HomeMy WebLinkAboutWETLAND DELINEATION & BUFFER MITIGATION REPORT - OT General - 6/23/2026 sm
Wetland Delineation
Buffer Mitigation Report
JUNE 23, 2026
fl
PROJECT SITE IJjj JON 25 2028 JJ
MASON COUNTY Y
PARCEL: 221337.690112
�()
PREPARED FOR
Ron Lansing
PREPARED BY
Crater Land Use Consulting, LLC
477 Parpala Rd.
Naselle, WA 98638
509-942-9309
ryan@craterluc.com
CRATER LAND USE
eoil,UtIlun
3
Table of Contents
SECTION 1.0 INTRUDUCTION&SUMMARY.......................:...............................................1
1.1 Overview ........................................................................................... ............. .1
1.2 Proposed Development ................ ............ ...................... ........ .....2
1.3 Existing Uses...........:................ ................. .........,.....................................3
1..4 Impact Summary and Compensation Concept....................................................3
.. ..........3
1.5 Mitigation Sequencing Review..... .. .. ....... . . i........... 3
SECTION.2.0 OBSERVED WETLAND AREAS.....................................................................5.
—• 2.1 Data Review ............. ..............................•........................................................5
22 Field Data Collection ..........................................................................................5.
— 2.3 Regional Precipitation ........................................................................................5
._..... 2.4 Wetland Hydrology Data. .............. ........................................................... ..6
2.5 Wetland Soil Data......... .................................................. ...........................7
26 Wetland Vegetation and Habitat Characterization..............................................7
.......... 2.7 Acreage and Delineation.....................................................................................9
2.8 Cowardin Classifications........... ........................................... .......................9
— 2.9 Hydrogeornorphie Classification .................................. ........................... .9
— 2.10 Wetland Rating and Functional Assessment ......................................................
— 2:11 Water Quality Functions............................................................ ......... ..........10
2.12 Hydrologic Functions........................................................................................10
— 2.13 Habitat,Functions..............................................................................................10
SECTION 3.0 HYDROERIOD IMPACT ASSESSMENT.......................................................12
---- .3.1 Potential Changes..........::.......................:..................:.............. ........................12
— 3.2 Design Modifications..........................................................................................12
SECTION 4.0 WETLAND BUFFER ZONE ASSESSMENT.................................................13
— 4.1 Upland Vegetation Assessment..........................................................................113
— 4.2 Upland Soils.......................................................................................................14
4.3 Existing Habitat Functions....................................... ......................................14
SECTION 5.0 BUFFER.MITIGATION PROPOSAL...............................................................16
5.1 Goals and Objectives............................................1..............................
5.2 Native Planting Schedule....................................................................................16
5:3 Project..Sequencing..............::..............................................,.............................17
— 5.4 Performance Standards.................................... ......... .................................17
— 5.5 Monitoring and Reporting...............................................................................:...18
SECTION 6.0 FIVE-YEAR MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN..............................19
— .6.1 Monitoring Schedule..........................................................................................19
6.2 Performance Standards .............:................................... ........10
6.3 Maintenance Requirements...............................................................................19
i
— 64 Adaptive Management(Contingency)...............................................................20
— 6.5 Reporting. ........................................ ......................................... ..... .20
SECTION 7.0 CONCLUSIONS .............. .................................... .......... ..........21
7.1 Summary of Findings..... ....................: :....:. : ................................ ...,21
7.2 Project Impact and Regulatory Compliance.....................................................:21
73: Mitigation and No Net Loss"Determination......................................................21
7.4 Professional Opinion..........................................................................................22
75 Limiitations.........................................................................................................:22
SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES,SOURCES,&CITATIONS..................................................23
Tables
Table 1.. Associated Critical Areas..........................................................................................1
Table2.. Site Summary. ....................._....................................... .....,..... .. ............... ;1
Table 3. Wetland A Rating Summary.....................::.......................................................:....10
Table 4. Proposed Buffer Mitigation Planting Schedule.......................................................16
Figures
Figure 1. Site Vicinity .... .......... .......... .............. ...2
Figure 2 Accumulated Precipitation .....................................................................:................6
Figure 3. Accumulated Precipitation.........::............................................................................4
APPENDICES
.Appendix A. Findings Maps
Appendix,B. Wetland Rating Form&Supporting Documents
AppendixC. Wetland Determination Data Forms&Field Reports
Appendix D. Reference Maps&Data
ii
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY
1.1 Overview
Crater Land Use Consulting LLC. (CLUC) has,been contracted by Ron Lansing (Landowner)to,prepae a
Wetland Delineation Report with Buffer Mitigation Plan for Mason County Parcel 2213`376910112, a
residential zoned property. A summary of the associated on and offsite critical areas and site informatior.
can be found in Table 1 &:2.
The Landowner intends to develop the property for residential uses, The general purpose of this report'is
to comply with Mason County regulations regarding development activities located within,a regulated,
wetland buffer area.Thescope of this project was to conduct a rapid critical area assessment of the.property
to identify,regulated waterbodies,habitats and/or priority species on or near the subject property thatcould
be impacted by the proposed development. For identified buffer impacts associated with the proposed`
residential development on-site mitigation measures are being provided.
Table 1. Associated Critical Areas
......._ _
.FEATURE DESCRIPTION PRESCRIPTIVE BUFFER
WETLAND A Cat III 110'Wetland Buffer"
*10-foot building setback from terminating edge of the buffer.
Table.2. Site Summary
TAX PARCEL 221337690112
SIZE 1.00 acres per'Mason County
COORDINATES]STR 47.26099°,=12295207°/SEC 32,TWP 21 N,RNG 02W
_ - ._� ................._...��__ --._..-._..-._-. ...._...._.-
JURISDICTION Unincorporated(Mason County,WA)
ZONING I CURRENT USE RR5 Rural Residential/Undeveloped
_._._..........._..___. — __
WRIA!HUC 14 Kennedy-Goldsborough/171100190606—Cranberry Creek-Frontal
Oakland Bay
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Yes-Oakland Bay,Hammersly Inlet Tribs.Bacteria TMDL(Approved)
Lansing-PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING.,JUNE 2026' 1 �.
Pa g.e
Figure:1. Site Vicinity
_________ 1
' s
p{p
I f
L
LLJ
1.2 Proposed Development
The proposed residential development includes:the following improvements:
0 Primary. Residence:A-proposed 3-bedroom single-family home with a footprint of 8D x 40'
(3;200 sq.ft.).
• Utilities Instal1ation of a private on-site septic system comprising two proposed septic tanks and
an associated septic:.drainfleld with a designated reserve area(each,measuring IV x 40'1600•
sq.,ft.). Domestic freshwater will b:e`supplied via-a newly proposed Individual water.well located
outside the environmental constraint boundaries: i.
Buffer Impacts and Relief Request
These proposed activities will result in direct"impacts:to:regulated buffer areas,which triggers the need for'
compensatory mitigation as described in this report. Accordingly, the applicant will request relief from
applicable standards to allow reasonable use.of property.
Lansing :PARCEL 221337690112—CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE'2026 2:l
P'ag.e.
1.3 Existing Uses
The site is currently forested with dense underbrush. It has historically been used for camping and
residential purposes. Existing buffer disturbance is estimated at 4,017 sq.ft.
1.4 Impact Summary and Compensation Concept
The proposed residential project will result in unavoidable impacts to regulated buffer areas of the.identified
critical areas described within this report. The proposed impact.will directly impact the following critical
:areas and their associated buffers:
4,830 sq..ft.-Regulated Cat. III Wetland Buffer Area impact residential development.
This compensation plan aims to achieve a no net loss of wetland functions and values while improving the
overall ecological integrity of the watershed.
1.5 Mitigation Sequencing Review
In accordance with MCC 8.52.110(6)(A), the following mitigation sequencing has been applied to the
proposed residential development to ensure the protection of WetlandA and Its associated buffer.
i. Avoid'the impact all together by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
ii. Minimize the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation,by
using appropriate technology,or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
iii. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabiiitatingor restoring the sensitive areas;
iv. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by prevention and maintenance.operations;.
v. Compensate for the impact by replacing,enhancing or providing substitute areas and environments
and replace the ecological processes and functions of the resource;
vi. Monitor:the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
I. Avoidance:Complete avoidance of the regulated wetland buffer is not possible for this project. The
subject parcel is approximately 1.00.acre and is significantly encumbered by the prescriptive 11"0-foot buffer
of Wetland A.Due to the lot's,configuration and the mandatory setbacks required for the individual Well,and
the on-site:septic system, there is no viable building site located entirely outside of the buffer. To deny
development within the buffer would effectively deny the landownerall economically viable and reasonable
use of the property.
ii. Minimization The project minimizes impacts by utilizing a modest structural footprint and siting the
development as far from the_wetland core-as geotechnically and legally feasible.
Lansing-PARCEL:22.1337690112-CRATER LAND USE C0NSULTING,.JUNE 2026 31
Pa g.e
• Site Layout:The residence and septic drainfield have been positioned toward the upland margin
of the property to maximize the remaining functional buffer width between the development'and
Wetland A.
• Infrastructure:The proposed driveway and parking areas utilize existing cleared or disturbed
areas to the greatest extent possible,reducing'the need for new clearing within the forested buffer.
• Technological Measures:The use of gravel for the driveway(as opposed to impervious asphalt)
is proposed to encourage on-site infiltration.and reduce surface runoff.
ili.Rectification Any temporary soil disturbance occurring during the construction of the septic•system or
well thet'is located outside the permanent structural footprint will be immediately rectified:These areas will
be stabilized with native seed mikes and/or wood chip.mulch to prevent erosion and will bealtowed to revert
to a natural vegetated state. Temporary Erosion and Sediment:Control (TESL) measures, including.silt.
fencing,,will be maintained throughout the construction phase.
iv. Reduce or Eliminate over Time The project will reduce long-term impacts through a conceptual
stormwater management plan emphasizes the dispersion of roof and surface runoff into the adjacent
vegetated buffer.This ensures that the hydrologic patterns of the depressional wetland are maintained and
that water is naturally filtered by native vegetation over the life of the project.A 10 foot building setback
from the terminating edge of the buffer will also be maintained to prevent secondary"buffer creep"from
residential activities.
v. Compensate To achieve a "No Net. Loss" of'ecological functions, the applicant proposes-.a i -i
compensatory mitigation ratio.A total of 4,830 square feet of degraded or under-vegetated buffer area
will'be enhanced.This enhancement includes the manual removal of invasive species and the installation
of 260 native plants(20 trees,40 shrubs,and.200 herbaceous plants)as detailed in the Planting Schedule.
This plan converts unproductive buffer space.into:a high-density, multi-stratum native forest community,
providing an"ecological lift"for water quality and wildlife habitat.
vl.Monitor The success of the compensatory mitigation will be ensured through a 5-year'monitoring and
maintenance program. This includes an "As-Built" report.and annual site inspections by a qualified
professional to confirm survival rates and. invasive species control. Corrective actions (Adaptive
Management)'willbe taken if the performance standards established in this report are not met,
Lansing-PARCEL 22,1337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 9.i
Page
SECTION 2.0 WETLAND AREAS & DELINEATION
2.1 Data Review
Prior to completing,fieldwork,CLUC reviewed existing available information on potential wetlands t streams,
and.other waterbod es,as well as priority habitats and ecological conditions documented within the subject
parcel andvicinity.Our findings are summarized within this and other sections where applicable.In addition
to referenced sources listed below, the search for pertinent and applicable data also includes a review of
the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Geologic Portal, the Washington State.
Departrrient of Ecology(WS.DOE)Water QualityAtlas,Mason County geographic information system(GIS)
data,and numerous orthophoto graphic resources and similar GIS mapping resources available from Esri
ArcGIS.All supporting documentation of our findings.and review,can be found in the Appendix section of
this report..
2.2. Field Data Collection
The site investigation consisted of a pedestrian survey of the subjectparcel and binocular review of adjacent
lands within 300 feet of the proposed development area.Wetland A was identified within approximately 300
feet..of the project footprint. Based on'on-site observations, one sampling point(SP1)was established.on
the upland margin to.document transition conditions and to map the wetland boundary. No soil,pit was
excavated within Wetland A because surface water and saturated substrate were clearly present'at multiple
locations and the:area was dominated by wetland vegetation...Given the presence of unequivocal wetland
hydrology(standing water and saturated soils)and hydrophytic vegetation,detailed soil profile excavations
within the inundated area were not practicable or necessary to confirm the wetland determination for
mapping the wetland boundary.
2.3 Regional Precipitation
Precipitation data for the day that fieldwork was completed April 26,2026,as-well as the month'preceding
that.date has been reviewed 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 8.3 ENE,through the US.Department of Agriculture(USDA)AgCIS.database.
Precipitation in Mason County, Washington, shifted sharply between March and April 2026, swinging from
an exceptionally wet late-winter peak to a notably dry start to spring. Historical climate tracking at the
.Shelton Sanderson Field Station highlights this stark seasonal transition:
Lansing-PARCEL 221337690112. GRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 bi
Page
• March 2026--Exceptionally wet: The region experienced heavy rainfall with a monthly total of
10.43 inches,pushing precipitation to 140%of the.historical average.This:surplus ranked March
2026'as the 7th wettest March in the station's 28-year historical record.
• April 2026--Drier than normal: Weather patterns shifted abruptly to bring a dry spell, yielding
just 2.95 inches of total precipitation.This drop left the month at only 69%of normal April levels,
placing it well into the driest'third of historical spring records for the county.
Figure 2. Accumulated Precipitation Data
Accumulated Precipitation - SHELTON 8.3 ENE, WA(CoCoRaI-IS)
Click and drag to zoom to a shorter time in€eival;ctreen/black diamonds represent subsequent;rnissing
values
t J
f !
CyF t
liar 26 Apr 2 Apr 9 Apr 16 Apr 23
2026 accumulation —Higher(2023) --Lowest(2021)
2.4 Wetland Hydrology Data
Wetland Hydroperiods: The following wetland hydroperiods were observed on site wtihin the identified
wetland area and/or assumed to be based on obervations in the field.
Wetland Hydroperiods:
• Wetland A: Seasonally flooded or inundated.
Lansing-PARCEL'22133769.0112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,.JUNE 2026 6 1
Page
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: The following wetland hydrology indicators were observed within the
identified wetland area.
• Wetland C:
o Primary Indicators: Surface Water(Al), High Water Table(A2), Saturation (A3), Water
Marks(B1), Sediment Deposits(B2), Drift Deposits(B3),Algal Mat or Crust`(B4)Sparsely
Vegetated Concave Surface(B8), and Water-Stained Leaves (89).
o Secondary Indicators:Water-Stained Leaves(B9), and Drainage Patterns).
• Finding:The Wetland Hydrology parameter is met.
2.5 Wetland'Soil Data
The USDA soil survey of Mason County,Washington indicates:the presence of two(2)mapped soil types
within the wetland review area onsite.The two soil types observed in the area are as follows:
• Ab—Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15%slopes
• Mg—Mukilteo peat,0 to 2%slopes
Soil conditions within Wetland A were not directly sampled via.a soil pit due to significant surface ponding
and inundation at the time of the field investigation (April 26, 2026). However,the presence of a ponded,
depressional landform and a dominant OBUFACW plant community (specifically Carex ottnupta and
Spiraea douglasii) provides strong evidence of long-term anaerobic conditions. Soils in these'areas are
typically characterized by organic accumulation or mucky mineral textures. In accordance with the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:Western Mountains.,Valleys,and Coast
Region;the hydric soil parameter is considered met based.on the presence,of hydrophytic-vegetation and
wetland hydrology in a depressional setting.
• Finding:The Hydric Soil parameter is met.
2.6 Wetland Vegetation Data
Vegetation within Wetland Awas chatacterized.by a multi-strata community of herbaceous,shrub,and tree
species,all of which exhibit a strong hydrophytic signature. Due to significant ponding at the time of the
survey(April 26,2026),observations were made across the wetland unit rather than at a single terrestrial
sample point.
The tree stratum is composed of Western red cedar(Thuja plicata, FAG) and Red alder (Alnus rubra,
FAC). The shrub and sapling layer is well-developed, featuring Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasit,
FACW),. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAG), and Willow (Salix sp., typically FACW(OBL). The
Lansing—PARCEL 221337690112—CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 7 I
Page
herbaceous layer is dominated by Slough sedge(Carex obnupta, OBL),a common indicatorof prolonged
saturation,alongside Deer fern (Blechnum spicant, FAC).
Because all observed dominant species are classified as Facultative(FAC), Facultative Wetland (FACW)',
or Obligate (OBL), the community is clearly dominated by hydrophytes. This composition meets the
requirements of the Dominance Test and the Prevalence Index for hydrophytic vegetation.
• Finding:The Hydrophytic Vegetation parameter is met.
Indicator Status Reference(Western Mt.Valleys&Coast):
• Carex obnupta(Slough sedge):OBL
• Spiraea.douglasii(Douglas spiraea): FACW
• Salixsp. (Willow):FACW/OBL.(typically)
• Thuja plicata(Western red cedar): FAC
• Alnus rubra(Red alder): FAC
• Rubus spectabilis(Salmonberry): FAC'
•_ Bloc/mum spicant(Deer fern): FAC
Wetland Indicator Categories of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands under Natural Conditions are
as,:folloius:
• 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 I to.33%
of the time.
• Facultative(FAC)-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.
Rare Plant Survey Results:Water Lobelia(Lobelia dortmanna)
A.review of the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) data indicated a historical or mapped
occurrence of Water lobelia(Lobelia dortmanna)within the vicinity of Wetland A, L. dortmanna is a state-
listed sensitive aquatic species typically found in the shallow,clear waters of nutrient-poor lakes and ponded
wetlands,often growing in sandy"or.gravelly substrates,
During the site investigation on April 26, 2026, a targeted search was conducted within the appropriate
habitat zones of Wetland A. No specimens.of L, dortmanna were observed.Atthe'time of the survey,
Lansing-PARCEL'221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 8
Page
3
the wetland was characterized by significant seasonal ponding and a dominant community of Slough sedge
(Carex obnupta) and Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasir}, which may create competition or light levels
unsuitable for this specific species.Furthermore,while the survey occurred during the appropriate growing
season, L.dortmanna is often submersed with only the flowering stalk emerging(typically in July—August)
however,the distinctive basal rosette of narrow,tubular leaves was also not detected within the accessible
littoral zones of the wetland.
Finding: Based on current field observations, the proposed development and buffer mitigation,activities
are not expected to impact any individuals or populations of Lobelia dortmanna.
2.7 Acreage and Delineation
On April.26,2026,Ryan E.Crater,Principal Ecologist with CLUC,observed Wetlands"A on the:site orwithin
300 feetof the proposed.project area. The boundary of Wetland A was reviewed on site, Wetland B Was
partially reviewed from the adjacent property,and the full boundary of Wetland A was estimated usingoffice
analysis and field notes. Estimated area for Wetland A is 10.33 acres.
The wetland delineation was completed in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual:Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region(Version`2.0).Wetland boundaries were delineated
using field data documented on the Wetland Determination Data Form(ENG 6116-9 Excel Automated Data
Sheet):
28 Cowardin Classifications
The following"Cowardin classes were observed within Wetland A used for wetland rating purposes.
Wetlands A and D"were not rated,but a Cowardin classification is also provided.
• Wetland A:Palustrihe, Freshwater Forested,Scrub-shrub,Emergent.Wetland&having an Aquatic
Bed.
2.9 Hydrogeomorphic Classification
Using the. hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification and. rating system, Wetland. A was rated as
"Depressional."
2.10 Wetland Rating & Functional Assessment
'Wetland A was assessed. on April 26, 2026, using the Washington State Wetland Rating"System"for
Western Washington (2014/2023 Update). The unit is classified as a Category III depressional wetland
with a total functional score of 19 points.Category III wetlands typically have a moderate level of functions.
Lansing—PARCEL 221337690112—CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 9 i
Page
I °
Under Mason County Code (MCC),Table 8.52.110(D), this unit is subject to a 110-foot prescriptive buffer
for moderate-intensity land uses.
The wetland rating results indicated that the wetland's primary functions were rated and are reported.in
Table 3 below.
Table 3.Wetland A
FUNCTION Improving,Water Quality Hydrologic, Habitat
Site Potential H M M
Landscape Potential H M M
Value M L M Total
Score Based on Ratings 8 5 6 19
2.11 Water Quality Functions (Score: 8)
The wetland performs eta high level for water quality improvement.The unit exhibits high.site potential due
to the presence,of clay or organic soils and seasonal ponding/inundation across more than 50% of the
wetland area,, which facilitates the sequestration of pollutants. The site contains persistent, ungrrazed
vegetation across more than 50%of its area. Its landscape potential is also high,as the wetland is situated
to receive stormwater discharges.and is located within 250 feet of septic systems and other.pollutant
generating land uses. ltprovides moderate societal value as it is located within a basin or sub-basin where
an aquatic resource is on the 303(d)list.
2.12 Hydrologic Functions (Score: 5)
The hydrologic functions of Wetland A were rated as moderate. The wetland provides seasonal water
storage within its depressional landform, with a moderate potential to reduce flooding and erosion based
on its outlet characteristics and depth of storage.While its landscape potential is moderate, indicating the
presence of land uses in the vicinity that generate excess runoff(stormwater and>1.0%of the area within
150 feet),.its societal value is low.This is because the unit is not located in'a landscape with documented
significant flooding,problems immediately down-gradient, nor has it been identified as a critical'flood-
conveyance site in a regional flood control plan.
2.13 Habitat Functions (Score: 6)
Wetland A provides moderate habitat value for wildlife. The unit exhibits moderate site potential
characterized by a complex plant community structure(4 or more structures)and high species richness
(>19 species). While the immediate accessible habitat within 1km is limited(<10%),.the total,habitat in the
surrounding 1km polygon is high (>50%), leading to a moderate landscape potential. On-site habitat.
Lansing—PARCEL.221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 10
Page
complexity is supported by special features, including standing snags, large downed woody debris, and.
stable steep banks.The wetland provides moderate value to society as it contains specific features(snags
and logs)valued in laws or policies and is located within 1O0m of at least one WDFW priority habitat.
Lansing—PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 11 I
Page
• .SECTION 3.0 HYDROPERIOD IMPACT ASSESSMENT
3.'1 Potential Changes
The proposed project may alter the wetland hydroperiod in the following ways:
• Increased surface water runoff due to impervious surfaces.
• Potential alteration of groundwater recharge patterns,
3.2 Design Modifications
To minimize- impacts on the wetland hydroperiod, the following design modifications have been-
incorporated:-
• Using gravel in driving and parking areas to promote infiltration,as much as possible instead of
other hard surfaces.
• Implementation of fencing as required during construction.
• Manage stormwater runoff from construction activities away from critical areas.
• Installation ofdense native plantings within the regulated wetland buffer.
7i
qa
ggp
- "2 0112—CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 12
Lansing PARCEL 2133769. I
Page
SECTION 4.0 WETLAND BUFFER ZONE ASSESSMENT
4.1 Upland Vegetation Assessment
Buffer Condition and Composition: Wetland A 110-foot buffer is a well-layered native forest composed
of evergreen and deciduous species.The plant community is healthy,diverse, and characteristic of a late-
successional lowland forest in Western Washington.Vegetation documented during April 26, 2026, survey
provides strong-structural complexity that supports wildlife habitat and environmental protection.
• Tree Stratum:The canopy includes.a mix of coniferous and deciduous species,primarily Douglas
fir;(Pseudotsuga menziesii, FACU), Lodgepole pine(Pinus co.ntorta., FAC), Western red
cedar(Thuja plicata, FAC), and Red alder(Alnus rubra, FAC). Multiple age classes indicate a
stable,-self-sustaining forest structure.
• ShrublSapling Stratum:The dense, vigorous understory adds substantial vertical complexity.
Common species include Salal(Gaullheda shallon, FACU), Evergreen huckleberry(Vacciniur»
o'atum, FACU), Red huckleberry(Vaccinium parvifollum; FACU), and Cascara(Frangula
purshiana; FAC).
• Herbaceous -Stratum. Native ferns dominate the groundcover, including Western sword
fern (Polysfichum munifum, FACU),Bracken fern.(Pteridium aquiiinurn, FACU), and Deer
fern (Blechr uin spicant, FAC).
Buffer Functional Value Field observations indicate that the buffer is performing well in the.following
functional areas:
1. Water Quality Protection: Dense herbaceous and shrub layers, together with-forest duff, create
high surface'roughness that slows runoff,encourages infiltration,and filters sediment and pollutants
from nearby uplands before they enter Wetland A.
2. Hydrologic Regulation:The multi-layered canopy intercepts precipitation, and mature tree roots
support evapotranspiration, helping maintain the natural hydroperiod of the depressional wetland.
3. Wildlife Habitat:The buffer supports local wildlife by providing nesting areas,thermal cover, and
foraging opportunities.Berry-producing shrubs such as huckleberry and.salal,along with structural
features such as snags and downed wood visible in photos, provide high:quality habitat for birds
and terrestrial species. The buffer also forms an important transition between the ponded wetland
and the drier upland forest.
Lansing-PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 '13 1
Page
Overall, the buffer is currently high-functioning and well vegetated. The survey did not identify significant
populations of invasive species, such as Himalayan blackberry or Scot's broom. The required 110-foot
buffer is adequate to protect the moderate-to-high wetland functions identified for Wetland.A.
4.2 Upland Soils
The USDA soil survey of Mason County,Washington indicates the presence of two(2)mapped soil types
within the wetland review area onsite.The two soil types observed in the area are as follows:
•- Ab—Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,8 to 15%slopes
• Mg—Mukilteo peat,0 to 2`%slopes
The soil profile at Sample Point SPI was examined to a depth of 18 inches to evaluate the presence of
hydric soil indicators.The sampling point is located on a depressional landform with a 2%slope,within the
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam(Ab)soil.map unit.
Soil Profile Description:
• 0-1 inches:The.surface horizon consists of a sandy loam with a matrix color of 7.5YR 312.(Very
Dark Brown)..No redoximorphic features were observed in this upper layer.
• I — 18 inches:The underlying horizon consists of a sandy loam with a matrix color of 5YR
412(Olive Gray).This layer contained approximately 5%redoxconcentrations with a color of 2.5YR
3/6(Dark Red).These features were identified as matrix concentrations(C, M).
Hydric Soil Determination:While redoximorphic features were present in the lower horizon(1-18 inches),
the soil profile did not meet'the specific depth,chroma,or value requirements to satisfy any standard hydric
soil indicators for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. The matrix'chroma of 2-at a depth
beginning at 1 inch,combined with the lack of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology at this location,
confirms that'the soil is non-hydric.
4.3 Existing Habitat Functions
The buffer zone-associated.wiith Wetland A consists of a structurally complex, native,forest community that
provides high-quality habitat functions.The ecological value of the buffer is supported by the following:
• Structural Diversity and Niche Availability: The buffer exhibits high "vertical' stratification,
featuring a multi-layered canopy of mature conifers, including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii),Lodgepole pine(Pious contorts),and Western red cedar(Thuja plicate),interspersed
with Red alder (Afnus rubra). This.overstory, combined with a dense understory of Evergreen
huckleberry (Vaccinium ovaturn), Red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), and Salal
Lansing-PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 14.1
Page
1
(Gaultheria shallon), provides diverse nesting, perching, and.hiding cover for avian and terrestrial
species.
• Forage and Food Web Support: The dominance of berry-producing shrubs—specifically
Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium oval urn),Red huckleberry(Vaccinium.parvifolium),and Salal
(Gaultheria shallon)—provides a critical seasonal food source for songbirds and mammals.
Deciduous`•species like Cascara (Frangula purshiana) and Red alder (Aims nlbra) further
contribute to the food web by supporting,a diverse insect community, which serves.as a primary
forage base,for insectivorous birds and amphibians.
• Transition Zone(Ecotone)Value:The buffer serves as a vital transition zone between the ponded
environment of Wetland A and the drier upland forest. The presence of Deer fern.(Blechnum
spicant)and Western red cedar(Thuja plicata)at the wetland-buffer interface provides a seamless
habitat corridor.This allows for the safe movement of wildlife,particularly amphibians,between the
inundated breeding areas and the protective cover of the upland forest.
a Groundcover and Structural Complexity: The forest floor is well-vegetated with native ferns,
including Western sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and Western brackenfern (Pleridium
aquilinum), which provide micro-climates for small mammals and amphibians. As noted in the
habitat photos, the presence of standing snags and downed woody debris provides essential
.habitat for cavity-nesters and supports the recruitment of organic material into the soil.
• Native.Integrity:The plant community is composed of a robust suite of native,species, ensuring
the.buffer meets the specific evolutionary requirements(specialized food and cover)of local native
fauna. No significant populations of invasive species were observed within the-surveyed buffer
area.
}
Lansing—PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER LAND-USE.CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 151.
Page
SECTION 5.0 BUFFER MITIGATION PROPOSAL
6.1 Goal and Objectives
The primary goal of this plan is to enhance approximately 4,830 square feet of wetland buffer to offset the
identified cumulative impacts of the proposed development. Objectives include:
• Increasing forest canopy and sub-canopy density.
• Improving the buffer's capacity to filter surface runoff and provide wildlife refuge.
5.2 Native Planting.Schedule
The following species have been selected for their hardiness in the.glacial till soils common to the Mason
County uplands and their ability to thrive on the edges of wetland ecosystems.
Table 4:Proposed Buffer Mitigation Planting Schedule
Common Scientific
Name Name Indicator Quantity. Size. Spacing
Trees 26
Douglas'Fir Pseudofsuge FACU 5 2 gal 15'O.C.
menziesd
Western Red Thuja plicata FAG 10 2 gal 15'O.C.
Cedar
Bigleaf Maple macrochrllum FACU 5 1 gal 15'O.C.
Shrubs 40
Salmonberry sec ab lis FAC 10 3.5"Pot 6'O'.C.
Oceanspray Holodiscus FACU 10 3.5"Pot 6'O.C.
discolor
Red Vaccinium FACU 10 3.5"Pot 6,O.C.
Huckleberry parvifolium
Vine maple Acer circinatum FAC 10 3.5"Pot 6'O.C
Herbaceous 200
Western Polystichum
Sword Fern munitun� FACU 200 Plugs 3'O.C,
Total 260
Plant Placement and Quantity Final plant.placement will be determined,by a qualified biologist during
implementation.The quantities listed in this report are estimates based on site conditions,minimum spacing
requirements,and the extent of existing native vegetation regrowth within the proposed enhancement area.
Plant quantities were further refined using the Sound Native Plants Plant Quantity Calculator. If any listed
species are unavailable, substitutions must provide comparable habitat benefits and receive advance
-approval'from a qualified.specialist and/or Mason County regulatory staff.
Lansing—PARCEL 221337690112—CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 16 I
Page
Plant Material Standards All plant materials used for enhancement must be nursery-grown stock from a
reputable local source. Only native species may be used; hybrids and cultivars are not allowed. Plant
materials must be true to species or variety and exhibit normal,densely developed branching and vigorous,
fibrous root systems. '
5.3 Project Sequencing
Phase 1: Site,Preparation
• Invasive Species Eradication: Prior to planting,all invasive species within the mitigation zone—
specifically Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and Scot's broom (Cyt sus scoparlus)—
shall be removed manually.
• Debris. Removal:Any remaining construction debris or loose fire-damaged material from the
previous owner's phase must be cleared.
• Staking: Plant locations will be marked in the field by a qualified professional to ensure proper
'density and appropriate micro-siting (e.g., placing maples in sunnier spots and cedars in shadier
ones).
Phase 1I: Installation
• Timing:All planting shall occur during the dormant season(October 15 to March 31).
• Methodology: Holes shall be dug twice as wide as the root ball. Native soil should be used for
backfill.
• Mulching:A 3-inch layer of organic mulch (wood"chips or bark) shall be applied in a 2-foot circle
around each tree and shrub to retain moisture and suppress weed regrowth.
Phase III: Maintenance(Post-Installation)
• Irrigation: Supplemental watering is required during the first two growing seasons (June—
September)to ensure-establishment.
• Weeding: Mitigation zones must be weeded twice annually to prevent the re-establishment of
invasive species.
5.4 Performance Standards
The following benchmarks are required to achieve project success:
• Survival:100% survival of all installed woody plants (trees and shrubs)at the end•of-Year I.A
minimum of.80%survival at the end of the 5-year monitoring period.
• Invasive Cover:Non-native and invasive species must comprise less than 10%of the total area
within the mitigation zones.
• Vigor:'Plants must exhibit healthy growth,..including terminal bud extension and leaf production
appropriate for the species,
Lansing—PARCEL 221337690112--CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE.2026 17(.
Page
5.5 Monitoring and Reporting
To comply with Mason County standards, a 5-year monitoring program is established:
1. As-Built Report: Submitted within 30 days of completion of the initial planting.
2. Annual Site Visits:Conducted in the late summer/early fall of Years 1-, 3,and 5.
3. Annual Reports;Reports will include photo-point documentation,a count of surviving specimens,
and recommendations for any adaptive management(replacement plantings) needed to meet
performance standards.
- f
Lansing-PARCEL 221337690112—'CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 18
Page
SECTION 6.'0 FIVE-YEAR MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
6.1 Monitoring Schedule
A qualifiedprofessional will conduct annual site visits for a period of five(5)years following the completion;
of the "As-Built" report. Monitoring visits will typically occur in:the late summer (August—September)-to
assess plant health during the peak of the dry season.
•• Year 0: Installation and As-Built Report.
• Year 1:Survival assessment and initial weeding.
• Year 2: Qualitative vigor assessment and maintenance check.
• Year 3: Quantitative data collection (percent cover and survival).
• Year 4:Qualitative health assessment and invasive management.
• Year 5: Final compliance monitoring and project close-out report.
6.2 Performance Standards
The following standards must be met for the project to receive final sign-off from Mason County:
1. Survival: 100%survival of installed woody plants(trees,and shrubs)in Year 1.A minimum of 80%
survival must..be maintained for the remainder of the monitoring period.
2. Vegetative.Cover:Native plant cover within the mitigation zone should reach at least 10%by Year
1,25%by Year 3,and 50%by Year 5.
3. Invasive Species: Non-native and invasive species cover.(specifically blackberry and broom)"must
not exceed 10%of the mitigation area at any point during the 5-year period.
6.3 Maintenance Requirements.
Maintenance will be performed twice annually(typically late spring and late fall)and will include:
• Manual.Weeding: Removing invasive plants before they set seed.
• Supplemental Irrigation:During the first two growing seasons,plants will be watered at least once
per week from June through September,or as needed based on precipitation. -
• Mulch Replacement: Refreshing the organic mulch layer to maintain soil moisture and suppress
weeds.
Lansing—PARCEL 221337690112.-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE2026 1 .
Page
6.4 Adaptive Management (Contingency)
If yearly performance standards are not achieved, the proponent will take.corrective action. Potential
measures include:
• Replace dead plants with the same species or with hardier native alternatives.
• Increase irrigation frequency as needed.
• Modify the invasive species control approach.
65 Reporting
Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the Mason County Department of Community Development
by October 31st of each monitoring.year or as requested. Reports will include site. photography from
established-photo-points,survival counts,and la summary of maintenance actions taken,
Lansing=PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 20 J
Page
SECTION 7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 Summary of Findings
Field investigations conducted on April 26, 2026, confirmed the presence of'one jurisdictional wetland
(Wetland A) located on and within 300 feet of the proposed project area.
• Wetland A (Category Ill):This- approximately 10.33-acre depressiohal wetland is. the primary
critical area of concern. It is characterized by seasonal inundation and a robust hydrophytic plant
community dominated by Slough sedge'(Carex obnupta)and Douglas spiraea(Spiraea douglasu).
• Buffer Requirements: Under Mason County Code(MCC)Table 8.52.110(D),Wetland A is subject
to a 110-foot prescriptive buffer based on its Category III status and -the moderate-intensity
nature of the proposed residential development.
• Encumbrance: The subject 1.00-acre parcel is significantly encumbered by the prescriptive buffer
of Wetland A. Given the lot dimensions and the required setbacks for the proposed septic.system
and well,development outside of the regulated buffer area is not feasible.
7.2 Project Impact and Regulatory Compliance
The proponent proposes a 3-bedroom single-family residence with associated utilities and infrastructure:
• Buffer Impact: The proposed residential development will result in 4,830 square feet.of
permanent:buffer encroachment.
• Mitigation Sequencing:The project was sited to maximize the distance from the wetland edge
while accommodating the health and safety requirements for the septic drainfield and individual
water well.The impact was minimized by restricting,the structural footprint and utilizing.the existing
cleared areas of the site to the greatest extent possible.
• Relief Request: Because the parcel is significantly encumbered,a request for relief`fro.'m standard
buffer widths is necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property.The proposed residential use
is consistent with the RR5 Rural Residential zoning and the character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
7.3 Mitigation and "No Net Loss" Determination , _ ._t
To.offset the 4,830'sq. ft. of buffer impact, a 1:1 Mitigation Ratio has been established through a buffer
enhancement plan:
• Re-vegetation: The proponent will install 260 native specimens(20 trees, 40 shrubs, and 200
herbaceous plants).The planting schedule focuses on resilient, site-appropriate species such as
Lansing-PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026. 211
Page
Western red cedar(Thuja plicata), Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii), and Western sword fern
(Polystichum munitum).
Ecological Lift: The mitigation,will convert approximately 4,830 sq. ft. of currently degraded or
under-vegetated buffer into a high-density, multi-stratum native forest community.This will provide
a functional gain in surface water filtration, sediment trapping,and wildlife habitat connectivity.
• Monitoring:A 5-year monitoring and maintenance program, including annual reporting to Mason
County, will ensure.the successful establishment of the enhancement area and the long-term
management of invasive species.
7.4 Professional Opinion
It is the.professional opinion of Crater Land Use Consulting LLC that the proposed project,as designed and
mitigated,satisfies the requirements of Mason County Code 8.52.110.The mitigation sequence has been
followed, and the implementation of the Buffer Mitigation Plan ensures that there will be No Net Loss of
Ecological Functions.
Recommendation: Based on the robust native planting plan and the minimization efforts taken to protect
the,core functions of Wetland A, it is recommended that the project be approved for development.We are
available to.provide additional information as needed to facilitate the county's review.
7.5 Limitations
The findings and conclusions in this report are specific to the identified property and are not authorized for
use by adjacent landowners or for off-site critical areas. This site-specific report addresses proposed
development within an identified critical area buffer.The information presented was developed consistent
with the level of care and professional skill ordinarily exercised by environmental science practitioners
working under similar conditions in this region and in accordance with the terms of our proposal. The
conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions based on the information currently available
and are limited to the scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No express or implied warranty is,
provided.Government codes, regulations,and laws may change,and Mason County retains final approval
authority over Wetland.Delineation Reports,and may request additional information during review.
Lansing-PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 22 I
Page
SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES, SOURCES, & CITATIONS
Befiayas,J.M. R.,etal.(2009)."Ecosystem services from restored forests:a review of 10 years of the restoration.
ecology journal."Restoration Ecology, 17(3),345-358.This study reviews the benefits of restored ecosystems,
highlighting the role of native plant species in providing ecosystem services, including erosion control and habitat
creation.
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.
California Soil Resource. (n:d.). California Soil Resource Map.Retrieved,from
https://casoi lresource.lawr.ucdavis.edUlgmap/
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-79131.84 pp.Washington, D.C.
Environmental.Protection.Agency:(2002). Guidance•on the:Use of Functional Assessments for the Evaluation of
Compensatory Mitigation(EPA-843-B-02-001).
Google. (rid.). Google Earth. Retrieved from httoa://earthciocciie.com/
Hallett,L. M.,et al. (2014),"Biodiversity and ecosystem function:the role of plant diversity in ecosystem stability."
Ecology Letters, 17(2), 159-171.This research emphasizes the critical connection between plant biodiversity and
ecosystem resilience,particularly in the face of changing environmental conditions.
Hitchcock,C.L.and A.Cronquist.2nd Edition.(2018). Flora of the Pacific Northwest.University of Washington Press.
Seattle,Washington.
Isbell,F et al.(2009).„Biodiversity increases the resistance.of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes,`Nature,
477(7364),202-205.This study explores how greater plant species diversity enhances the stability of ecosystem
productivity,particularly under climate stress.
McCaffrey,J. P.,&Landis,J. D.(2015). The Effects of Buffer Width.on Riparian Functionality:A Review of the
Science. Wetlands,35(1),43-58.do!:10.1007/s13157-014-0588-9
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1995). Guidance for the Development of Mitigation Plans for
Wetland Restoration.NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-6.
Pojar,J. and A,MacKinnon,(1994).Plants of the Pacific NorthweslCoast.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.
Shapiro,C:(2015)."The role of native plants in water quality improvement."Native Plants Journal, 16(1),50-57.This.
research outlines how native plants can filter pollutants and improve water quality,emphasizing their role in riparian
buffer systems.
Tallamy, D.W.,&Shropshire, K.(2009)."Planting Native Plants:The Impact on Wildlife." Garden Design,93(1),46-
49 This article discusses how native plants are essential in supporting local wildlife populations,demonstrating the
ecological importance of plant choices in landscaping.
Tiner,W. R., 1999. Wetland Indicators,A Guide to Wetland identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping.
392 pp.Lewis Publishers.Boca Raton, Florida.
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.(1987).Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1.
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.(2010). Wetlands:Protecting the Nation's Water Resources.Retrieved from
httos://www.ega,gov/wetlands
U;S.Fish and Wildlife Service.(2021).Information for Planning and Consultation(IPaC).Internet report:URL,
https://ecos.fws.00v/ipac/
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.(2014).National Wetlands Inventory:Wetland Mapping and Assessment,retrieved
from https://m%v.fws.govlwetiandst
USDA(n.d.).Ag Data Integrated System(AgCIS).Retrieved,from hftus l/agacis.ree-acis.org/
Lansing-PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,JUNE 2026 23 l
Page
USDA-;Natural.Resources'Conservation Service.(n d) USDA soils survey, Retrieved from
hUes,l/www rate's.usda.gov/gaps!portal/nresimain/nat onelfhome
Washington SEW(Coastal Atlas.(n d) Coastal atlas mapper.Retrieved from https://ww%v.coastalatlas.erg!
Washii tdr"S(ate'Departrn'ent of Ecology.(n.d.). Water quality atlas map. Retrieved from
httris:/!ecology'wa.govANater-ResourcesNeater-g ua lihvNVater-e uaiity-atlas
Washingloh`State,Department of Ecology.(2014). Wetland Mitigation in Washington State-Part 1:Introduction to the
Mitigation Series..Publieation No.06-06-011,
Washirtgtdn Mate D6parlrnent of Fish and Wildlife. (2018).SalmonScape. Internet report, URL:
htt I/ s:z+Frd *.wa. nv/salmonscael
Washington fepartment of Fish and Wildlife.(n d) Washington state priority species and habitats.Retrieved from
httos:llwdfwwa_govtspecies-habitatslpriority-species
Washington State Department of Natural Resources.(n d) DNR7idar portal.Retrieved from
htt s//hclaypertal.dnr a, ov!
Washington State Departmentof Natural Resources.(n d) Forest practices application mapping tool(FPAM7).
Retrieved from htt s:i/ww irr dnr.%va. ov/FPAMT'
Washington State Department of Natural Resources,2014.FPARS ARCIMS mapping application.Internet report
URL itj fortTs"Wa goy/dnrlappl/friars/v ewer;htm
Washngton State Department Of Natural Resources. Natural Heritage Program,(2018).
https://www.d6r.Wa.0ov/natural-heritage-progra m
Zedler,J.B. &_Kercher, S.(2005); Welland Resources:Status, Trends,Ecosystem Services,'and Restorability.
Annual,Review"of Ecology, Evolution,and Systematics, 36,39-68.doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102803.095451
.. r
• 1
jj
Lansing-PARCEL 221337690112-CRATER'LAND USE CONSULTING,.JUNE 2026
Page -
. F
Appendix A. Findings Map
- ^3
�1
I
o
.• Proposed Project ,I{ , .
�IttrxaS,14 SPENCER RIDGE
EEa ° »`
: _.''. /. .
R, ar F: '" w Proposed Well
ttrr Pro p rm Home osed 3bd
L ,; 3 8 x 40'(3,200 sq.ft) as-drawn J / x /4 .�
qtr Q tU
rxt d '! rrt. .sed Septic Tanks
''�`Zr � _ Wetland A
i sai °' a"":
m m 25/°/J` «"" a.110`Wetland Buffer
Proposed Buffer Impact (4;830 sq,ft.)
Proposed Buffer Mitigation (4,830 sq.ft.),r
Proposed Septic ( �
Drainfield&Reserve Existing.Cleared Area(4,017 sq.U)-
; : -
- -- 4- 15'x 40'(600 sq.ft.)each
? . . Existing.Driveway
a
a°* Proposed Well
6 lU
r
,t 'r 0 25 50 100 Feet
MaonCo CIS:'10'Contours, Parcel Boundary,"Street Centerlines
CRATER;LAND USE CONSULTING. -� Thtemap4,"natsurvoyganllry.i.acadonacnd'troa ramon(a'aroapproximaw.sa�nd in n,auondop tod 340 E Phillips Lake Rd,Shelton,WA 98584;
477• ALA R0AD,.NASELLE,WA 9B638. hoiatn"ba7 Croon ot+tehe from to Cetety GIS Parwl.'Leyor.CP$data vas coMobd drdmg 8okuork
,36D-214,8527` ryanfiAarateriuccom' '��a�dP?r daNntlSGNS32ubina�r ecuraty6tpppropr{ato'wndftlonsAddhtbndfoafuroaahownpra DATE 20.June2026.. STR SEC 33-TWP21N RNG:;02W
from rtonnai{on suppI0 by tMcCront orobtebrad fern Stete and Lend 0IS data ten as.umo.onJiabmty Wr
GROUNDTRUTFI GEOSPATIAL �0 dl.,arapanfen troMcon tt nib'pbt and ground.condi8ona. CLIENT , nsing,Ilion -SIZE 1.00 acres
COORDINATE SYSTEM:.NAD 1883StateP(ane Washington.North RP S 4601 Feet_ JURISDICTION Mason County,WA ZONING RR-5.
cute sha@groundi hgeospa;iatcom « PROJECTION:t.amliert Conrormel Conic PARCEL#:221337690112 USE•91-Undeveloped Land
,388-214-8402 p -
Appendix B. Wetland Rating. Forms & Supporting Documents/Maps
{
7'...
by S..--
6/10/26 12:471aAh# are Q Wetland Rating Summary
Wetland i YILinh1WETLAND A Table 8.52.110(D): Buffer Width of 110 feet(Moderate)
•
=4 ' 1Gs SUMMARY - Western Washington
Wes.
:�ll�Y� acne of wetland(or ID#t):WETLAND A Date of site visit:04/26/2026
# Reran Crater Trained by Ecology?Yes[X] No I] Date of Training: 10/17/2019
HGM Class usedfor rating:Depressional
a Wetland has multiple HGM classes?Yes [] No[X]
S..- Y9 3 •
)E Fortn.is not complete without the figures requested(figures can be combined).
..-0. av fR,�.•,f T n4
Source of base aerial photo/map:
OVERA ��CA �GORY: [Category Ill] (based on functions[X]or special characteristics[))
7fand•based on FUNCTIONS
Score for each
Tptai.score = 23-27
�x w function based:on.
Total score= 20-22
three,ratings
�Y l �rtal score = 16- 19
(order of ratings is
• (]Ca e pi 'Total score =9- 15
M :°`er,; x. not important)
9 = H,H,H
improving Water
FUNCT1U V'Jr z Hydrologic Habitat 8= H,H M
sr i
Quality 7 = H,H,L
Site'Po` alp, ra H M M 7 =H,tvt;M 4
Lancl5 Ptvte afar H M M 6 = H,M,L
Value 7j M L M Total 6 =M,M,M
Scar Rian I 5 =H,L,L
Ratpgs 8 5 6 19 S = M M L
4 = M,L,L
3 = LL,L
2 Gat g 'fSaseaf:on.SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS,of wetland
. M C iARAC ERISTIC CATEGORY
Euar-ine
e,,etland of High Conservation Value
uO
F !ested
f'
aa_ fatal Lagoon
Irsterdunal
None of the above Not Applicable
r r �
. 4
4V.,rnr
htips;l/secureacres•s pt4 gov/ecyMetiandsratingtooiWATOR/Wetland.Summary?•Wetiandid=5863&WettandName=WETLAND A&WetiandType=Depre:.. 7192
6110126;1247 PM Wetland Rating Summary b
Wetland name or number,;WETLAND A .a
Maps and figures required-to-answer questions correctly for Western.Washington
.Depressional Wetlands.
To a.nswer,: a s
Map of; ,
questions t h ,,, t
w vo-
b1.3, H11;
Cowardin plant classes ,�
1.4 �,, yzr,
Hydroperiods. D'1'4,H 142' t
Location of outlet(can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1'.1,D 4J
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;b44-.-
1'km Polygon:Area that extends 1krrt from entire wetland edge-inducting polygons H 2,1,H 2 ;I z ;
for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat 2:3 ? •.x
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin(from Ecology website) D 3.1.,D 32 p�{ 3 T'
Screen capture of list of TMDLS for'WRIA in which unit is found(from web) D 3:3 `
p
^' 4+
•
; 'F ���rr�• tee'
• i6
.. !M•u.rt�
T seta -7f� .�.
,7tx
.rites'
4.
• ac
Y -yrn• - n'.
rt n..n*e
https:f/se`cureaccess.wa.gov/ecy/wettandsratingtootIWATORAA/etlandSummary?We1Iandld=.5863&WetiandName=.WETt.A J1 'A4W t d� ' pre... 2112-------- ----------
shy
6/10/26,12:47 PM Wetland Rating Summary
Wetland name or number:WETLAND A
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water.duality 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 aii the characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland?
Wetland has rro surface water outlet. points =3
Wetland has an,intermittently flowing,or highly constricted,outlet. points=.2
Wetland has an uriconstricted,or slightly constricted,surface outlet that is
points= 1
permanently flowing ,
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 day or organic by laboratory test points =4
None of the above points= 0 Score: 4
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: 3
D 1.4 What are the characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation in the wetland area?
Area seasonallly.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 forDl:J13
Rating of Site Potential [X] 12-16. H []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 storrnwater discharges?
Yes points= 1
No points=0 Score: I
D 2.2 Is>10%of the.area within 150ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutarts in surface runoff?
Yes points = i
1
No points=0 Score: I
D 2.3 Are there sep is 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 23?
Yes points=1
No points=0 Score: 0
hopsIlsecureaccess.wa.gov/ecyhvetlandsratingtool/WATORMetiandSummary?Wetiandld=5863&WetiandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=0epre... 3/12
6/10726,1247 PM 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:I 3
Rating of Landscape Potential. [X]3-4 = H[11-2 = 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 directiv_(i.e.,within 1 ml)to a stream,river,lake,or marine water that is an the 303(4);
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 thesite been identified in a watershed orlocal_plan as important for maintaining water quali ?
Yes points = 2
No points =0 Score: 0
TotalforD.-3:J _1
Rating of Value [12-4 = H [X] 1 = M []0 = L Record the rating on the firstpage
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 unconstrieted,or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is
points= 0 w 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:flsecureaccess.via,gov/ecylwetiandsratingtooYWATOR/WetlandSummarpWetiandld=5863&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre.., .4112
6110/26;12:47 PM 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'basiii 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: 5
Total for D4: 1.0
Rating of Site Potential [] 12-16 = H {X] 6-11 = M t] 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 1.50 ft of the wetland ih 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: 0
Total for D 5: 2
Rating of Landscape Potential []3 = H [X] 1-2 = M (J 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0 Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 61 Is the wetland in a landscape that has flooding-problems?
Flooding occurs ina 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 point's=-2
No points=0 Score: 0
TotalforD6:J
Rating,of Value []2-4 = H [] 1 = M [X]0 = L Record the rating on the first page
https://secureaccesswa.govtecy/wetlandsratingtooUWATOR/WatiandSummary?Wetlandld=5863&WetiandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=0epre:.. 5112
1
6110126,.12:471 PM 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 communityr
/]Aquatic Bed
J Emergent.
jScrub-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. 4
H 1.2 What are the hydroperiods that meet the size thresholds in the wetland?
Permanently flooded or inundated
O 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:- 0
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: .2
https:tfsecureaccess.vm.govlecylwetlandsratingtooYWATORNUellandSumma y?Weilandld=5863&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 6/12
611.6126,12:47 PM Wetland Rating Summary
Wetland name or number:WETLAND A
H a 1.4 What is the interspersion of habitats?
High .. points 3
Moderate points =2
Low points = 1
None. points =0 Score: 3
H 1.5,What.are't6e s iecial 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(10m)
oStable 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 riot-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)
nInvasive plants cover less than 25%of the wetland area in every stratum of plants
(see H'11 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:.. 5
TotalforH l: 14
Rating:of Site Potential [] 15-18 H [Xj 7-14= M [10-6 = L Record the rating on the first p age
H.2.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1 What is the`perc ntage of accessible habitat within 1km of the wetland?
>33%oflkm Polygon points=,3
20-33%of 1 km.Polygon points=2
..,. l
10-19%of 1 kni Polygon points= 1
<10%of 1 km Polygon ,points=0 Scare: 0
H 2.2 What is the percentage entage 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
0 points ='0 Score: 3
Totaf:habitatis <10/a of the Polygon
https:/ts8cureaecess.wa.gov/EcyhvellandsratingtoolANATORANetiandSummary?Mllandld=5863&WeilandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depre... 7112
6/10/26,12:47 PM Wetland Rating Summary
Wetland name or number:,WETLAND A
H 2.3 What is the land use intensity in the 1km polygon
50%of the Polygon is high intensity land use points= -2:
<50% of the Polygon is high intensity land use points _ 0 Scores
TotalforH2:
Rating of Landscape Potential []4-6 = H [X] 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 llaws; regulations.or policies?
fl Aspen Stands
a Biodiversity Areas and Corridors
Herbaceous Balds'
Old-growth/Mature Forests
❑Oregon White Oak
Riparian
L'Westside Prairie
Fresh Deepwater
lnstream
Eli Nearshore(Coastal,Open Coast,Puget Sound)
Caves -
LI Cliffs
EI Snags and Logs
1111 Talus
The following criteria automatically score 2 points:
a The wetland provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species
O The wetland is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
❑The wetland is a:Wetland of High Conservation Value
Eli 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
pornts 2. .,.
criteria for societal value
The site has 1.or 2 WDFW priority habitats within 100m points
The site does not.meet_anyof the criteria for societal value points 0: Score: °1
Total for H 3:L— !
Rating of Value [] 2 =H [X]1 = M []Q= L Record.the rating on t.firsrpage
https://secureaccess.wa.govIecyNietl6tdsratingtooUWAT0RANettandSummary?Wetiandld=5863&kWetiandName=WETLANDA&WettandType= epre... 8/1,2;.
6110126,12:47 PM Wetland Rating Summary
Wetland name ornumber:WETLAND A
CATEGORIZATION RASED 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 12
Result:Not an
No-Not an Estuarine Wetland
Estuarine Wetland
SC 1.2 Is thewetland 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 lac 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 l00ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-
grazed or un-mowed grassland
LIThe 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 ecosystern polygons on
;the WNHP Data:Explorer?
Yes-.Category(.Wetland of High Conservation Value
No-Go to SC 22 Result:Go to SC 2.2,
SC'2.2 Does the wetland have a rare plant species,rare lap nt community,or high iitS'common plant community that
may_qualify the site.as a WHCV?
Yes-Category I Wetland of High Conservation Value
Result: Not a Wetland
No.-Nona.Wetland of High Conservation Value of High Conservation
Value
https:iisecureaccess.wa.gov/ecytwellandsratinglooYWATORM/elland$ummary?Wetlandld=5863&WetiandName=WET1ANCi A&1NetlandType=Depre... 9112:
6/10/28,12:47 PM 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 16111 or
more of the first 321n of the soilprofile?
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-GotoSC3.3.
Result:Not a Bog
No- Not a.Bog Wetland
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.! Bog Wetland
No-Go to SC 3.4 Result:
SC 3.4 Is an area with peats or mucks forested (>30%cover)with Sitka s rp uce,subal i e fir,western red cedar,western
heir�lock,lodgepofe p�;�quaking asps,Engelman+i Spruce,or westeri 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.
canopar?
Yes-Category! 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
ttesultillof a.Forested.
No Not a Forested Wetland
Wetland
liitps://seeureaccess:wa.gov/eey/wetlandsratingt6alMATOR=etlandSummary?Wetiandld=5863&WetlandNameFWE'rLANb A&WettandType=Depr... 10112
6/10126,12:47 PM 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 la000n?
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)
The lagoon retains some of its'surface water at low tide during spring tides
Yes-'GotoSC5.2
Result:Not a Coastal
No-Not a Coastal Lagoon Wetland
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'2U%"cover of aggressive,opportunistic plant species(see list of species).
At least 75%ofthe landward edge of the wetland has a 100ft buffer of shrub,forest,or un-
gfazed or un-mowed grassland.
the wetland is larger than 0.10ac(4350 sgft)
Yes-Category I Coastal Lagoon
No-Category It 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 i terdunal Wetland n.
Interdunal Wetland
SC 6.2 Is the wetland lac or larger in size,or a mosaic that is 1 ac or larger in size?
Wetland is larger than lac in size-Go to SC 6.3
Wetland is a mosaic larger than lac 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 0.1ac and 1ac,or'in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0aac and 1 ac in s ize?
Yes-Category III Interdunal Wetland
No-Category IV Interdunal Wetland. Result:
https:/lsecureaccess.wa.goy/ecyAvetiandsratingtooVWATORN+letiandSummary?Wetlandld=5863&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetlandType=Depr... 11/12
6/10126,12,47 PM Weiland Rating Summary
Wetland name.or number:WETLAND A
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
Special""Characteristics
If you answered No for all types,enter"Not Applicable"on Summary Form. Category: Not
Applicable
- i
hUps:l/secureaccess.wa;gov/ecy/wetlandsratingtootANATOR/WellandSummary,?Wetiandld=5863&WetlandName=WETLAND A&WetiandType=Depr... 12/12
Cowardin Plan Classes Hydraperiods�
.® •..E y�f Lwwietm .inn sm na�uwuyaon.rc uwa4.aatR[wtoa Wiwa�»' avr,a7�olrn6:. b•w. Qa.e
t_r
'M'rWaw.�..tarr
f�-r
Location of Outlet Land Use
ww .ripu» .m«. w rnsaudeq..m•.te wMo:wnWmatoeyinv up awanumx 4 f1w w+e gian t=,. x ..s-y- wy.a'wn+,a srnrwc. •ao-u„ewnuwo�m.vroaaw ag: wriu.
. ' ci : . 1T _ _ ____ __
'" 6e
Contributing:Basin Habitat
I— •xs.e.u'm. w Mti'�T• P. -kC we!w�xstuunap8pesav�v{� tirNyiotzcie _ G? Oar. u.e we b+z*�.m.. -sri aa�s'feei+l afn:xrc, _ v,..tiiQ�rC[*w;0am>"e�wa. umratiio%4�e'� ``'"mot ,�_ �•�r '.. v 7 ;� ce�.•o-+.a.,.._.w......�
303(d)Listed Waters TMDL
4pw. .wmrrs an ia++ R9 ai.4�+eo.lbn-uC wA�nSYn1Wo41cepnasnW NW!eR?s ®.w.O.ra. t+a�?I w?+aaa. •au� -.:e. rtwewg;.a�•re, peiuri�irwao� mmou+wmaf
'T wwsivabvea c�rgwlpY.r t�'+Aan`• r+�...v
fl
�.�irurw�r�AYTYr� - ^14UYY - 5'ti
C1'•yiix.+r+
' ='C�eneirs+rs.
sieeureNYRtu'� 4CMrit•tir. i'.,
^.+40wGm*ixsmrr.cNanr.
Y d
µp .
� 7
Appendix C. Field Reports
l .
C
-r
;.._:..-,tarrfnROf - MC
. y
Project Lansing Ron-MC
ID 668817
Survey Date 04/26/2026
User Ryan Crater
Community Name Upland Habitat r
Community vegetation Herbaceous,Saplings,Shrubs,Trees
observedX
Identity observed vegetation. Pseuciotsuga rnenzlesu/`Douglas fir
(all`strata) Pmus'contorta/Lodgepole pine
A'(nus rubra/Red alder
Frangula purshiana/Cascara sagrada .,
Vaccinium ovatum/Evergreen huckleberry, California huckfeerry
Vaccinium parvifollum/Red bilberry,Red huckleberry
(aultheria shallon/Salal
`fhuja plicata/Western red cedar,Western red cedar,Ca noe ar
Rtericlium acluilinum/Western brackenfern
Polystichunl muniturrn/Western Sword fern
8lechnum spirant l Deer fern
Habitat-Photos(4 minimum)
�;'"
}
Page 1o12
2
tt L
%'
y ,7���4g��``-' � �`� ja1�'�j�{"° t ��,�r"!• F � �Say �+ � �yry�
IMF
x
j
'�
:
is , e Gilaek .d, . . ,
b b •
b • b I e°
�. 0
r
f ( p' .t 1 *i' r ."i flush,,
d a i ikI
° :J' v �7 b } . T f�.. T .'w, p E
e� r
In �jqq�" t
J 16'y•...a , �'y?hp k; �. '44 §p p .
" d T. 'M M
"�..;� -
•
YY pA r,, d!i
� � '₹Is.fs' e .: I ` _ fd'Y lP"_ r4M Vii:. its' 4=� [ {� �,
t �:. '�`'. �a� s. ���''•'� Lai.. "'.;w 4 r �� � ei��� � t }d'�'.
^
_� '��*��F
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710.0024,Exp:09/3.0/2027
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET-Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-10-03;the proponent agency is CECW-COR {Authority:AR 335.15,paragraph5.2a)
Project/Site: Ron Lansing City/County: Mason County SanlplingDate: 04/26/2026
Appiicanti0wner. Ron Lansing State: WA Sampling-Point: SP1.
investigator(s): Ryan E Crater Section,Township,Range:
Landform(hilislopa,terrace,ate): Depressional Local relief(concave,convex,none); concave Slope(%)_ 2
Subregion(LRR): A Let: 47.26491783 Long: -122.95020938 Datum: WG&84
Soil Map Unit Name:, Ab-Alderytood gravelly sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes NWi classification: PSSC/PEMIC
Are,climatic'!hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No ,Soll No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc.
Hydrophytic:Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X T1.11thh.Sampled AreaWetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X in a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:
VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
Absolute Dominant Indicator That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A)
Tree Stratum (Plot size* 30-ft ) %Cover Species? Status
1. Pseudotsuga menziesii/Douglas fir 30 Yes FACU Total Number of Dominant
2. Pinusfconlorta I Lodgepole pine. 25 Yes FAC Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
3
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
55 =Total Cover That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 33.3 (AIB).
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-t1 )
1. Gaultheria shallop I Salal 60 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Frangula purshianal Cascara sagrada 35 Yes FAC Total%Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Vadclnium ovatum/Evergreen huckleberry,California huckk 25 Yes FACU OBL species 0 x 1= 0
4. FACW species 0 x2=
5. FAC species 60 x 3= '180
120 =Total Cover FACU species 146 x4= 584
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft ) UPL species 0 x 5= 0
1`. Pteridfum equillnum/Western brackenfern 30 Yes FACU Column Totals: 206 (A) 764 (B).
2. Polystichum murk/urn I Western sword fern 1 No FACU
3: Prevalence Index BIA 3.71
4,
S Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators
6. _ 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic•Vegetation
7 _2-Dominance Test is>50%
8. _ 3-Prevalence Index 53,0'
g; 4..Morphologlcat Adaptations'(Provide supporting
i b. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
11. _ 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' -
31 =Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytit Vegetation'(Explain)
Woody Vina Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft
1. 'Indicators of hydric soil and,wetland hydrology must
2. be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
0 =Total Cover
'lo.Bare Ground In Herb Statum Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes . No X
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6146-e,SEP 2024 wasfem Mountains,Va€lays,and Coast-Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP1
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, Ice' Texture Remarks
0-1 7.5YR 3/2 100 Sandy Loam
i-18 5YR 412 95 2.5YR 316 5 C M Sandy Loam
tType C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:(Appilcabie to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) _ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR'A E)
_ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR D)
_ Black Histie(A3)' ^ Stripped Matrix(S6) — Red Parent Material(P2i)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4)- Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22)
1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR D,G) __ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Other(Explain in Remarks)
__ Depleted Below'Dark Surface(A11) Depleted Matrix(F3)
Thick Dark Surface(Ai2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Iron Monosulfide(A18) ^ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must.be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
_ 2.5 cm-Mucky Peat or Peat(S2)(LRR G)
Restrictive Layer(if present):
Type:
Depth-(iriches): 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(A1) _ Water-Stained Leaves(B9) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves(89) (MLRA 1,2,
_ High Water Table(A2) MLRA 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B)
Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(811) _ Drainage Patterns(B10)
_ Water Marks(81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(813) Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
Sediment Deposits(82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
_ Drift Deposits(83) _, Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(02)
_ Algal Mat or-Crust(84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ ShaliowAquitard(D3)
_.Iron Deposits(85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test(PS)
Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds(D6) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks(O7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(88)
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:.
ENG FORM 6116.9,SEP 2024 Wsstem Mountains,Valleys,and Coast-Version 2.0
Lansing Ron - MC
CJ cri L%1t, IL
Project Lansing Ron-MC
ID 668821
Survey Date 04/26/2026
User Ryan.Crater
Community Name Wetland Area
CUrnmunityvegetation Herbaceous,Saplings, Shrubs,Trees
observed
Identify observed vegetation Thuja plicata/Western red cedar, Western red cedar, Canoe.cedar
(all strata) Alnus rubs/Red alder
Spuaea douglasii/'Douglas spiraea
blechnum spicant I Deer fern
Rubric spectabilis/Salmon berry,Salrnonberry
.Sallx sp./Willow
Carex abnupta I Slough sedge,Slough sedge
Habitat Photos(4 minimum)
ts"'
v F
x
[ 4Y
Page 1o12
fit` tx,,
t g 3� a q ��s •r5. # ''"s�+.a: ` z �.L am,..
Ih ! I
?' r �}!a a�r�&S�r" � "�. s<t�g �"7 Y '�`•j � a��t - ,� � `T�` •,.,rt i$ '��°,�x»� e
,� '��:..J�+„�m.,w� �rS'r�'.,�•F'�*S-• .; r }, ., .y+.• \ •. �,f¢ .."" era"
_ `-*T-,'�-moo ,° ( •..cr .,E�'�° � � dad; �� �a ,9�i a �
i � i
Appendix D. Publicly Available Maps & Data
Forest Practices Activity Map -Application
A
}1701340- 1701342 rY! / 4
S'Spencer Lake; 9 7
______ /
_
ct yyyy b ;4s�
{ 3
m fµ I£A,
32
1701320 1701322'
___ I
/
4
epartme t of Natural Resources DNR),Fo st Aractice 'tvisio ,Washington
Technology Solutions(WaTech,Washin on State Cc t Department
SPhlIllps Lake N tural R urces(DNR Engineering Divisi n
Map Symbols Lansing, Ron Additional Information Legal Description
Harvest Boundary. Q Landing S05 T20.ON R02,0W,S0'4 T20.ON
-- RoadConspucuan R02.0W,sS33'T21.0N R02.OW,S32
r stream q WayteArea T21.ON R02.0W
Clumped
RdaZ/Ih".Q28uHers y�IRTSIGRT.S
Rock Pt, mdstingStn cture
Extreme care was used during tha.compitation of this map to ensure -Approx mate Scale,1;4,800
g
its accuracy. However due to changes in'data and the need to a 200" 400 800
vassacidan�«a`ixar�es[er
RRTUR1L RESOURCES rely on outside Information,the.pepartment of Natural Resources Feet
cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions, and therefore,
there are no warranties that accompany this material. Date:6/10/2026 Time:11:11 AM
Legend
' Modeled
* WTMF
+ Map Registration Tics
-- Abandoned
Orphaned
-- Trail
-�- Railroad
Railroad Grade
® Paved Road
Unpaved Road/Surface
Unknown
40 ft. Contours
-- Type S
-- Type F
— Type N, Np, Ns
U, unknown
X,non-typed per WAC
222-16
E1 Public Land Survey
Sections
(.__? County Boundaries
Tribal Cultural Resource
Contacts
Other Impoundments
Open Freshwater
Subject to.lnundation
Glacier/Snowfield
Wet Area
Open Saltwater
Artificial Feature
Public Land Survey
Townships
Ei County Tax Parcels
........._.. ..,..___....._......._..._..._.._...__. ... ..._........................ .._...
•1 I
.l(lt1 Ywll It•11 .It... 1{'11 ./C:11 1 C11 1N11
g l+ . k w¢I
3 w «
I 'N::
4/fl /
Is
° Yx�f ; ,•q
$ gyp
• ••
r x E•Spenet:l. idge Pl4ti/1 // Mg r
II
6 fig..,.... .� "r`•, r
ir / i/ ' U - -
$ / j
r �
EMGM -
r r o r } (fibs ft j i 7Ctil,dl's C•lttn l< l u l Il:u .rt 1 .le:u lcu 1 1
li
1 1 11 II
1 'Ii' 11
4Y \ 1 1
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Mason County,Washington
(Ron_Lansing)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(AOI) Transportation The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
�—( Area of Interest(AOl) fa.g Rails 1:31,700.
Soils Interstate,Highways Warning:Soil Map,may not be.valid atthis.scale.
Soil Rating Polygons° US Routes Enlargement of maps beyond-the.scale°ofmapping can cause
Q Hydric(lpoh) Major Roads misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
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
Q Hydric(33 to 65%) scale.
Background
Q Hydric(1 to 32%) Aerial Photography Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Not Hydric(0%) measurements.
Not rated or not available Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil Rating Lines Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
Hydric(100%)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Hydric,(66'to•99%) projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
.,;- 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
, • 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
s Not rated or not available of the version date(s)listed below.
Soil Rating Points Soil Survey Area: Mason County,Washington
IN Survey Area.Data: Version 21,Aug 28.2025
Hydrrc(100%)
Hydric(66 to 99%) Soil map units are labeled(as space allows).for map scales
t:50.000 or larger.
Hydric(33 to 65%) Date(s)aerial images were.photographed: Jul 31,2022—Aug
CI Hydric(i to 32%) 29.2022
• Not Hydric(Q%y :: . ; - The orthophoto or o e�i•base map on which the tjit lines were
t r 5 ) I. '7` ci it d and di tt rl `rob ffers fta roue d
,i: e• a. 3, t b y p_ ,?.IY .J: n' g F k
;� f. •3r ..2r x. +•a:< 1tsZ'.*''�' J r:�.i. - -•:8
nz?�;,1.. .. `N�,r tr��1r7a " +� i°.:sY •, } •s..t.:gc; r -r :.s
..,.. ), k1 r a df e Yhese ` S, rrte m,nor
,� ..,,yy,�zi�.. '• ..,::r' .. ,.:.. . .,"S';'. r ,.�.:10 a -i. .! •tt'-t ., q :r ��y � z .. ..
J..l •:'.: b', $:r....•,k' �' tr.:a Y 1. ,?'� ..F
i / "" r ;<ti ) 's `t� shifts of map ti�it•b boundaries rya 6e evici�ent
Atr`0at�lrts i p i Y, +,
; . �,y. .t k { .t ti ,Yt.p . y< �:rr {j z. f t. i. .z $ rt ,
1 r Y rY .. a 1 } Ck)r ;, LL h� , R ''1 ii be!lt. yS I-.I Y✓ :� t .'•t 'r5 A. J , ••F i.i t t_.•. i •r I
''�.`t } t 2 } • 0 ti f Sec'IfrM&antl,.2tltid r t -t F+, { ,F - r { �,t Y t r E E r ti
C t-. t �.i
l . � l., A
• ' ,t i+ rr ! <t. e »tr. .,. r ! _ rr, t.t I '� It, f� •
•t' r ` 1.t rl t:�l .r -r c) ,! t:L, c ":' - y i •.r: i t;' r.{,° 'F } is
USDA Natural Resources Web.Soil Survey 6124/2026
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of'.5
�•' �''7 i5 i�• Ur..
p ` t •
. - - -
i d 1 M ]Yya
Hydne Rating by Map Funit wl l+tasc3tl o'unty;Washington Ron Lansing:
HyIi1Rating by Map Unit
S.
titlapyilt Smi7dt Map unit name Rating Acres in.AQl Percent of A41
Ajdenwood gravelly 5 I 28.7 64.9%
Sandy foam,8 to 15
r� .-;Oercentslopes
is+ lderwood gravelly 5 3.9( 8,7%
°Sandy loam 15 to 30.
- L ercent slopes
Mg �`�y1ukil)eo peat,0 to.2 100 11,6 i 26.3%
percent slopes
for Araao111aJ:;,._ — —_ 44.2 180;0%o
i K '
5�h
rry iJ
iy. •
• 1
s rn- -7po• i
wt 1
-
as..
Natural Resources n Web Soil Survey 6/2412026
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3.o15
Hydric Rating by Map Unit-Mason County,Washington -. Ron Lansing
Description
This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria forhydric
soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or s
types,each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are madev
up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric •f
components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that".trralde�
up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric:
components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rateI hosed
on its respective components and the percentage of each component wrt#fn7 he
map unit.
The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric " Y
components. The five color classes are separated as.100 percent hydric-z'
components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydra
components, 1 to 32percent hydric components,and less than one ercent
p Y P P.
MyF .:.
hydric components.
In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed lielowthe
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:m '4
(NTCHS)as soils that formed under conditions of saturation,flooding, or por ding _
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions.ih th-
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 soilproperties that are associated it t
Wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhyttrid
soil, however, more specific information, such as information about tho'depth nd
duration of the water table, is needed.Thus, criteria that identify those es, frlae#
soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal ReJ,( r ti
2002).These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are
associated with wetlands.The criteria used are selected estimated soil-prertts
that are described in"Soil Taxonomy"(Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and l<cys to Soil
Taxonomy"(Soil Survey Staff,.2006)and in the"Soil Survey Manual"(SQr"Sixty rw ;
Division Staff, 1993),
• �tV` 7n r
If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered,- 1`4r
they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the fl
These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators use tb
make onsite determinations of hydric soils:are:specified in"Field Indicatorof.r
Hydric Soils in the United States"(Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). h, ^
ydr•13. i--''Trx. t
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;" r `•
tso Natural Resources Web Soil Survey i ;6124/2026'
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Fad 4 of 5:
rC _
y,'Jtf V y`J E vy �"FxSYYlet....'
t;:stay„F. s=s- 19J syfyl� a3 aYW
44 t y
C..ur iN 1�1, �f'<x 4t r�.;f toiu3ib's',y
¢, a twSi Y} kl lrgr'yu bu1K T�tZy�.S'
,71 , ctd yI� .o+y`
Hydric Rat HMap Uif asoñbnty,VVashington Ron Lansing
.A�µy .rlit �>`...Sj X'•!p!Lyys G4;4r1� 3q
uw s,+•n
t tr W.and L.M.Vasilas, editors.Version 6.0,2006. Field indicators of hydric
SQttinth United States.
,t ro
`� t aSrV3tt � [Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual.Soil Conservation Service,
US.Q jrent of Agriculture Handbook 18.
tI
• +wt.. ••-
- iu�1�rLaY
011 uiie Staff. 1999 Soil taxonomy:A basic system of soil classification for
� d nt rpreting soil surveys.2nd edition. Natural Resources
�
I' traat Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.
Stpy Staff..2006.Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
iouE₹ t,�Natural Resources Conservation Servicer
........
a T .rN`� 1 t iyy
.4 ..
yl kY.[
*tnptions
'�L�fTS ��_A 4{��Y Y� '4'y+xiLx7�j 4•. �f
s�uy" f34r ;:Method:Percent Present
ComponnL Percent Cutoff•None Specified4.
@'
72brep1cuIe1 Lower
kt r -k xs Ld�fC°,lip.
r u ti rt
u rlr
4I•....44t..,.
rs
Y,,J+ Ltit:
J f. I
^
�'� W 1• w C k Stl G
l hui_ Y Wl3
• K + r
� }Jti +ryrdN � L 9
F,
I to hwKa+(n v.(M r
N
44
........
._
t4° 1 ...........V.
13 N.
5
Jn:J �;� -:.i.r+i F t•..c JyJti:�i t ₹g(
i .
tipNatural ResoUro s Web Sod Survey 6/29/2026.
Conservation Service ' : National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5
• ���'�pZLJUYk!.: �`LI` :y 5• �J ��Ilk4• ,
Y'.l
y. ' s1:«• iu.lr 7"^
1
6710126;12:44!PM PHS Report
Priority Habitats and Species on the Web
6STLDLrrE ,,,
Buffer radius: 100 Meters
Report Date:06/10/2026: •, ,�as�.a- ' -�'���„ � ir�� .
:
PHS,Species/Habitats:Overview
Freshwater Emergent.Wetland N/A N/A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub f
Wetland, NIA N/A
d•,m,�a+N'7r. .fit$
Riparian Management Zones;if present,are not included in the Overview table above or the Details beloitt1ReIiYF��e cif:'
ripadandata.wdf y wa.gou
ff 4t
''mAia.•y L ;Starq`% iti �'Nv.RLJeYs
'e.•��i K.1.+. 4,�1W•rql , y,.tA'� ✓i ry�'�n
PHS Species/Habitats Details:
Priori yArea Aquatic Habitat
Site Name N/Az .�e
Accuracy NA ` fsr4�a2 fl
Wetland System:Freshwater Emer {I7ttlinciJUUt Code
Notes.
PEM1C
Source'Dataset NWIWetiands
f✓`x.,0.w,..�
Source Name Not Given
Source'Enti US Fish and Widlife,Servics
Federal Status N/A
.............._ amt
State Status. N/A ^�
PHS Listing.Status: PHS tasted Occurrence %'�� w,Pr + y
Sensitive N ..?
SGGN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
ManagementRecommendations hftps://ecologywa.gMLA ateLCih true � � �,
Geometry Type Polygons ' `r r i .�..._
aA yy hri +tV•r �G jl Y1z f.m"i ltA
�.`�' +ire i c•`"^�sr�����r+��
Tir�7YrAe97eR[ £"'1' g1?iui
'•.xtt%�F. S "a"S.L•r'fk.ry yy
U i
Jt�rmxnaa5
y fn5.r•N``ng'R�.I�"'°.uw•4`}'� ��.rr��.�rr
••.:e' 9r`td' „�+K .ynK ',1s�j•,'ti�rsKt'+v.',�,-Tii
r ,�{eeA'ryrer ,
r :u41ar' L�R+.i...5 1
niaak �i.",i R^Sar9. .s am.l. '�
,about blank z�a 112;
� w s3 F,,�
:' �L+r�rvbt`�f';g�"^^C1N1rk ' '�,T
7 >mnrxaapi..vw"'�"tl ss�4sr�,• ssc' ''x-"`"
t,.
µ..
6/10126,1244_PM;.;, PHS Report
PrioriryArea � - � Y . Aquatic Habitat
Site Name " x= :. N/A
Accuracy NA
Wetland System:Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland-NWI Coder
Notes . =r PSSC
source E7at�set: ^. 'NWIetlands
Source Name Not Given
Source Entity-,
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal States.,; N/A
State Status 3 NIA•
PHS Listltig Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution wA AS MAPPED
ManaoemetltRecocrlfloenda#)oTis https://ccologywagovAAtater-ShorelinesMletlands
Geometf Tjtpe i Polygons
DISCLAIMER ibis report mcluilesinfotmation that the%kishington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDF"maintains in a central computer database.,it is not an attempt to provide you
triih an official agency response as to tfio3grpacts of your project on fish and vaidlife.This Information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge..
it is not a complete inventory'and ii is Important to note that fish and ss,Idiifo resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists,or in areas for which comprehensive
surveys have not been cotiili t d Sato specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources.Locations of fish andwildfde resources are subject to
varlaiob causedbydisrrirtiptice,changes in season and weather,and other factors.WDFW does not recommend using reports more,than six months aid.
d..,r {{
•• t
.. E
about:blank 212
National Wetlands Ira ento Lansing
S y
t 1 5 :;—:x 4! '_,5:, .. ✓h r�. ''5 f..,.1's 1�;1.. L.� r ° '�>e.... A.. �.. lI..M.
This map is for general reference'only The Fish and Wildlife
June 10,202 :: e i service is ttotresponsible fot the accuracy or.purrentfess of the
t
r base data shown on this map AtI wetlandsCelated datasshould
Wetlands
' Freshwater Emergent Wetland :Lake used in accordance with the layermetai9ata found'gn;the
Hands Mapper web site.
Estuattne and Marine Deepwater. Freshwater t=orested!Shrub Wetland ] Other
O.' `Estuarine and.Marine Wetland
. � -Freshwater-Pond Riverine
NatdraWetlandslrsentbrj(NWi
This page was produced by tho W inappar'
�� E Picker
Sper cerLake ti \ N4 4O
�� a r etttD r
^'? s. ,a •.,eta
E CIaY F2 d, e �• _ zv «
s B • 6
• - � • � • • _ e e 1 1 1 1
• o0 0,
• • • • • r s • • P r s
P` •
i