Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMEP2025-00008 HMP Title Notice for SFR - MEP Reports - 4/22/2025 2224349 MASON CO WA 04/22/2025 01:17 PM NOTCE OCHNIK #208791 Re. Fee: $303.50 Pages: 1 11111111111111111 ill 111111111IN111111111IlIII1111111111II1II1111illl Name and Return Address: 019'410 s Z DC k�/I/l K 0 E Pct'_q� TITLE NOTIFICATION OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Legal Description: ALDERBROOK G &Y #4 TRACT 120 DIV. 4 Parcel Number: 321045400120 Permit(s)#: MEP2025-00008 BLD2025-00187 HMP Approved By: Scott Ruedy &Wu(Ru* Planner Name Signature NOTICE: The property was the subject of a development proposal within a critical area or its buffer. This property is subject to conditions, mitigation, and/or conservation measures as contained within the Habitat Management Plan/Wetland Mitigation Plan submitted to the Mason County Department of Community Development and subject to the conditions for the permit(s) noted above. Restrictions on the use or alteration of the property may exist due to these conditions,which are to remain in perpetuity. A copy of the Habitat Management Plan/Wetland Mitigation Plan has been placed in the County parcel record file located at the Permit Assistance Center, Building 8, 615 W Alder Street Shelton,WA`, 98584. Grantor(s): 0Cf �K c/ �q&US Last(print) First MI Last(print) First MI Signature(s): Grantee PUBLIC State of WASHINGTON ) I,the undersigned Notary Public,in and for the )ss. jurisdiction aforesaid,do hereby certify that County of sa V\VS 2 DG ter l y1 whose name(s)is(are)signed to the foregoing (SEAL): NOTARY PUBLIC instrument,appeared before me and personally STATE OF WASHINGTON acknowledged the same. LIZBET JORDAN-ESTEBAN Lic. No. 25001320 GIVEN under my hand and seal this 22- day My Appointment Expires NOVEMBER 18, 2028 of gyp,. ,20-Ls. My commission expires: NCVCw�beY 1��Zc L� R5--v 6b Wetland Delineation Habitat Management Plan CRATER LAND USE C O N f U L T I N 0 & Buffer Mitigation Proposal Z-9 SUBMITTED TO MAR 1 1 V5 Mason County, Washington PLANNING 615 W• p,Ider Street TAX PARCEL #321045400120 PREPARED FOR Daniel Ochnik ochnikd@gmail.com PREPARED BY Crater Land Use Consulting, LLC 477 Parpala Rd. Naselle, WA 98638 509-942-9309 ryan@craterluc.com ._............._...._June 25,, 2024 Ryan E. Crater Principal Planner and Ecologist Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction &Summary......................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Site & Landscape Setting....................................................................................3 2.1 Data Review .......................................................................................................3 2.2 Vicinity.................................................................................................................3 2.3 Terrain ................................................................................................................3 2.4 Known Streams &Wetlands ..............................................................................3 2.5 Soils ....................................................................................................................5 - 2.6 Protected Species & Priority Habitats.................................................................5 2.7 Environmental Baseline......................................................................................6 Chapter3. Field Study..........................................................................................................8 3.1 Methodology........................................................................................................8 3.2 Wetland Delineation Results...............................................................................8 3.3 Soil Test Sites ....................................................................................................9 3.4 Hydrological Conditions ...................................................................................10 3.5 Stream Conditions ............................................................................................10 3.6 Bank& Buffer Habitat ......................................................................................11 Chapter 4. Proposed Project...............................................................................................12 4.1 Project Needs & Objectives..............................................................................12 4.2 Anticipated Project Impacts .............................................................................12 4.3 Regulatory Considerations ...............................................................................13 Chapter 5. Mitigation Proposal ...........................................................................................15 -- 5.1 Plantings ..........................................................................................................15 5.2 Project Sequencing ..........................................................................................16 5.3 Performance Standards....................................................................................17 5.4 Monitoring & Maintenance................................................................................17 5.5 Surety Bond .....................................................................................................18 Chapter6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................19 6.1 Net Loss/Gain ...................................................................................................19 6.2 Disclaimer.........................................................................................................19 Chapter 7. References & Resources..................................................................................20 i Tables Table 1. Associated Critical Areas..........................................................................................1 Table2. Site Summary............................................................................................................1 Table3. Proposed Project.......................................................................................................2 Table 4. Site Associated Species ..........................................................................................5 Table5. Plant Schedule........................................................................................................15 Table 6. Plant Survival Benchmarks.....................................................................................17 Table 7. Mitigation Cost Estimate.........................................................................................18 Figures Figure1. Site Vicinity ..............................................................................................................3 Figure2. Topography & Hydrology.........................................................................................4 Figure3. Watershed ...............................................................................................................7 Figure4. Wetland A ................................................................................................................8 Figure5. Streambed ............................................................................................................11 Appendices Appendix A. Project Map Appendix B. Wetland Rating Forms Appendix C. Field Reports &Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix D. Publicly Available Maps & Data Appendix E. Best Management Practices Appendix F. Qualifications ii Chapter 1 . Introduction & Summary Crater Land Use Consulting LLC has been contracted by Daniel Ochnik(Landowner)to prepare a Wetland Delineation and Habitat Management Plan with Buffer Mitigation Proposal for Mason County Parcel #321045400120; located in the Alderwood Golf and Yacht Club community subdivision in Allen, WA (unincorporated Mason County). The property is encumbered by the buffer of a Type Ns Stream and two (2) Category III wetlands located nearby off-site. The Landowner is proposing to install a 1,080 square foot residential structure and 322 square foot driveway with associated septic system. An estimated 6,640 square feet of initial wetland buffer area impact (and 3,946 square feet of stream buffer impact) will be necessary to accommodate the proposed development (this figure includes a 15' building setback around the structure). The entire property is encumbered by the 150-foot buffer of both wetlands, and 65% encumbered by the 75-foot stream buffer. On-site mitigation in the form of buffer restoration/enhancement is being proposed to offset impacts at a 1:1 mitigation ratio. The general purpose of this report is to comply with Mason County Code regarding development within Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) and within wetland buffers. The scope of the project was to conduct a rapid assessment of the proposed development location and areas within 300- feet of the proposed project in order to identify the presence or absence of regulated waterbodies, habitats, and/or priority species that could be potentially impacted by the proposed development. Mitigation measures have been designed to ensure No Net Loss of Ecological Functions to the greatest extent possible. Table 1. Associated Critical Areas FEATURE DESCRIPTION PRESCRIPTIVE BUFFER (All have an additional 15'Building Setback.) CAT. III WETLANDS Wetland A:0.04 acres/1,826 sq.ft. 150' Buffer(s) Wetland B 0.02 acres/807 sq.ft. Property is 100%Encumbered TYPE Ns STREAM Stream is on western end of the property,flowing 75'Stream Buffer from north to south through both wetlands. Property is 65% Encumbered Table 2. Site Summary TAX PARCEL/SITUS 3210454001201 No Situs SIZE 0.23 acres per Mason County COORDINATES/STIR 47.332625°,-123.078278°/SEC 4,TWP 21 N,RNG 03W ' ZONING/CURRENT USE RR5/91-Undeveloped Land SHORELINE DESIGNATION None, Outside Shoreline Jurisdiction -------------.._-..----_._---..........__.------- --_.... ------------------------------ -----------------------------____ WRIA/HUC 14 Kennedy-Goldsborough/171100190609—Sherwood Creek WQ IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Not within. Near Simpson Timberland Temperature TMDL(1,370 ft.south) _._._.__.._----_------T------____.__.._.__.__._.._..__......._ _..__ _ ._....__._____......._..._..___.._..._.__..__......-----_..__--------_._.._.___---------_....__._.._.............._._..._......_... OCHNIK—321045400120—CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 11 P a g e Table 3. Proposed Project FEATURE SIZE/NOTES v„ 2-Bdrm Single Family Residence(SFR) - Footprint:36'x3O'(1,344 sq.ft.) IMPERVIOUS Roof Outline:2'eaves(1,360 sq.ft.) SURFACES Gravel - Driveway 14'x 23'(322 sq.ft.) i Total for Reasonable Use: 1,682 sq.ft. I OTHER On-Site Septic System DEVELOPMENT - Primary Drainfield:40'x 15'(600 sq.ft.) - Reserve 45'x 20' (900 sq.ft.) .-i 150'Wetland Buffer(s): - 6,640 sq.ft.of buffer impact proposed (entire development envelope) BUFFER - Wetland A Maximum Buffer Width Reduction of 89.3% IMPACTS - Wetland B Maximum Buffer Width Reduction of 74.7% 75'Stream Buffer: - 3,946 sq.ft.of buffer impact proposed - Maximum Buffer Width Reduction of 68.0% E I Buffer Enhancement/Restoration within 6,640 sq.ft.on-site in three zones. 1. 2,845 sq.ft.—Buffer Restoration of Existing Cleared Area PROPOSED 2. 605 sq.ft.—Buffer Enhancement of Existing Vegetated (but disturbed)Area/Remove Ivy MITIGATION 3. 3,190 sq.ft.—Buffer Restoration within 15' Building Setback and Septic Area(This area is included in the Buffer Impact Calculation.After replanting this area,only 3,450 sq.ft.of development envelope will be maintained as'outside'of the protected buffer.) MITIGATION 1:1 RATIO OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 2 1 P a g e Chapter 2. Site & Landscape Setting 2.1 Data Review Prior to completing fieldwork, CLUC reviewed existing Figure 1. Site Vicinity information on potential wetlands, streams, and other waterbodies, as well as habitats and ecological conditions documented within the subject parcel and vicinity. Initial findings are summarized within this chapter to identify "known" existing conditions associated with the property " and/or immediately adjacent to it. In addition to the available sources listed below, the search for pertinent . and applicable data also included of a review of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Geologic Portal, Mason County geographic information system(GIS) data, and numerous orthophoto graphic resources and similar GIS mapping resources "' ' ' ' ' 2022 available from Esri ArcGIS. Supporting documentation for this chapter is contained in Appendix D. 2.2 Vicinity The subject parcel is an undeveloped property located on the edge of the Alderbrook Golf and Yacht Club -c. community subdivision (RR-5), adjacent to RR-20 zoning containing many areas of active forest management and activity. The subject parcel is located outside of theGoogle 20 �. shoreline jurisdiction. Neighboring properties within the subdivision predominantly the same general size and shape as the subject parcel. 2.3 Terrain The site is located above the historic river valley for Schumacher Creek.The valley is blocked southeast of the subject parcel resulting in there being no visible outlet for the Type Ns Stream outside of the valley bottom. The subject parcel is primarily flat, with a gently sloping divot near the center of the property which appears to be associated with valley topography that has been cut off and altered by E Jack Pine Ln. 2.4 Known Streams & Wetlands The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPAMT) indicates the presence of the Type N(s) stream associated with the subject parcel with decent accuracy. The stream is shown to originate adjacent to the subject OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 3 P a g e parcel, near where Wetland B is located. In reality, the stream originates beyond Wetland B at the road (E Country Club Dr.) The stream is classified as a Type N for the first approximately 2,700 feet, then is shown by DNR as Type F for approximately 850 feet before discharging to a 1.15 acre marsh/wet area. There are no tributaries or other connected streams shown by DNR. No fish barriers are shown associated with the stream either. The United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map also indicates the presence of the Type N stream and wetland discharge point with decent accuracy, although it does not identify either Wetland A or B associated with the Subject Parcel. The NWI identified wetlands are as follows-. • 1.58 acre Riverine habitat is classified as a R4SBC (Type N/F Stream) System Riverine (R) : The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and(2)habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts of 0.5 ppt or greater.A channel is an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water. Subsystem Intermittent (4) : This Subsystem includes channels that contain flowing water only part of the year. When the water is not flowing, it may remain in isolated pools or surface water may be absent. Figure 2. Topography & Hydrology - � 10 j , g 6 1 4 i A . V`v a " r DTM Hillshade from the Washington State Lidar Portal (Olympics South OPSW 2019 DTM Hillshade), Subject Parcel boundary Mason Co. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 4 P a g e Class Streambed (SB) : Includes all wetlands contained within the Intermittent Subsystem of the Riverine System and all channels of the Estuarine System or of the Tidal Subsystem of the Riverine System that are completely dewatered at low tide. Water Regime Seasonally Flooded Q :Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the growing season in most years. The water table after flooding ceases is variable, extending from saturated to the surface to a water table well below the ground surface. • 2.34 acre Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland habitat is classified as a PSS1C (Stream outlet, not directly impacting the subject parcel.) No Wetlands of High Conservation Value are identified within or near the subject parcel by the DNR Natural Heritage Program(NHP).There are also no Known Rare Plants within the subject stream or greater vicinity per NHP. 2.5 Soils The USDA soil survey of Mason County, Washington (WA645) indicates the presence of two (2) mapped soil types within the project vicinity. - Ab Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (Hydric soil rating: No) - Ac Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (Hydric soil rating: No) 2.6 Protected Species & Priority Habitats The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database identifies the subject parcel and a quarter-mile radius as a Township level occurrence area for Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). No other species or habitats are associated with the subject parcel or quarter-mile radius. No signs of this species were observed on site that would indicate more than a transitory association. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation database (IPaC) identifies the subject parcel as within range of five (5) Endangered Species Act (ESA) protected species, and 12 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) or eagle species. IPaC does not identify any critical habitat within the subject parcel or immediate vicinity. None of the protected species were observed at the time of fieldwork. No signs of these species were observed on site that would indicate more than a transitory association. Table 4. Site Associated Species FEATURE PRIORITY AREA/PRESENCE ESA STATUS Big brown bat i Eptesicus fuscus PHS—Township Level N/A Northwestern Pond Turtle IPaC—No Critical Habitat Located on Site Proposed Threatened Actinemys marmorata No Critical Habitat Documents Currently Available for This Species Marbled Murrelet IPaC-No Critical Habitat Located on Site Threatened Brachyramphus marmoratus Yellow-billed Cuckoo IPaC-No Critical Habitat Located on Site Threatened Coccyzus americanus Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus IPaC-No Critical Habitat Determined Candidate � OCHNIK—321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 5 P a 9 e Bull Trout IPaC-No Critical Habitat Located on Site or associated with Type F Threatened Salvelinus confluentus Stream/Hood Canal near stream outflow. Bald Eagle IPaC-Breeds Marl to Aug 31 Non-BCC Haliaeetus leucocephalus Black Swift Cypseloides niger IPaC-Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 10 BCC ___.........__...___......____ ---.._......__.....__... California Gull IPaC-Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31 BCC Larus californicus Chestnut-backed Chickadee IPaC-Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31 BCC Poecile rufescens rufescens Clark's Grebe IPaC-Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 BCC Aechmophorus clarkii Evening Grosbeak IPaC-Breeds May 15 to Aug 10 BCC Coccothraustes vespertinus Lesser Yellowlegs IPaC-Breeds elsewhere - BCC Tringa f/avipes Marbled Godwit IPaC-Breeds elsewhere BCC Limosa fedoa Olive-sided Flycatcher IPaC-Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 BCC Contopus cooperi Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus IPaC-Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15 BCC Western Grebe IPaC-Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 BCC Aechmophorus occidentalis Western Gull IPaC-Breeds Apr 21 to Aug 25 BCC Larus occidentalis 2.7 Environmental Baseline The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions, to which the effects of a proposed action are subsequently added. The environmental baseline is defined as"the past and present impacts of all federal, state, and private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or informal Section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation process," (50 CFR 402.02). For the purposes of this report, environmental and pollution data available for the subject parcel and vicinity has been integrated with observations regarding development intensity and site conditions to provide a broad environmental baseline. Overall Assessment Analysis of the environmental baseline for the project area and associated watershed of the associated stream and wetlands has identified existing impacts to habitat primarily from ongoing commercial timber and salal harvest, dense residential development, and high traffic/human activity within the golf course, and upkeep of the golf course itself. In addition, environmental conditions within the wetlands and stream are impacted by the presence of numerous roads in the area. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 6 1 P a g e Watershed Analysis Data from the Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Watershed Characterization Project for Analysis Unit ID: 14050 (Figure 3) indicates that the watershed associated with the Type F stream currently provides moderate quality habitat for salmonid species, with a score of 7 out of 10 ("Highest Value of Salmonid Habitats") for the Local Salmonid Habitats Index category. The Sum of All Freshwater Index Components category rates this watershed as a 16 out of 20. This metric analyzes local salmonid habitats, downstream salmonid habitats, and hydrogeomorphic features such as all extant wetlands and undeveloped floodplains in the assessment unit. These moderately high scores do not necessarily reflect the conditions in the project vicinity where the Alderbrook Golf Club and clear cut timber activity have undoubtedly impacted freshwater habitats. There are expansive forested areas elsewhere in the watershed that contribute to the higher freshwater scores. Terrestrial habitats for this watershed rate slightly lower than freshwater habitats, with a score of 42.86- 51.50 out of 100.00 for the Terrestrial Habitats Index. The area has a high level of terrestrial open space blocks concentrated at the Alderbrook Golf Club (score of 0.61-0.70 out of 1.0). Figure 3. Watershed eg�f L wl d Puget Sound Watershed Characterization Project Analysis Unit 14050 containing the subject parcel and most of the Alderbrook Golf Club. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 7 P a g e Chapter 3. Field study 3.1 Methodology The subject property was investigated on April 28, 2024, for the presence of regulated critical areas not already identified by outside sources. The site was walked to identify potential jurisdictional wetlands and fish and wildlife habitats that would be regulated under Mason County code and state/federal environmental policy. Special consideration was given to areas where future development activities may come within close proximity to forested areas, to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or to wetlands or streams and associated buffers.Wetland determinations were made using observable hydrophytic vegetation, indicators wetland of hydrology, and the determinations of hydric soil conditions. On-Site wetland areas were determined using the routine approach described within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and as modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010). Wetland boundaries were delineated Figure 4. Wetland A based on information collected in the field using the Wetland Determination — Western Data Form (Appendix C 7 � Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region a b USACE, Version 2.0). Bright orange - j flagging labeled "Wetland Boundary" �. was placed along the estimated boundary of the wetland areas on-site. � 4ti `y Outside of the identified soil sample locations, additional soil plugs to a depth of one (1) foot were pulled in various locations as spot checks to determine if soil conditions were changing. The spot check locations were consistent with the ;• *. documented survey points identified within this report indicating the presence of wetland areas and identified upland .°' - , N areas. Lines of delineation are typically determined by topography, soil conditions, vegetation, and hydrology. r- r ' •� t , The wetland areas were classified using the Cowardin classification system and Typical habitat within Wetland A similar available resources. The wetland was rated and categorized using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2014)and guidelines contained within the MCC. The completed wetland rating forms and wetland delineation map are provided in Appendices A, B and C. 3.2 Wetland Delineation Results Site investigative work consisted of a walk-through survey of the property and surveying adjoining properties with binoculars focusing on areas within 300 feet of where development activities may be proposed in the future. Based on survey results it was determined that there is a Type Ns Stream and two OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 8 1 P a g e Class III depressional wetlands located within 300 feet of the proposed project (all outside of the subject parcel). To determine the wetland boundary for the wetland area nearest to the site, it was determined that two (2) sampling points would be appropriate to determine the presence of Wetland A and its associated boundary. Wetland B is located further off site, so no sample points were taken. Wetland A & B are Palustrine, scrub-shrub, emergent wetlands. Using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, the wetlands are both rated as Category III depressional wetlands with a habitat score of six(6). Wetland A has a function score of 18, and Wetland B has a function score of 19. Wetland A occupies approximately 1,826 square feet and Wetland B is 807 square feet in size. Both have a 150-foot prescriptive buffer and 15 foot building setback from the terminating edge of the buffer. Both wetlands are associated with the Type N stream. 3.3 Soil Test Sites See Appendix C for Wetland Determination Data Forms with additional details. Wetland Indicator Categories of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands under Natural Conditions are as follows: • Obligate Wetland (OBL)-In Wetlands >99%of the time and In Non-wetlands <1% of the time • Facultative Wetland(FACW)-In Wetlands 67 to 99%of the time and In Non-wetlands 1 to 33% of the time. • Facultative(FAQ-In Wetlands 34 to 66%of the time and In Non-wetlands 34 to 66% of the time. • Facultative Upland (FACU)-In Wetlands 1 to 33%of the time and In Non-wetlands 67 to 99%of the time. Sample Location SP1 —Wetland Area Vegetation: The dominant plant species located in the survey plot were Salix / Willow - FAC/FACW, Spiraea douglasii/ Hardhack- FACW, and Rosa pisocarpa/ Cluster rose- FAC. Hydrophytic vegetation was determined to be the dominant species present. Soils: Soil was sampled to a depth of 17 inches having an observed break at three (3) inches. The texture of the soil was that of loamy sand throughout the entire sample. Redox features were observed in the form of Concentrations located within the Matrix. Hydric soil conditions were determined to meet indicator for Depleted Matrix(F3) and Depleted Below Dark Surface using the US Army Corps Auto Data form. Hydrology: Wetland hydrology indicators observed were Saturation (A3), Water Marks(131), Drift Deposits (133), and Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138). Based on the observed evidence in the field wetland hydrology has been determined to be present. Saturation was observed at a depth of 11 inches. Sample Location SP2 — Upland Area Vegetation: The dominant plant species located in the survey plot were Pseudotsuga menziesii/ Douglas fir - FACU and Vaccinium ovatum / Evergreen huckleberry - FACU. The percentage of hydrophytic vegetation observed at this sample location was estimated at 0%. Hydrophytic vegetation was determined not to be the dominant species present. Soils: Soil sample was taken to a depth of 20 inches and had a Loamy sand texture between zero (0) and 15 inches and a Sandy loam texture from 15 to 20 inches. No Redox features were observed. Hydric soil indicators were reviewed, and it was determined that the soil sampled was not Hydric. Hydrology: No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at this sample location. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 9 1 P a g e 3.4 Hydrological Conditions Precipitation data for the day that fieldwork was completed April 281h, 2024, as well as the month preceding that date has been reviewed in order to observe wetland hydrology conditions relative to the statistical baseline for precipitation. Rainfall levels that deviate from the normal range can potentially affect site conditions and impact observed hydrology indicators. Daily precipitation data has been obtained from a nearby station SHELTON 0.6 ENE, WA through the USDA's AgCIS database. Precipitation for this time period was the lowest on record for this station. Other stations in the area had similar results, with precipitation trending more toward the lowest accumulation on record across the board. Based on historical data dating from 1895, NOAA ranks precipitation for April of 2024 as Below Average for Mason County and Near Average for March. Figure 4. Precipitation Levels Accumulated Precipitation - SHELTON 0.6 ENE, WA (CoCoRaHS) i Click and drag to zoom to a shorter time interval;green!black diamonds represent suhsequent4nissing values I i 7,5_ _ ._...._ d u i 5} 0 - _ _.... 2 � ro i v " 6 Apr 2 Apr 9 Apr 16 Apr 23 i 2024 accumulation — Lowest(2024) —Highest(2023) PG4ered�i Act' 3.5 Stream Conditions Field analysis of the stream determined it to be a Type Ns that is located downstream from several storm drainpipes/culverts draining the surrounding community and greater area. Flow appears to be low as what can be seen of the channel is not well defined. Hydrology appears to be channelized above and between two depressional areas where water collects before either draining offsite or being absorbed into the ground. There was no flowing water present at the time fieldwork was conducted in April. The stream has a bankfull width of -2 feet. Stream substrate consisted of gravel (small to hand size) and sand. Ordinary High Water Mark Determination Indicators included: Bed and Banks, Change in Plant Community/Cover, Changes in Character of Soil, Deposition, Destruction of Terrestrial Vegetation, Leaf Litter Disturbed or Washed Away, Scour, Sediment Sorting, Shelving, Vegetation Matted Down, Bent, or Absent, Water Staining, and Wracking. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 10 1 P a g e 3.6 Bank & Buffer Habitat Plants observed include: - Oemleria cerasiformis/Oso berry - Rubus ursinus/California blackberry - Pseudotsuga menziesii/Douglas fir - Vaccinium parvifolium/Red huckleberry - Polystichum munitum/Western sword fern - Gaultheria shallop/Salal - Alnus rubra/Red alder - Hedera helix/English Ivy - Thuja plicata/Western red cedar Figure 5. Streambed � �, � -c - '�h � •ems#`, "'` .. Al -� � �+u ma's: �:; •� f�= Ai s t t c OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 11 1 P a g e Chapter 4. Proposed Project 4.1 Project Needs & Objectives This project is proposing to initially impact approximately 6,640 square feet of the 150-foot combined Category III Wetland Buffer, and 3,946 square feet of the 75-foot Type F stream buffer on-site for the installation of a single-family residence with associated septic, and driveway; This 6,640 square foot figure includes a 15-foot building setback on the structure, and it is the basis for the project's impact calculation. Within the initial 6,640 square foot project impact area, following construction, replanting of 3,190 square feet of native grasses and wildflowers is proposed to occur within the outer five feet of the 15-foot building setback, over the majority of the septic system and to the road, and in the small area between Wetland B and the driveway in the northern corner of the lot. 3,450 square feet of the initial impact will be maintained as the 'development envelope' for occupation, including the structure with a 10-foot building setback, the driveway, and a small area between the house and the road. In total, 1,682 square feet of impervious surfaces are being proposed, including the gravel driveway and roof area of the proposed structure. No direct impacts to stream or wetlands are being proposed. Buffer impacts are unavoidable as the entire property is encumbered by the wetlands buffers, and is 65% encumbered by the stream buffer. No matter where development is located on the lot, it is near to at least one of the critical areas. The maximum buffer width reduction proposed overall is 89.3%for Wetland A's Buffer. Wetland B would see a maximum buffer width reduction of 74.7%, and the Type N Stream's buffer width would decrease by 68.0%. Proposed development has been configured as far from critical areas as possible. Septic perc testing was conducted along the southern property line with three distinct holes, but soil conditions were not deemed suitable in that location, therefore the septic has been proposed beginning 23 feet above the southern property line. The location of the driveway and structure has been determined based on the septic constraints. Care has been taken by the applicant and septic designer to propose the minimum necessary to afford relief. The applicant had originally proposed a much larger driveway with access from Jack Pine Lane heading north directly next to Wetland A. The current proposed driveway is more of a parking spot than a full-blown driveway, demonstrating the applicant's commitment to minimizing impacts. The structure also has a modest footprint. Mitigation (Chapter 5) has been designed to offset impacts from the proposed development at a 1:1 ratio. Installation of the proposed home is planned to occur immediately following permit approval. Buffer enhancement/restoration activities will occur as described in Chapter 5 of this report and/or as authorized by Mason County. 4.2 Anticipated Project Impacts This section describes anticipated permanent and temporary impacts associated with the project and the proposed minimization measures to address these impacts. It is important to note that measures were taken to avoid, reduce, and minimize impacts associated with this project; however, some minor impact to critical areas may be unavoidable due to the nature of the project. Impact avoidance and minimization was practiced to the furthest extent possible. The analysis of impacts and determination of effects in this report are based on prior experience with other applicable projects and review of relevant literature. Temporary direct effects caused by the proposed project include construction activity. Any noise during installation will be short term and intermittent and is expected to be a maximum of 80-90 dBA in the immediate work vicinity. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 12 1 P a g e The main potential direct effect to the critical areas and habitat on-site will be the physical area occupied by the proposed development and impacts from the on-site septic and stormwater runoff. Planting of native species of grass, herbs, shrubs, and trees is being proposed to increase capture of stormwater and wastewater infiltration. The septic tank and drainfield have been configured as far from the stream as possible given soil conditions and terrain. Terrestrial Species Impact Evaluation Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species, "take" being defined in section 3 as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed species by "significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, and sheltering," (50 CFR 222.102). "Harass" is further defined as an intentional or negligent act which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). In regard to the proposed project and the existing development activities, it is extremely unlikely that any "take"will occur. Impacts to potential habitat of protected species from the proposed project will be limited. This is a small site, and the proposed clearing area will be minimal. Habitat benefits from forested areas on-site are negligible when considered in context. This neighborhood is densely developed, and has sustained most of this development for many years. Use of the subject parcel by wildlife has likely already been impeded by the surrounding human activity. Vast acres of timberland are available elsewhere in this watershed and are apt to be more attractive to wildlife than the subject parcel. None of the protected species were observed in the project area during fieldwork, nor were nesting sites or other signs of significant habitation.The Type N stream and wetlands offsite have the highest likelihood of wildlife presence; No impacts are being proposed to this area. It is the determination of this report that the proposed project will have No Effect on the associated species listed within this report. Wide-Range Impacts Indirect effects are those effects reasonably certain to result from the proposed action at a later time. Possible indirect effects from the proposed project include cumulative impacts over the long-term planning period for like actions. Cumulative effects are defined as "those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the action subject to consultation," (50 CFR 402.02). Cumulative impacts are difficult to assess. Continued growth and urbanization are likely to detrimentally impact fish and wildlife resources in this region. This report would argue that given the site is within a residential subdivision, and that easily over half of the properties are developed. In the event that the remaining undeveloped in the Alderbrook Golf Community are developed, the increase in cumulative impact would be negligible given the high level of existing activity due to the golf course. This project has been designed to comply with all applicable regulations regarding site location, dimensional standards, and similar requirements. 4.3 Regulatory Considerations That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; Consultant Comment: The subject parcel is completely encumbered by buffers. The strict application of standards set forth in the code would absolutely preclude reasonable use of the property. The landowner seeks to install a small single family residence for personal occupation, which was the intent when the property was purchased. Considering all regulations subject to the construction of a home on the property, OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 13 1 P a g e it was found to be impossible to meet applicable prescriptive critical area buffer standards. Avoiding the impact altogether would deprive the landowner of reasonable use, which is why a buffer alteration is being requested. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Consultant Comment: Unique property conditions are solely responsible for the hardship which serves as the granting of the variance. The lot is completely encumbered by critical areas buffers, and its small size has made development configuration more challenging. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; AND That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief, Consultant Comment: The proposed project is compatible with the existing residential uses in the area, and with uses projected for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and zoning,which anticipate and allow residential development within the area and on-site. There is extensive residential development existing in this neighborhood. The approval of the requested project would not grant a special privilege that is not afforded to other citizens who may face similar site conditions and regulatory buffer restrictions. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect, Consultant Comment: The public interest will not suffer a substantial detrimental impact as a result of the project request being approved. Mitigation measures are being proposed to enhance/restore buffer between the proposed development and critical areas, which will ensure a healthy and dense vegetated buffer is maintained into the future. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. Consultant Comment: As nearly the entire property is encumbered by critical areas and buffers, strict application of the code would deny the Landowner reasonable use.What is being proposed is the minimum necessary to afford relief. The proposed SFR is smaller than some of the existing structures in the neighborhood and no garage space is being proposed. The septic has been placed into the furthest corner from the critical areas possible within the site. The structures are located as close to the septic features as has been advised by the septic designer to keep them as far as possible from the critical areas. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 14 1 P a g e Chapter 5. Mitigation Proposal 5.1 Plantings All species to be transplanted/sown should be placed within a five-day period between October and March. The optimal time for planting is from February to March, though planting can begin as early as October. Cooler and wetter weather is preferred to ensure optimal survival of all plants. See Site Plan for information on Planting Zones. Table 5. Plant Schedule COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME -0 ZONE $/PLANT&SIZE TOTAL$ ----------- Western red cedar Thuja pl►cata 6 1 $10 00 1 gal $60.00 Red alder Anus rubra 6 1 $10.00 1 gal. $60.00 Big leaf maple Acermacrophyllum 6 1 $10.00 1 gal. $60.00 Vine maple Acercircinatum 6 1 $10.00 1 gal. $60.00 Beaked hazelnut Corylus cornuta 6 1 $10.00 1 gal. $60.00 Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis 6 1 $10.00 1 gal. $60.00 Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvlfolium 50 2 $5.00 4"pot $125.00 Evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum 50 2 $5.00 4"pot $125.00 Salal Gaultheria shallon_------- __ - -_ 50 2 $6.00 4" pot $150.00 _ _. ....._ .___. .. __......._...-_.._ Salmonberry Rubusspectabilis -10 1 $10.001 gal. $150.00 _�... Tall Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium 50 2 $5.00 4"pot $75.00 - 10 2 Western sword fern Polystichum mun►tum 30 1 $5.00 4"pot $200.00 Northwest Meadowscapes'Native 1000 sq.ft. Native Grass/Wildflower Pollinator Meadow Seed Mix 1 for 4 3 6.7 oz mix $394.20 Seed Mix West of the Cascades (see species below) $98.55 -__------------------------------ Annual Wildflowers 29%:Douglas Meadowfoam(Limnanthes douglasii),Globe Gilia(Gilia capitata),Farewell to Spring(Clarkia amoena),Sea Blush(Plectritis congesta),Bicolor Lupine(Lupins bicolor),White Meadowfoam(Limnanthes alba) Perennial Wildflowers 47%:Self Heal(Prunella vulgaris),Western Yarrow(Achillea millefolium),Large Camas(Camassia leichtlinh),Riverbank Lupine(Lupins rivularis),Bigleaf Lupine(Lupinus polyphyllus),Meadow Checkermallow(Sida/cea campestris),Wooly Sunflower(Eriophyllum lanatum),Western Buttercup(Ranunculus occidentalis),Showy Fleabane(Erigeron speciosus),Common Camas(Camassia quamash),Prairie Cinquefoil(Potentilla gracilis) Grasses 24%:Roemer's Fescue(Festuca romerit),Tufted Hairgrass(Deschampsia cespitosa),Meadow Barley(Horedum brachyantherum) TOTAL $1,579.20 OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 151 P a g e Cost estimates listed in Table 5 are derived from Sound Native Plants—Olympia, WA, Woodbrook Native Plant Nursery — Gig Harbor, WA, Plantas nativa LLC — Bellingham, WA, or Northwest Meadowscapes — Port Townsend, WA. All prices are subject to change and these numbers do not reflect availability. These figures are estimates and plants may be obtained from a wide variety of vendors across the region. The Washington Native Plant Society publishes an annual list of native plant sources that can be consulted if necessary. Final plant placement will be determined by a qualified biologist at the time of enhancement/restoration. Plant quantities listed in this report are estimates derived after careful review of conditions within the site and calculation of the maximum number of plants that will fit within the proposed enhancement/restoration area based on minimum plant spacing requirements and the level of existing native vegetation regrowth. Trees will be spaced 10-foot on center at a minimum, shrubs 5-foot on center, and herbs 4-foot on center. Grass and wildflowers will be sown per supplier recommendations. Grasses and flowers planted on the septic and near the house will be left to mature to seed and will only be mowed as the plants die off for the winter or move into dormancy. If the species listed within this report are not available, substitutions must be similar in nature providing the same habitat benefit as those proposed. Alternative species require pre-approval by a qualified specialist and/or regulatory staff at Mason County. All plant materials used for the enhancement/restoration actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not, they will exhibit normal densely developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. All measures should be taken to avoid shock to the immature plants and that the plants do not dry out after installation. Temporary irrigation measures may also be necessary. Any existing native vegetation within the enhancement/restoration area should be retained in its native condition or allowed to return to its native condition to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. 5.2 Project Sequencing A. Preparation: Crater Land Use Consulting (or another qualified contractor) will mark or physically direct where each plant should be placed in the field. Prior to planting, Crater Land Use Consulting (or another qualified contractor) will monitor for invasive and nonnative species within the enhancement/restoration area and oversee any surface preparation for planting. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing any native seedlings that are reemerging. B. Installation: A qualified plant installation specialist will plant/sow (under the supervision of Crater Land Use Consulting if so requested by the Client).This action may also be performed by the Client if approved by Mason County. No tilling of the ground will occur. All excavation work, though minor will only be performed during dry weather. Holes for each plant will be dug individually and will be two to three times the width of the container. Mixing compost with the soil placed back into the holes will help to ensure retention of moisture for the plants in the upland/buffer. Mulching around installed trees and shrubs is also recommended as appropriate to each species. All installed vegetation shall be marked with colored flagging to facilitate monitoring inspections. C. As-Built Plan: Crater Land Use Consulting (or another qualified contractor) will complete an As- Built Installation Plan for submission to Mason County within one (1) month of planting. D. Client Responsibility: Client will monitor growth and adhere to best management practices outlined within this report. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 16 1 P a g e E. Annual Monitoring Reports: Crater Land Use Consulting (or another qualified contractor) will perform an annual site visit in the late summer of monitoring years 1 -2 and will provide a Monitoring Report to the county no later than October 1 of that year.The Monitoring Report will suggest needed corrections and adjustments to the plan based on survival of planted species determined in each report. F. Final Completion: Crater Land Use Consulting (or another qualified contractor) will provide final site inspection and Monitoring Report to Mason County by October 1 of year 3 and/or as requested by Mason County. 5.3 Performance Standards The following performance standards are targeted for the proposed enhancement/restoration identified within this report. These performance standards are necessary for the evaluation of success achieved in implementing the proposed plan. Survival and Coverage Individual plants that die in the first or second year must be replaced (at a 1:1 ratio) with native species suggested by a qualified biologist and approved by Mason County.After the second year, if mortality of the installed vegetation exceeds 20 percent, those dead materials over 20 percent will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. If mortality is related to an inappropriate species for the site conditions, adjustments to the Plant Schedule may be made to replant with a species more likely to survive. Other actions include changes to or adoption of a watering schedule, or integrated pest management (excluding pesticide use). Failure to meet these standards by the end of the monitoring period will require an additional year of monitoring. Table 6. Plant Survival Benchmarks YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 PLANT SURVIVAL 100 percent 100 percent 80 percent minimum _.---__.__-----_..___.__1 _____.______ __._..____._1...._.._... Invasive Species Invasive vegetation will be removed from the enhancement/restoration area and continue to be removed as they are established. Washington State-listed or county-listed noxious weeds observed in any area of the mitigation site must be eradicated with no part of the plant remaining. Non-native species will include less than 10% cover in the mitigation area during the monitoring period. Due to the ecological sensitivity of the enhancement/restoration area, use of pesticides for noxious weed control should be avoided. Continued manual removal is the appropriate course of action for this area. Following initial removal of English ivy from the site, the species will be removed in perpetuity as it reemerges. Success of removal will be assessed during monitoring reports, and it may be found necessary to install additional native plants to compete with the ivy. 5.4 Monitoring and Maintenance It is suggested that monitoring occur in late summer or early spring as these are the ideal time of year to assess the health of the plantings. The as-built plan should establish at least four (4) photo points on-site that portray the planting areas from each direction. These points should be maintained and used to capture the vegetation's growth over the three(3)year monitoring period for inclusion in the yearly monitoring report. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 17 1 P a g e The as-built plan may include a brief letter that consists of a summary of actions and associated maps and pictures, and other information deemed necessary by Mason County. The annual monitoring reports should include the following minimum information: 1. Observations of species survival; 2. The use of the site by wildlife species; 3. Any occurrence of exotic species and its removal within the enhancement/restoration zones; 4. Replacement of vegetation since planting. 5. Any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. 6. Any maintenance actions taken. Three (3) years post planting, a review of the vegetation within the buffer enhancement/restoration area shall be completed and a final Monitoring Report provided to Mason County. This document should be a determination of success regarding vegetation coverage, health, and sustainability. Maintenance of the enhancement/restoration area should consist of all actions necessary to promote survival of the planted native vegetation. Actions may include irrigation during the dry season, mulching, fertilizing and similar measures. Broadcast fertilization, however, will not be used. 5.5 Surety Bond An estimated cost breakdown for plants, biologist, and monitoring services is provided in the table below to assist in calculating the bond amount should one be required. For the purposes of this report, no amount is listed for plant installation labor and other associated supplies. A fair market quote from a qualified plant installer will be necessary to complete any bond amount calculations unless the Landowner is permitted by Mason County to install the plants themselves. Crater Land Use Consulting does not provide plant installation services but can obtain a quote from a third-party contractor and coordinate service for an additional fee if requested. The prices listed are estimates and subject to change. Table 7. Mitigation Cost Estimate ITEM COST Plants $ 1,580 As Built Installation Plan $875 (CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING or another qualified professional) Plant Installation-Quote to be obtained by a qualified plant installer $ N/A Installation supplies-Quote to be obtained by a qualified plant installer $ N/A Monitoring Reports-3 $ 2,625 (CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING or another qualified professional) TOTAL $5,080 OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 18 1 P a g 8 Chapter 6. Conclusion 6.1 Net Loss/Gain Mitigation measures have been included with this report to compensate for potential habitat impacts, which are expected to be minimal given the small scale of development proposed and the level of surrounding use in the vicinity. No net loss of ecological functions is anticipated as a result of the project. 6.2 Disclaimer The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project.They have been developed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us, and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty expressed or implied is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 19 1 P a g e Chapter 7. References & Resources Binkley, D., and Greene, S. 1983. Production in Mixtures of Conifers and Red Alder: The Importance of Site Fertility. In IUFRO Symposium on Forest Site and Continuous Productivity. Edited by R. Ballard and S.P. Gessel. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-163, Portland Oregon. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service document FWS/OBS-79/31. 84 pp. Washington, D.C. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 2nd Edition, 2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing. Vancouver, British Columbia. Richardson, J.L., & M.J., Vepraskas. 2001. Wetland Soils, 2001. Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes and Classification. 417 pp. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida. Tiner, W. R., 1999. Wetland Indicators, A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping. 392 pp. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and Potential for Avoided Impacts Associate with Single-Family Homes. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/sfhomes.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Online Resource. https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects-environment United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Internet report. URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/ioac/ United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory. Online Resource. www.fws.gov/wetlands/(2020). Washington State Department of Ecology. 2017. Washington State Coastal Atlas Map. Internet report. URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecv/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/ Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2014. FPARS ARCIMS mapping application. Internet report. URL: http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/appl/fpars/viewer.htm OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 20 P a g e Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Natural Heritage Program, 2018. URL_ https;//www.dnr.wa.gov/natural-heritage-program Washington State Department of Transportation. Biological Assessment Manual. (2018) URL: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/environment-technical/environment-disciplines/fish- wildlife/BA-preparation-manual. 50 FR 402.02, Wildlife and Fisheries Chapter IV—Joint Regulations (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior and National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce); Endangered Species Committee Regulations (October 1, 2012). 57 FR 45328, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Washington, Oregon, and California Population of the Marbled Murrelet (October 1, 1992). 64 FR 58190, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States (November 1, 1999). 79 FR 2014, Final Rule to Revise the Code of Federal Regulations for Species Under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fishery Service (April 14, 2014). 79 FR 59992, Determination of Threatened Status for the Western DSP of Yellow-billed Cuckoo (October 3, 2014). 79 FR 71373, Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western DPS of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (December 2, 2014). 81 FR 2016, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet(August 4, 2016). OCHNIK-321045400120-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2024 21 1 P a g e Appendix A. Project Map " '°a PROPOSED PROJECT e� a �r �` 0 * 20 40 80 ft co tpo z 6 P'ro sed G� Type Ns Stream ;sG LLJ 1 322 ft } e Say a ° Soil Test Point 0 Wetlands r 24, 8 aintained S 10'Contours(Mason Co.) Proposed evelopment 36'x 30' velope(White) --- Street-Centerlines 3bdrm SFR 16 �5 (1,360 sq.ft.with Roof) ` MASON Parcels0� ,�\ Zo e 2 Subject Parcel(Mason Co.) c :.. t . ..... w1 7 , s XX ✓ 4; i x s SP2 Zone 1 Alt N N ® 3,946 sq.ft.Proposed .. . - .. Stream Buffer Reduction co t Zone 2 6,640 sq.ft.Proposed i Wetland Buffer Reduction t O Proposed Mitigation Zone 1 - BufferRestoration(2,845 sq.ft.) silt{ ! r Proposed Mitigation Zone 2 BufferEnhancement(605 sq.ft.) FIELDWORK ONDUCTED ----------- --�ACI(pI +' 28 AP IL 2024 _NE r O Proposed Mitigation Zone 3 Native Meadowscape(3,190 sq.ft.) This map is not survey quality.Locations and measurements are approximate.Boundary information depicted herein has been obtained from the County GIs Parcel Layer.GPS data was collected during fieldwork DATE 22 JUNE 2024 STR SEC 4,TWP 21N,RNG 03W CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING using a Juniper Geode with GNS3 sub-meter accuracy in appropriate condifions.Additional features shown are CLIENT OCHNIK,DANIEL LATILONG 47.332625°, 123.078278° from information supplied by the Client or obtained from State and Local GIs data.We assume no lability for 477 PARPALA ROAD,NASELLE,WA 98638 discrepancies between this site plan and ground conditions. COUNTY MASON,WA SIZE 0.23 ACRES 509-942-9309 RYAN@CRATERLUC.COM COORDINATE SYSTEM:NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet PARCEL# 321045400120 ZONING RR 5 PROJECTION:Lambert Conformal Conic Appendix B. Wetland Rating Forms �ro.a «.«.moo .. �ws ew�twe Aia.r..rs�+i ore wunar (D— p<.,. w.o.w,.., canoe �. vq.a-oaHw w.wrss� ® M- M, »,eerneei.. � v� *t r x pow+ w+��aa to.e ew wex coax w«�.a vinuo�,na... O.a OM21'2Cts m^�'^ ®� �.�,� wr.aoau zm. mr hWec oomm ftftAWn"A(OM� orr oe/fSrm/A �,•• (�..•• i.noww.. ,G. a l�� .`+nuvn fuew x.wm twv. IMujnxf gGllHtlf WMWh1 W[TIAN[YA(UpvRtlipWj CMY W3{I�71A Q'l!Aw+' ��" t+AM V1YMwrtl faeu Tam bn. f`+q*r,�-.SICYArMIL iV'MWril1lNtlACO�Wex� .. a V nC 9 I . M oa s ,p e c \ 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number: WETLAND A Table 8.52.110(D): 150 foot buffer (Land Use - High) RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID#):WETLAND A Date of site visit: 04/24/2024 Rated By: Ryan E. Crater Trained by Ecology?Yes [X] No [] Date of Training: 10/17/2019 HGM Class used for rating: Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?Yes [] No [X] NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map: OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY: [Category III] (based on functions [X] or special characteristics []) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS [] Score for each Category I-Total score= 23-27 [] function based on Category II -Total score = 20-22 [X] Category III-Total score = 16-19 three ratings (order [] Category IV-Total score = 9-15 i ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H FUNCTION Improving Water Hydrologic Habitat 8 = H,H,M Quality 7 = H,H,L Site Potential M L L 7 = H,M,M Landscape Potential M H H 6 = H,M,L Value H L M Total 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 5 = H,L,L Ratings 7 5 6 18 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 Forested Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Not Applicable https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtoof=ATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetlandld=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 1112 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands To answer Map of: Figure# questions: Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1,H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map ofhydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including polygons H 2.1, H 2.2, H for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATORNVetlandSummary?WetiandId=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 2/12 0 0 N 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary 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 What are the characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland? Wetland has no surface water outlet. points =3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing,or highly constricted,outlet. points =2 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 Score: 2 D 1.2 Is the soil 2 in. below the surface a true clay or organic soil? Mapped as true clay or organic (muck or peat) points =4 Soil texture identified as clay or organic in field points =4 Soil texture identified as clay or organic by laboratory test points =4 None of the above points = 0 Score: 0 D 1.3 What are the characteristics and distribution of persistent plants? Wetland has persistent,ungrazed, plants>95%of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent,ungrazed, plants>50%of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants > 10%of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants< 10%of area points =0 Score: 5 D 1.4 What are the characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation in the wetland area? Area seasonally ponded is > 50%total area of wetland points =4 Area seasonally ponded is equal to or>25%total area of wetland points =2 Area seasonally ponded is< 25%total area of wetland points = 0 Score: 4 Total for D 1: 11 Rating of Site Potential [] 12-16= H [X] 6-11 =M [] 0-5= L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1 Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 D 2.2 Is >10%of the area within 150ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants in surface runoff? Yes points = 1 No points =0 Score: 0 D 2.3 Are there septic systems within 250ft of the wetland? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 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? Yes points = 1 No points=0 Score: 0 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetiandld=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 3/12 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A D 2.5 What are the other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland? Total for D 2: � Rating of Landscape Potential []3-4= H [X] 1-2= 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, lake,or marine water that is on the 303(d). list? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 0 D 3.2 Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 D 3.3 Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Yes points =2 No points = 0 Score: 2 Total for D 3: Rating of Value [X] 2-4=H [] 1 = M [] 0= L Record the rating on the first page DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradtion D 4.0 Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1 What are the characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland? Wetland has no surface water outlet. points =4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing,or highly constricted,outlet. points = 2 Wetland is a flat depression whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is points = 0 Score: 2 permanently flowing D 4.2 What is the depth of storage during the wet periods? Marks of ponding are 3ft or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet. points =7 Marks of ponding are between 2ft to<3ft from the surface or bottom of the outlet. points = 5 Marks of ponding are at least 0.5ft to<2ft from the surface or the bottom of the points = 3 outlet. The wetland is a "headwater"wetland. points = 3 The wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water. points = 1 Marks of ponding are less than 0.5ft (6in). points = 0 Score: 3 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtool/WATOR/WetiandSummary?Wetlandld=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 4/12 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A D 4.3 What is the contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed? The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Score: 0 Total for D 4: Rating of Site Potential [] 12-16=H [] 6-11 = M [X] 0-5= L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1 Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 D 5.2 Is>10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 D 5.3 Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 Total for D 5: Rating of Landscape Potential [X] 3 = H [] 1-2= 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 Is the wetland in a landscape that has flooding-problems? Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of the wetland. points =2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained that water points = 0 cannot reach areas that flood. There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 Score: 0 D 6.2 Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes points = 2 No points = 0 Score: 0 Total for D 6: = Rating of Value [] 2-4= H [] 1 =M [X] 0 = L Record the rating on the first page https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtooUWATOR/WetiandSummary?Wetiandld=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 5/12 M_ _ E 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A HABITAT FUNCTIONS These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes - Indicators that the site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 What is the structure of the plant community? Aquatic Bed aEmergent Scrub-shrub Forested Multiple strata within the Forested class(canopy,sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,moss/ground cover) 4 structures or more points =4 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 No structures present points = 0 Score: 1 H 1.2 What are the hydro periods that meet the size thresholds in the wetland? Permanently flooded or inundated Seasonally flooded or inundated ❑Occasionally flooded or inundated Saturated only Permanently flowing stream or river in,or adjacent to,the wetland 0 Seasonally flowing stream in,or adjacent to,the wetland Lake Fringe wetland Freshwater Tidal wetland 4 or more types present points = 3 3 types present or Lake Fringe/ Freshwater Tidal Fringe points = 2 2 types present points = 1 _1 type present points = 0 None present points = 0 Score: 1 H 1.3 What is the richness of the plant species in the wetland? >19 species points =2 5-19 species points = 1 <5 species points =0 Score: 1 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtool/WATORM/etiandSummary?Wetiandld=1732&WetiandName=WETLAND A&WetiandType=Depre... 6/12 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A H 1.4 What is the interspersion of habitats? High points = 3 Moderate points = 2 Low points = 1 None points = 0 Score: 1 H 1.5 What are the special habitat features in the wetland? Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4in diameter and 6ft long). Standing snags(dbh >4in)within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6ft (2m) and/or overhanging plants extend at least 3.3ft(1 m) over open water or a stream (or ditch) in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33ft(1 Om) ❑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) FAt least 0.25ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) 0 Invasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) 6 habitats selected points = 6 5 habitats selected points = 5 4 habitats selected points =4 3 habitats selected points =3 2 habitats selected points =2 1 habitat selected points = 1 No habitats selected points =0 Score: 2 Total for H 1: Rating of Site Potential [] 15-18= H []7-14= M [X] 0-6= L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support habitat functions of the site? H 2.1 What is the percentage of accessible habitat within 1 km of the wetland? >33%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 Score: 3 H 2.2 What is the percentage of total habitat in a 1 km polygon around the wetland? Total habitat is >50%of the Polygon points =3 Total habitat is 10-50%of the Polygon and in 1-3 patches points =2 Total habitat is 10-50%of the Polygon and in>3 patches points = 1 Total habitat is<10%of the Polygon points = 0 Score: 3 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetiandSummary?Wetiandld=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 7112 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A H 2.3 What is the land use intensity in the 1 km polygon? 50%of the Polygon is high intensity land use points =-2 <50%of the Polygon is high intensity land use points = 0 Score: 0 Total for H 2: Rating of Landscape Potential [X]4-6= H [] 1-3 = M [] 0= 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? Aspen Stands Biodiversity Areas and Corridors ❑Herbaceous Balds ❑Old-growth/Mature Forests ❑Oregon White Oak ❑Riparian Westside Prarie Fresh Deepwater FInstream Nearshore (Coastal,Open Coast, Puget Sound) Caves Cliffs ❑Snags and Logs ❑Talus The following criteria automatically score 2 points: The wetland provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species The wetland is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species The wetland is a Wetland of High Conservation Value The wetland has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local plan The wetland has 3 or more WDFW priority habitats within 100m,or meets the points = 2 criteria for societal value The site has 1 or 2 WDFW priority habitats within 100m points = 1 The site does not meet any of the criteria for societal value points = 0 Score: 1 Total for H 3: = Rating of Value [] 2= H [X] 1 = M [] 0= L Record the rating on the first page https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtool/WATOR/WetiandSummary?Wetlandld=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 8/12 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS SC 1.0 Estuarine Wetlands SC 1.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal ❑The wetland is vegetated ❑The water salinity is greater than 0.5 ppt Yes-Go to SC 1.2 No- Not an Estuarine Wetland Result: Not an Estuarine Wetland SC 1.2 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 Estuarine Wetland No-Go to SC 1.3 Result: SC 1.3 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. At least 75%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100ft 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 Estuarine Wetland No-Category II Estuarine Wetland Result: SC 2.0 Wetlands of High Conservation Value SC 2.1 Does the wetland overlap with any known or historical rare plant or rare&high=quality ecosystem polygons on the WNHP Data Explorer? Yes-Category I Wetland of High Conservation Value No-Go to SC 2.2 Result:Go to SC 2.2 SC 2.2 Does the wetland have a rare plant species, rare plant community,or high-quality common plant community that may qualify the site as a WHCV? Yes-Category I Wetland of High Conservation Value No-Not a Wetland of High Conservation Value Result: https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetlandld=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 9/12 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A SC 3.0 Bogs SC 3.1 Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16in or more of the first 32in of the soil profile? Yes-Go to SC 3.3 No-Go to SC 3.2 Result:Go to SC 3.2 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-Not a Bog Wetland Result: SC 3.3 Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least 30%cover of plant species listed in the table provided in the instructions? Yes-Category I Bog Wetland No-Go to SC 3.4 Result: SC 3.4 Is an area with peats or mucks forested (>30°i°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 combinations of species) listed in the table found in the instructions provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy? Yes-Category I Bog Wetland No-Not a Bog Wetland Result: SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands SC 4.1 Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of the following criteria? ❑Old-growth forests Mature forests Yes-Category I Forested Wetland Result: Not a Forested No- Not a Forested Wetland Wetland https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtool/WATOR/WetiandSummary?Wetiandld=1732&WetiandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depr... 10/12 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons SC 5.1 Coastal Lagoons: Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? 1-1 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 rocks The depression 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 open water area (measured near the bottom) 1-1 The lagoon retains some of its surface water at low tide during spring tides Yes-Go to SC 5.2 No-Not a Coastal Lagoon Wetland Result: Not a Coastal Lagoon Wetland SC 5.2 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). At least 75%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. the wetland is larger than 0.10ac (4350 sqft) Yes-Category I Coastal Lagoon No-Category II Coastal Lagoon Result: SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands SC 6.1 Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership WBUO)? Yes-Go to SC6.2 No-Not an Interdunal Wetland Result: Not an Interdunal Wetland SC 6.2 Is the wetland 1 ac or larger in size,or a mosaic that is 1 ac or larger in size? Wetland is larger than 1 ac in size-Go to SC 6.3 Wetland is a mosaic larger than 1 ac is size-Category 11 Interdunal Wetland No-Go to SC 6.4 Result: SC 6.3 Does the wetland score 8 or 9 points for the habitat functions? Yes-Category I Interdunal Wetland No-Category II Interdunal Wetland Result: SC 6.4 Is the wetland unit between 0.1 ac and 1 ac,or in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 ac and 1 ac in size? Yes-Category III Interdunal Wetland No-Category IV Interdunal Wetland Result: https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtooi/WATOR/WetiandSummary?Wetlandld=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depr... 11/12 6/25/24, 11:54 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND A Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form Final Category: Not Applicable https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetiandSummary?Wetiandld=1732&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depr... 12/12 | e � � ■ . ��? d ° ® � < x � t � | | ! � ! � \ ! . ■ ■ ; . . \ ) ■ ■ ■ 0 , 3 { ! ! ! | �\ ■ § { ! ! ` | � | � } ! . \ | : � #■ ! ° } ! ■ff } , ■ l f | ■4 � ;\f | i f . Z ' � . wr +wooer ae• ew +'�q•a on«R wwrn ll(ilMo��dr..ro-ur� au aVtY1f61 Or••. pc.-.. ,.� .rw.e fwa. tmn an Ra,•a oC,M( wMrq wEn�rc�m�w.wa,m ow OWW2YH m..n• ®�••• uM. w �k�, n �. 'i` ``Y�1� -� Xrt..,,..iS�. •c..�w.�w.wrr,..a..,r ��, awlArrrlrr� ,.�w �«...,a.. r.... ... ,,:.;.w�aoro.•wn awavrvam� q•.�.• ©�,.. ,rr s.•.r,o•,. ra. a NMaafi•� �nt�R1N+o�10•o•.*.r•+� ow:Mq�l�1 �"•+ ®4 n lellbCw MI� %chaff l.w M uww..•+++w++ V xs.a.r s..m,.. xapn+r,er..w .ruora.w•r..�•+.r 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B Table 8.52110(D): 150 foot buffer (Land Use - High) RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID#): WETLAND B Date of site visit: 04/24/2024 Rated By: Ryan E. Crater Trained by Ecology?Yes [X] No [] Date of Training: 10/17/2019 HGM Class used for rating: Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?Yes [] No [X] NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map: OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY: [Category III] (based on functions [X] or special characteristics []) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Score for each [] Category I-Total score = 23-27 function based on [] Category II-Total score = 20-22 three ratings (order [X] Category III-Total score = 16- 19 of ratings is not [] Category IV-Total score = 9-15 important) 9 = H,H,H Improving Water FUNCTION Hydrologic Habitat 8 = H,H,M Quality 7 = H,H,L Site Potential M L L 7 = H,M,M Landscape Potential H H H 6 = H,M,L Value H L M Total 6 = M,M,M Score Based on 5 = H,L,L Ratings 8 5 6 19 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 Forested Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Not Applicable https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetlandld=1733&WetlandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depre... 1/12 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands To answer Map of: Figure # questions: Cowardin plant classes 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon:Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge-including polygons H 2.1, H 2.2, H for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtooi/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetiandld=1733&WetiandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depre... 2/12 6/25124, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B 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 What are the characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland? Wetland has no surface water outlet. points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing,or highly constricted,outlet. points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 Score: 2 D 1.2 Is the soil 2 in. below the surface a true clay or organic soil? Mapped as true clay or organic (muck or peat) points =4 Soil texture identified as clay or organic in field points =4 Soil texture identified as clay or organic by laboratory test points =4 None of the above points = 0 Score: 0 D 1.3 What are the characteristics and distribution of persistent plants? Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants>95%of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants >50%of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants > 10%of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent,ungrazed plants< 10% of area points = 0 Score: 5 D 1.4 What are the characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation in the wetland area? Area seasonally ponded is> 50%total area of wetland points =4 Area seasonally ponded is equal to or>25%total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is< 25%total area of wetland points = 0 Score: 4 Total for D 1: 11 Rating of Site Potential [] 12-16= H [XI 6-11 = M [10-5= 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 points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 D 2.2 Is >10%of the area within 150ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants in surface runoff? Yes points = 1 No points =0 Score: 1 D 2.3 Are there septic systems within 250ft of the wetland? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 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? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 0 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetlandld=1733&WetlandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depre... 3/12 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B D 2.5 What are the other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland? Total for D 2: � Rating of Landscape Potential [X] 3-4=H [] 1-2= 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,lake,or marine water that is on the 303(d). list? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 0 D 3.2 Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 D 3.3 Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Yes points =2 No points =0 Score: 2 Total for D 3: � Rating of Value [X] 2-4= H [] 1 = M [] 0= L Record the rating on the first page DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradtion D 4.0 Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1 What are the characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland? Wetland has no surface water outlet. points =4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing,or highly constricted,outlet. points =2 Wetland is a flat depression whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is points =0 Score: 2 permanently flowing D 4.2 What is the depth of storage during the wet periods? Marks of ponding are 3ft or more above the surface or bottom of the outlet. points =7 Marks of ponding are between 2ft to<3ft from the surface or bottom of the outlet. points = 5 Marks of ponding are at least 0.5ft to<2ft from the surface or the bottom of the points =3 outlet. The wetland is a "headwater"wetland. points =3 The wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water. points = 1 Marks of ponding are less than 0.5ft(6in). points =0 Score: 3 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetlandid=1733&WetiandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depre... 4/12 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B D 4.3 What is the contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed? The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points =3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points =0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Score: 0 Total for D 4: = Rating of Site Potential [] 12-16= H [] 6-11 = M [X] 0-5= L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1 Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 D 5.2 Is >10%of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 D 5.3 Is more than 25%of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses? Yes points = 1 No points = 0 Score: 1 Total for D 5: � Rating of Landscape Potential [X] 3 = H [] 1-2= 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 Is the wetland in a landscape that has flooding problems? Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of the wetland. points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained that water points = 0 cannot reach areas that flood. There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 Score: 0 D 6.2 Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes points = 2 No points = 0 Score: 0 Total for D 6: = Rating of Value []2-4= H [] 1 = M [X] 0= L Record the rating on the first page https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetiandSummary?Wetlandld=1733&WetlandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depre... 5/12 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number: WETLAND B HABITAT FUNCTIONS These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes - Indicators that the site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 What is the structure of the plant community? Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub-shrub Forested Multiple strata within the Forested class (canopy,sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground cover) 4 structures or more points =4 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 No structures present points = 0 Score: 1 H 1.2 What are the hydroperiods that meet the size thresholds in the wetland? Permanently flooded or inundated Seasonally flooded or inundated Occasionally flooded or inundated ❑Saturated only Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to,the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to,the wetland Lake Fringe wetland ❑Freshwater Tidal wetland 4 or more types present points = 3 3 types present or Lake Fringe/ Freshwater Tidal Fringe points = 2 2 types present points = 1 1 type present points = 0 None present points = 0 Score: 1 H 1.3 What is the richness of the plant species in the wetland? >19 species points = 2 5-19 species points = 1 <5 species points = 0 Score: 1 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetiandld=1733&WetlandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depre... 6/12 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B H 1.4 What is the interspersion of habitats? High points =3 Moderate points =2 Low points = 1 None points = 0 Score: 1 H 1.5 What are the special habitat features in the wetland? Large,downed,woody debris within the wetland (>4in diameter and 6ft long). ❑Standing snags (dbh >4in)within the wetland 1-1 Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6ft(2m) and/or overhanging plants extend at least 3.3ft(1 m) over open water or a stream (or ditch) in,or contiguous with the wetland,for at least 33ft(1 Om) ❑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) ❑At least 0.25ac 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) 6 habitats selected points = 6 5 habitats selected points = 5 4 habitats selected points =4 3 habitats selected points =3 2 habitats selected points =2 1 habitat selected points = 1 No habitats selected points =0 Score: 2 Total for H 1: � Rating of Site Potential []15-18= H []7-14= M [X] 0-6= L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support habitat functions of the site? H 2.1 What is the percentage of accessible habitat within 1 km of the wetland? >33%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 Score: 3 H 2.2 What is the percentage of total habitat in a 1 km polygon around the wetland? Total habitat is >50%of the Polygon points = 3 Total habitat is 10-50%of the Polygon and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Total habitat is 10-50%of the Polygon and in>3 patches points = 1 Total habitat is<10%of the Polygon points = 0 Score: 3 https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetiandld=1733&WetiandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depre... 7/12 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B H 2.3 What is the land use intensity in the 1 km polygon? 50%of the Polygon is high intensity land use points =-2 <50%of the Polygon is high intensity land use points =0 Score: 0 Total for H 2: [=� Rating of Landscape Potential [XI 4-6=H [] 1-3 = M [] 0= 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? Aspen Stands Biodiversity Areas and Corridors Herbaceous Balds Old-growth/Mature Forests Oregon White Oak Riparian Westside Prarie ❑Fresh Deepwater Instream Nearshore (Coastal,Open Coast, Puget Sound) Caves ❑Cliffs Snags and Logs Talus The following criteria automatically score 2 points: The wetland provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species The wetland is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species The wetland is a Wetland of High Conservation Value The wetland has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local plan The wetland has 3 or more WDFW priority habitats within 100m,or meets the points =2 criteria for societal value The site has 1 or 2 WDFW priority habitats within 100m points = 1 The site does not meet any of the criteria for societal value points = 0 Score: 1 Total for H 3: =� Rating of Value [] 2= H [XI 1 = M [] 0 = L Record the rating on the first page https:Hsecureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetiandsratingtool/WATOR/WetiandSummary?Wetlandid=1733&WetlandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depre... 8/12 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS SC 1.0 Estuarine Wetlands SC 1.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal The wetland is vegetated The water salinity is greater than 0.5 ppt Yes-Go to SC 1.2 No-Not an Estuarine Wetland Result: Not an Estuarine Wetland SC 1.2 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 Estuarine Wetland No-Go to SC 1.3 Result: SC 1.3 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. At least 75%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100ft 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 Estuarine Wetland No-Category II Estuarine Wetland Result: SC 2.0 Wetlands of High Conservation Value SC 2.1 Does the wetland overlap with any known or historical rare plant or rare&highL-quality ecosystem polygons on the WNHP Data Explorer? Yes-Category I Wetland of High Conservation Value No-Go to SC 2.2 Result:Go to SC 2.2 SC 2.2 Does the wetland have a rare plant species, rare plant community,or high-quality common plant community that may qualify the site as a WHCV? Yes-Category I Wetland of High Conservation Value Result: Not a Wetland No-Not a Wetland of High Conservation Value of High Conservation Value https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATORNVetlandSummary?Wetiandid=1733&WetiandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depre... 9/12 M_ N 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B SC 3.0 Bogs SC 3.1 Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons,either peats or mucks,that compose 16in or more of the first 32in of the soil profile? Yes-Go to SC 3.3 No-Go to SC 3.2 Result:Go to SC 3.2 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 clav or volcanic ash,or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes-Go to SC 3.3 No-Not a Bog Wetland Result: Not a Bog Wetland SC 3.3 Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70%cover of mosses at ground level,AND at least 30%cover of plant species listed in the table provided in the instructions? Yes-Category I Bog Wetland No-Go to SC 3.4 Result: 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 combinations of species) listed in the table found in the instructions provide more than 30%of the cover under the canopy? Yes-Category I Bog Wetland No-Not a Bog Wetland Result: SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands SC 4.1 Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of the following criteria? ❑Old-growth forests ❑Mature forests Yes-Category I Forested Wetland Result: Not a Forested No-Not a Forested Wetland Wetland https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetiandid=1733&WetlandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depr... 10/12 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number:WETLAND B SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons SC 5.1 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 rocks 1-1 The depression 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 open water area (measured near the bottom) ❑The lagoon retains some of its surface water at low tide during spring tides Yes-Go to SC 5.2 No-Not a Coastal Lagoon Wetland Result: Not a Coastal Lagoon Wetland SC 5.2 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). At least 75%of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. ❑the wetland is larger than 0.10ac (4350 sqft) Yes-Category I Coastal Lagoon No-Category II Coastal Lagoon Result: SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands SC 6.1 Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership WBUO)? Yes-Go to SC 6.2 Result: Not an No-Not an Interdunal Wetland Interdunal Wetland SC 6.2 Is the wetland 1 ac or larger in size,or a mosaic that is 1 ac or larger in size? Wetland is larger than 1 ac in size-Go to SC 6.3 Wetland is a mosaic larger than 1 ac is size-Category II Interdunal Wetland No-Go to SC 6.4 Result: SC 6.3 Does the wetland score 8 or 9 points for the habitat functions? Yes-Category I Interdunal Wetland No-Category II Interdunal Wetland Result: SC 6.4 Is the wetland unit between 0.1 ac and 1 ac,or in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 ac and 1 ac in size? Yes-Category III Interdunal Wetland No-Category IV Interdunal Wetland Result: https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetiandid=1733&WetiandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depr... 11/12 6/25/24, 11:52 AM Wetland Rating Summary Wetland name or number: WETLAND B Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable" on Summary Form Final Category: Not Applicable https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtool/WATOR/WetlandSummary?Wetlandld=1733&WetiandName=WETLAND B&WetlandType=Depr... 12/12 Appendix C. Field Reports & Wetland Determination Data Forms Ochnik (-12 I1N I ANN 1 BSI • • - / Vegetation Habitat Community Survey v1 Project Ochnik ID 441873 Survey Date 04/28/2024 User Ryan Crater Community Name Buffer Habitat Community vegetation Herbaceous, Saplings, Shrubs, Trees observed Identify observed vegetation Sambucus racemosa/ Red elderberry (all strata) Polystichum munitum/Western sword fern Vaccinium ovatum/ Evergreen huckleberry, California huckleberry Pseudotsuga menziesii/ Douglas fir Oemleria cerasiformis/Oso berry Pinus contorta/ Lodgepole pine Gaultheria shallon/Salal Pteridium aquilinum/Western brackenfern Dicentra Formosa/ Pacific bleedinghearts, Pacific bleeding heart Habitat Photos(4 minimum) MEW t_7 WX AL \� s A made with wildnot.e Page 1 of 2 v $�+° a x 4 ' L z Community Location Latitude 47.33292782 Longitude -123.07844795 Datum ITRF2000 A' made with Wildnote Page 2 of 2 Ochnik • (.k.%I I k I.1NI1 I BSI Vegetation Habitat Community Survey v1 Project Och_ nik __ I D 441872 Survey Date 04/28/2024 User Ryan Crater Community Name Wetland Area Community vegetation Herbaceous, Saplings, Shrubs, Trees observed Identify observed vegetation Ranunculus repens/Crowfoot, Creeping buttercup (all strata) Athyrium fifix-femina/Common ladyfern Salix/Willow Abies bracteata/Santa lucia fir, Bristlecone fir Carex deweyana/ Dewey sedge Carex obnupta/Slough sedge, Slough sedge Spiraea douglash/ Douglas spiraea Lysichiton americanus/Yellow skunk cabbage, Yellow skunk-cabbage Habitat Photos(4 minimum) At !s- A- S 0+✓JA.' Xri - .i� i 4_.y X ` . dF �• i ` P ` ." ,gypf i�1 Y4�...� 'gip sty, "°_ �*+���s,.h ' k iw— Rat a F dl''i},; S .� g s �s*-a ice: - `i a •S'.x� Aam�t' 4 a 3 ���� •...�o r • 's °,Qi,�,,,�t ��caf, '�`� mart' �'��,� I{J���'.,i *�'�+�� ".t PL. 'G_".'-`� r+c 1 •� .x j .. '� �j' ',•N§qi i s�,t# fir a►�k'14` s id 8 Al •r >°f'E �+ h t .oa. Page 1 of 2 «• - i •, j�, t ,� :ar" �,`r �. '� 1, r Y c i. ♦ 4 3. Community Location Latitude 47.33292782 Longitude -123.07844795 Datum • made with • WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast Project/Site: Ochnik City/County: Mason County Sampling Date: 04/28/2024 Applicant/Owner: Ochnik State: WA Sampling Point: SP1.1 Investigator(s): Ryan E.Crater Section,Township,Range: 31,25,01W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc): Depressional Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR): A Lat: 47.33253065 Long: -123.07850158 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: 10-Dystric Xerothents,45 to 70%slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 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 samplingpoint locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Remarks: Survey area recently Gear cut,stream bed disturbed.Logging debris in steam/wetland area. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute Dominant Indicator Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) %Cover Species? Status That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 1. Salix/Willow 10 Yes FAC 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 10 =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 ) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100.0 (A/B) 1. Spiraea douglasii/Douglas spiraea 20 Yes FACW 2. Rosa pisocarpa/Cluster rose 1 No FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 5 FACW species 20 x 2= 40 21 =Total Cover FAC species 11 x 3= 33 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) FACU species 0 x 4= 0 1 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 2. Column Totals: 31 (A) 73 (B) 3. 4. Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.35 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. X 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8. X 3-Prevalence Index 53.0' 9. 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1" be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 2. 0 =Total Cover Hydrophytic %Bare Ground in Herb Statum 100 Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,&Coast-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP1.1 Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks 0-3 7.5YR 3/1 100 Loamy Sand 3-17 5YR 4/2 70 5YR 4/6 30 C M Loamy 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(T172) Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(172) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) X Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) X 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: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) _ Surface Water(Al) X Water-Stained Leaves(139) (except X Water-Stained Leaves(139) (MLRA 1,2, _ High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 413) 4A,and 4B) Saturation(A3) _ Salt Crust(611) X Drainage Patterns(1310) X Water Marks(131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) X Sediment Deposits(132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) X Drift Deposits(133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(66) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 11 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,&Coast-Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains,Valleys, & Coast Project/Site: Ochnik City/County: Mason County Sampling Date: 04/28/2024 Applicant/Owner: Ochnik State: WA Sampling Point: SP2.2 Investigator(s): Ryan E.Crater Section,Township,Range: 31,25,01 W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc): Depressional Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): 0 Subregion(LRR): A Lat: 47.33253065 Long: -123.07850158 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: 10-Dystric Xerorthents,45 to 70%slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation X Soil X or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes No X Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing samplingpoint locations,transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: Buffer area has been recently logged. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute Dominant Indicator Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) %Cover Species? Status That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii/Douglas fir 20 Yes FACU 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 20 =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 ) That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0.0 (A/B) 1. Vaccinium ovatum/Evergreen huckleberry,California huckle 90 Yes FACU 2. Gaultheria shallop/Salal 10 No FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 3 Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 4 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5. 100 =Total Cover FAC species 0 x 3= 0 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) FACU species 120 x 4= 480 1 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 2. Column Totals: 120 (A) 480 (B) 3. 4. Prevalence Index=B/A= 4.0 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6• _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7• _ 2-Dominance Test is>50% 8• _ 3-Prevalence Index s3.0' 9• _ 4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 10. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 0 =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) 'Indicators of hydre soil and wetland hydrology must 1 be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 2. 0 =Total Cover Hydrophytic %Bare Ground in Herb Statum 100 Vegetation Present? Yes No X Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,&Coast-version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP2.2 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 0-15 7.5YR 3/2 100 Loamy Sand 15-20 7.5YR 4/3 100 Sandy Loam '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(At) _ 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(172) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators 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: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) _ Surface Water(At) _ Water-Stained Leaves(69) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves(69) (MLRA 1,2, _ High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 413) Saturation(A3) _ Salt Crust(611) _ Drainage Patterns(B10) Water Marks(61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(613) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Sediment Deposits(62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(64) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Surface Soil Cracks(136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,&Coast-Version 2.0 Appendix D. Publicly Available Maps & Data NUM MEMBE ri Milos r OF FM Hai��►���1►.�'�s�� a►,, '�f`� ,�r�'�� `~� dak SKI ` �. ',+ ►' Map Symbols Additional Information Legal Description Harvest Boundary Landing • ` rr f SOS T21.ONR03.OW,SO4 T21.ON Road Construction V Waste Area '1 1 ,1' T21.ON R03.OW,S09 01-oP Stream T21.ON R03.OW,S1 1 T21.ON R03.OW Clumped Rock Pit Existing Structure Extreme care was used during the compilation of this map to ensure II nATURAL RESOURCES -its accuracy. However,due, changes in data and the need to Department / 11 111 1/1 • •- - there are no warranties that accompany this material. •. 1 •F+•1.niMii•n t+?. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Ochnik_NWI ^g)"44 J. .i y� r * rq� , „ '4 !. . tax .,,.f11�'a�" •* e. k"„ _ # r f ��yp+ a �,•,. ,/* a � { �{►�.;_S,--�'.. r .ff., :�i _ "• r! ��.�N..ri*'S, � ., "�l. ♦ �jV �'� R� •�f.o "" +..,s `'' .!• �""� J,°� �i�.f ♦3� _ ` yj4', �kA owa .4w m ti M ,.. ♦r r r R" 3e .*1 ► s r: ►yya, yw e x#off" a ..�c ! ��"}�A' "1lppr Cffi,, jP Yr►'f �•`". �a 7- .. `! � �_ IL � �.6� C, .�..�,• j, �4 l t!� •} y R s • !r a y J � '• f r�� �r�' o,� r "� r��"p�^ �`i.-w � +�. ""#�,� .J Id""., ♦ fir♦ 'j}♦. 4. iN 1�!. �;t tj d a r..' r �� L'.�R',..jfi.+"p4 !.' .,4 <�.�' "t .�� v�% M, I . - •. *rr ti Wy 4 ti y, �X ,,µ r ,,,_� r .,".• j`; -i°i`fir ^ � ���.i•"� :�^: a , � �4 *�� �A ♦ jr 7 I r/' rQti a x / r j , �r Yr r { 1,19,376 " 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 ml r t' 7 and W,kitf�Se,r t ,National Standard's and S "m i� M tiil 0 0.25 6.5 1 km rwa(trts t�amtfwa, y June 26, 2024 This map is for general reference only.The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the Wetlandsbase data shown on this map.All wetlands related data should Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Estuarine and Marine Deepwater F-1 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other ❑ Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) This page was produced by the NW mapper WNHP Rare Plant and Ecosystem Locations 31 32 468 ft ' p--�' 106 34 e 106 L�e � w a iyu 556 ft i 5 4 572 ft 3 6 m E Manzanita Dr m w f Alderbrook Golf Club _ Carson Lake F w i 0 n, 3 m I Keene _Z_ Qa Lake 7 8 9 10 f A i2 i 6/25/2024, 5:09:06 PM 1:34,820 Known Rare Plants and Rare & High-quality Ecosystems Q o 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi Public Land Survey Townships Rare and/or High Quality Ecosystem 0 0.33 0.65 1.3 km State Boundary Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Public Land Survey Sections County Boundaries WNHP Plant&Ecosystem Map Viewer KNOWN PLANTAND ECOSYSTEM LOCATIONS REFLECT KNOWN OCCURRENCE LOCATIONS BUT MAY NOT REFLECTALL OCCURRENCES OF RARE PLANTS OR ECOSYSTEMS. June 25, 2024 Ochnik WQ Improvement Projects TMDL - Approved 413 - Approved STI - Approved ARP - Approved Yacht Club TMDL - In Development STI - In Development ARP - In Development F Manmrota Of J F h0at-imnita Dit ti 48 22 Esri Community Maps Contributors, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, Toni Miles Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METIINASA, USGS, Bureau of 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Land Management,EPA,NIPS,US Census Bureau,USDA,USFWS 3 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Mason County,Washington 3 (Ochnik Soils Map) m v a 493930 493970 494010 494050 494090 494130 494170 494210 47°20'TN 47°20'3"N Amw fig{ t 6 9 Lek � �i r I 0 tt p�� Aa s it M P i y not be vali at thi c le. ^z"" �J �Y 47'19 50"N I 47 19 ST N 493MO 493M 494010 494050 494090 494130 494170 494210 3. 3 M -v Map Scale:1:1,860 if printed on A portrait(8.5'x 11")sheet. 'v N 0 25 50 100 150 N reet 0 50 100 zoo 300 Map projection:Web Mercator Corner coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:U7M Zone 1ON WGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/9/2024 i�m Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Mason County,Washington (Ochnik Soils Map) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Transportation The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at � Area of Interest(A01) +-r-► Rails 1:31,700. Soils n„r Interstate Highways Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Rating Polygons �r US Routes Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Hydric(100%) Major Roads misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil -- 0 Hydric(66 to 99%) line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of Local Roads contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed 0 Hydric(33 to 65%) scale. Background 0 Hydric(1 to 32%) . Aerial Photography Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map 0 Not Hydric(0%) measurements. 0 Not rated or not available Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Rating Lines Web Soil Survey URL: ~ Hydric(100%) Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator .,. Hydric(ss to ss%) projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts . 0 Hydric(33 to 65%) distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more . r Hydric(1 to 32%) accurate calculations of distance or area are required. ~ Not Hydric(0%) This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as . 0 Not rated or not available of the version date(s)listed below. Soil Rating Points Soil Survey Area: Mason County,Washington 0 Hydric(100%) Survey Area Data: Version 19,Aug 29,2023 Hydric(66 to 98%) Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. 0 Hydric(33 to 65%) Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 8,2022—Aug Hydric(1 to 32%) 29,2022 ® Not Hydric(0%) The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background E3 Not rated or not available imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor Water Features shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Streams and Canals U,SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/9/2024 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Mason County,Washington Ochnik Soils Map Hydric Rating by Map Unit �—M—Ipl-it symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ab Alderwood gravelly 5 13.8 85.6% sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes Ac Alderwood gravelly 5 2.3 14.4% sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 16.2 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/9/2024 '� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Mason County,Washington Ochnik Soils Map Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part(Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/9/2024 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit---Mason County,Washington Ochnik Soils Map Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower LjSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/9/2024 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5 6/25/24,5:18 PM PHS Report rivr.. Priority Habitats and Species on the Web 9RDLIFF ► W.'M } a: '1 g% --------------- n I Mw Report Date: 06/25/2024 PHS Species/Habitats Overview: Occurence Name Federal Status State Status Sensitive Location Big brown bat Yes PHS Species/Habitats Details: aboAblank 1/2 6/25/24,5:18 PM PHS Report Big brown .. Scientific Name Eptesicus fuscus This polygon mask represents one or more records of the above Notes species or habitat occurrence. Contact PHS Data Release at phsproducts@dfw.wa.gov for obtaining information about masked sensitive species and habitats. PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive Y Display Resolution TOWNSHIP ManagementRecommendations http://wdfw.wa.g2v//publications/pub.php?id=00605 DISCLAIMER.This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)maintains in a central computer database.It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife.This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife 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 are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources.Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to variation caused by disturbance,changes in season and weather,and other factors.WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old. about:blank 212 l T United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ° Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey,WA 98503-1263 Phone: (360)753-9440 Fax: (360)753-9405 In Reply Refer To: 06/26/2024 00:26:14 UTC Project Code: 2024-0108814 Project Name: Ochnik Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information.An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act(42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological Project code:2024-0108814 06/26/2024 00:26:14 UTC evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultation- handbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts.Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/what- we-do. The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation- migratory-birds. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. 2 of 7 Project code: 2024-0108814 06/26/2024 00:26:14 UTC Attachment(s): ■ Official Species List OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 (360) 753-9440 3of7 Project code: 2024-0108814 06/26/2024 00:26:14 UTC PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code: 2024-0108814 Project Name: Ochnik Project Type: Residential Construction Project Description: Residential Development Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https: www.google.com/maps/(cD47.33264045,-123.07825878364504,14z Counties: Mason County,Washington 4of7 Project code: 2024-0108814 06/26/2024 00:26:14 UTC ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 5 of 7 Project code: 2024-0108814 06/26/2024 00:26:14 UTC BIRDS NAME STATUS Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened Population:U.S.A.(CA,OR,WA) There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.p-ov/ecp/species/4467 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Population:Western U.S.DPS There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile:htt2s:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 REPTILES NAME STATUS Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata Proposed No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Threatened Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111 FISHES NAME STATUS Bull Trout Salvelinus con fluentus Threatened Population: U.S.A.,coterminous,lower 48 states There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile:htti2s:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212 INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile:httl2s:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S)MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. 6 of 7 Project code: 2024-0108814 06/26/2024 00:26:14 UTC IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Private Entity Name: Ryan Crater Address: 477 Parpala Rd. City: Naselle State: WA Zip: 98638 Email ryan@craterluc.com Phone: 5099429309 7 of 7 Appendix E. Best Management Practices Best Management Practices Minimization measures and BMPs will be utilized during project activities to avoid impacts to critical areas and habitats. Conservation measures will focus on minimizing noise and the possibility of spills, preventing soil erosion, and minimizing impacts to riparian vegetation. Special measures will be taken to ensure that all waste materials will be disposed of off-site and in accordance with applicable regulations, adequate materials and procedures are readily available on the site to respond to unanticipated weather conditions or accidental releases of materials,and that a protocol for contacting WDFW is readily available in the event that activities are observed to result in water quality problems. The following mitigation measures will be undertaken in conjunction with the proposed project. • Marking of critical areas buffers prior to clearing or structure/debris removal activities. •All existing native vegetation shall be preserved. • Equipment will be cleaned and checked for leaks off-site daily before commencing work. • Establishment of proper construction access. • Control of surface flow within the work areas and containment of sediment within the work areas. •The contractor will prepare a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures(SPCC) Plan for this project. Any potential spills will be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not contaminate the surrounding area. Adequate materials and procedures to respond to unanticipated weather conditions or accidental releases of materials (sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, etc.) will be available on site. The SPCC Plan will also ensure the proper management of oil, gasoline and solvents used in the operation and maintenance of construction equipment and that equipment remains free of external petroleum-based products prior to entering the work area and during the work, and for making any necessary repairs prior to returning the equipment to operation in the work area. •An emergency spill containment kit must be located on site along with a pollution prevention plan detailing planned to fuel, materials storage and equipment storage. Waste storage areas must be prepared to address prevention and cleanup of accidental spills. • The contractor will supply the site with a portable bathroom if the site's existing (SFR) bathroom cannot be accessed to ensure that solid or liquid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution. •All construction-related debris will be cleaned up on a daily basis. Proper conservation measures will be taken to ensure that debris will not contaminate the stream waters. •Waste materials, including any concrete, riprap, miscellaneous garbage and/or other debris removed from the project site, will be transported off site for disposal in accordance with applicable regulations. • Excavation will be limited to those areas necessary for restoration activities. • Routine inspections of the erosion control measures will be conducted daily during construction to ensure the effectiveness of the measures and to determine the need for maintenance or additional control measures. • Silt fences will be constructed around excavation areas. • Disturbance will be limited to the smallest area feasible for each phase of the project and element under construction and will stay within the limits of construction as identified on the site plans. • Construction procedures will be designed to minimize the opportunity for erosion to occur or sediment- laden water to enter downstream areas. • Work will be in compliance with all other local, state and federal regulations and restrictions. Appendix F. Qualifications Ryan E. Crater Principal Consultant and Ecologist Professional Experience: 16 years Ryan E. Crater is a professional land use planner and ecologist with a diverse background including but not limited to land use regulations, critical area regulations, performing fish surveys, habitat assessments, habitat monitoring, stream habitat assessments, plant surveys and wetland delineations. Ryan also has over a decade of experience as a planner reviewing critical areas reports and verifying their results in the field. Ryan earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology from Evergreen State College in 2005 and an associate degree in Environmental Science from Clover Park Technical College in 2003. While attending Clover Park, he received formal wetland delineation training both in the classroom and in the field. In October 2019, he completed the 2-day Coastal Training Program Course entitled "Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System (2014) in Western Washington". Ryan received additional wetland delineation training while he was a Wetland Biologist Intern for the Washington State Department of Transportation. He has also taken graduate level courses in salmonid behavior and life history from Evergreen State College. Ryan has worked as an environmental consultant full time since 2019. All field inspections, wetland delineation determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland Delineation Report were prepared by, or under the direction of Ryan E. Crater. PROPOSED PROJECT d D 0 20 40 80 ft f `Q lug •G,G�, `�\ co Propos G e>_Type Ns Stream Z 1d v22 sq:ft:Q� ' a DU: y~ Soil Test Point \ Wetlands 2q aintained IpfNrMrlt 10'Contours(Mason Co.)Proposed -- 36'x 30' velope(Mite) - Street Centerlines 3bdrm SFR - 16 (1,360 sq.ft.with Roof) MASON Parcels - == Zo e 2 ` Subject Parcel(Mason Co.) r v � -_-� _ Proposed 600 sq.ft. Primary Drainfield `\ - - m Proposed 900 sq.ft.Reserve 'SP2 .:: '_..:,i; •• Zone 1 • _ ® 3,946 sq.ft.Proposed Stream Buffer Reduction 00 6,640 sq.ft.Proposed _= Zone 2 Wetland Buffer Reduction _ _ 1 Proposed Mitigation Zone 1 - BufferRestoration(2,845 sq.ft.) ' Proposed Mitigation Zone 2 BufferEnhancement(605 sq.ft.) FIELDWORK ONDUCTED JACK PfNE Proposed Mitigation Zone 3 28AP IL 2024 Native Meadowscape(3,190 sq.ft.) This map is not survey quality.Locations and measurements are approximate.Boundary information depicted herein has been obtained from the County GIS Parcel Layer.GPS data was collected during fieldwork DATE 22 JUNE 2024 STIR SEC 4,TWP 21 N,RNG 03W CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING using a Juniper Goode with GNS3 sub4neter accuracy in appropriate conditions.Additional features shown are CLIENT OCHNIK,DANIEL LATILONG 47.332625°, 123.078278° from information supplied by the Client or obtained from State and Local GIS data.We assume no lability for 477 PARPALA ROAD,NASELLE,WA 98638 discrepancies between this site plan and ground conditions. COUNTY MASON,WA SIZE 0.23 ACRES 509-942-9309 RYAN@CRATERLUC.COM COORDINATE SYSTEM:NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet PARCEL# 321045400120 ZONING RR 5 PROJECTION:Lambert Conformal Conic