVICES APR 2 6 2024
Building,Panning,Environmental Health,Community Health 615 W. Alder Street
615 W.Alder St.—Bldg. 8,Shelton,Wa 98584
Phone: (360)427-9670 ext.352 ♦ Fax:(360)427-7798 PERMIT NO.,"47 2 /R9,jam j`-I'
SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION
SHORELINE PERMITS
CONDITIONAL USE* SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
VARIANCE* EXEMPTION
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT*
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within designated
shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures (WAC 173-14) and the provisions of the Mason County
Shoreline Management Master Program. The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the state's shoreline
resources. The program requires that substantial development (any development of which the total cost or fair market
value exceeds $7,047.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State be
reviewed with the goals, polices, and performance standards established in the Master Program.
Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that may further describe the proposed development.
Incomplete applications will be returned.
*Shoreline Variances and Conditional uses require public hearings and have additional pages that shall be
attached to this application.
APPLICANT: Mark Carter
ADDRESS: 4623 77th Ave Ct W
(street)
University Place WA 98466
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE: 253-882-9335
(home) (business)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Same as above
ADDRESS:
(street)
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
General location (include property address, water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the shoreline):
Rev. Nov. 30, 2021
The Applicant shall provide, at a minimum, the following information:
a. SITE PLAN -drawn to scale and including:
i. The boundary of the parcel(s) of land upon which the development is proposed;
ii. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM). This may be an approximate location provided, that for any development
where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations requires a precise location of the OHWM the
mark shall be located precisely and the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans
shall be included in the development plan. Where the OHWM is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the
project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the nearest OHWM of a shoreline;
iii. Where appropriate, the proposed land contours using five-foot intervals in water area and ten-foot intervals on
areas landward of OHWM, if development involves grading, cutting, filling, or other alteration of land contours;
iv. The dimensions and location of existing structures which will be maintained;
v. The dimensions and locations of proposed structures; parking and landscaping;
vi. The location of proposed utilities, such as sewer, septic tanks and drain fields, water, gas and electricity;
vii.The location, source, composition, and volume of fill material;
viii. The location, composition and volume of any extracted materials, and proposed disposal area;
b. CROSS SECTION, drawn to scale including:
i. The existing ground elevations;
ii. The proposed ground elevations;
iii. The location and height of existing structures;
iv. The location and height of proposed structures;
V. The OHWM.
c. VICINITY MAP, including:
i. The location of subject parcel using natural points of reference (roads, state highways, prominent landmarks,
etc.).
ii. If the development involves the removal of any soils by dredging or otherwise, identify the proposed disposal
site on the map. If disposal site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map, provide another vicinity map
showing the precise location of the disposal site and its distance to nearest city or town.
iii. On the map, or separately, give a brief narrative description of the vicinity of the proposed project including
identification of the adjacent uses, structures and improvements, intensity of development and physical
characteristics.
d. ADJACENT LANDOWNERS. Provide names and mailing addresses of all real property owners within 300
feet of property line boundaries where development is proposed as mailing labels or pre-addressed
envelopes.
ACKOWLEDGEMENT:
I hereby declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the forgoing information and all attached information is true and
correct.
4/25/24
(Applicant or Authorized Representative) (date)
90 E Tahuya Dr, Shelton, WA 98584
"Headwaters" of Big Timberlake, Timberlakes Community, Shelton, WA
shoreline is where Timberlakes Community property meets the water
Include all parcel numbers: Projects located in open water areas, away from land shall provide latitude/longitude.
22007-51-00060
OWNERSHIP:
�, Contract
Applicant Owner U Lessee F__1 Purchaser (Identify) Other
Owner: Mark Carter
4623 77th Ave Ct W University Place WA 98466
(street) (city) (state) (zip)
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON:
Development proposal (identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used, construction
methods, principle dimensions, and other pertinent information):
New 14 x 60 manufactured home, gravel drive, new onsite septic system, power & water from
public sources.
Improvements to be constructed outside of the mitigated 150 foot buffer AND the 15 foot
constuction buffer from the wetlands
Minimal grading, minimal cut & fill to balance site
Existing Use (identify current use of property with exist improvements):
Recreational / camping use, two existing 8 x 12 sheds
Reason for requesting development:
establish new single family residence
Estimated Fair Market Value of Project to Closest$1,000: $268,000
� N
C) }
W Toeo��
o
CO
Zoo, o
W
CZ
W
ls'CyNsrn�:
Mumma
_ tom-
La,;,cra�
10 X3� 18.GAu�N,]&2
� 4 Y•P�RHO f'SRSI['C Y(SrT' 1
p Lam' I
C , sir
rA�uY� M �
3 LA6-T- Coo �� f�� o,/� �
�-
RECEIVED
APR 2 6 2024
615 W. Alder Street
Wetland Delineation Report
Prepared for Mark Carter
Shelton, WA
April 3, 2024
o«�LE%ANDER CAl1FIIDBI,�'
Land Services Northwest Rds zss�
Alex Callender MS,PWS c WEru"°�
120 Statc Ave NE PMB 190,Olympia.WA,98301
360.481.4208
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Executive Summary
Site Name: Carter Single Family Residence
Site Location: XXX Tahuya Drive Shelton, WA
Acres: .36
Land Use Intensity- High
Parcel Number: 22007-51-00060
Legal Description:TIMBERLAKE#8 TR 60
Project Staff: Alex Callender, MS, PWS
Field Survey Conducted: February 26, 2024
Project Description: The applicant proposes an 840 sq ft single-family residence, a sanitary septic with a
drainfield and reserve drainfield while using water utilities at the road and an existing driveway for
ingress and egress. There are two existing sheds that will remain.
Findings: One wetland, Wetland A, was found offsite to the east. Wetland A was rated as a Category II
wetland with a high habitat score of 8(MHH) and high land use intensity for a 300-foot standard buffer.
This buffer can be reduced to 225-feet moderate use intensity buffer using measures in code. The
applicant will need further reduction to 150-feet and will apply for a Mason Environmental Permit and
will also have a 15-foot building setback for a total of 165-feet.
Impacts and Mitigation: There are 1,840 sq feet of impacts expected to the standard buffer due to the
home, sheds, septic drainfield and reserve drainfield,which will be offset by an 1,840 sq ft invasive
species removal and enhancement plan to enhance the understory and result in no-net-loss in wetland
functions. Other mitigation measures are included in Table 8.52.110(G) Measures to Mitigate Impacts.
i
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Contents
ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................................................................i
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................1
Figure1-Vicinity Map...........................................................................................................................................1
2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE..........................................................................................................2
2.1 Historical and Current Land Use..........................................................................................................2
Figure2-Current Conditions................................................................................................................................2
3.0 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................................3
3.1 Existing Information Review................................................................................................................3
3.2 Analysis of Existing Information........................................................................................................3
National Wetland Inventory(NWI)Map...............................................................................................................3
NRCSSoils Map ...................................................................................................................................................3
WA Department of Natural Resources FPAMT....................................................................................................5
USGSTOPO Map.................................................................................................................................................5
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Inventory and Salmonscape......................................................................5
NOAANOW Precipitation Data...........................................................................................................................5
3.3 Field Investigation...............................................................................................................................6
DeterminationGuidelines......................................................................................................................................6
GeneralField Guidelines.......................................................................................................................................6
Table1 Indicator Status Ratings............................................................................................................................6
3.4 Wetland Study.....................................................................................................................................7
FieldSurvey...........................................................................................................................................................7
Figure3—Test Pit Locations.................................................................................................................................8
4.0 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................................9
4.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................................................9
4.2 Wetlands.............................................................................................................................................9
WetlandA..............................................................................................................................................................9
5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUES......................................................................................................................9
5.1 Wetland Functional Analysis Methodology.........................................................................................9
5.2 Wetland Functions..............................................................................................................................9
WetlandA..............................................................................................................................................................9
Insert Figure 4—Standard 300-foot with 225-foot and 150-foot Reduced Buffer...............................................13
6.3 Corps Regulations..............................................................................................................................................14
6.4 Department of Ecology......................................................................................................................................14
7.0 WILDLIFE.........................................................................................................................................................14
8.0 PROPOSED PROJECT.......................................................................................................................................14
8.1 Description........................................................................................................................................14
8.2 Development Impacts.......................................................................................................................14
8.3 Impact Avoidance and Minimization.................................................................................................14
8.4 Minimization of Water Quality Impacts............................................................................................14
Insert Figure 5—Site Plan with Reduced Buffers................................................................................................14
9.0 MITIGATION...........................................................................................................................................I........15
ii
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
9.1 Mitigation Requirements...................................................................................................................................15
9.2 Mitigation Functional Analysis...........................................................................................................................18
Table 4- Buffer Functions Comparison Before and After Mitigation...................................................................18
9.3 Planting Plan......................................................................................................................................................19
Insert Figure 6—Mitigation Planting Area..........................................................................................................19
Table 3 Plants and Costs(1,600 square feet)......................................................................................................20
Table4-Total Costs.............................................................................................................................................20
9.4 Monitoring Plan.................................................................................................................................................20
9.5 Performance Standards.....................................................................................................................................21
9.6 Contingency plans..............................................................................................................................................21
10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................22
11.0 LIMITATIONS...................................................................................................................................................22
12.0 REFERENCE.....................................................................................................................................................23
AppendixA—Photographs..................................................................................................................................25
Appendix B-US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map..................................................28
Appendix C-Mason County NRCS Soil Survey Map........................................................................................29
Appendix D-WADNR Forest Practices Stream Type Map...............................................................................32
AppendixE-USGS TOPO Map.........................................................................................................................33
Appendix F-Priority Habitats and Species Map and Salmonscape Map...........................................................34
AppendixG—Precipitation Data.........................................................................................................................37
AppendixH-Wetland Data Sheets.....................................................................................................................38
Appendix I-ECY Wetland Rating Forms for Western Washington...................................................................39
Appendix J-NOAA NOW Preciptation Data.....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is the result of a critical areas study of the .36-acre Parcel Number 220075100060 at XXX
Tahuya Drive property with the legal description of TIMBERLAKE#8 TR 60 located in Mason County,
Washington (Figure 1).
The purpose of this report is to 1)identify and describe the wetlands or other critical areas on-site and within 315
ft off-site of the property 2)identify impacts to wetlands or critical areas and their buffers,and 3)apply mitigation
and conservation measures to off-set any critical areas or buffer impacts.
This report was prepared to satisfy the critical areas review process required by the Mason County Development
Regulations Title 8.52 Resource Ordinance.
Mason County and possibly other agencies that may regulate impacts to critical areas from the proposed project
will be able to utilize information in this report.
1 i-r— 1_.�..._
\% J
(_
1 ;r }
La nd Serves Northwest ", ,,. Rgure 1, �..,..� ...
120 Sate Avneue NE PM 190 LSNW Viunrtr
Olympia,WA 98501 1fII I xa rK
36fi481-0208
Figure 1-Vicinity Map I Pa,mW2200751WWO
11 111
1
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION' AND LAND USE
2.1 Historical and Current Land Use
Historically,the property is a mostly undeveloped recreational parcel in the Timberlake Community with a couple
of small storage sheds,a campfire and a driveway.There are single-family residences to the north and west and a
single-family residence with an outbuilding to the west. Timberlake Community property is located to the east.
�P
N
Land Services Northwest
LSNW 120 State Avenue NE PMB 190 Pi Two 0 9l) 180 360 Feet
Olympia,WA 98501 Currenntt Conditions I I I
Figure 2 - Current Conditions
2
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Existing Information Review
Background information on possible wetlands was reviewed prior to field investigations and included the
following:
National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) Map,USFWS Shapefile Data (Appendix B)
Mason County Area Soil Survey,Soil Conservation Service(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973) National
Resource Conservation Service Shapefiles(NRCS Soils Data Mart, 2006) (Appendix C)
WADNR Stream Type Mapping(Appendix D)
USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Maps(Appendix E)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife Salmonscape(Appendix F)
NOAA NOW Precipitation Data(Appendix G)
United States Hydric Soils List(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991)
Mason County Code Chapter 8.52
3.2 Analysis of Existing Information
The following existing information was reviewed to gain a better understanding of on-site conditions
and its position in the landscape.
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map
The National Wetland Inventory(NWI) map(Appendix B), developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), shows PABB(Palustrine Aquatic Bed Saturated) and PSSC(Palustrine Shrub scrub
seasonally flooded) wetlands within 315 feet of the property.
NRCS Soils Map
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the site (Appendix C) as containing:
• Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2t626
Elevation: 50 to 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 20 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature:46 to 52 degrees F
Frost-free period: 160 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Alderwood and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
3
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Estimates are based on observations,descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Alderwood
Setting
Landform: Hills, ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Nose slope,talf
Down-slope shape:Convex, linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Glacial drift and/or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits
Typical profile
A-0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Bw1 -7 to 21 inches:very gravelly sandy loam
Bw2 -21 to 30 inches:very gravelly sandy loam
Bg-30 to 35 inches: very gravelly sandy loam
2Cd1 -35 to 43 inches:very gravelly sandy loam
2Cd2 -43 to 59 inches:very gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to densic material
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to moderately low(0.00 to 0.06
in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 18 to 37 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches:Very low (about 2.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated):4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: F002XA004WA- Puget Lowlands Forest
Forage suitability group: Limited Depth Soils(G002XN302WA), Limited Depth Soils(G002XF303WA),
Limited Depth Soils (G002XS301WA)
Other vegetative classification: Limited Depth Soils (G002XN302WA), Limited Depth Soils
(G002XF303WA), Limited Depth Soils(G002XS301WA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Indianola
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform:Terraces, kames, eskers
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
4
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Hydric soil rating: No
Everett
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Kames, moraines, eskers
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Depressions
Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating:Yes
Norma
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Drainageways, depressions
Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip
Down-slope shape: Linear, concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating:Yes
WA Department of Natural Resources FPAMT
The Department of Natural Resources has a mapping tool for depicting Stream types for Forest Practices purposes
in accordance with WAC 222-16-16(Appendix D). This database shows a wetland and Type F stream to the east of
the subject parcel.
USGS TOPO Map
The USGS has topographical maps that show wetlands,streams,and other natural and manmade features
(Appendix E). This map shows a wetland and stream to the east of the subject parcel.
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Inventory and Salmonscape
The Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains an inventory of priority habitats and species information(Appendix
F).This database does not show the existence of priority habitats or species in the vicinity of the property. The
WDFW Salmonscape map shows resident coastal cutthroat in a stream to the east.
NOAA NOW Precipitation Data
NOAA maintains a database that graphs the current precipitation against the wettest,driest,and normal
accumulations of record.(Appendix G)This data shows that the precipitation since October 1,2023, has been
predominantly normal with periods of slightly above and slightly below average as measured at the Shelton
Airport.
5
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
3.3 Field Investigation
Determination Guidelines
Land Services Northwest based its wetland identification and delineation upon the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory, 1987)and the regional specificity found in Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region
(Version 2.0)(USACE,2010). Generally,as outlined in the manuals,wetlands are distinguished from other
landforms by three criteria: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2)hydric soils,and 3)wetland hydrology.
General Field Guidelines
Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy in Flora of the Pacific Northwest(Hitchcock and Cronquist,
1973),and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to:The National Wetland Plant List:2016
(Lichvar, 2016). Wetland classes were determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's system of wetland
classification (FGDC,2013). The wetland determination was based mainly on soils,vegetation,and hydrology
characteristics indicative of wetland conditions.
The Corps Manual and Supplement describes soil,vegetation,and hydrological indicators of wetlands. A hydric
soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation,flooding,or ponding long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper par(National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, 1994).
Anaerobic conditions cause redoximorphic features to develop,which can be evidenced through the observation
of mottling or gleying in the soil. Soils are hydric if they match the indicators in the supplement or meet the
technical definition.
A soils evaluation was performed to determine if the area contained hydric soils. Additional test plots were
sampled to gage possible wetland indicators and characteristics. Soils are normally excavated to 18 inches or more
below the surface within a test pit to evaluate soil characteristics and hydrological conditions in both wetland and
upland areas. Soil chroma (color)is evaluated using the Munsell Color Chart(Munsell Color, 1988).
The COE describe a wetland rating system for plants. Each plant species is assigned a probability of occurrence
within wetlands,which is referred to as its wetland status. The wetland plant indicator system is as follows:
Table 1 Indicator Status Ratings
Indicator Status Abrv. ! Definitions-Short Version
Obligate OBL (vAlmost always occur in wetlands.
Facultative Wetland FACW ( Usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands.
Facultative FAC [ Occur in wetlands and nonwetlands.
3
Facultative Upland FACU Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands.
Upland UPL Almost never occur in wetlands. I
(USACE,2016)
In general, under the Federal methodology, more than 50 percent of the predominant plant species within a test
plot must be rated FAC or wetter(i.e., FACW,OBL)to satisfy the wetland criteria for hydrophytic vegetation.
Dominant species are those when ranked comprise 50%of the total or those that have a percent cover greater or
equal to 20 percent within the test plot. Only dominant plant species were considered in the data analysis.
6
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
If wetland hydrology, including pooling,ponding,and soil saturation, is not clearly evident, hydrological conditions
may be observed through surface or soil indicators. Indicators of hydrological conditions include drainage
patterns,drift lines,sediment deposition,watermarks, historic records,visual observation of saturated soils,and
visual observation of inundation.
3.4 Wetland Study
Field Survey
A wetland reconnaissance was performed on February 26, 2024,to identify wetlands present on the subject
property and map features. Observations were made of the general plant communities,wildlife habitats,and the
locations of potential streams and wetland areas. Present and past land-use practices were also noted,as were
significant geological and hydrological features
Once likely wetland areas were located,the Routine Onsite Determination Method was used to identify the
presence of wetland parameters and to delineate the outer edge of the wetlands using the procedures outlined in
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The Routine Onsite
Determination Method was used in areas that maintained normal circumstances,were not significantly disturbed,
and were not potential problem areas. A formal wetland delineation was performed on February 26,2024,to flag
and document on-site wetlands and to identify and map off-site wetlands within 315 feet of the subject property
as we are able.
Test pits were dug on February 26,2024(Figure 3)to develop a better understanding of soil profiles onsite. Soils
were excavated to 18 inches or more below the surface within a test pit to evaluate soil characteristics and
hydrological conditions throughout the site. Soil chroma (color)is evaluated using the Munsell Color Chart
(Munsell Color, 1988). These results were entered in wetland data sheets(Appendix H).
7
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
220075100060 /
Tp1,
Legend \\ ,
Test Pits �r _,� dux- ` .',
Street_Centerlines
Subject_Property
Land Services Northwest Rgure 3 -r---r-r-r�� p✓
F 120 State Avneue NE PM 190 LSNw 0 12-5 25 50 Feet
Olympia,WA98501 Test Pit Locations
360-481-4208
Figure 3 —Test Pit Locations
8
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Existing Conditions
The subject property is on the edge of a wetland,Wetland A,which is part of the Timber Lake Wetland system.
The property slopes to the wetland that is offsite on the eastern edge.
Uplands on the site are dominated by Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii; FACU) Red alder(alnus rubra;FAC),
Western red cedar(Thuja plicata; FAC), Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum; FACU),Salal (Gaultheria
shallon; FACU),Oregon grape(Mahonia nervosa; FACU),Swordfern(Polystichum munitum; FACU)
4.2 Wetlands
Wetland A
Wetland A is a large approximately 17.5-acre palustrine emergent,open water,forested wetland that was rated
as a depressional HGM wetland.
Plants
Western red cedar(Thuja plicata;FAC), Red alder(alnus rubra; FAC),Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia; FAW),Cattails
(Typha latifiolia,OBL), Lysichiton americanum;OBL),and Slough sedge(Carex obnupta;OBL)dominated the
wetland.
Soils
Soils were a 10YR 2/1 mineral with a muck with a 10YR 4-5/2 and 10YR 4-5/6 redox features.
Hydrology
Hydrology was found within 12 inches of the surface and the high-water line was found within this area.
5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUES
5.1 Wetland Functional Analysis Methodology
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.
Several procedures have been developed for assessing the importance and magnitude of functions and include the
Washington Functional Assessment Method (WAFAM)Wetland Evaluation Technique,the Hydrogeomorphic
Assessment Method the Habitat Evaluation Procedure(HEP),and numerous regional and/or local procedures.
However, none of these methods were consistent with the needs of this project.
Wetland functions were also semi-quantitatively assessed using information gathered while performing the ECY
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). The scores from the analysis of the wetland are
found in Appendix H.This method is a comprehensive approach requiring substantial data input and assessment of
onsite and landscape functions. The descriptions of wetland functions and the factors and parameters considered
by that method are very helpful in interpreting the functioning of the subject wetlands and buffer areas. The
methodology is scientifically based,in that its application requires a prior understanding of how wetlands function.
Advanced experience,training and scientific objectivity of a wetland scientist applying the method is essential for
an accurate assessment. Alex Callender has attended and received credit for the training in this method.
5.2 Wetland Functions
Wetland A
Wetland A is a an approximately 17.5 acre somewhat disturbed Depressional HGM, Permanently and Seasonally
flooded Cowardin Class wetland.The wetland is surrounded by roads and single-family residential properties.
9
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Water Quality Functions
Wetland A has a relatively unrestricted outlet. The wetland has persistent ungrazed vegetation for over%of its
area and the seasonally flooded portion of the wetland accounts for less than 1/4 of its area.
Over 1/10 of the land use within 150-feet of the wetland is in pollution generating land use and there are septic
systems within 250ft of the wetland. There are no other sources of pollution that contribute to the wetland.
The wetland discharges directly to a 303d listed water and is within a mile of one in the basin.The wetland
eventually discharges to Hammersley Inlet,which is planned under a cleanup plan,so it rates high for value.
Hydrologic Functions
The wetland does not receive stormwater,and its contributing basin is 10-100 times the size of the unit. Less than
10%of the land use within 150-feet is in runoff producing land use. There are no problems with flooding
downstream of the wetland as it flows out to Hammersley inlet. Wetland A has not been identified as important
for this function.
Habitat Functions
Wetland A has diverse structure. It has 3 hydroperiods, permanently flooded and seasonally saturated, it has a
diverse number of species due to its size. It has a high interspersion of habitats. Wetland A has five special
characteristics like rigid stems for amphibians to lay eggs,snags and logs,beavers, and a low amount of invasive
species.
There is some high intensity land use,and the area still has a nearly equal area of relatively undisturbed and
moderate land use. The amount of high intensity use within 1 km land use area is less than 50%. There is a large
amount of Accessible habitat. Overall,the unit rates high for position in the landscape.
Wetland A has priority snags and logs,and a stream with a riparian area connected to it,so overall it rates high for
its value to society.
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Mason County Regulations
Wetlands
Wetlands are regulated under MCC 8.52.110 Wetlands. The buffers are determined by the wetland rating score
and land use intensity according to the following table
The property land use intensity is less than one unit per acre,so it is considered a moderate intensity land use.
Rating of impact from Examples of land uses that cause the impact based on common zoning categories
proposed changes in land
use
High • Commercial
• Urban
• Industrial
• Institutional
10
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Rating of impact from Examples of land uses that cause the impact based on common zoning categories
proposed changes in land
use
• Retail sales
• Residential(more than 1 unit/acre)
• Conversion to high intensity agriculture(dairies, nurseries and green houses,
growing and harvesting crops requiring annual tilling, raising and maintaining
animals)
• High intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields)
Moderate •Single-family residential (1 unit/acre or less)
• Moderate-intensity open space(parks with biking,jogging,etc.)
•Conversion to moderate intensity agriculture(orchards and hay fields)
• Paved trails
• Building of logging roads
• Utility corridor or right-of-way shared by several utilities and including
access/maintenance road
Low • Forestry(cutting of trees only)
• Low intensity open space(hiking, bird watching, preservation of natural
resources,etc.)
• Unpaved trails
• Utility corridor without a maintenance road and little or no vegetation
management
I
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Table 8.52.110(E): Width of Buffers Required to Protect Category II Wetlands. Wetlands
Scoring Between 20 and 22 Points on the Wetlands Rating System.
Wetland Characteristics Buffer Widths by Impact
Proposed Land Use
(Apply most protective if me
than one criterion is met.)
High level of function for habitat (score for habitat 8-9 points) Low— 150 ft
Moderate—225 ft
High—300 ft
Moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 6 - 7 points) Low 75 ft
Moderate 110 ft
High— 150 ft
High level of function for water quality improvement and low for habitat Low—50 ft'
(score for water quality 8 - 9 points; habitat less than 6 points)
Moderate—75 ft'
High— 100 ft
Estuarine Low—75 ft
Moderate 110 ft
High 150 ft
Not meeting above characteristics Low—50 ft
Moderate—75 ft
High— 100 ft
'If buffer is located on a steep slope,the width shall be increased per subsection 8.52.110(5)(B)(ii)e.
12
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Table 8.52.11.0 identifies the standard buffer widths. Buffer widths are specified for both water quality and habitat
protection.The widest of the applicable buffers under habitat and water quality applies.
Wetland A,
Wetland A was rated as a Category II wetland with an overall score of 20 and a habitat score of eight(MHH).
According to MCC 8.52.110.3.d.
(4)Structure Setback Lines.A structure setback line of fifteen feet is required from the edge of any wetland buffer.Minor structural intrusions
into the area of the setback may be allowed if the administrator determined that such intrusions will not negatively impact the wetland.
Therefore,with the addition of the fifteen-foot setback,the total standard buffer would be 300 feet. This
standard buffer can be reduced to 225-ft using Table 8.52.110(G): Examples of measures to reduce impacts to
wetlands., however,the applicant will require a reduction to 150-feet using the measures and Mason
Environmental Permit. Therefore,the final buffer will be 150-feet with an additional 15-feet for a building setback
and a final buffer of 165-feet.
Table 2-Summary of Wetlands on or in the Vicinity of the Subject Property
Size Category
Y L
Wetland _ m
U N
Y
y C Y C U �p Y i
Y (C cu M
s= w � a °� a a) LL 3 E:
O O 2 2 U m ,n Co U U
Mason environmental
permit Required to
Wetland 17.5 II 15 ft 300ft 150 ft PFOC reduce to 150-feet.
Al, acres PSSC
Mitigation for impacts
provided
1. Palustrine, Forested Permanently Flooded(or Saturated)
The Wetland with a standard buffer is shown in Figure 4.
Insert Figure 4— Standard 300-foot with 225-foot and 150-foot Reduced Buffer
13
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
MOD
STD WETLAND WETLAND
BUFFER BUFFER
RED WETLAND
I0x10 EXISTING BUFFER
SHEDS
01.
�P1oo SETBAC
P
WATER
EXISTING DRIVE
6l0
WETLAND
EDGE/OHWM
SETBACK
WETLAND A
LAND SERVICES NORTHWEST FIGURE 4 15-FT CONSTRUCTION SETBACK a WETLAND EDGE
120 STATE AVE NE #190 WETLANDS WITH STANDARD Scale: 1" = 50' PROPERTY BOUNDARY
❑LYMPIA, WA 98501 AND REDUCED BUFFER 225-FT STD WETLAND BUFFER
360-481-4208 (NOT A SURVEY) 00-FT STANDARDWETLAND
WETBUFFER
BUFFER
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
6.3 Corps Regulations
Wetland A flows off site and into the Puget Sound therefore it would be maintained as a Water of the US and
regulated under the Clean Water Act. No impacts are proposed to Wetland A.
6.4 Department of Ecology
Under RCW 90.48,the Washington Department of Ecology(DOE)reserves regulatory authority to regulate"waters
of the state"under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. No wetland impacts are proposed.
7.0 WILDLIFE
Wildlife observed during the field investigations are typical of urban/suburban adapted species(Table 2).The
European starling, possum, and other species adapted to urbanization may inhabit or visit the site for food and
shelter.
No other Federally listed,or priority species was observed on the subject property or near the site based on the
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species(PHS)and field observations during the reconnaissance and delineation.
During the limited duration of the site reconnaissance and delineation,no evidence of the Federally listed Bald
Eagle, Marbled Murrelet,or Spotted Owl was observed on-site.
No Federally listed salmonid species are known to occur on-site, based on the WDFW SalmonScape database,the
WDFW PHS database,and site reconnaissance.
No wildlife was observed on site during the site visit.
8.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
8.1 Description
The project consists of an 840 sq ft single-family residence,an onsite septic with a drainfield and reserve drainfield
and a driveway for ingress and egress.The project will hook up to community water at the road (Figure 5).
8.2 Development Impacts
No direct impacts to the wetland are expected, however,there will be impacts to the wetland buffer beyond what
the standard or 25%reduced buffer available in code,so a Mason Environmental Permit(MEP)is requested. Total
impacts are expected to be 1,840 for the home,sheds,septic drainfield and reserve to the standard buffer. The
wetland will require a Mason Environmental Permit to reduce the buffer to 150 feet in some areas,while
maintaining the 15-foot Building Setback.
8.3 Impact Avoidance and Minimization
The property already has water and a driveway,and the building area is mostly clear already. The septic drainfield
is in an area of well drained soils.
8.4 Minimization of Water Quality Impacts
Implementing water quality and sedimentation best management practices(BMPs)will act to minimize
sedimentation and protect water quality on-site and any bare areas will be planted with a cover crop. Silt fences
and straw waddles will be used where necessary. Splash blocks and infiltration galleries will be used to reduce
stormwater impacts from the residence. The increase in vegetation from the proposed buffer enhancement plan
will provide for increased surface roughness and nutrient uptake. The applicant is providing a mitigation plan
which should help prevent erosion and uptake nutrients which would otherwise contribute to the wetland.
Insert Figure 5 —Site Plan with Reduced Buffers
14
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
OX30FT
DRAINFIELD
SHEDS 15-FT
C❑NSTRUCTI❑N
SETBACK
OX30 FT
RESERVE
J� DRAINFIELD
Q� 50-FT
RED WETLAND
300-FT - BUFFER
STD WETLAND WATER ,
BUFFER
EXI TING
DRIVEWAY
RED WETLAND
BUFFER
1'4X52 FT
RESIDENCE WETLAND
EDGE/❑HWM
PROJECT NAME: CARTER SFR WETLAND A
PARCEL#: 220075100060
ADDRESS- XXXX TAHUYA DRIVE SHELTON,WA 98584
LAND SERVICES NORTHWEST FIGURE 5 Scale: 1 = 50 0 EXISTING SHEDS
15-FT CONSTRUCTION SETBACK
120 STATE AVE NE#190 SITE PLAN WITH STANDARD AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY Q WETLAND
OLYMPIA,WA 98501 REDUCED BUFFERS AND(NOT A 300-FT STD WETLAND BUFFER 150 FT RED WETLAND BUFFER
360-481-4208 SURVEY) 225 FT RED WETLAND BUFFER
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
9.0 MITIGATION
In order to provide mitigation for the unavoidable impacts to the wetland buffers,the applicant
proposes to provide the following activities and installations of plants and the measures found in Table
8.52.110G below. With the maintenance and monitoring of the area for five years it is expected that we
will reach our objective of no net loss of wetland functions,values and acreage.
9.1 Mitigation Requirements
Table 8.52.110(G): Examples of measures to reduce impacts to wetlands.
Examples Activities and Examples of Measures to Minimize Impacts
of Uses that
Disturbance Cause
Disturbances
Lights • Parking lots • Direct lights away from wetland
• Warehouses
Manufacturing
• Residential
Noise 0 Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
Manufacturing
• Residential
Toxic • Parking lots • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring
runoff' wetland is not dewatered
• Roads
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of
• wetland
Manufacturing
• Apply integrated pest management
• Residential
areas
• Application
of agricultural
pesticides
15
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Examples Activities and Examples of Measures to Minimize Impacts
of Uses that
Disturbance Cause
Disturbances
• Landscaping
Stormwater • Parking lots • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and
runoff existing adjacent development
• Roads
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer
Manufacturing
• Residential
areas
• Commercial
• Landscaping
Change in 0 • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from
water Impermeable impervious surfaces and new lawns
regime surfaces
• Lawns
• Tilling
Pets and • Residential • Use privacy fencing: plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer
human areas edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for
disturbance the ecoregion; place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract
Dust •Tilled fields • Use best management practices to control dust
*These examples are not necessarily adequate for minimizing toxic runoff if threatened or endangered
species are present at the site.
16
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
(F) Mitigation for Wetland Impacts.
(1) If wetland or wetland buffer impacts are proposed,the following sequence of review must be
considered.
(a)Avoid the impact all together by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; The applicant has
avoided direct impacts and will avoid buffer impacts too, but they need more room to allow for the
modest homesite.
(b) Minimize the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by
using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
The applicant has chosen a small footprint to accommodate his needs.
(c) Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the sensitive areas;
The native planting plan will restore the understory that was cleared by the previous owner for
recreational use of the property. This will maintain the functions of the wetland.
(d) Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations;
A maintenance and monitoring plan will be conducted for five years following the installation of the
mitigation at which point it should be self-sustaining.
(e)Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute areas and environments
and replace the ecological processes and functions of the resource;
An extensive enhancement plan has been developed to improve the functions and values of the wetland
by increasing the amount of vegetated buffer up to the edge of the existing vegetated buffer. This plan
will be an improvement over the baseline condition as the area lacks diversity structure and roughness.
The main objective to this plan is to plant conifers among other things that will eventually improve the
height and shade of the vegetation.
(f) Monitor the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
A monitoring plan has been developed to make sure that the restoration enhancement plan reaches a
self-sustaining growing trajectory.
(2) As a condition of any permit allowing alteration of wetlands and/or wetland buffers,the county shall
require that the applicant engage in the restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands and their
buffers in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's actions.
When the acreage required for compensatory mitigation is divided by the acreage of impact, the result
is a number known variously as a replacement,compensation,or mitigation ratio. Methods to achieve
compensation for wetland functions shall be approached in the following order of preference:
restoration, creation,enhancement(defined in 8.52.030).
(3)The overall goal of any compensatory project shall be no net loss of wetland function and acreage.
17
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
No wetland buffer acreage will be lost. Functions as measured by the Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington were targeted for improvement to assure no net loss of wetland functions. This
will include planting dense vegetation in the buffer from buffer edge toward the wetland(Figure 6).
9.2 Mitigation Functional Analysis
The following planting plan to restore the buffer will restore wetland functions and improve the overall
landscape lost by the tree removal by:
• providing increase roughness
• increasing nutrient uptake of stormwater
• Provide screening for wildlife,
• Provide shade for water quality and habitat,
• Produce food for wildlife and structure.
Currently,the area that was impacted is a forested buffer that has been used recreationally. There is a
lack of shrub vegetation a vegetation and the screening that it provides, so this plan will provide an
enhanced proper buffer in the area,where it matters most, between the residence and the wetland.
The planting plan will provide species diversity and structure as well as roughness as shown in the
previous chapters.
The following analysis uses the qualitative scoring values like the values developed in the Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington. The best available science has found that the resolution of
value can only be rated using a qualitative system and maintain a rapid assessment of less than one day.
Therefore,we have examined common buffer functions for wetland protection and habitat optimization
to show the overall expected lift by the enhancement plan.
Table 4 - Buffer Functions Comparison Before and After Mitigation
Buffer Screening Nutrient Snags Structure Surface Temperature Erosion
Performance uptake and roughness attenuation control
criteria Logs Diversity
Before Low Medium Medium Low Medium Low High
mitigating
measures
After Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High
mitigating
measures
Scale- Low, Medium, High
Currently,the area that will be improved is forested area, however, near the wetland area, there is a
lack of shrub vegetation and the screening that it provides, so this plan will provide an enhance proper
buffer in the area where it matters most, in alignment with the residence. The planting plan will also
18
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
provide species diversity and structure as well as roughness that will be important for stormwater
treatment.
9.3 Planting Plan
The following planting plan will be installed. Figure 6 illustrates the placement zones which were
created to maximize plant performance by placing species in a position in the landscape where they will
thrive.
Insert Figure 6— Mitigation Planting Area
19
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
300-FT S D WETL ND
BUFFER
RED WETLAND
BUFFER
200 SQ FT RED WETLAND
SHED 00 SQ FT BUFFER
IMPACTS RAINFIELD
MPACTS 15-FT
J� C❑NSTRUCTI❑
�1 SETBAC
300 SQ FT
�P boo RESERVE
�J IMPACTS
EXISTING DRIVE �P
6 1po/
WATE If,
e
TAW
,840 SO FT
BUFFER
ENHANCEMENT
AREA
ro
840 SQ T
IMPACTSE WETLAND
EDGE/❑HWM
SETBACK
WETLAND A
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
LAND SERVICES NORTHWEST FIGURE 6 Scale: 1" = 50' 225-FT RED WETLAND BUFFER ® 1,840 SO FT BUFFER IMPACTS
120 STATE A V E NE #190 PLANTING PLAN WITH 150-FT RED WETLAND BUFFER
❑LYMPIA, WA 98501 BUFFERS 300-FT STANDARD BUFFER ® 1,840 SQ FTBUFFER ENHANCEMEN-
360-481-4208 (b AND C❑NSTRUCTI❑N SETBACKS 15-FT CONSTRUCTION SETBACK r,
(NnT A SIIRVEY) WETLAND
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Table 3 Plants and Costs (1,600 square feet)
Common Scientific Name Spacing Quantity Cost Total
Name
Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 5 ft oc 10 $10.00 $100.00
Red flowering Ribes sanguineum 8 ft oc 10 $10.00 $100.00
current
Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa 5 ft-oc 10 $10.00 $100.00
Vine maple Acer circinatum 10 ft oc 3 $10.00 $30.00
Serviceberry Amelanchier 15 ft oc 10 $10.00 $100.00
alnifolia
Total 43 $430.00
Table 4 - Total Costs
Labor $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Mulch 100 $100.00
Monitoring w/report(5 years) * 200 $1000.00
Plants and Materials $430.00
Total $2,530.00
*-Not included in bond
Trees and shrubs will be planted at grade in holes 2-3 times the width of the container or root ball.
Mulch will be applied around each tree 2-4 inches deep in a three-foot diameter around the tree with an
edge to retain water. Containerized rootbound trees will be cut with sharp shears on the bottom in an x
pattern to promote root growth. Four cuts will be made vertically to allow roots to spread. Trees and
shrubs will be thoroughly watered in after installation.
9.4 Monitoring Plan
The planting plan will be monitored for five years following the As—built(Year 0). Monitoring of the
performance standards will be provided each spring, shortly after leaf out,to aid in plant identification.
20
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
A report that communicates the findings will be provided to the County staff a month following the
monitoring. The report will contain pictures to allow the County personnel to evaluate site conditions
and performance standards. The photos in the report will be taken in four cardinal directions, unless
there is a direction that provides a better view. Four photo points will be established during the as-built
(Year 0). Management of performance deficiencies or maintenance will occur during the spring or fall
season following monitoring and a summary of management actions will be included in the following
year's monitoring report to track effectiveness and adaptively manage the site.
9.5 Performance Standards
The performance standards are as follows:
Year 0 an inventory of plants and photo points will be established for monitoring during the monitoring
period within 1 month of the installation.
Year 1 will have 100%survival of installed plants. Noxious weeds will be less than 10%aerial coverage.
Volunteer trees or shrubs may account for up to 10 percent of the overall count of surviving plants.
Dead plants will be replaced in kind unless a volunteer is a replacement.
Year 2 -5 will have a survival rate of 80 percent of the original count. Volunteers can account for 10
percent of the total if present. Noxious weeds such as Himalayan blackberry, Reed canary grass, and
other invasives will not have more than 10 percent aerial coverage of the planting area. Japanese
knotweed yellow flag iris or hogweed will have a zero percent tolerance and be removed or sprayed
using an appropriate herbicide approved for aquatic use by a licensed applicator
Because of the shade, aerial coverage will be at least 50% by year 5
Failure to meet standards by year 5 will require an additional year of monitoring.
9.6 Contingency plans
If the site does not meet performance standards. Contingencies may be developed to adapt to the site-
specific conditions. Contingencies may include:
• Increased watering
• Mulching
• Integrated Pest Management
• Microtopography changes
• Species substitution
• Herbivory protection
• Bark wrap
The area is frequented by deer and the choice of plants were chosen to avoid herbivory issues, but
exclusion fencing may be necessary until the plants reach maturity. This is not expected to be needed to
be a permanent fixture if required. Any contingencies will be developed in conjunction with
landscapers, nursery staff, and other experts. The county would be notified in advance of the
contingency plans. No contingencies will be applied without county consent.
21
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The applicant proposes an 840 sq ft single-family residence, a sanitary septic with a drainfield and
reserve drainfield, using water utilities at the road and an existing driveway for ingress and egress. One
wetland was identified within 315 feet of the subject property.The wetland is a Category II wetland with
a 300-ft standard buffer which will be reduced to 150 feet using mitigation measures in code.
This mitigation will improve the meet the no-net loss-requirements by improving conditions over baseline
through removal of invasive species and installation of native shrubs and trees.
This project should improve the utility of the lot for the owner who will be able to use it year around
instead of only in a recreational capacity. The functions of the wetland that belong to the citizens of
Mason County should be sustained to their benefit.
11.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was created with care and best professional judgment using the currently accepted best
available science, but the report is subject to interpretation by local state and federal regulators who have
the final regulatory authority on wetlands and other critical area boundary determinations. No outcomes
are warranted by this report.
22
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
12.0 REFERENCE
Cowardin, L.M.,V.Carter, F.C.Golet,and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Miss.
Federal Geographic Data Committee.2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States.
FGDC-STD-004-2013.Second Edition.Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington, DC.
Hitchcock,C.L.,and A.Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp.
Hruby,T. (2014).Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication
#14-06-029).Olympia,WA:Washington Department of Ecology.
Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. December 5.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks,W.N. Kirchner,and N.C. Melvin. 2016.
The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings.
Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X
Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland.
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). 2015.The hydric soil technical
standard. Hydric Soils Technical Note 11. https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_
DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_051608.pdf(accessed 19 September 2016).
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States,Version 7.0.G.W.
Hurt and L.M.Vasilas(eds.).USDA,NRCS,in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region(Version 2.0),ed.J.S.Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar,and C.V.
Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3.Vicksburg, MS:U.S.Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USDA, NRCS.2016.The PLANTS Database(http://plants.usda.gov,5/28/2017). National Plant Data Team,
Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. http://plants.usda.gov
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Lacey Quadrangle.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington. Ecology Publication#04-06-025. August.2014
Washington Department of Ecology.2012.Water Quality Assessment for Washington. Accessed April 30,2017.
httPHfortress.wa.gov/ecy/wqamapviewer/default.aspx?res-1280x720
Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District,and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 10. March 2006.Wetland Mitigation in Washington State-Part 1:Agency
23
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Policies and Guidance(Version 1).Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#06-06-011a.
Olympia,WA.
Washington State Department of Ecology,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District,and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 10. March 2006.Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 2: Developing
Mitigation Plans(Version 1).Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#06-06-011b.Olympia,
WA.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Vascular Plants
of Washington.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. Species of concern:State candidate species. WDFW.
Olympia,WA.
24
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Appendix A— Photographs
�. �` ':: am,' �'.a�'"�` ..,.�'-�_`�'''.h °"..'.�r`: �`�'$lea.�f'�.b�ta�tei "k,a�s,�;'*�'ae✓�c-�. :�'"�,;:
25
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
r' e i
O'ekr
r
Ilk
IKI
,,WN
>w
{ 3
IM, .
4
y C
e ,
.tx
gk' #
_f
•
Good Vegetation at Edge of Wetland
26
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
�a
5.
• 1 1
f
Looking Across Wetland A to Subject Property
27
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Appendix B - US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map
1
i
11 ....220075100060
lu
i \\
klimi
eet Center m
ela i
Owawet2011
`S
tlecY
1
h
Land Services Northwest
LSNW 120 State Avenue NE PMB 190 Appendix B 0 87.5 175 3W Feet
Olympia,WA 98501 National Wetland Inventory t i I
28
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Appendix C - Mason County NRCS Soil Survey Map
Sol Map—Mason Cour*VVN 2Hnglon
r �
g g
s �
g 9
®_
a
8 a
ga� 8p�
q e
.ru.r• n aam sam vm a® s» vao � Aso sew van s� s� vz� scan amm apav amp '•us.
a IAOSuIv 1Bi0ifplralon Alydz�p(11'ee5)!ss tt
nines
N n ro >o o m
o a A w sn
nt.v v.y.mmwk mv<,a Caneraad-�-.wosttt rey.•a<uneza,.la+wca-et
04. MatunY Reao - Web Sol S"Y" 2J26r2024
im Conservation Service National Cooperative Sol Surey Page 1 of 3
29
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Sall Alep--M.sat Caul ft YVashWVW
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area a Werest(A00 Spoil Am. The soil surveys that comprise your Aol were mapped at
Area ar i—eat(nOp 191,700.
v stony spot
twos _ very Stwy Spot Warning:Soil Map may not be wild at this scale.
SoJ Map Unh Polygons
--" Wet spo[ Enlargement of maps beyond the stele of mapping can cause
Soil Map Unh Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
Ober line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of
$pal Map Unh Pointy Special Lne Features contrasting seas that could have been shown at a more detailed
special
Pt Features tale
Blowout Water a Featec s
Streams anu Canal: Please rety on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
B.—Pi measurements.
na„aPodaum
Clay Spa Source of Map Natural Resources Conservation Service
CbaW Depessim Web So]Survey URL:
,,,� htesraae Hlghw.y: Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
US Roures Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based m the Web Mercator
•* (wev Spa Major Roams projection.which preserves dlrectim and shape but distorts
distance and area.Apr ,lectim that preserves area,such as the
> LandfillL«al Roads Albers eq'Jel-area conic prelectim,should be used it more
Lowe Flex Background accurate calculations of distance a area arc required.
Marsh or swamp Aenal Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version deters)listed below.
r5- Mine a Quarry
Soi Survey Area'. Meson Count',Washington
M—laneous water Survey Area Data Version 19,Aug 29,2023
0 Perennial water Sol mop units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales
Roder ovlcrop 1:50,000 a larger.
Sere Spa Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 8,2022—Aug
29.2022
Sandy Sfer
The orthophao or other base map m which the soil lines were
Swaraly Er Spa compiled and digitized probably difers from the background
imagery displayed m these maps.As a result,some minor
Slide shirting of reap unit boundaries may be evident.
%de or Slip
Sod.Spa
Natwal Resources Web Soil Survey 2262024
Tim Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
30
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Sal Map—Mason County,Washington
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Ab Alderwood gravelly sandy 1.3 100.0%
loam,8 to 15 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 1.3 100.0%
(.5r)a Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/262024
+� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
31
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Appendix D - WADNR Forest Practices Stream Type Map
Forest Practices Water Type Map
1 Y r«
X
1700244 1700 1700248 17003401, ,
+
J,
_.✓� �. 7 ,[tee• vu. io .y. .,.. �.... �.
r
_ X"
�✓ 1700224 v 17 tB'
r
s
a +n
h •I. h�
Timber eke
_r
'J -A ,
v 17003DO
j 1 a Y
4 µ the chief I rormation er[ �,Departm ent ofreural
�X sr�la2e-,, ,.F rest Practices_ ' ' o artment of Naturat Ptsources
[DNR),Engineerirr�Dtvls'f`on
Map Symbols Additional Irdormation Legal Description
�+i New strewn Started Bid S08 T20.OH R02.0K S18 T20.ON
Pcitorsineyed R02.OW,S06 T20.ON 11102.OW,S05
'�/ Proposed utct4rTypt Read
p Ha[ratFFt Barret T20.0N R02201N,S17 T2a0N R02.W1,
.}x#Stearn Remmal uakmacie Barret S01 T20.ON R02.OW
F SYI Bcak CeWtr ® Er dof Flri or
wax r4,peS laStftk
6dreme care was used during the compilation ofthis mapto ensure Appmx In ate Scae:t:t2,130
its accuracy.Howexer,dueto changes in data and the needto 0 trn0 t JDW 2ADD
I �nATURAL RESOURCES rely outside inbrma0on.the Department of Natural Resources i AN
Feecannot accept responsibility for errors or orrisions.and therefore, Date:2lffiC2024 Time:4:02 PM
there are no warranties that aceompmythis material.
32
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Appendix E - USGS TOPO Map
Eui?SERE,DeL—,USGS TFx Nafional Map,Nat—a Bcu c e=Elamet 30EP E-at w Fro9ram,
Geegraghic>:arnestr:hrmagor.System,FJationa IW aarap:.v Dataset,National;a-d.Caver:atacaze.
Natrona'Strict—i r..set.a11 Na.-1 Tr—paaati—,Qata at.VSGS G;otal[—y= t—:U.S,
Sub1 P[Up2f ' 1'iv Taa9 lake 4"s Bu4bu'' lkilw to data USFS Road Data,Nat ml f rh D _ yiattment of Swa?
tiummatanan Infanwtia_'if iit and NOAA Narnxt&CerWIS fm WC-anon US..
Coastal vclr 4 Data ra rtshtv..April,2023.
Land Se cri Npr,west Appendix E 0 500 1,000 2,000 US Feet
t.SNW 120 State Avenue NE PMB 190 USGS
Olympia,WA 98501 Topo Map
33
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Appendix F - Priority Habitats and Species Map and Salmonscape Map
2/2624,4:05 PM PHS Report
p�Z-E Priority Habitats and Species on the Web
MAP
Buffer radius:315 Feet
Report Date:02/26/2024
PHS Species/Habitats Overview:
OccuTence Name Federal Status State Status Sensitive Location
Freshwater Pond NIA N/A 'No
Freshwater Emergent Wetland N/A NIA No
Freshwater Forested/Shrub NIA N/A No
Wetland
about:blank 1/3
34
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
22624,4 05 PM PHIS Report
PHS Species/Habitats Details:
Freshwater Pond
PriorityArea Aquatic Habitat
Site Name N/A
Accuracy NA
Notes Wetland System:Freshwater Pond-NW Code:PABF
Source Dataset NWIWetlands
Source Name Not Given
Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Status N/A
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
i ManagementRecommendations http//www ecy wa gov/pmgrams/seaPNetlands/bayndex himl
Geometry Type Polygons
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Priority Area Aquatic Habitat
Site Name N/A
Accuracy NA
Notes Wetland System:Freshwater Emergent Wetland-NWI Code:
PEM1F
i Source Dataset NWIWetlands
Source Name Not Given
Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Status N/A
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
ManagementRecommendations hftp Owww ecy wa.gov/prams/sea/wetlands/ba�ndex.html
Geometry Type Polygons €
about.blank 2/3
35
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
2/26/24,4:05 PM PHS Report
Freshwater ForestedtShrub Weiland
Priority Area Aquatic Habitat
Site Name N/A
Accuracy NA
I Welland System Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland-NW Code
Notes PFOC
1 Source Dataset NWWetlands
Source Name Not Given
Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Status N/A
State Status N/A
............. .............
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
ManagementRecommendations httpj/www ectjya /p o�gav__L_g ram s/seatw etlands/b astindex html
Geometry Type Polygons
Freshwater Fore-sted/Shirrub Wettand
Priority Area Aquatic Habitat
Site Name NJA
1,Accuracy NA
I Notes Wetland System Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland-Nwl Code:
PSSC
Source Dataset NWIWetlands
Source Name Not Given
Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Status N/A
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
'SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
ManagementRecommendations httpL/www.ecy.wa aov/programs!seaPvetlands/bas/index.html
Geometry Type Polygons
DISCLAIMER.This report includes information that the Washington Deparim eni of Fish and Wildlife WDFW)maintains in a central computer database.It is not an ah e mpt to provide you
with an official agency response as t c the impacts of your project on fish and M dill to This information only documents the location of fish and wilds fe resources to the best of our knowledge.
It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists.or in areas for which comprehensive
surveys have not been conducted.Site specific surveys we frequently recesssary,to rule out the presence of priority resources.Locations offish and wildlife resources we subject to
varlabon caused by cisturbance.changes in season and weather.and other factors.WD`W does not recommend using reports more than six months old.
ab out:blank 3/3
36
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Appendix G — Precipitation Data
•WData - NOAA Online Weather DataEntarge results Print
Accumulated Precipitation - SHELTON AP, WA
Click and drag to zoom to a shorter time interval; greeniblack diamonds represent
subsequent;missing values
80 a __ ........... - _ ___ ..................
CU
u
0 40.
•a
Qj
v
a.
I
.......... .........._ _.
Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1
r
2023-24 accumulation --- Normal -- Lowest(2000-01)
j — Highest(1998-991)
37
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Appendix H - Wetland Data Sheets
38
Land Services Northwest April 3,2024
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Carter City/County: Mason Sampling Date: 2.26.21
Applicant/Owner: Mark Carter State: WA Sampling Point: TP1
Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section,Township, Range: 8,20n,2w
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Depression Local relief(concave,convex, none): Slope(%):
Subregion(LRR): 2 Lat: Long: Datum: Wgs84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling oint locations,transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No x
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No x
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Thuja plicata 65 FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1'' (A)
2. Alnus rubra 10 FAC Total Number of Dominant
3 Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 25 (A/B)
=Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1 Total%Cover of: Multiply by:
2. OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species x 2=
4. FAC species x 3=
5. FACU species x 4=
=Total Cover UPL species x 5=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Column Totals: (A) (B)
1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 N FACU
2. Mahonia nervosa 20 Y " FACU Prevalence Index =B/A=
3. Polystichum munitum 20 Y FACU
4. Blechnum spicant 10 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. Gaultheria shallon 55 Y FACU 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. _ 2-Dominance Test is>50%
7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0'
8. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10. — 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
11 _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
115 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
1.
2.
=Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
%Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Present? Yes No x
Remarks: Less than 50%of vegetation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: TP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR3/1 100 Silt loam
6-18 10YR4/3 100 Fine sand
'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10)
Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2)
Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix(F3)
Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer(if present):
Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x
Depth(inches):
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators present.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required)
Water-Stained Leaves(69)(except Water-Stained Leaves(69)(MLRA 1,2,
_ Surface Water(Al) _ MLRA 1,2,4A,and 413) _ 4A,and 4B)
_ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(611) _ Drainage Patterns(610)
_ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
_ Water Marks(131) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Sediment Deposits(62) _ Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2)
_ Drift Deposits(63) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
_ Algal Mat or Crust(64) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)
Iron Deposits(65) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks(66) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(68)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes _ No x Depth(inches):
Water Table Present? Yes _ No x Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No x
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth(inches):
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Carter City/County: Mason Sampling Date: 2.26.21
Applicant/Owner: Mark Carter State: WA Sampling Point: TP2
Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section,Township, Range: 8,20n,2w
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Depression Local relief(concave,convex, none): Slope(%):
Subregion(LRR): 2 Lat: Long: Datum: Wgs84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No _ (If no,explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ,Soil _ ,or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map show in sampling oint locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
VEGETATION— Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Testworksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Thuja plicata 45 Y FAC That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Alnus rubra 10 N FAC Total Number of Dominant
3. Picea sitchensis 30 Y FAC Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4. Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Y FACU Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 75 (A/B)
118 =Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1 Total%Cover of: Multiply by:
2. OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species x 2=
4. FAC species x 3=
5. FACU species x 4=
=Total Cover UPL species x 5=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) Column Totals: (A) (B)
1. Carex obnupta 30 Y OBL
2. Prevalence Index =B/A=
3.
4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. _ 2-Dominance Test is>50%
7. _ 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.0'
8. 4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
9 _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
11 _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
30 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1.
2.
=Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
%Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Present? Yes x No
Remarks:Greater than 50%of vegetation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: TP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR2/1 100 Muck
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10)
Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2)
_ Black Histic(A3) x Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12)
Hydrogen Suede(A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) — Other(Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) — Depleted Matrix(F3)
— Thick Dark Surface(Al2) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer(if present):
Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Depth(inches):
Remarks:Hydric soil F1 indicator present.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required)
Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except Water-Stained Leaves(139)(MLRA 1,2,
_ Surface Water(Al) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) _ 4A,and 46)
_ High Water Table(A2) _ Salt Crust(611) _ Drainage Patterns(610)
_ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
_ Water Marks(61) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
_ Sediment Deposits(132) _ Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2)
_ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Algal Mat or Crust(134) _ Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)
Iron Deposits(65) _ (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks(66) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(68)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes _ No x Depth(inches):
Water Table Present? Yes x No _ Depth(inches): 2" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth(inches):
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Water table present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0
Carter Single Family Residence Wetland Analysis Report and Mitigation
Appendix I - ECY Wetland Rating Forms for Western Washington
39
Land Services Northwest April 3, 2024
TF ,
✓ 4 s
f
s
,
s
4
x�
0
s. w,
� p
— y
r /
f
m=_
f
sr
� 1r
10
iy. � •� r • r -rr �rr rr ——
Land Use Calculations
ACRES
1 KM 1109
Wetland A 17
1KM-Wetland A 1092 100
High Intensity 405 0.370879 37.08791
Relatively Undisturbed 627 0.574176 57.41758
Low Medium Use 60 0.054945 5.494505
Accessible Habitat 1036 0.934175
Wetland A 17
Accessible Habitat-Wet A 1019 0.93315
RU 627 0.574176 57.41758
Low/Medium LU 60 0.059606 5.960556
High Intensity 332 0.299369 29.93688
Nx�s r
t�1DNt
,
r 1
y� �s
r � �
y'�
�Fw s
6, €
/ �€
� ���',� s ✓ �`� � k`u r��� 6 " - .cam` _�y�� � ��f �. ,�`%
e
4
C
Legend
INetland_A
f�
150ftWetABuffer
Po{EutionGeneratingAreas
Land Services Northwest 150ft Pollution Generating
120 StateAvneue NE PMB 190 LSNW
Olympia, WA98501 Land Use Map o sa 160 320 Feet
.-I ...... Wet[and A
March 4, 2024
303d Water Quality Atlas Map
F Assessed Water/Sediment
Water
ftwA Category 5 - 303d
Ij�/ Category 4C
Category 4B
Category 4A
Category 2
Category 1
Sediment
® Category 5 - 3O3d
® Category 4C
Category 4B
Category 4A
Category 2
Category 1
ASubject_Property Parcels
E 1 Parcel boundary
a
Subbasins (12 digit HUCs)
, HUC boundary
Ikko
u„ az
mob.
Miles
Esri,NASA,NGA,USGS,FEMA 0 0.23 0.45 0.9
Sources.Esri,HERE,Garmin,Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO,USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GecBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri
J� x m
if,OA
S,
S A�
gg.,, ,
fi ...
el
Al
A, hl
K
Ali-
4A � e 9,e
4 l
2
S111,1-1,
41
a
Legend
<aii other vafues>
Class
orested
_ �"F � AquaticBed
ShrubScrub
d
E Vetland_A
�1
y"r _0ftWetABufFer
Land Services Northwest Cowardin C(assificataion Map
120 StateAvneue NE PMB 190 LSNW
Olympia, WA 98501 0 80 160 320 Feet
ga mE�
,i4 z
itIF
;
` 3 .
71
m
4 r
�tr
r t
P
4._
IF
�z
Legend
<all other values>
Class
- Permanently Flooded
g Saturted Onlu
Seasoally Flooded
t,VVetland_A
150ftWetABuffer
Land Services Northwest "
120 StateAvneue NE PMB 190 LgNW Hydroperiod Classificataion Map
Olympia, WA98501 0 3a 16D 320 Feet
Wetland name or number Wetland A
RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington
Name of wetland(or ID#): Olympic College Wetland A Date of site visit: 2.2.2024
Rated by Alex Callender Trained by Ecology? O Yes ❑No Date of training Dec-13
HGM Class used for rating Depressional&Flats Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ❑Yes [I No
NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map 2018 Geodata
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions Elor special characteristics ❑)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I-Total score=23-27 Score for each
X Category II-Total score=20-22 function based
Category III-Total score= 16- 19 on three
Category IV-Total score=9- 15 ratings
(order of ratings
FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat is not
Water Quality important)
List appropriate rating(H, M, L)
Site Potential M M M 9=H, H, H
Landscape Potential M M H 8= H, H, M
Value H L H Total 7= H, H, L
Score Based on 7 5 8 20 7= H, M, M
Ratings 6= H, M, L
6=M, M, M
5= H, L, L
5= M, M, L
4= M, L, L
3= L, L, L
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC Category
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
None of the above X
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Devessional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure#
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Cowardin
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Hydro
Location of outlet(can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Outlet
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 150ft
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 303d
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 1 KM
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 303d
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of To answer questions: Figure#
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs.width of stream(can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of To answer questions: Figure#
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees,shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure#
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense,rigid trees,shrubs,and herbaceous plants S 4.1
(can be added to another figure)
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland(can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d)listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) S 3.1,S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found(from web) S 3.3
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington
For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit
with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 -7 apply, and go to
Question 8.
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
0 NO-go to 2 ❑ YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe-go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt(parts per thousand)?
❑ NO-Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) ❑ YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands.
If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be
used to score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it.
Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
21 NO-go to 3 ❑YES-The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
❑ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water(without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac(8 ha) in size;
❑ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft(2 m).
El NO-go to 4 ❑ YES-The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
❑ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
❑ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps.
It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks.
❑ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
0 NO -go to 5 ❑YES -The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow
depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually<3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
❑ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding
from that stream or river,
❑ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
O NO -go to 6 ❑YES-The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at
some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland.
❑ NO-go to 7 El YES -The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding?
The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high
groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet.
❑ NO-go to 8 ❑YES -The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For
example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a
Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE
HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT
(make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for
the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of
the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10%
of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to
being rated use in rating
Slope+ Riverine Riverine
Slope+ Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional
within boundary of depression
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as
class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than
2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating.
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
3
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions -Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key)
with no surface water leaving it(no outlet). points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly
constricted permanently flowing outlet. points=2 1
Lvl Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet
that is permanently flowing points = 1
❑ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is
a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface(or duff laver) is true clay or true organic 4
(use NRCS definitions). Yes =4 No = 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or
Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points= 5
5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 1h of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > %total area of wetland points =4 0
Area seasonally ponded is > %total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < %total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes abovel 10
Rating of Site Potential If score is: ❑12-16= H El 6-11 =M 00 -5= L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No= 0 0
D 2.2. Is> 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that 1
generate pollutants? Yes= 1 No = 0
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No= 0 1
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are
not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? 0
Source Yes= 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes abovel 2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ❑ 3 or 4=H E 1 or 2=M ❑ 0= L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi)to a stream, river, 1
lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list?
1
Yes = 1 No= O
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important
for maintaining water quality(answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in 2
which the unit is found)? Yes =2 No = 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes abovel 4
Rating of Value If score is: C 2-4= H ❑ 1 =M ❑ 0= L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A _
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water
leaving it(no outlet) points =4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly
constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 0
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is
a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet
that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of
the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the
deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 3
O Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
❑ The wetland is a"headwater"wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft 6 inpoints = 0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of
upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
❑ The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 3
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
❑ Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 6
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 012-16= H E16-11 =M ❑0-5=L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0
D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? 1
Yes= 1 No = 0
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human
land uses (residential at>1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? 0
Yes = 1 No= O
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes abovel 1
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ❑3=H El 1 or 2=M ❑0= L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best
matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest
score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas
where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
• Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-
gradient of unit. points =2 0
❑ • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-
gradient. points = 1
❑ Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1
❑ The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained
by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland
cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points= 0
0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood 0
conveyance in a regional flood control Ian? Yes= 2 No = 0
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 0
Rating of Value If score is: ❑2-4=H ❑1 =M El 0=L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS-Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the
Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be
combined for each class to meet the threshold of X ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller
than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
F,_1 Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points =4 2
P1 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
FA Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points- 1
El Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points= 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
❑ The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover)that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime
has to cover more than 10%of the wetland or%ac to count(see text for descriptions of
hydroperiods).
P1 Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points= 3
P] Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present. points = 2 2
❑ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
El Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0
❑ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
❑ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
❑ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
❑ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do
not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass,purple
loosestrife, Canadian thistle 2
If you counted: > 19 species points=2
5- 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes
(described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats)
is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open
water, the rating is always high.
0E) 2
None = 0 points Low= 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row are �—
HIGH = 3 points
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number
of points.
0 Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4 in diameter and 6 ft long)
Standing snags (dbh >4 in)within the wetland
P] Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends
at least 3.3 ft(1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at
least 33 ft(10 m) 5
F,� Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning
(> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present(cut shrubs or trees
that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed)
0 At least %ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas
that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
❑ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see
H 1.1 for list of strata
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes abovel 13
Rating of Site Potential If Score is: ❑15-18= H ❑ 7 -14=M ❑0-6=L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site?
H 2.1 Accessible habitat(include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate:
57 % undisturbed habitat + ( 6 % moderate&low intensity land uses/2) =60%
If total accessible habitat is: 3
> '/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points =2
10- 19%of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate:
57 %undisturbed habitat + ( 6 % moderate&low intensity land uses/2) =60%
Undisturbed habitat> 50% of Polygon points = 3 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50%and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10 -50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat< 10%of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points= (-2) 0
<_ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 6
Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: ❑ 4-6= H E] 1 -3=M ❑< 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose
only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points =2
❑ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
❑ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant
or animal on the state or federal lists)
❑ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 1
❑ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the
Department of Natural Resources
❑ It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or
regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a
watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats(listed on next page)with in 100m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
Rating of Value If Score is: ❑ 2=H 0 1 =M ❑0= L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in
which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species
List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.
hftp://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
hftp://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft(100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This
question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
❑ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac(0.4 ha).
❑ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species
of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
❑ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
❑ Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest—Stands of at least 2 tree species,
forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac(20 trees/ha)
> 32 in (81 cm) dbh or> 200 years of age. Mature forests—Stands with average diameters
exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200
years old west of the Cascade crest.
❑ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy
coverage of the oak component is important(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158—see
web link above).
❑ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
❑ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a
dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 —see web link above).
❑ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that
interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
❑ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open
Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of
relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report—see web link on previous page).
❑ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the
earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
❑ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft(7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 -6.5 ft(0.15-2.0 m),
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May
be associated with cliffs.
O Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay
characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast
height of> 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are> 6.5 ft(2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12
in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 12 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
addressed elsewhere.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 13 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type Category
Check off any criteria that ap ly to the'wetland. List the category when the a pro bate criteria are met.
SC 1.0. Estuarine Wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
❑ The dominant water regime is tidal,
❑ Vegetated, and
❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt
❑ Yes-Go to SC 1.1 ❑ No = Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary
Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific
Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No-Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing,
and has less than 10%cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are
Spartina, see page 25)
❑ At least'/<of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un
grazed or un-mowed grassland.
❑ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with
open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No= Category II
SC 2.0.Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list
of Wetlands of High Conservation Value?
❑ Yes-Go to SC2.2 ❑ No-Go to SC2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No = Not WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
hftp:Hwwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhowetlands.pdf
❑ Yes-Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 ❑ No= Not WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation
Value and listed it on their website?
❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No= Not WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation
in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the
wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks,
that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile?
❑ Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑ No-Go to SC3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are
less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic
ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond?
❑Yes-Go to SC 3.3 ❑ No= Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground
level, AND at least a 30%cover of plant species listed in Table 4?
❑ Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑ No- Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may
substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at
least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present,
the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover)with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir,
western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann
spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 14 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
❑ Yes= Is a Category I bog ❑ No = Is not a bogl
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 15 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015
Wetland name or number Wetland A
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these
criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you
answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
❑ Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species,
forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac
(20 trees/ha)that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height
(dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
❑ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80-
200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter(dbh)
exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0.Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
❑ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially
separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently,
rocks
❑ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or
brackish (> 0.5 ppt)during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to
be measured near the bottom)
❑ Yes-Go to SC 5.1 ❑No= Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing),
and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of
species on p. 100).
❑ At least'/of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un
grazed or un-mowed grassland.
❑ The wetland is larger than '/10 ac (4350 ftz)
❑ Yes = Cateaory I ❑ No = Cateciory II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland
Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland
based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
❑ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
❑ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
❑ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
❑ Yes-Go to SC 6.1 ❑ No= Not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form
(rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)?
❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No-Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
❑ Yes = Category II ❑ No- Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and
1 ac?
❑ Yes = Cateaory III ❑ No= Cateaory IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter"Not Applicable" on Summary Form
Wetland Rating System for Western WA:2014 Update
Rating Form-Effective January 1,2015 16 WSDOT Adapted Form-March 2,2015