Loading...
2024-0315 Stormwater Site Plan Stormwater Site Plan Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments Yelm, WA Prepared For: Premier Real Estate Partners 4928 109th Street SW Lakewood, WA 98499 Prepared By: LDC, Inc. 321 Cleveland Ave. SE Suite 209 Tumwater, WA 98501 360.634.2067 March 2024 LDC, Inc. March 2024 Stormwater Site Plan Project Information Project: Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments Prepared for: Premier Real Estate Partners 4928 109th Street SW Lakewood, WA 98499 Contact Name: Matthew Gerrish Contact Phone: 253.651.9436 Reviewing Agency Jurisdiction: City of Yelm Project Representative Prepared by: LDC, Inc. 321 Cleveland Ave. SE Suite 209 Tumwater, WA 98501 ldccorp.com Contact: Mallory Dobbs, PE MDobbs@ldccorp.com Project Reference: C24 – 109 Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments Stormwater Site Plan LDC, Inc. March 2024 PROJECT ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this Stormwater Site Plan for the Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments project has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the minimum standards of the City of Yelm and normal standards of engineering practice. I hereby acknowledge and agree that the jurisdiction does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities designed by me. Mallory Dobbs, PE Date MDobbs@ldccorp.com (360) 634-2067 Preliminary 03/18/2024 2:13:21 PM Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments Stormwater Site Plan Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments Stormwater Site Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Overview ..................................................................................... 1 1.1 Summary of Compliance On-Site ....................................................................... 2 2. Existing Conditions Summary ................................................................. 4 2.1 Existing On-Site Conditions .............................................................................. 4 3. Offsite Analysis Report ........................................................................... 5 3.1 Qualitative Upstream Analysis ........................................................................... 5 3.2 Qualitative Downstream Analysis ...................................................................... 5 4. Permanent Stormwater Control Plan ..................................................... 5 4.1 Summary Section ............................................................................................ 5 5. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (C-SWPPP) .......... 6 6. Special Reports and Studies ................................................................... 6 7. Other Permits .......................................................................................... 7 8. Operation and Maintenance Manual ....................................................... 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Land Type Designations Existing vs. Proposed ...................................................... 5 Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments Stormwater Site Plan Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments Stormwater Site Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Existing Conditions (1990) Figure 2: Existing Conditions (2023) ........................ 4 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Site Vicinity Map Appendix 2: Determination of Minimum Requirements Worksheet Appendix 3: Basin Map Exhibits Appendix 4: Preliminary Plans Appendix 5: Geotechnical Report/Critical Areas Study Appendix 6: Operations and Maintenance Manual – NOT INCLUDED AT THIS TIME Appendix 7: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan – NOT INCLUDED AT THIS TIME Appendix 8: FEMA Flood Insurance Map Appendix 9: Design Calculations and Computations Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments 1 of 7 Stormwater Site Plan 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW The following report was prepared for the Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartment project in Yelm, WA. This report was prepared to comply with the minimum technical standards and requirements that are set forth in the 2019 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). Project Proponent: Premier Real Estate Partners Parcel Numbers: 21724230400 Total Parcel Area: 14.72 Acres Current Zoning: R-4 Residential Proposed Zoning: R-16 Residential Required Permits: Grading, Utility, Paving, Building, etc. Site Address: 14747 Berry Valley Road SE Section, Township, Range: Section 24, Township 17 N, Range 1 W The proposed Berry Vally Road Multifamily project is located on one parcel with a total of 14.72 acres. The project is located at 14747 Berry Valley Road SE Yelm, WA (Thurston County Parcel No. 21724230400). The proposed construction includes eight (8) apartment buildings with a maximum unit count of 190, a leasing office, as well as associated parking lot, utilities, frontage improvements, and stormwater improvements disturbing approximately 8.48 acres. Specifically, the proposed site improvements/construction activities for this project include the following: • Site preparation, grading, and erosion control activities • Construction of eight apartment buildings and one leasing office • Construction of parking lot • Construction of off-site improvements • Construction/installation of on-site water quality and flow control facilities • Extension of available utilities (i.e., water, sewer, etc.) A site vicinity map of the proposed project location is enclosed herein as Appendix 1. A worksheet for determining the number of Minimum Requirements for this project per the SWMMWW has been prepared and enclosed herein as Appendix 2. The proposed project is considered a new development that will trigger all of the minimum requirements for the new and replaced impervious surfaces and the land disturbed. Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments 2 of 7 Stormwater Site Plan 1.1 SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE ON-SITE The stormwater design complies with the 9 minimum requirements as follows: Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans – The Stormwater Site Plan is prepared per the 2019 SWMMWW. Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention – A pollution prevention plan will be completed and included herein as Appendix 7 at the time of the civil permit submittal which describes the 13 required elements. Further, an erosion control plan has been prepared and included as part of the engineering construction plan set in Appendix 4. Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollution – BMPs listed below are the minimum required for the site, additional BMPs not listed here may need to be implemented to meet the minimum requirements discussed in the 2019 SWMMWW. • S411 BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management • S417 BMPs for Maintenance of Stormwater Drainage and Treatment Systems • S421 BMPs for Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment • S426 BMPs for Spills of Oil and Hazardous Substances Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls – Currently, the stormwater runoff within the project parcel as well as a portion of the Berry Valley Road, sheet flows from east to west through the wetland buffer and into Thompson Creek. After construction, a portion of stormwater runoff from the on-site improvements will infiltrate on-site, while the remaining stormwater runoff will be collected, treated, detained in a detention pond and released just outside of the wetland buffer per Minimum Requirement #8. The majority of the proposed frontage improvements will infiltrate within a roadside swale/ditch. In the event of failure, the stormwater runoff will utilize the riser located within the flow control structure and flow into Thompson Creek as it does today. Minimum Requirement #5 – On-site Stormwater Management – In accordance with Minimum Requirement #7, this project is not flow control exempt. Using Table I-3.1, the project is located inside the UGA on any size parcel and therefore the project shall employ Minimum Requirement #5 per List #2 or achieve the LID Performance Standard. The project will demonstrate compliance with List #2, see below. Lawn and Landscaped Areas: • Per the 2019 SWMMWW, BMP T5.13: Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth will be utilized to the maximum extent practicable. See landscape plans for details. Roofs: • Full Dispersion (BMP T5.30) or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems (BMP T5.10A): Full dispersion is not feasible for this project site. Full dispersion requires that the site protects at least 65% of the site in a forest or native condition. For this reason alone, this BMP is not feasible. In addition, the project is required to protect the existing wetland to the west per Minimum Requirement #8 and therefore is required to provide flow control for the proposed improvements. Full Infiltration Systems are also not feasible for the project site. Due to the high groundwater throughout the parcel. All of the stormwater runoff from the proposed site improvements will be collected, treated, detained, and released per Minimum Requirement #8 into the adjacent wetland buffer. • Bioretention (BMP T7.30): Bioretention is not feasible due to the high groundwater located throughout the site. The required minimum separation from the bottom of the facilities is not achievable. Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments 3 of 7 Stormwater Site Plan • Downspout Dispersion Systems (BMP T5.10B): For the reasons mentioned above, dispersion systems are not feasible for this project. • Perforated Stub-Out Connections (BMP T5.10C): For the reasons mentioned above, perforated stub out connections are not feasible for this project. • All of the stormwater runoff from the proposed roof areas will be collected, treated, and detained in the on-site detention pond prior to being released to the wetland buffer. Other Hard Surfaces: • Full Dispersion (BMP T5.30): Full dispersion is not feasible for this project site for the reasons mentioned above. • Permeable Pavement (BMP T5.15): Based on the use of the site and the location of the parcel, enhanced treatment is required for the stormwater runoff prior to being infiltrated. A permeable pavement system would not allow for the stormwater runoff to be treated prior to infiltration into the soils. • Bioretention (BMP T7.30): Bioretention is also not feasible for this project. Due to the high groundwater the bioretention facility would not be able to maintain the minimum of 5 feet of separation. • Sheet Flow Dispersion (BMP T5.12) or Concentrated Flow Dispersion (BMP T5.11): Sheet flow dispersion and concentrated flow dispersion are both not feasible for this project for the reasons mentioned above. • The stormwater runoff from the majority of the project improvements will be collected, treated, and detained in an on-site detention pond. Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment – The proposed project will construct over 5,000 S.F. of pollution- generating impervious surface, therefore a stormwater treatment facility is required. The SWMMWW states that enhanced treatment is required for project sites that discharge directly to fresh waters or conveyance systems tributary to fresh water designated for aquatic life use or that have an existing aquatic life use; or use infiltration strictly for flow control – not treatment – and the discharge is within ¼ mile of a fresh water designated for aquatic life use. The proposed project will be discharging the stormwater runoff into a creek that is identified as being habitat for salmon. Enhance treatment will be provided through Modular Wetland systems or a similar proprietary system with the Department of Ecology General Use Level Designation (GULD) approval through the TAPE program. Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control – The proposed project will construct over 10,000 S.F. of effective impervious surfaces and will not be discharging into flow control exempt waters per Appendix I-A of the SWMMWW, Flow Control-Exempt Surface Waters. Therefore, flow control is required for this project. The proposed project is split into two drainage basins, one for the on-site improvements and the other for the frontage improvements. The on-site improvements will utilize a detention pond and flow control structure sized using the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM 2012) to meet Minimum Requirement #8. The proposed frontage improvements will utilize a drainage swale located along the roadway. It is assumed that the stormwater runoff within Berry Valley Road will infiltrate within this basin. Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetlands Protection – The proposed site currently discharges into an existing wetland associated with Thompson Creek. According to the critical areas assessment completed by Habitat Technologies in October, 2022, the existing wetland has a habitat score of 6 and therefore according to Figure I-3.5, the project is required to provide general protection, protection from pollutants, and wetland hydroperiod protection (Method 2). It is important to note, the project will not disturb the area within the wetland or the wetland buffer with the proposed improvements. See Section 4 of this report for more information. See Appendix 5 for the full critical areas report. Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance – An operations and maintenance manual will be included and attached herein as Appendix 6 at the time of the civil permit submittal. Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments 4 of 7 Stormwater Site Plan 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY 2.1 EXISTING ON-SITE CONDITIONS The subject site is +/- 14.72 acres in size. Topography within the property generally flat throughout the site and is generally sloped from east to west. The site has been cleared and developed with a single- family residence since at least 1990. See the figures below. Figure 1: Existing Conditions (1990) Figure 2: Existing Conditions (2023) Flood Hazard Zone Flood Zones: The project parcel is located with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No. 53067C0334F dated October 19th, 2023. According to the FIRM map, the project site is largely located within Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. A small portion of the west side of the parcel contains a flood hazard area within Zone A which is a flood area without a base elevation, this is associated with Thompson Creek. See Appendix 8 for the FIRM Map. Critical Area Recharge Area (CARA): According to the Thurston County GIS map, the project is located within a Type 1 CARA. On-Site Soils Information A limited geotechnical evaluation was conducted by Terra Associated, Inc. in January, 2021. Seven test pits were conducted to a maximum depth of approximately 11 feet below existing site grates. The soils onsite were observed to be approximately 4 to 9 inches of sod overlying loose silty sand and silt to depths of 3 to 4.5 feet. Organic content testing indicated that the silty sand had low organic contents ranging from 4.0 to 4.9 percent. Underlying the upper silty sand and silt, medium-dense outwash soils composed of gravel with silt, silty gravel and sand with silt was observed to the termination depths of each test pit. Groundwater seepage flows were observed at each test pit ranging from 3 feet to 9 feet throughout the site. Groundwater levels at the site are likely controlled by the flow levels in nearby Thompson Creek. A preliminary infiltration rate in the shallow material was assumed to be 0.1 inch/hour. See Appendix 5 for the geotechnical report. Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments 5 of 7 Stormwater Site Plan 3. OFFSITE ANALYSIS REPORT 3.1 QUALITATIVE UPSTREAM ANALYSIS Currently, a small portion of the existing Berry Valley Road sheet flows onto the project site. After construction, this stormwater runoff will no longer flow on-site. No other upstream areas flow onto the project parcel. 3.2 QUALITATIVE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS All of the stormwater runoff generated by the on-site improvements will be collected, treated, detained and released to protect the on-site wetland to the west. The proposed detention pond will release the stormwater runoff outside of the existing wetland buffer and therefore maintaining the existing site hydrology. There are no anticipated adverse affects to the downstream systems. 4. PERMANENT STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN 4.1 SUMMARY SECTION The proposed project follows the development requirements stated in the 2019 SWMMWW . Following Figure 1-3.1 (See Appendix 2), this project classifies as a new development that triggers all of the minimum requirements. The site does not have 35% or more of existing impervious coverage, and the project will add more than 5,000 S.F. of new impervious surfaces. See Appendix 4 for the proposed stormwater facility locations and details. Table 1: Land Type Designations Existing vs. Proposed below illustrates the existing and proposed impervious and pervious areas of the disturbed areas (See Appendix 3 for the basin map). Table 1: Land Type Designations Existing vs. Proposed LAND TYPE DESIGNATIONS AREA (ACRES) % OF TOTAL AREA Existing Areas On-Site 7.99 100 Impervious 0.12 1.50 Pervious 7.87 98.50 Off-Site 0.94 100 Impervious 0.24 25.53 Pervious 0.70 74.47 Proposed Areas On-Site 7.99 100 Roof 1.68 21.03 Asphalt 2.03 25.41 Sidewalk 0.25 3.13 Landscape 4.03 50.43 Off-Site 0.94 100 Asphalt 0.53 56.38 Sidewalk 0.15 15.96 Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments 6 of 7 Stormwater Site Plan Landscape 0.26 27.66 Performance Standards and Goals Following Figure 1-3.1 – Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development, the project site triggers the use of Minimum Requirements #1-9. All of the stormwater runoff from the on-site disturbed area of the project parcels will be collected, treated, detained on-site, and released to meet Minimum Requirement #8. The stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements will infiltrate within roadside swales. Enhanced treatment will be provided for all of the pollution-generating impervious surfaces through the use of Modular Wetland Systems. Flow Control System Flow control is required for the proposed development and will be provided through a detention pond. It is important to note that the proposed project will continue to discharge to an existing wetland and therefore is required to provide protection of the wetland hydrology. Therefore, the flow control structure and detention pond were sized per Minimum Requirement #8 and will not be releasing the stormwater runoff from the site at the predeveloped rates per Minimum Requirement #7. The site was modeled in the existing conditions (pasture). The wetland buffer will remain undisturbed with the proposed project improvements and therefore the storage within the wetland area is not affected with this project. According to WWHM, the wetland will be provided within the appropriate protection with a detention pond with a bottom area of 23,400 s.f. and a total depth of 5’ (including 1’ of freeboard). See Appendix 9 for the full WWHM report. Water Quality System Enhanced treatment will be provided for the proposed development through Modular Wetland Systems. The Modular Wetland Systems will precede the detention system and therefore are required to treat the flow rate at or below which 91% of the runoff volume, as estimated by WWHM. At this stage in design, it is assumed that the stormwater runoff from the sidewalk areas will flow across the asphalt parking areas, and therefore will be included in the treatment facility sizing. Treatment basins and facility sizing will be determined at the time of the civil permit submittal. Conveyance System Analysis and Design All stormwater conveyance systems have been sized to convey the 24-hour 25-year storm within the pipe. All proposed stormwater pipes are a minimum of 12” at a minimum slope of 0.5%. 5. CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (C-SWPPP) A SWPPP will be prepared and attached herein as Appendix 7 at the time of the civil permit submittal. 6. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES See Appendix 5 for the geotechnical report. No other special reports or studies were required for this project. Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments 7 of 7 Stormwater Site Plan 7. OTHER PERMITS Utility, paving, building, and grading permits may need to be secured prior to beginning construction activities. Coverage under Washington State Department of Ecology Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit will also need to be secured prior to beginning construction activities. 8. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The owner of the Berry Valley Road Multifamily Apartments will be responsible in maintaining all stormwater facilities on-site. An operation and maintenance manual will be completed and included herein as Appendix 6 at the time of the civil permit submittal. END OF STORMWATER SITE PLAN APPENDIX 1 SITE VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATION APPENDIX 2 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WORKSHEET Start Here Does the Site have 35% or more of existing hard surface coverage? No Does the Project result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? Yes All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. lir 4%W" DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Yes See Redevelopment Project Thresholds and the Figure "Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Redevelopment". Does the Project convert % acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or NO convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Yes Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and the land disturbed. No Does the Project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? Yes / No Does the Project have land disturbing activities of 7,000 Yes square feet or greater? No Minimum Requirement #2 applies. Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development Revised March 2019 Please see http.//www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. State of Washington Category tart riere Category What category of wetland does the TDA lorll III or IV discharge (directly or indirectly) to? IF Does the TDA trigger the requirement for Flow Does the TDA trigger the requirement for Flow Control BMPs per the TDA Thresholds outlined Control BMPs per the TDA Thresholds outlined in Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control? in Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control? Yes Is the wetland depressional or riverine impounding? AND Does the project proponent have legal access to the wetland? Yes I No Yes No No Is the habitat score greater than 5? No Yes Does the wetland provide habitat for rare, NO endangered, threatened, or sensitive species? OR Does the wetland contain a breeding population of any native amphibian? The following Wetland Protection Yes Levels apply to the TDA: • General Protection • Protection from Pollutants The following Wetland Protection Levels apply to the TDA: • General Protection • Protection from Pollutants • Wetland Hydroperiod Protection (Method 1) waa NNOW& DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY The following Wetland Protection Levels apply to the TDA: • General Protection • Protection from Pollutants • Wetland Hydroperiod Protection (Method 2) Flow Chart for Determining the Wetland Protection Levels Required Revised May 2019 State of Washington APPENDIX 3 BASIN MAP EXHIBITS x-- _-X'- I x -5 ,0 — _x-----x- -ix x }I+I XxX ------- x -X THOMPSONCREEKAREA:215ACREx x I I I I I 1 + + w I m Ill loI', I I X I 1 I X BUFFER AREA: 3.05ACRES I I I II I I I I II Ix 1 I I I I 1 I I ------X-----X-----X----x x-----X- X- i 1 1I X----- X----- X____ i x x 1 II I x 1 II I�--X----- X--- rX----- X-X-X----- X--� 1 ' X----- x {' I l o �x ---- � I xy�' I \ x I X x ° X x I r T — =____ X_ T =Ti .90' ----- T 0� --- ----- ----- ----- ----- / T © - T T _____ _____ - 7 —_T T T T___-31 f 965 — _- T_ T =____ _ ___ _ 0 _ T — N777 —I �- — - T T T BERRY VALLEYRD SE IS AREA: 0.92 ACRES AREA: 7.87ACRES AREAS: 0.94 ACRES 9US AREA: 0.24 ACRES IS AREA: 0.70 ACRES EAL ESTATE PARTNERS ROAD MULTIFAMILY EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP LDC1 Surveying Engineering Planning Woodinville Tumwater Kent 321 Cleveland Ave SE, #209 Tumwater, WA 98501 T 425.806.1869 www.LDCcorp.com F 425.482.2893 ISSUE DATE: 03-15-2024 x x- _ -- - - - THOM�QA(C,%X EK x-- � -----___ ____x_____x ___ _X x x___ 1 x THOMPSON CREEKAREA: 2.15ACRES BUFFER AREA: 3.05 ACRES all I Ix T -A' I 1' 1 IX m PROPOSED AREAS: I- - - - - - BASIN 1: 7.99 ACRES 1 I io I A PHAL T AREA: 2.03 ACRES m x SI EWALKAREA: 0.25ACRES R OF AREA: 1.68 ACRES I x P RVIOUS AREA: 4.03 ACRES i Ix O FSITEAREAS: 0.94ACRES A PHAL T AREA: 0.53 ACRES S1 EWALKAREA: 0.15ACRES I' PERVIOUS AREA: 0.26 ACRES I I I I I I� -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T—TT T —TT —T —T —T T T =T T T T T BERRY VALLEYRD SE —T—__ T T T T T T TT—T TT T -T x—motT dU _ -T -T =�T T� EALESTATE PARTNERS Y ROAD MULTIFAMILY PROPOSED CONDITIONS MAP LDC1 Surveying Engineering Planning Woodinville Tumwater Kent 321 Cleveland Ave SE, #209 Tumwater, WA 98501 T 425.806.1869 www.LDCcorp.com F 425.482.2893 ISSUE DATE: 03-15-2024 APPENDIX 4 PRELIMINARY PLANS LDC, Inc. January 2023 APPENDIX 5 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT/CRITICAL AREAS STUDY February 2, 2021 Project No. T-8458 Mr. Evan Mann SoundBuilt Northwest, LLC P.O. Box 73790 Puyallup, Washington 98373 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation Stormwater Infiltration Gerrish Property Yelm, Washington Dear Mr. Mann: As requested, we performed a limited geotechnical evaluation at the subject property. In accordance with your email, dated January 4, 2021, our scope of work for this initial phase of the project is to explore subsurface conditions at the site in order to evaluate the capability of the site soils to infiltrate stormwater runoff. The site is a 14.72-acre parcel located at 14747 – Berry Valley Road SE in Yelm, Washington. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The site is mostly open, undeveloped pastureland. The site’s southeastern corner is developed with a single-family residence and two outbuildings. Vegetation predominantly consists of grasses with brush located along the site’s western margin. Site topography is generally flat. No ponded or flowing surface water was observed at the time of our visit. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS On January 15, 2021, we observed soil and groundwater conditions at 7 test pits excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 11 feet below existing site grades. The test pits were advanced using a 300 series excavator. The approximate test pit location is shown on Figure 2. A geotechnical engineer from our office conducted the field exploration. Our representative classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and observed water levels during excavation. Slotted PVC standpipes were installed at three test pit locations to facilitate future monitoring of groundwater levels. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure 3. The Test Pit Logs are attached as Figures 4 through 10. 12220 113th Avenue NE, Ste. 130, Kirkland, Washington 98034  Phone (425) 821‐7777 • Fax (425) 821‐4334  Mr. Evan Mann February 2, 2021 Project No. T-8458 Page No. 2 Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample and organic contents of two samples are reported on the Test Pit Logs. Grain size analyses were performed on selected samples. The results are shown on Figures 11 and 12. Soils The soils observed during our investigation consist of approximately 4 to 9 inches of sod overlying loose silty sand and silt to depths of 3 to 4.5 feet. TP-1 indicated the silty sand is loose to medium dense to a depth of 6 feet. Organic content testing indicates the silty sand has low organic contents ranging from 4.0 to 4.9 percent. Underlying the upper silty sand and silt, we observed medium-dense outwash soils composed of gravel with silt, silty gravel and sand with silt to the termination depths of each test pit. The Geologic Map of the Centralia Quadrangle, Washington, by Henry W. Schasse (1987) shows site soils mapped as Vashon outwash gravel (Qdvg). The soils at the site generally correlate with the published description of these soils. Groundwater We observed groundwater seepage flows during the excavation of each of the test pits at the site. Observed seepage depths ranged from 3 feet at TP-2 and TP-7 to 9 feet at the location of TP-1. Seepage flow rates were generally heavy, with light seepage becoming heavy with depths noted during excavation of TP-5 and TP-7. Groundwater levels at the site are likely controlled by flow levels in nearby Thompson Creek, as indicated by shallower groundwater depths at the western test pit locations. Slotted two-inch PVC standpipes were installed at the locations of Test Pits TP-2, TP-5, and TP-7 to facilitate monitoring of static groundwater levels through the winter wet season. Groundwater seepage levels observed during test pit excavation and subsequent measured levels are shown in Table 1. Table 1 – Groundwater Level Measurements Test Pit Groundwater Levels Depth in feet (all depths below ground surface) At Time of Excavation (1/15/2021) 1/26/2021 TP-2 3 3.10 TP-5 5.5 6.27 TP-7 3 4.79 Mr. Evan Mann February 2, 2021 Project No. T-8458 Page No. 3 DISCUSSION The City of Yelm adopted the 2012 (amended 2014) Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWW) for stormwater design requirements. For roof runoff infiltration facilities, the SMMWW requires a minimum of three feet or more of permeable soil from the proposed final grade to the seasonal high groundwater table. Based on our observations and water level measurements, this criteria for roof runoff infiltration trench construction would not be met at the site. Accordingly, the site soils and groundwater conditions are not favorable for roof runoff flow control using SMMWW infiltration BMP T5.10A in our opinion. Permeable pavements will be feasible at the site using infiltration rates reduced by the low-permeability characteristics of the site’s silts and silty sands. Based on our experience with similar sites and pilot infiltration tests conducted on similar soils, an infiltration rate of 0.1 inch/hour can be used to design aggregate storage reservoirs below permeable pavements. LIMITATIONS We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc., and is intended for the specific application to the Gerrish Property project in Yelm, Washington and for the exclusive use of SoundBuilt Northwest, LLC and their authorized representatives. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Kevin P. Roberts. P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Carolyn S. Decker, P.E. Project Engineer Encl: Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Exploration Location Plan Figure 3 – Unified Soil Classification System Figures 4 through 10 – Test Pit Logs Figures 11 and 12 – Grain Size Analyses © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 TomTom SITE Environmental Earth Sciences Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Figure 1 VICINITY MAP 0 1000 2000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET REFERENCE: https://www.bing.com/maps ACCESSED 1/20/2020 Proj.No. T-8458 Date: FEB 2021 YELM, WASHINGTON GERRISH PROPERTY © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS © 2020 TomTom TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 TP-6TP-7 REFERENCE: REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND LEGEND: 0 150 300 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEETSITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BING MAPS. APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION Environmental Earth Sciences Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN Figure 2Proj.No. T-8458 Date: FEB 2021 YELM, WASHINGTON GERRISH PROPERTY Environmental Earth Sciences Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines) GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Gravels with fines GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. SANDS More than 50% of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve Clean Sands (less than 5% fines) SW Well-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. SP Poorly-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines. Sands with fines SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit is less than 50% ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. (Lean clay) OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit is greater than 50% MH Inorganic silts, elastic. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. (Fat clay) OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. CO A R S E G R A I N E D S O I L S Mo r e t h a n 5 0 % m a t e r i a l l a r g e r th a n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e s i z e FI N E G R A I N E D S O I L S Mo r e t h a n 5 0 % m a t e r i a l s m a l l e r th a n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e s i z e DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS CO H E S I O N L E S S CO H E S I V E Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows/Foot Very Loose 0-4 Loose 4-10 Medium Dense 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very Dense >50 Standard Penetration Consistancy Resistance in Blows/Foot Very Soft 0-2 Soft 2-4 Medium Stiff 4-8 Stiff 8-16 Very Stiff 16-32 Hard >32 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPILT SPOON SAMPLER 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER WATER LEVEL (Date) Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Figure 3Proj.No. T-8458 Date: FEB 2021 YELM, WASHINGTON GERRISH PROPERTY Sa m p l e N o . De p t h ( f t ) PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NO: LOGGED BY: LOCATION: DATE LOGGED: APPROX. ELEV: DEPTH TO CAVING: FIGURE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: SURFACE CONDITIONS: Description Consistency/ Relative Density W ( % ) interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4 T-8458 KPR Yelm, Washington Grass January 15, 2021 Gerrish Property LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-1 NA 9 Feet 3 Feet Loose to Medium Dense Medium Dense 7 inches SOD. Dark brown silty SAND, fine to medium grained, moist. (SM) Gray-brown Gray-brown GRAVEL with fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, moist to wet. (GP) Wet Total depth 11 feet due to caving. Heavy groundwater seepage at 9 feet. Caving at 3 feet. Sa m p l e N o . De p t h ( f t ) PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NO: LOGGED BY: LOCATION: DATE LOGGED: APPROX. ELEV: DEPTH TO CAVING: FIGURE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: SURFACE CONDITIONS: Description Consistency/ Relative Density W ( % ) interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 T-8458 KPR Yelm, Washington Grass January 15, 2021 Gerrish Property LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-2 NA 3 Feet 2 Feet Medium Dense Loose Medium Dense 5 inches SOD. Dark brown-gray silty SAND, fine to medium grained, moist. (SM) Wet Brown-gray GRAVEL with silt and fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, wet. (GP-GM) Total depth 8 feet due to caving. Heavy groundwater seepage at 3 feet. Caving at 2 feet. Two-inch slotted PVC standpipe installed with 3.75 feet stickup. Sa m p l e N o . De p t h ( f t ) PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NO: LOGGED BY: LOCATION: DATE LOGGED: APPROX. ELEV: DEPTH TO CAVING: FIGURE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: SURFACE CONDITIONS: Description Consistency/ Relative Density W ( % ) interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 6 T-8458 KPR Yelm, Washington Grass January 15, 2021 Gerrish Property LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-3 NA 4.5 Feet 3 Feet Loose Medium Dense 5 inches SOD. Dark brown-gray silty SAND, fine to medium grained, moist. (SM) Gray-brown SAND with silt, fine to medium grained, wet. (SP-SM) Total depth 9 feet due to caving. Heavy groundwater seepage at 4.5 feet. Caving at 3 feet. Sa m p l e N o . De p t h ( f t ) PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NO: LOGGED BY: LOCATION: DATE LOGGED: APPROX. ELEV: DEPTH TO CAVING: FIGURE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: SURFACE CONDITIONS: Description Consistency/ Relative Density W ( % ) interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7 T-8458 KPR Yelm, Washington Grass January 15, 2021 Gerrish Property LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-4 NA 6 Feet 1 Foot Loose Medium Dense 9 inches SOD. Dark brown-gray silty SAND, fine to medium grained, moist to wet. (SM) Brown mottled SAND, fine to medium grained, moist. (SP) Wet Brown-gray GRAVEL with silt and fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, wet. (GP- GM) Total depth 11 feet due to caving. Heavy groundwater seepage at 6 feet. Caving at 1 foot. Sa m p l e N o . De p t h ( f t ) PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NO: LOGGED BY: LOCATION: DATE LOGGED: APPROX. ELEV: DEPTH TO CAVING: FIGURE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: SURFACE CONDITIONS: Description Consistency/ Relative Density W ( % ) interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 T-8458 KPR Yelm, Washington Grass January 15, 2021 Gerrish Property LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-5 NA 5.5 Feet 2 Feet Loose Medium Dense 4 inches SOD. Dark brown-gray silty SAND, fine to medium grained, moist. (SM) Brown mottled SILT with fine sand, stratified, non-plastic, wet. (ML) Wet Brown silty GRAVEL with fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, wet. (GM) Total depth 11 feet due to caving. Light groundwater seepage at 5.5 feet becoming heavy at 8 feet, Caving at 2 feet. Two-inch slotted PVC standpipe installed with 2.96 feet stickup. Sa m p l e N o . De p t h ( f t ) PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NO: LOGGED BY: LOCATION: DATE LOGGED: APPROX. ELEV: DEPTH TO CAVING: FIGURE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: SURFACE CONDITIONS: Description Consistency/ Relative Density W ( % ) interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 9 T-8458 KPR Yelm, Washington Grass January 15, 2021 Gerrish Property LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-6 NA 6.5 Feet 4 Feet Loose Medium Dense 8 inches SOD. Dark brown-gray SILT with fine sand, non-plastic, moist. (ML) Brown GRAVEL with medium sand, fine gravel, moist. (GP) Wet Total depth 10 feet due to caving. Heavy groundwater seepage at 6.5 feet. Caving at 4 feet. Sa m p l e N o . De p t h ( f t ) PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NO: LOGGED BY: LOCATION: DATE LOGGED: APPROX. ELEV: DEPTH TO CAVING: FIGURE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: SURFACE CONDITIONS: Description Consistency/ Relative Density W ( % ) interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 T-8458 KPR Yelm, Washington Grass January 15, 2021 Gerrish Property LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-7 NA 3 Feet 1 Foot Loose Medium Dense 5 inches SOD. Dark brown-gray SILT with fine sand, non-plastic, moist. (ML) Brown silty SAND, fine to medium grained, wet. (SM) Brown silty GRAVEL with fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, wet. (GM) Total depth 10 feet due to caving. Light groundwater seepage at 3 feet becoming heavy at 8 feet.. Caving at 1 foot. Two-inch slotted PVC standpipe installed with 0.86 feet stickup. NONE IMaterial Description Tested By: FQ Particle Size Distribution Report C C Q Q Q c c c c c c' o �Qy SQ Q 100 I II I I I I I I I I I l l ! I II 1! I I I I I 1 1 1 1 90 I 1 I f l l 1 I I l l l I I i I I! 1 1 ! I I I I I I 80 ! I [ I ] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E 70 I I I I I I! I I I I I I I I I P I l I I I I I I I I w 60 i I I I I I I I I I I II I [ I ! I I Z I I 1 1 1 l 11 1 I I ! I 50 w I I I I I I I f I I I a 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I ! ! f I I P I I I E I ( I I I 20 I I I I I I ! 1 I I I 10 I I I I I I ! 1 I I I I I I I I 1 0 1 I l i i 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. %+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt clay 0 0.0 25.1 28.8 7.1 20.5 12.9 5.6 LL PL D gs D D Dan D DIp C C 01 25.6563 10.6850 6.2745 0.8100 0.3539 0.2568 0.24 41.61 I Material Description USCS AASHTO GP -GM o GRAVEL with silt and sand Project No. T-8458 Client: SoundBuilt Northwest Remarks: Project: Gerrish Property 'o Location: TP-6 Depth: -5 Feet Terra Associates, Inc. Kirkland, WA Figure 12 Tested By: HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife – mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 253-845-5119 contact@habitattechnologies.net A VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS COOPERATIVE CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT Parcel 2172423044 - 14747 Berry Valley Road City of Yelm, Thurston County, Washington prepared for Mr. Matthew Gerrish, owner/designated broker @ Premier Real Estate Partners e-mail matthew@contactprp.com prepared by HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES P.O. Box 1088 Puyallup, Washington 98371-1088 253-845-5119 October 4, 2022 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 2 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY ........................................................................................... 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES ............................................. 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ........................................ 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.................................. 2 THURSTON COUNTY INVENTORY MAPPING .......................................................................... 2 SOILS MAPPING .......................................................................................................................... 3 ONSITE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 3 CRITERIA FOR CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFICATION................................................................. 3 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................. 3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas ................................................................................................ 4 STUDY METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 5 FIELD OBSERVATION ................................................................................................................. 6 Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 6 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 7 Fish and Wildlife Observations ................................................................................................. 8 Movement Corridors ................................................................................................................. 9 State Priority Species ............................................................................................................... 9 Federally Listed Species ........................................................................................................ 10 CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION ........................................................................................... 11 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................ 11 Wetland A ............................................................................................................................... 11 STREAMS .................................................................................................................................. 12 Thompson Creek .................................................................................................................... 12 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS ....................................................... 12 SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION .......................................................................................... 13 STANDARD OF CARE ................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ 14 LITERATURE AND REFERENCE LIST ......................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A – FIELD DATA SHEETS .......................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX B – WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET ...................................................................... 18 APPENDIX C – RESUME OF THOMAS D. DEMING .................................................................... 19 PHOTOS ......................................................................................................................................... 20 1 20133 INTRODUCTION This document details the culmination of activities and onsite evaluations undertaken to complete an onsite assessment and characterization of environmentally critical areas (wetlands, streams, critical habitats) as a part of the planning for the future potential development within Parcel 2172423044 (project site). The project site was approximately 15-acres in size and consisted of a single existing parcel of record located at 14747 Berry Valley Road, generally to the south of Yelm High School within the western portion of the City of Yelm, Thurston County, Washington (Figure 1). The evaluation and delineation of onsite and adjacent environmentally critical areas is a vital element in the planning and selection of a future site development action. The goal of this approach is to ensure that planned site development does not result in adverse environmental impacts to these identified critical areas or their associated protective buffers. The onsite assessment and evaluation of critical areas within and immediately adjacent to the project site was completed following the methods and procedures defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010); the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Publication #14-06-029 (Hruby, 2014); the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222 - 16-030); the Washington State Mazama Pocket Gopher Assessment Protocols, the Thurston County 2022 Gopher Inspection Protocol and Procedure, and the City of Yelm Chapter 18.21 - Critical Areas. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The project site has been managed as a single-family homesite and associated outbuildings and managed pasture/pasture production area for several decades. The project site was generally flat, was irregular in shape, was approximately 15-acres in total size, and an existing single-family homesite was located in the southeastern corner of the project site. The project site was bound by existing public roadways to the north and east, by a planned residential development to the south, and by Thompson Creek along the western boundary. The project site was located in an area of increasing single-family and multi-family residential development on parcels less than an acre in size. Directions to Project Site: From Yelm Avenue West (SR510) through the western portion of the City of Yelm turn southwesterly onto Tahoma Blvd. SE. Continue south what southwesterly to Berry Valley Road SE. Turn northerly onto Berry Valley Road SE and continue to the project site. 2 20133 BACKGROUND INFORMATION NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 2). This mapping resource identified a surface water drainage corridor and associated wetland along t he western boundary of the project site. STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 3). This mapping resource identified a surface water drainage corridor and associated wetland along the western boundary of the project site. The wetland was identified as freshwater, emergent and freshwater, forest/shrub onsite and offsite. This mapping resource also identified little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) within the same township of the project site. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 4). This mapping resource identified Thompson Creek along the western boundary of the project site. This creek was further identified to provide the presumed presence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and gradient accessible for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Water Type Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 5). This mapping resource identified a wetland complex beginning offsite to the south and continuing offsite to the north within the western portion of the project site. THURSTON COUNTY INVENTORY MAPPING The Thurston County Inventory Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 6). This mapping resource identified a stream, an associated wetland, and an associated flood zone within the western portion of the project site. 3 20133 SOILS MAPPING The soil mapping inventory completed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 7). This mapping resource identified the soil throughout the majority of the project site to as Nisqually loamy fine sand (74). The Nisqually soil series is defined as somewhat excessively well drained, as formed in sandy glacial outwash, and as not listed as a “hydric” soil. The Nisqually soil is identified as a ”more preferred” soil for Mazama pocket gophers and the project site is within a defined pocket gopher “service area” (Figure 6B). ONSITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFICATION The City of Yelm defines “critical areas” to include the following areas: wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologic hazard areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The Critical Areas Assessment presented within this document has focused on wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservations areas. This assessment did not characterize other critical areas such as potential steep slopes, potential erosion hazard areas, potential flood zones, potential critical aquifer recharge areas, or potential channel migration hazard areas. Wetlands Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. In general terms, wetlands are lands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands are generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present f or an area to meet the established criteria (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 and United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: The assemblage of macrophytes that occurs in areas where inundation or soil saturation is either permanent or of sufficient frequency and duration to influence plant occurrence. Hydrophytic vegetation is present when the plant community is dominated by species that require or can tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during the growing season. 4 20133 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper parts. Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from recent periods of saturation or inundation. These processes result in distinctive characteristics that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods. 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or surface soil saturation, at least seasonally. Wetland hydrology indicators are used in combination with indicators of hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation to define the area. Wetland hydrology indications provide evidence that the site has a continuing wetland hydrology regime. Where hydrology has not been altered vegetation and soils provide strong evidence that wetland hydrology is present. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas" are areas necessary for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are not created as designated by WAC 365-190-080(5). These areas include: a. Areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; i. Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that are in danger of extinction or threatened to become endangered. ii. State designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that are in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. b. State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species. Priority habitats and species are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. c. Naturally Occurring Ponds under 20 Acres. d. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. 5 20133 e. Areas of Rare Plant Species and High Quality Ecosystems. Areas of rare plant species and high quality ecosystems are identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources through the Natural Heritage Program. f. Land useful or essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces. Specific to Westside Dry Prairies: As defined by the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and as adopted by the City of Yelm, prairies are “herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie were soils are well-drained or a wet prairie. In parts of the Puget Trough prairies can sometimes be recognized by mounded topography commonly referred to as Mima Mounds. Although dry prairies can occur on other soils, typically such prairies occur on any one of the soils known to be associated with a prairie (Alderwood, Baldhill, Cagey, Everett, Grove, Indianola, Nisqually, Spana, Spanaway, Tenino). In addition, certain vegetation characteristics typify a dry prairie. These characteristics include the occurrence of diagnostic grasses, sedges, and forbs. The presence of these certain diagnostic plants is required to establish an occurrence of a dry prairie. Those areas that are dominated by prairie soils, but which are no longer dominated by the specific diagnostic prairie plants, a combination of native and non -native invasive plants typically dominates the plant community. These native and non-native species include a wide variety of seeded and native grasses and forbs, as well as a variety of invasive native and non-native shrubs and trees. STUDY METHODS Habitat Technologies completed a series of onsite assessments between August and early October 2022. Specific onsite assessments of potential Mazama pocket gopher presences within the project site were completed on August 24, 2022 and October 4, 2022. Onsite assessment was completed consistent with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010); the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Publication #14-06-029 (Hruby, 2014); the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-16-030); the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Mazama Pocket Gopher Assessment Protocols, the Thurston County 2022 Gopher Inspection Protocol and Procedure, and the City of Yelm Chapter 18.21 - Critical Areas. Field data sheets are provided in Appendix A and the location of each sample plot is provided within Figure 8. 6 20133 FIELD OBSERVATION The project site has been managed as a single -family homesite with associated outbuildings and managed pasture/pasture production area for several decades. The majority of the project site was dominated by a seeded and volunteer grass plant community annually harvested for pasture production. The majority of the projec t site was defined as a generally flat terrace and the very western portion of the project site was also a generally flat terrace at a slightly lower elevation. Thompson Creek was located within an excavated drainage ditch along the western boundary of the project site. Soils As documented at representative sample plots throughout the majority of the project site the soils exhibited characteristics typical of the Nisqually loamy fine sand series. The surface soil generally to a depth between six (6) and twelve (12) inches exhibited a black (10YR 2/1) to very dark brown (10YR 2/2) coloration and a loamy sand to fine sandy loam texture. The subsoil to a depth of 24 inches exhibited a coloration of very dark gray (10YR 3/1) to dark brown (10YR 3/3) and a loamy sand texture. The subsoil also exhibited a limited percentage of small gravel and did not exhibit prominent redoximorphic features. The soil throughout the majority of the project si te did not exhibited characteristics typically associated with a “hydric” soil. The soil within the slightly lower terrace along the western portion of the project site exhibited characteristics typical of the Nisqually soil series that had been subject to seasonal hydrology patterns and appeared to drain somewhat poorly. The surface soil generally to a depth between six (6) and fifteen (15) inches exhibited a black (10YR 2/1) to very dark brown (10YR 2/2) coloration and a loamy sand to fine sandy loam texture. However, this surface soil exhibited prominent redoximorphic features to include oxidized root channels, soil depletions, and small concretions. The subsoil to a depth of 24 inches exhibited a coloration of black (10YR 2/1) to very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) and a loamy sand texture. As with the surface soil, the subsoil also exhibited prominent redoximorphic features to include oxidized root channels, soil depletions, and small concretions. The soil within this slightly lower terrace was id entified as “hydric” in character. Hydrology Onsite hydrology appeared to be the result of seasonal stormwater runoff from onsite and from adjacent parcels, and from seasonal flooding associated with the ditched drainage corridor along the western boundary of the project site (Thompson Creek). The majority of the project site appeared to drain moderately well to well and did not exhibit field 7 20133 indicators typically associated with wetland hydrology or the concentrated movement of seasonal surface water. Seasonal hydrology patterns within the slightly lower terrace along the western portion of the project site appeared controlled by the movement (or lack of movement) of seasonal surface water within the Thompson Creek Corridor. Thompson Creek was located within an excavated ditch along the western boundary of the project site. However, the lack of recent management actions (generally the removal of vegetation and accumulated sediments) within this corridor had resulted in the restricted m ovement of seasonal surface water. As such, during and shortly following periods of heavy seasonal surface water runoff and areas adjacent to the ditched corridor become inundated. Such inundation has been observed by Habitat Technologies during assessments of adjacent and somewhat adjacent properties over the past decades. Based on these prior observations and the character of the project site the slightly lower terrace along the western portion of the project site, as well as the are to the west of the Thompson Creek Corridor, was identified to exhibit prominent field indicators of seasonal wetland hydrology. Vegetation As noted above, the project site has been managed as a single-family homesite with associated outbuildings and managed pasture/pasture production area for several decades. As such, the majority of the project site was dominated by a variety of seeded and volunteer grasses, and herbs. Observed species included rye grass (Lolium spp.), bluegrass (Poa spp.), bent grass (Agrostis tenuis), common orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), quack grass (Agropyron repens), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), fescue (Festuca spp.), wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), cats-ear (Hypochaeris lanatum), clover (Trifolium spp.), daisy (Bellis spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), geranium (Geranium spp.), plantain (Plantago major), field mint (Mentha arvensis), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), thistle (Cirsium vulgare and Cirsium arvensis), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium). In a few areas, primarily along perimeter fence lines, this plant community included evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius). Along the western boundary of the project site (generally within the lower terrace area associated with the Thompson Creek Corridor) the primary onsite plant community as noted above transitioned into a monotypic plant community of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Since this monotypic community of reed canarygrass did not appear regularly mowed for pasture crop production the very western edge of this monotypic area included a variety of other grasses, herbs, and starts of shrubs and trees. 8 20133 OFFSITE: The areas immediately to the south and north along the Thompson Creek Corridor were dominated by plant communities similar to the project site. However, many of the adjacent properties were generally managed as single-family homesites. Fish and Wildlife Observations A variety of wildlife species were observed (directly or indirectly) within and adjacent to the project site during the onsite assessment, during assessments of locally adjacent parcels, or would reasonable be expected to utilize available habitats . The majority of these observed species are commonly present within rural-residential areas and managed forest plant communities. Observed species and those species likely to use the habitats provided by the project site and adjacent areas included red tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), merlin (Falco columbarius), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), American crow (Corvus brachynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), violet green swallow (Tachycineta thallassina), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), American robin (Turdus migratorius), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), brown creeper (Certhia americana), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), rufous sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Steller jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), longtail weasel (Mustela frenata), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), shrew (Sorex spp.), mole (Scapanus spp.), bats (Myotis spp.), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), vole (Microtus spp.), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla). Thompson Creek along the western boundary of the project site has been identified by WDFW as providing “presumed” habitat for coho salmon. However, as observed by onsite assessments, and assessments of adjacent parcels along the Thompson Creek Corridor available habitats for salmonid fish species are very limited. The majority of the channel within and adjacent to the project site is clogged with dense vegetation and the channel substrates are dominated by captured alluvial fine sediments. During onsite assessments the channel along the western boundary of the project site did not provide suitable spawning habitats for salmonid fish species. OF SPECIAL NOTE: A specific assessment of potential project site utilization by Mazama pocket gophers (Thomomys mazama) was completed following the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Mazama Pocket Gopher Assessment Protocols and the Thurston County 2022 Gopher Inspection Protocol and Procedure as a part of this assessment on August 24, 2022 and October 4, 2022. In addition, Habitat 9 20133 Technologies completed a similar onsite assessment of potential utilization by Mazama pocket gophers during 2020. These assessments identified that neither the project site nor adjacent parcels exhibited a “prairie ecosystem” habitat type. In addition, these assessments did not identify any active Mazama pocket gopher utilization of the project site. As such, the presence of those species dependent upon “prairie ecosystems” (Mazama pocket gophers, streaked horned lark, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly) would be highly unlikely within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Movement Corridors The project site was generally located within a rural residential area converting into higher residential densities. The project site was used for the daily movements of common local wildlife species and was within the seasonal migratory pathways for a variety of passerine birds. Thompson Creek also provides a movement corridor for aquatic and terrestrial organisms. State Priority Species A few species identified by the State of Washington as “Priority Species” were observed onsite or potentially may utilize the project site. Priority species require protective measures for their survival due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Game Species: “Game species” are regulated by the State of Washington through recreational hunting bag limits, harvest seasons, and harvest area restrictions. Observed or documented “game species” within and adjacent to the project site included black-tailed deer and mourning dove. State Monitored: State Monitored species are native to Washington but require habitat that has limited availability, are indicators of environmental quality, require further assessment, have unresolved taxonomy, may be competing with other species of concern, or have significant popular appeal. A State Monitored species – turkey vulture – may utilize the habitats associated with the drainage corridor in the western portion of the project site and offsite areas. State Candidate: State Candidate species are presently under review by the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. One State Candidate species - pileated woodpecker – was identified to use the offsite forested habitats adjacent to the project site. State Sensitive: State Sensitive species are native to Washington and is vulnerable to declining and is likely to become endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range without cooperative management or 10 20133 removal of threats. No State Sensitive species were observed or have been documented to use the habitats associated with the project site. State Threatened: State Threatened species means any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. No State Threatened species were observed or have been documented to use the habitats associated with the project site. State Endangered: State endangered species means any species native to the state of Washington that is seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state. No State Endangered species were observed or have been documented to use the habitats associated with the project site. Federally Listed Species The project site was not identified and has not been documented to provide critical habitats for federally listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. Thompson Creek along the western boundary of the project site is defined to provide gradient accessible habitats for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead (both federally listed threatened species) and coho salmon (a federally listed species of concern). However, these species have not been documented in Thompson Creek within the area of the project site. A single, federally listed “species of concern” – bald eagle – has been observed and documented to utilize the habitats provided along the shoreline of the Nisqually River, larger surface water drainages, and ponds within the general area of the project site. As such, this species may occasionally over fly the project site. As noted above, neither the project site nor adjacent parcels exhibited a “prairie ecosystem” habitat type. As such, the presence of those federally listed species dependent upon “prairie ecosystems” (Mazama pocket gopher) would be unlikely within or immediately adjacent to the project site. However, Thurston County and associated Cities have been coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the preservation of suitable habitats for Mazama pocket gopher. Mazama pocket gophers have been identified by Thurston County as potentially within the general area of the project site. As such, the project site is included within the Thurston County – Yelm East Service Area for purposes of planning and habitat assessment. 11 20133 CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION Specific critical areas determination was based on the methods and criteria outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010); the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update Publication #14-06-029 (Hruby, 2014); the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222 - 16-030); the Washington State Mazama Pocket Gopher Assessment Protocols, the Thurston County 2022 Gopher Inspection Protocol and Procedure, and Thurston County Title 24 – Critical Areas (Figure 8). WETLANDS Wetland determination was based on sample plots which exhibited hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). Based on the findings of the 2022 assessment documented above, along with prior assessments completed onsite and within adjacent parcels, one wetland was identified within a slightly lower terrace along the western portion of the project site. This lower terrace was also associated with the Thompson Creek Corridor. Wetland A WETLAND CLASSIFICATION (USFWS) CITY OF YELM CATEGORY WDOE RATING SCORE WDOE HABITAT SCORE BUFFER WIDTH A PEMEf (onsite) PEMEf and PFOE (offsite) III 19 6 150 feet Wetland A was identified within a slightly lower terrace along the western portion of the project site. This terrace was associated with the Thompson Creek Corridor and was identified to continue offsite to the western side of Thompson Creek adjacent to the project along with upstream (southerly) and downstream (northerly) of the project site. Onsite and within many of the adjacent areas this wetland was dominated by reed canarygrass that had become established following the cessation of prior pasture management actions and a variety of generally invasive shrubs and small trees. Onsite, Wetland A appeared, and has been previously observed, to become inundated with seasonal surface water 12 20133 associated with Thompson Creek. As a result of this inundation portions of Wetland A exhibited short-term seasonal ponding into the first part of the growing season. Onsite Wetland A was identified to meet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification of palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded/saturated, farmed (PEMEf); and offsite as both palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded/saturated, farmed (PEMEf); and palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded/saturated (PFOE). Wetland A was also identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Yelm Category III Wetland. Wetland A achieved a total functions score of 19 points utilizing the 2014 Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington (Hruby 2014) (Appendix B). The standard buffer for a City of Yelm Category III Wetland with a moderate level of habitat points is 150 feet as measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary. STREAMS Thompson Creek Thompson Creek, an eventual tributary to the Nisqually River, was identified within a generally excavated channel along the western boundary of the project site. Prior management actions along this ditched drainage appeared to have confined the majority of seasonal surface water runoff within the excavated channel. However, the identified character of this channel suggested that it has been some time since routine channel maintenance actions and that the channel had become clogged with vegetation and captured sediments. Thompson Creek is defined as a Type F Stream (fish bearing) and as having a standard City of Yelm buffer of 150 feet in width as measured perpendicular from the top of excavated channel bank (ordinary high water mark). As defined within the field mapping the standard buffer for this creek would fall generally within the area of the associated wetland. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS As defined by onsite assessment, a few areas defined as City of Yelm “fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas” were identified within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Thompson Creek along the western boundary of the project site has not been documented to provide habitats for state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. However, this tributary to the Nisqually River has been identified to provide gradient accessible habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead (both federally listed threatened species) and coho salmon (a federally listed species of concern). The project site has also been defined to provide observed or potential State “priority habitats” and areas associated with State “priority species.” These include black-tailed deer and mourning dove (both State game species), turkey vulture 13 20133 (State monitored species), and offsite habitats for pileated woodpecker (State candidate species). Observed onsite “State priority habitats” include Thompson Creek and Wetland A. These two “State priority habitats” are also identified as “Waters of the U.S.” and “waters of the State.” Onsite assessment did not identify any “naturally occurring ponds under 20 -acres,” did not identify any “areas of rare plant species or high quality ecosystems,” or essential habitat connections. SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION The Selected Development Action for this project site is within the initial planning stages and has not been fully defined. STANDARD OF CARE This critical area assessment has been completed by Habitat Technologies for use by Premier Real Estate Partners. Prior to extensive site planning the findings documented in this document should be reviewed and verified by Thurston County and potentially other resource agency personnel. Habitat Technologies has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished. No other warranties are expressed or implied. Habitat Technologies is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Bryan W. Peck Senior Wetland Biologist Thomas D. Deming, SPWS Habitat Technologies (Appendix C) 14 20133 FIGURES Legend Scale 1: Figure 1 Site Vicinty 39,347 The information included on this map has been compiled by Thurston County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Additional elements may be present in reality that are not represented on the map. Ortho-photos and other data may not align. The boundaries depicted by these datasets are approximate. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. ALL DATA IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND ‘WITH ALL FAULTS’. Thurston County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. In no event shall Thurston County be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits, real or anticipated, resulting from the use, misuse or reliance of the information contained on this map. If any portion of this map or disclaimer is missing or altered, Thurston County removes itself from all responsibility from the map and the data contained within. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained in this map. Authorized for 3rd Party reproduction for personal use only. 10/4/2022Published: Map Created Using GeoData Public Website Note: Feet 0 40002000Roads City County Government Private State Roads - Major (Large Scale) <all other values> I 5 ACCESS; US 101 ACCESS; US 101 SB OFF RAMP I 5; US 101 Roads (Small Scale) Railroads County Border Olympia Municipal Airport Airport © 2022 Thurston County Figure 2 NWI Mapping U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine October 4, 2022 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:7,523 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Figure 3 10/4/22, 3:08 PM PHS Species/Habitats Details: PHS Report Priority Area Site Name Accuracy Notes Source Dataset Source Name Source Entity Federal Status State Status Aquatic Habitat N/A NA Wetland System: Freshwater Emergent Wetland - NWI Code: PEM1C NWIWetlands Not Given US Fish and Wildlife Service N/A N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.ggv/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat N/A NA Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - NWI Code: PSSC NWIWetlands Not Given US Fish and Wildlife Service N/A N/A Site Name Accuracy Notes Source Dataset Source Name Source Entity Federal Status State Status PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.htmI Geometry Type Polygons about:blank 2/3 10/4/22, 3:08 PM PHS Report Little Brown Bat Scientific Name Notes Myotis lucifugus This polygon mask represents one or more records of the above species or habitat occurrence. Contact PHS Data Release (360-902- 2543) for obtaining information about masked sensitive species and habitats. Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive Y SGCN N Display Resolution TOWNSHIP ManagementRecommendations http://wdfw.wa.gov//publications/pub.php?id=00605 DISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources. Locations offish and wildlife resources are subject to variation caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old. about:blank 3/3 Figure 4 WDFW Salmonscape Mapping Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS/NHD, Dale Gombert (WDFW), WDFW, Maxar All SalmonScape Species October 4, 2022 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.15 0.30.07 km 1:9,028 Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Forest Practices Division, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Engineering Division Map Symbols Forest Practices Water Type Map ¯ End of Fish or Last Fish!? "Manmade Barrier#*Natural Fish Barrier Start and End Point of Surveyed Reach [[New Stream F Proposed Water Type Stream Removalxxx Break between water types F N Extreme care was used during the compilation of this map to ensure its accuracy. However, due to changes in data and the need to rely on outside information, the Department of Natural Resources cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions, and therefore, there are no warranties that accompany this material.Date: 10/4/2022 Time: 3:12 PM Additional Information Legal Description 0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 Miles Approximate Scale :1:12,000 Figure 5 Legend County Boundaries 40 ft. Contours Type A Wetland Type B Wetland Forested Wetland Other Wetland WRIA Boundaries Type S Type F Type N, Np, Ns U, unknown X, non-typed per WAC 222-16 Other Impoundments Open Freshwater Subject to Inundation Glacier / Snowfield Wet Area Open Saltwater Artificial Feature WTMF - PDFs (FP) WAUs Water Type Breaks (FP) Paved Road Unpaved Road/Surface Unknown Trail Railroad Railroad Grade Abandoned Orphaned Map Registration Tics Public Land Survey Sections Public Land Survey Townships Legend Scale 1: Figure 6 Thurston County Mapping 9,837 The information included on this map has been compiled by Thurston County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Additional elements may be present in reality that are not represented on the map. Ortho-photos and other data may not align. The boundaries depicted by these datasets are approximate. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. ALL DATA IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND ‘WITH ALL FAULTS’. Thurston County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. In no event shall Thurston County be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits, real or anticipated, resulting from the use, misuse or reliance of the information contained on this map. If any portion of this map or disclaimer is missing or altered, Thurston County removes itself from all responsibility from the map and the data contained within. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained in this map. Authorized for 3rd Party reproduction for personal use only. 10/4/2022Published: Map Created Using GeoData Public Website Note: Feet 0 900450Streams Roads City County Government Private State Flood Zones FEMA 100 Year (1%) 500 Year (0.2%) Wetlands Parcel Boundaries Roads - Major (Large Scale) <all other values> I 5 ACCESS; US 101 ACCESS; US 101 SB OFF RAMP RAMPI 5; US 101 © 2022 Thurston County The information included on this map has been compiled by Thurston County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Additional elements may be present in reality that are not represented on the map. Ortho-photos and other data may not align. The boundaries depicted by these datasets are approximate. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. ALL DATA IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND ‘WITH ALL FAULTS’. Thurston County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. In no event shall Thurston County be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits, real or anticipated, resulting from the use, misuse or reliance of the information contained on this map. If any portion of this map or disclaimer is missing or altered, Thurston County removes itself from all responsibility from the map and the data contained within. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained in this map. Authorized for 3rd Party reproduction for personal use only. Figure 6B Service Area: Yelm Pocket Gopher East 21,462Scale 1: 0 10/4/2022 Note: Legend 1000 2000 Feet Published: Map Created Using GeoData Public Website Mazama Pocket Gopher Areas Occupied Near Mazama Pocket Gopher Mazama Pocket Gopher Soils Less Preferred More Preferred Roads City County Government Private State Parcel Boundaries Roads - Major Major Roads Ramp I 5; US 101 Roads (Large Scale) Railroads County Border 2022© Thurston County Soil Map—Thurston County Area, Washington (Figure 7 Soils Mapping) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2022 Page 1 of 3 46° 56' 54'' N 12 2 ° 3 7 ' 5 1 ' ' W 46° 56' 54'' N 12 2 ° 3 7 ' 3 8 ' ' W 46° 56' 42'' N 12 2 ° 3 7 ' 5 1 ' ' W 46° 56' 42'' N 12 2 ° 3 7 ' 3 8 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 0 50 100 200 300Feet 0 25 50 100 150Meters Map Scale: 1:1,790 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Thurston County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 8, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 18, 2020—Jul 20, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Thurston County Area, Washington (Figure 7 Soils Mapping) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2022 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 33 Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.1 0.5% 74 Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes 16.0 99.3% 113 Spanaway stony sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.0 0.2% Totals for Area of Interest 16.1 100.0% Soil Map—Thurston County Area, Washington Figure 7 Soils Mapping Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2022 Page 3 of 3 ★ MN 15°15' Project Boundary Wetland A Stream 150 Feet Buffer Figure 8 Site Graphic 100 ft 15 20133 LITERATURE AND REFERENCE LIST Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y -87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, Lewis M. et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetlands Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016 -30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. http://wetland-plands. Usace.army.mil/ Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79 -R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. March 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), Environmental Laboratory ERDC/EL TR-08-13. US Climate Data, 2015 http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/tacoma/washington /united-states/uswa0441/0441/2014/1 USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Plants Database, 2015 (for hydroph ytic plan classification): http://plants.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. 2016 http://vewsoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/newfeatures.2.3.htm . US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Mapper, 2016 (for NWI wetland mapping): http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. 16 20133 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication Number 96 -94. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Maps 2016 http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife SalmonScape Mapping System, 2016 (for fish presence): http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html Washington State Department of Natural Resources FPARS Mapping System, 2016 (for stream typing): http://fortess.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm 17 20133 APPENDIX A – Field Data Sheets US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:4 OCT 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK1 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R01E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: once managed pasture now overgrown with dense reed canarygrass. edge of lower terrace area dominating western part of parcel VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 yes FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: reed canarygrass dominanted plant community. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK1 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 80 10YR 4/6 20 D M LS dense roots in sandy loam 14-24 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 D M LS sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. Surface and subsoil exhibit redomophic features. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Prior observations following storm events Remarks: Prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. Area inundated by seasonal surface water from adjacent streams following storms. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:4 OCT 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK2 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R01E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Edge of terrace slightly above terrace to the west assocaited with Thompson Creek. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 60 yes FACW 2. Holcus lanatus 20 yes FAC 3. Agrostic tenuis <10 no FAC 4. Poa spp. <10 no FAC 5. Alopecurus pratensis <10 no FACW 6. Taraxacum officinale <2 no FACU 7. Rumex crispus trace no FAC 8. 9. 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: edge of managed pasture production area to east and no longer managed pasture to west US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK2 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 LS 14-24 10YR 3/1 100 LS 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:4 OCT 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK3 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R01E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Edge of terrace slightly above terrace to the west assocaited with Thompson Creek. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 20 yes FACW 2. Holcus lanatus 30 yes FAC 3. Agrostic tenuis 20 yes FAC 4. Poa spp. <10 no FAC 5. Alopecurus pratensis 20 yes FACW 6. Taraxacum officinale <2 no FACU 7. Rumex crispus trace no FAC 8. 9. 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: edge of managed pasture production area to east and no longer managed pasture to west US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK3 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-11 10YR 2/1 100 LS 11-24 10YR 3/2 100 LS 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:4 OCT 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK7 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R01E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: once managed pasture now overgrown with dense reed canarygrass. edge of lower terrace area dominating western part of parcel VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 yes FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: reed canarygrass dominanted plant community. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK7 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 2/1 80 10YR 4/6 20 D M LS dense roots in sandy loam 5-24 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 D M LS sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. Surface and subsoil exhibit redomophic features. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Prior observations following storm events Remarks: Prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. Area inundated by seasonal surface water from adjacent streams following storms. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:4 OCT 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK8 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R01E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Edge of terrace slightly above terrace to the west assocaited with Thompson Creek. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Phalaris arundinacea <5 no FACW 2. Holcus lanatus 30 yes FAC 3. Agrostic tenuis 40 yes FAC 4. Poa spp. <10 no FAC 5. Alopecurus pratensis 20 yes FACW 6. Taraxacum officinale <2 no FACU 7. Rumex crispus trace no FAC 8. Dactylis glomerata 20 yes FACU 9. Festuca spp. <5 no FAC 10. Hypochaeris lanatum <5 no FACU 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: edge of managed pasture production area to east and no longer managed pasture to west US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK8 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 LS 8-24 10YR 3/2 100 LS 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:24 AUG 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK10 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R1E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: managed pasture production area VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Dactylis glomerata 20 yes FACU 2. Poa spp. <10 no FAC 3. Holocus lanatus 20 yes FAC 4. Agrostic tenuis 10 yes FAC 5. Anthoxanthum odoratum 20 yes FACU 6. Plantago major <2 no FACU 7. Hyplchaeris lanatum <2 no FACU 8. Trifolium spp. <2 no FAC 9. Pteridium aquilium <2 no FACU 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: mixed pasture grass community with small invaisve patches of Scots broom US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK10 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR 2/1 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 7-24 10YR 3/2 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:4 OCT 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPK11 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R01E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Edge of terrace slightly above terrace to the west assocaited with Thompson Creek. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Phalaris arundinacea trace no FACW 2. Holcus lanatus 30 yes FAC 3. Agrostic tenuis 40 yes FAC 4. Poa spp. 20 yes FAC 5. Alopecurus pratensis <10 no FACW 6. Taraxacum officinale <2 no FACU 7. Rumex crispus trace no FAC 8. Dactylis glomerata 20 yes FACU 9. Festuca spp. <5 no FAC 10. Hypochaeris lanatum <5 no FACU 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: edge of managed pasture production area to east and no longer managed pasture to west US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPK11 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR 2/1 100 LS 7-24 10YR 3/2 100 LS 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:24 AUG 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPP1 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R1E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: managed pasture crop production area. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Dactylis glomerata 90 yes FACU 2. Phalaris arundinacea 5 no FACW 3. Poa spp. <2 no FAC 4. Festuca spp. <2 no FAC 5. Holcus lanatus <2 no FAC 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: managed pasture corp dominanted plant community. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPP1 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/1 100 LS loamy fine sand 10-24 10YR 2/1 100 GLS gravelly loamy fine sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:24 AUG 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPP2 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R1E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: managed pasture production area VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Dactylis glomerata 20 yes FACU 2. Poa spp. 10 no FAC 3. Agrostis tenuis 20 yes FAC 4. Festuca spp. <10 no FAC 5. Alopecurus pratensis <10 no FACW 6. Anthoxanthum odoratum 20 yes FACU 7. Holcus lanatus 20 yes FAC 8. Hypochaeris lanatum <2 no FACU 9. Plantago major <2 no FACU 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: well mixed pasture plant community of grasses and a few herbs US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPP2 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/1 100 LS somewhat compact loamy sand 10-24 10YR 2/2 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:24 AUG 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPP3 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R1E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: managed pasture production area VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Cytisus scoparius 20 yes UPL 2. 3. 4. 5. 20 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Dactylis glomerata 20 yes FACU 2. Poa spp. <10 no FAC 3. Holocus lanatus 20 yes FAC 4. Agrostic tenuis 10 yes FAC 5. Anthoxanthum odoratum 20 yes FACU 6. Plantago major <2 no FACU 7. Hyplchaeris lanatum <2 no FACU 8. 9. 10. 11. 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: mixed pasture grass community with invaisve patches of Scots broom US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPP3 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 4-24 10YR 3/3 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:24 AUG 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPP4 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R1E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: managed pasture production area VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Cytisus scoparius <2 no UPL 2. 3. 4. 5. <2 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Dactylis glomerata 20 yes FACU 2. Poa spp. <10 no FAC 3. Holocus lanatus 20 yes FAC 4. Agrostic tenuis 10 yes FAC 5. Anthoxanthum odoratum 20 yes FACU 6. Plantago major <2 no FACU 7. Hyplchaeris lanatum <2 no FACU 8. Trifolium spp. <2 no FAC 9. Pteridium aquilium <2 no FACU 10. 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: mixed pasture grass community with small invaisve patches of Scots broom US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPP4 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 2/1 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 5-24 10YR 3/3 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:24 AUG 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPP5 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R1E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: managed pasture production area VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Cytisus scoparius <2 no UPL 2. 3. 4. 5. <2 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Dactylis glomerata 15 yes FACU 2. Poa spp. <10 no FAC 3. Holocus lanatus 25 yes FAC 4. Agrostic tenuis 20 yes FAC 5. Anthoxanthum odoratum 30 yes FACU 6. Plantago major <2 no FACU 7. Hyplchaeris lanatum <2 no FACU 8. Trifolium spp. <2 no FAC 9. Pteridium aquilium <2 no FACU 10. Cirsium arvensis <2 no FAC 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: mixed pasture grass community with small invaisve patches of Scots broom US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPP5 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 8-24 10YR 2/2 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Parcel 21724230400 City/County: City of Yelm, Thurston County Sampling Date:24 AUG 2022 Applicant/Owner: State: WA. Sampling Point: SPP6 Investigator(s): Habitat Technologies Section, Township, Range: S24 T17 R1E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Nisqually loamy fine sand NWI classification: Somewhat excessive Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology 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 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: managed pasture production area VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Cytisus scoparius trace no UPL 2. 3. 4. 5. trace = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. Dactylis glomerata 25 yes FACU 2. Poa spp. <5 no FAC 3. Holocus lanatus 25 yes FAC 4. Agrostic tenuis 25 yes FAC 5. Anthoxanthum odoratum 20 yes FACU 6. Plantago major <2 no FACU 7. Hyplchaeris lanatum <2 no FACU 8. Trifolium spp. <2 no FAC 9. Pteridium aquilium <2 no FACU 10. Cirsium arvensis <2 no FAC 11. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft radius) 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: mixed pasture grass community with small invaisve patches of Scots broom US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SPP6 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 2/1 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 9-24 10YR 2/2 100 somewhat compact loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: NO Prominent field indicators of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No prominent field indicators of wetland hydrology. 18 20133 APPENDIX B – Wetland Rating Worksheet ★ MN 15°27'Figure A1 200 ft Forest Emergent ★ MN 15°27' Wetland A 150 Feet Boundary Figure A2 200 ft Seasonal Saturation Seasonal Stream Outlet Seasonal Ponding ★ MN 15°27' Wetland A Contributing Basin Figure A3 500 ft ★ MN 15°27' Wetland A 1 KM Boundary Figure A4 500 ft High Intensity Habitat Low/Moderate Intensity Figure W1 © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS © 2022 TomTom Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA October 5, 2022 0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles K Assessed Water/Sediment Water Category 5 - 303d Category 4C Category 4B Category 4A Category 2 Category 1 Sediment Category 5 - 303d Category 4C Category 4B Category 4A Category 2 Category 1 WQ Improvement Projects Approved In Development Subbasins (12 digit HUCs) HUC boundary Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 _______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 _______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 _______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above A Parcel 21724230400 Habitat Technologies 4 OCT 2022 2014x Depressional III x 7 6 6 19 x Thurston County/Expert GPS x x Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 A1 N/A N/A N/A A2 A2 A2 A3 A4 W1 W1 A Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. A Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. A Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation : This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 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 stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 -D 2.3? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 2 0 5 2 9 1 x 1 2 0 4 x 0 1 0 1 x A monotypic reed canarygrass Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 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 receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met . The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):  Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2  Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 2 3 3 8 x 1 1 0 2 x 1 0 1 x A x x Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 ____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 ____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points 2 x x x 2 2 1 A x x x offsite Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) ____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) ____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2  It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page 3 10 x x 2 15 17 1 28 1 0 8 36 2 x 1 x x A x Wetland name or number ______ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.  Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).  Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).  Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.  Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.  Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).  Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.  Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).  Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.  Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page).  Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.  Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.  Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.  Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. A x x 19 20133 APPENDIX C – Resume of Thomas D. Deming HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife – mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 253-845-5119 contact@habitattechnologies.net A VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS COOPERATIVE THOMAS D. DEMING Senior Professional Wetland Scientist - Certificate #447 EDUCATION University of Puget Sound, School of Law - Juris Doctor Tacoma, WA 1987 Oregon State University Corvallis, OR Bachelor of Science - Wildlife Science 1978 Bachelor of Science - Fisheries Science 1978 EXPERIENCE Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands and Streams  Evaluation and delineation of freshwater and estuarine wetland areas using federal and state guidelines (1987 Manual with 2010 Supplement, Washington State Wetland Rating System) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification systems.  Conducting wetland function and value analysis evaluations.  Development of workable wetland and stream impact mitigation programs and habitat restoration and enhancement plans. Included within these programs and plans has been the development and implementation of post-mitigation monitoring programs.  Completion of onsite technical support and project team coordination during the implementation of mitigation site construction and vegetation planting.  Coordination of wetland project activities and permitting processes to obtain appropriate and timely permits and project completion within defined timelines.  Identification and evaluation of plant communities within wetland and buffer areas. Wildlife and Fisheries  Completion of Biological Evaluations for Threatened and Endangered Species following USFWS, NMFS, and FEMA guidelines.  Completion of wildlife and fisheries habitat assessments to determine limiting factors to population dynamics and habitat utilization (both existing and potential).  Completion of threatened and endangered species and habitat assessments for plants, fish, and wildlife to determine project impacts and restoration/enhancement potential.  Development, implementation, and monitoring of restoration and enhancement projects within freshwater, estuarine, and upland habitats designed to improve wildlife and fisheries utilization and migration corridors.  Preparation of wildlife and fisheries management prescriptions for both project-specific areas and basin-level planning processes.  Development and implementation of hatchery components and operations for Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, and steelhead trout culture.  Coordination of wildlife and fisheries project activities and permitting processes to obtain appropriate and timely permits. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Habitat Technologies (sole proprietorship) 1997 to present Watershed Dynamics, Inc. (equal owner) 1990 to 1997 Habitat Technologies (sole proprietorship) 1987 to 1990 Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Division (habitat biologist) 1979 to 1989 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Washington State Bar Association (retired) - Society of Wetland Scientists (Senior Scientist) 20 20133 PHOTOS 21 20133 General view across the managed pasture dominating the majority of the project site. General view of the edge between the managed pasture dominating the majority of the project site and the no longer managed pasture dominating the western portion of the project site. 22 20133 Reed canarygrass dominated area within the western portion of the project site. This area was identified as Wetland A – a City of Yelm Category III Wetland. View of Thompson Creek within an excavated ditch directly to the west of the fence line along the western boundary of the project site. 23 20133 View of the managed pasture within the eastern portion of the project site. View of a mole mound within the eastern portion of the project site. APPENDIX 6 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL – NOT INCLUDED AT THIS TIME APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN – NOT INCLUDED AT THIS TIME APPENDIX 8 FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE MAP National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 3/15/2024 at 1:02 AM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 122°37'59"W 46°56'56"N 122°37'22"W 46°56'32"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 PROJECT LOCATION APPENDIX 9 DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND COMPUTATIONS WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT BASIN 1 DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 2 General Model Information WWHM2012 Project Name:C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date:3/18/2024 Gage:Eaton Creek Data Start:1955/10/01 Data End:2011/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2023/01/27 Version:4.2.19 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Lateral Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Pasture, Flat 8.15 Existing area flowing toward wetland DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 4 Lateral Basin 3 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Pasture, Flat 3.05 Existing wetland buffer area DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 5 Lateral Basin 4 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre SAT, Pasture, Flat 2.16 Existing wetland area the site flows through DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 6 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Pasture, Flat 4.03 Pervious Total 4.03 Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 1.68 SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.25 PARKING FLAT 2.03 Impervious Total 3.96 Basin Total 7.99 Proposed site areas flowing toward the wetland DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 7 Lateral Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Pasture, Flat 3.05 Existing wetland buffer area (undisturbed) DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 8 Lateral Basin 2 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre SAT, Pasture, Flat 2.16 Existing wetland area the site flows through (unchanged) DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 10 Mitigated Routing Trapezoidal Pond 1 Bottom Length:180.00 ft. Bottom Width:130.00 ft. Depth:4 ft. Volume at riser head:1.8261 acre-feet. Side slope 1:3 To 1 Side slope 2:3 To 1 Side slope 3:3 To 1 Side slope 4:3 To 1 Discharge Structure Riser Height:3 ft. Riser Diameter:18 in. Orifice 1 Diameter:0.950 in.Elevation:0 ft. Orifice 2 Diameter:0.500 in.Elevation:1.5 ft. Orifice 3 Diameter:0.500 in.Elevation:2.5 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Lateral Basin 1 Pond Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.537 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0444 0.539 0.023 0.005 0.000 0.0889 0.541 0.047 0.007 0.000 0.1333 0.542 0.072 0.008 0.000 0.1778 0.544 0.096 0.010 0.000 0.2222 0.546 0.120 0.011 0.000 0.2667 0.548 0.144 0.012 0.000 0.3111 0.550 0.169 0.013 0.000 0.3556 0.552 0.193 0.014 0.000 0.4000 0.554 0.218 0.015 0.000 0.4444 0.556 0.243 0.016 0.000 0.4889 0.558 0.267 0.017 0.000 0.5333 0.560 0.292 0.017 0.000 0.5778 0.562 0.317 0.018 0.000 0.6222 0.564 0.342 0.019 0.000 0.6667 0.566 0.367 0.020 0.000 0.7111 0.568 0.392 0.020 0.000 0.7556 0.569 0.418 0.021 0.000 0.8000 0.571 0.443 0.021 0.000 0.8444 0.573 0.469 0.022 0.000 0.8889 0.575 0.494 0.023 0.000 0.9333 0.577 0.520 0.023 0.000 0.9778 0.579 0.545 0.024 0.000 1.0222 0.581 0.571 0.024 0.000 1.0667 0.583 0.597 0.025 0.000 1.1111 0.585 0.623 0.025 0.000 1.1556 0.587 0.649 0.026 0.000 1.2000 0.589 0.675 0.026 0.000 1.2444 0.591 0.702 0.027 0.000 1.2889 0.593 0.728 0.027 0.000 1.3333 0.595 0.754 0.028 0.000 1.3778 0.597 0.781 0.028 0.000 1.4222 0.599 0.808 0.029 0.000 Proposed facility DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 11 1.4667 0.601 0.834 0.029 0.000 1.5111 0.603 0.861 0.030 0.000 1.5556 0.605 0.888 0.032 0.000 1.6000 0.607 0.915 0.033 0.000 1.6444 0.609 0.942 0.034 0.000 1.6889 0.611 0.969 0.034 0.000 1.7333 0.613 0.996 0.035 0.000 1.7778 0.615 1.024 0.036 0.000 1.8222 0.617 1.051 0.036 0.000 1.8667 0.619 1.078 0.037 0.000 1.9111 0.621 1.106 0.038 0.000 1.9556 0.623 1.134 0.038 0.000 2.0000 0.625 1.162 0.039 0.000 2.0444 0.627 1.189 0.040 0.000 2.0889 0.630 1.217 0.040 0.000 2.1333 0.632 1.245 0.041 0.000 2.1778 0.634 1.274 0.041 0.000 2.2222 0.636 1.302 0.042 0.000 2.2667 0.638 1.330 0.042 0.000 2.3111 0.640 1.358 0.043 0.000 2.3556 0.642 1.387 0.043 0.000 2.4000 0.644 1.416 0.044 0.000 2.4444 0.646 1.444 0.044 0.000 2.4889 0.648 1.473 0.045 0.000 2.5333 0.650 1.502 0.047 0.000 2.5778 0.652 1.531 0.048 0.000 2.6222 0.654 1.560 0.049 0.000 2.6667 0.656 1.589 0.050 0.000 2.7111 0.659 1.618 0.050 0.000 2.7556 0.661 1.648 0.051 0.000 2.8000 0.663 1.677 0.052 0.000 2.8444 0.665 1.707 0.053 0.000 2.8889 0.667 1.736 0.053 0.000 2.9333 0.669 1.766 0.054 0.000 2.9778 0.671 1.796 0.055 0.000 3.0222 0.673 1.826 0.108 0.000 3.0667 0.675 1.856 0.330 0.000 3.1111 0.678 1.886 0.644 0.000 3.1556 0.680 1.916 1.027 0.000 3.2000 0.682 1.946 1.462 0.000 3.2444 0.684 1.977 1.936 0.000 3.2889 0.686 2.007 2.434 0.000 3.3333 0.688 2.038 2.942 0.000 3.3778 0.690 2.068 3.446 0.000 3.4222 0.693 2.099 3.933 0.000 3.4667 0.695 2.130 4.387 0.000 3.5111 0.697 2.161 4.799 0.000 3.5556 0.699 2.192 5.160 0.000 3.6000 0.701 2.223 5.464 0.000 3.6444 0.703 2.254 5.713 0.000 3.6889 0.706 2.286 5.913 0.000 3.7333 0.708 2.317 6.079 0.000 3.7778 0.710 2.348 6.315 0.000 3.8222 0.712 2.380 6.492 0.000 3.8667 0.714 2.412 6.663 0.000 3.9111 0.716 2.444 6.831 0.000 3.9556 0.719 2.476 6.994 0.000 4.0000 0.721 2.508 7.154 0.000 DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 12 4.0444 0.723 2.540 7.310 0.000 DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:58:36 PM Page 13 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:13.36 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:9.24 Total Impervious Area:3.96 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.385142 5 year 0.652099 10 year 0.853657 25 year 1.132635 50 year 1.356345 100 year 1.592508 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.570704 5 year 1.174068 10 year 1.697963 25 year 2.501258 50 year 3.201794 100 year 3.989239 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1956 0.610 1.302 1957 1.134 2.237 1958 0.268 0.261 1959 0.270 0.283 1960 0.588 1.443 1961 0.463 0.523 1962 0.140 0.171 1963 0.903 1.875 1964 0.477 0.720 1965 0.664 1.275 DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:04 PM Page 14 1966 0.198 0.250 1967 0.494 1.072 1968 0.275 0.397 1969 0.239 0.263 1970 0.384 0.728 1971 0.474 1.026 1972 0.992 1.849 1973 0.320 0.508 1974 0.398 0.490 1975 0.256 0.280 1976 0.691 1.268 1977 0.094 0.094 1978 0.467 1.183 1979 0.286 0.284 1980 0.321 0.500 1981 0.981 1.244 1982 0.507 0.676 1983 0.315 1.295 1984 0.395 0.374 1985 0.131 0.146 1986 0.718 1.628 1987 0.721 1.698 1988 0.177 0.207 1989 0.532 0.340 1990 0.340 1.415 1991 0.863 1.284 1992 0.490 0.373 1993 0.118 0.121 1994 0.168 0.279 1995 0.605 1.003 1996 0.995 2.102 1997 0.536 0.699 1998 1.250 0.930 1999 0.697 1.575 2000 0.480 1.073 2001 0.301 0.382 2002 0.167 0.186 2003 0.135 0.153 2004 0.232 0.342 2005 0.177 0.145 2006 0.381 0.485 2007 0.779 1.688 2008 0.179 0.220 2009 0.421 1.031 2010 0.198 0.194 2011 0.321 0.333 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 1.2501 2.2366 2 1.1336 2.1025 3 0.9950 1.8750 4 0.9920 1.8486 5 0.9807 1.6982 6 0.9032 1.6882 7 0.8635 1.6283 8 0.7795 1.5745 DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:04 PM Page 15 9 0.7213 1.4435 10 0.7182 1.4148 11 0.6967 1.3022 12 0.6913 1.2946 13 0.6635 1.2842 14 0.6100 1.2752 15 0.6051 1.2676 16 0.5884 1.2435 17 0.5358 1.1834 18 0.5319 1.0730 19 0.5066 1.0721 20 0.4943 1.0306 21 0.4899 1.0258 22 0.4804 1.0032 23 0.4769 0.9296 24 0.4743 0.7285 25 0.4666 0.7196 26 0.4630 0.6986 27 0.4214 0.6760 28 0.3981 0.5234 29 0.3948 0.5082 30 0.3836 0.4996 31 0.3807 0.4902 32 0.3396 0.4852 33 0.3213 0.3973 34 0.3207 0.3817 35 0.3197 0.3739 36 0.3153 0.3731 37 0.3011 0.3422 38 0.2864 0.3401 39 0.2754 0.3334 40 0.2699 0.2840 41 0.2679 0.2826 42 0.2558 0.2795 43 0.2394 0.2791 44 0.2321 0.2632 45 0.1984 0.2609 46 0.1982 0.2501 47 0.1790 0.2200 48 0.1769 0.2073 49 0.1765 0.1937 50 0.1675 0.1864 51 0.1666 0.1712 52 0.1404 0.1527 53 0.1352 0.1459 54 0.1313 0.1450 55 0.1176 0.1206 56 0.0937 0.0939 DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:04 PM Page 16 Duration Flows The Duration Matching Failed Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.1926 46615 52742 113 Fail 0.2043 39193 45104 115 Fail 0.2161 33047 38742 117 Fail 0.2278 28904 33342 115 Fail 0.2396 25154 28217 112 Fail 0.2513 21541 24466 113 Fail 0.2631 17937 21148 117 Fail 0.2749 15047 18369 122 Fail 0.2866 11948 15958 133 Fail 0.2984 9733 13566 139 Fail 0.3101 7958 11161 140 Fail 0.3219 6527 9419 144 Fail 0.3336 4968 7699 154 Fail 0.3454 3574 6036 168 Fail 0.3571 2647 4626 174 Fail 0.3689 2070 3635 175 Fail 0.3807 1721 2735 158 Fail 0.3924 1390 2240 161 Fail 0.4042 1071 2009 187 Fail 0.4159 860 1835 213 Fail 0.4277 747 1647 220 Fail 0.4394 640 1437 224 Fail 0.4512 533 1219 228 Fail 0.4629 439 1069 243 Fail 0.4747 300 970 323 Fail 0.4865 264 907 343 Fail 0.4982 239 854 357 Fail 0.5100 228 823 360 Fail 0.5217 206 789 383 Fail 0.5335 195 752 385 Fail 0.5452 180 726 403 Fail 0.5570 172 705 409 Fail 0.5687 158 685 433 Fail 0.5805 147 669 455 Fail 0.5923 139 651 468 Fail 0.6040 132 632 478 Fail 0.6158 128 614 479 Fail 0.6275 118 592 501 Fail 0.6393 113 575 508 Fail 0.6510 109 552 506 Fail 0.6628 106 533 502 Fail 0.6745 97 522 538 Fail 0.6863 94 500 531 Fail 0.6980 89 473 531 Fail 0.7098 85 460 541 Fail 0.7216 75 440 586 Fail 0.7333 71 427 601 Fail 0.7451 68 417 613 Fail 0.7568 65 410 630 Fail 0.7686 61 401 657 Fail 0.7803 57 392 687 Fail 0.7921 55 381 692 Fail 0.8038 46 370 804 Fail 0.8156 44 358 813 Fail Flow control durations not met, wetland protection provided DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:04 PM Page 17 0.8274 38 352 926 Fail 0.8391 35 345 985 Fail 0.8509 32 337 1053 Fail 0.8626 30 328 1093 Fail 0.8744 26 319 1226 Fail 0.8861 26 316 1215 Fail 0.8979 24 307 1279 Fail 0.9096 23 294 1278 Fail 0.9214 20 289 1445 Fail 0.9332 13 281 2161 Fail 0.9449 13 274 2107 Fail 0.9567 12 270 2250 Fail 0.9684 9 262 2911 Fail 0.9802 9 258 2866 Fail 0.9919 6 255 4250 Fail 1.0037 4 244 6100 Fail 1.0154 3 238 7933 Fail 1.0272 3 234 7800 Fail 1.0390 3 227 7566 Fail 1.0507 3 220 7333 Fail 1.0625 3 216 7200 Fail 1.0742 3 209 6966 Fail 1.0860 3 206 6866 Fail 1.0977 3 200 6666 Fail 1.1095 3 197 6566 Fail 1.1212 2 193 9650 Fail 1.1330 2 188 9400 Fail 1.1447 1 186 18600 Fail 1.1565 1 184 18400 Fail 1.1683 1 179 17900 Fail 1.1800 1 173 17300 Fail 1.1918 1 171 17100 Fail 1.2035 1 169 16900 Fail 1.2153 1 164 16400 Fail 1.2270 1 162 16200 Fail 1.2388 1 156 15600 Fail 1.2505 1 149 14900 Fail 1.2623 0 148 n/a Fail 1.2741 0 142 n/a Fail 1.2858 0 139 n/a Fail 1.2976 0 136 n/a Fail 1.3093 0 130 n/a Fail 1.3211 0 128 n/a Fail 1.3328 0 124 n/a Fail 1.3446 0 121 n/a Fail 1.3563 0 118 n/a Fail The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. Flow control durations not met, wetland protection provided DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:04 PM Page 18 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:04 PM Page 19 Wetland Input Volumes - Percent - Predeveloped - Mitigated Wetlands Input Volume for POC 1 Average Annual Volume (acft) Series 1: 501 POC 1 Predeveloped flow Series 2: 801 POC 1 Mitigated flow Month Series 1 Series 2 Percent Pass/Fail Jan 6.1725 6.4964 105.2 Pass Feb 5.1323 5.1417 100.2 Pass Mar 4.5718 4.4515 97.4 Pass Apr 2.9345 2.9066 99.0 Pass May 1.6537 1.7549 106.1 Pass Jun 1.0047 1.0494 104.4 Pass Jul 0.6284 0.6186 98.4 Pass Aug 0.3990 0.3479 87.2 Pass Sep 0.3729 0.3253 87.2 Pass Oct 0.7254 0.7611 104.9 Pass Nov 2.6428 3.0385 115.0 Pass Dec 4.8990 5.5729 113.8 Pass Day Predevel Mitigated Percent Pass/Fail Jan1 0.1753 0.1866 106.4 Pass 2 0.1752 0.1856 105.9 Pass 3 0.1763 0.1875 106.4 Pass 4 0.1787 0.1913 107.0 Pass 5 0.1854 0.1990 107.3 Pass 6 0.1945 0.2211 113.7 Pass 7 0.1948 0.2074 106.5 Pass 8 0.1984 0.2138 107.7 Pass 9 0.1999 0.2090 104.5 Pass 10 0.1968 0.2054 104.4 Pass 11 0.1930 0.2018 104.6 Pass 12 0.1913 0.1998 104.5 Pass 13 0.1921 0.2003 104.2 Pass 14 0.1981 0.2050 103.5 Pass DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:08 PM Page 20 15 0.2021 0.2082 103.0 Pass 16 0.2059 0.2127 103.3 Pass 17 0.2127 0.2288 107.6 Pass 18 0.2144 0.2288 106.7 Pass 19 0.2153 0.2303 107.0 Pass 20 0.2090 0.2196 105.0 Pass 21 0.2031 0.2118 104.3 Pass 22 0.2015 0.2103 104.4 Pass 23 0.2056 0.2156 104.8 Pass 24 0.2083 0.2178 104.6 Pass 25 0.2122 0.2237 105.4 Pass 26 0.2103 0.2172 103.3 Pass 27 0.2090 0.2129 101.9 Pass 28 0.2117 0.2163 102.1 Pass 29 0.2115 0.2174 102.8 Pass 30 0.2131 0.2220 104.2 Pass 31 0.2115 0.2209 104.4 Pass Feb1 0.2069 0.2106 101.8 Pass 2 0.2020 0.2045 101.2 Pass 3 0.1950 0.1963 100.7 Pass 4 0.1866 0.1884 101.0 Pass 5 0.1809 0.1841 101.8 Pass 6 0.1746 0.1781 102.0 Pass 7 0.1718 0.1768 102.9 Pass 8 0.1773 0.1951 110.1 Pass 9 0.1676 0.1725 102.9 Pass 10 0.1654 0.1688 102.0 Pass 11 0.1654 0.1674 101.2 Pass 12 0.1666 0.1664 99.9 Pass 13 0.1682 0.1661 98.7 Pass 14 0.1711 0.1677 98.0 Pass 15 0.1753 0.1706 97.3 Pass 16 0.1783 0.1722 96.6 Pass 17 0.1828 0.1784 97.6 Pass 18 0.1863 0.1838 98.6 Pass 19 0.1931 0.1913 99.1 Pass 20 0.1901 0.1853 97.5 Pass 21 0.1876 0.1820 97.0 Pass 22 0.1853 0.1802 97.3 Pass 23 0.1853 0.1840 99.3 Pass 24 0.1812 0.1793 98.9 Pass 25 0.1784 0.1761 98.7 Pass 26 0.1771 0.1744 98.5 Pass 27 0.1764 0.1758 99.7 Pass 28 0.1766 0.1780 100.8 Pass 29 0.1715 0.1691 98.6 Pass Mar1 0.1705 0.1677 98.3 Pass 2 0.1706 0.1671 98.0 Pass 3 0.1694 0.1647 97.3 Pass 4 0.1752 0.1808 103.2 Pass 5 0.1673 0.1630 97.4 Pass 6 0.1646 0.1605 97.5 Pass 7 0.1601 0.1567 97.9 Pass 8 0.1567 0.1534 97.9 Pass 9 0.1591 0.1556 97.8 Pass 10 0.1585 0.1534 96.8 Pass 11 0.1608 0.1541 95.8 Pass 12 0.1598 0.1521 95.2 Pass DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:08 PM Page 21 13 0.1574 0.1494 94.9 Pass 14 0.1541 0.1469 95.4 Pass 15 0.1509 0.1449 96.0 Pass 16 0.1449 0.1400 96.6 Pass 17 0.1388 0.1348 97.1 Pass 18 0.1346 0.1317 97.9 Pass 19 0.1319 0.1307 99.1 Pass 20 0.1291 0.1293 100.2 Pass 21 0.1267 0.1277 100.7 Pass 22 0.1262 0.1268 100.5 Pass 23 0.1277 0.1271 99.5 Pass 24 0.1280 0.1252 97.9 Pass 25 0.1283 0.1239 96.6 Pass 26 0.1299 0.1246 95.9 Pass 27 0.1291 0.1229 95.2 Pass 28 0.1310 0.1241 94.8 Pass 29 0.1300 0.1224 94.1 Pass 30 0.1292 0.1208 93.5 Pass 31 0.1270 0.1184 93.2 Pass Apr1 0.1241 0.1165 93.9 Pass 2 0.1199 0.1135 94.6 Pass 3 0.1196 0.1142 95.5 Pass 4 0.1157 0.1122 97.0 Pass 5 0.1151 0.1128 98.0 Pass 6 0.1134 0.1118 98.6 Pass 7 0.1117 0.1107 99.1 Pass 8 0.1091 0.1088 99.7 Pass 9 0.1060 0.1056 99.6 Pass 10 0.1042 0.1036 99.4 Pass 11 0.1026 0.1021 99.5 Pass 12 0.0991 0.0991 99.9 Pass 13 0.0968 0.0970 100.2 Pass 14 0.0946 0.0951 100.5 Pass 15 0.0927 0.0935 100.9 Pass 16 0.0911 0.0920 101.0 Pass 17 0.0883 0.0894 101.2 Pass 18 0.0884 0.0890 100.7 Pass 19 0.0890 0.0890 100.0 Pass 20 0.0869 0.0859 98.9 Pass 21 0.0852 0.0838 98.4 Pass 22 0.0843 0.0833 98.8 Pass 23 0.0855 0.0854 99.9 Pass 24 0.0823 0.0829 100.8 Pass 25 0.0814 0.0831 102.1 Pass 26 0.0806 0.0828 102.7 Pass 27 0.0808 0.0829 102.7 Pass 28 0.0801 0.0819 102.2 Pass 29 0.0787 0.0801 101.8 Pass 30 0.0760 0.0773 101.7 Pass May1 0.0736 0.0753 102.3 Pass 2 0.0713 0.0734 102.9 Pass 3 0.0689 0.0714 103.7 Pass 4 0.0669 0.0698 104.4 Pass 5 0.0649 0.0680 104.8 Pass 6 0.0629 0.0660 105.0 Pass 7 0.0611 0.0643 105.3 Pass 8 0.0591 0.0626 105.9 Pass 9 0.0572 0.0609 106.5 Pass DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:08 PM Page 22 10 0.0555 0.0595 107.3 Pass 11 0.0535 0.0578 108.0 Pass 12 0.0526 0.0571 108.6 Pass 13 0.0525 0.0571 108.6 Pass 14 0.0536 0.0578 107.8 Pass 15 0.0524 0.0559 106.6 Pass 16 0.0520 0.0549 105.6 Pass 17 0.0509 0.0538 105.5 Pass 18 0.0497 0.0527 106.0 Pass 19 0.0486 0.0518 106.6 Pass 20 0.0473 0.0507 107.1 Pass 21 0.0464 0.0499 107.5 Pass 22 0.0451 0.0486 107.7 Pass 23 0.0441 0.0475 107.7 Pass 24 0.0431 0.0465 107.9 Pass 25 0.0423 0.0457 108.0 Pass 26 0.0415 0.0449 108.2 Pass 27 0.0409 0.0443 108.3 Pass 28 0.0403 0.0437 108.2 Pass 29 0.0398 0.0429 108.0 Pass 30 0.0397 0.0428 107.9 Pass 31 0.0403 0.0434 107.5 Pass Jun1 0.0412 0.0439 106.4 Pass 2 0.0416 0.0437 105.1 Pass 3 0.0414 0.0432 104.5 Pass 4 0.0406 0.0424 104.3 Pass 5 0.0395 0.0413 104.5 Pass 6 0.0386 0.0404 104.8 Pass 7 0.0380 0.0399 105.0 Pass 8 0.0372 0.0390 104.8 Pass 9 0.0370 0.0386 104.5 Pass 10 0.0364 0.0379 104.1 Pass 11 0.0356 0.0370 104.1 Pass 12 0.0347 0.0362 104.2 Pass 13 0.0338 0.0353 104.2 Pass 14 0.0330 0.0345 104.5 Pass 15 0.0322 0.0337 104.7 Pass 16 0.0315 0.0330 104.8 Pass 17 0.0311 0.0326 104.8 Pass 18 0.0305 0.0320 104.7 Pass 19 0.0300 0.0314 104.6 Pass 20 0.0294 0.0308 104.6 Pass 21 0.0292 0.0305 104.5 Pass 22 0.0288 0.0300 104.1 Pass 23 0.0285 0.0295 103.6 Pass 24 0.0283 0.0293 103.3 Pass 25 0.0281 0.0289 103.1 Pass 26 0.0276 0.0284 102.9 Pass 27 0.0271 0.0279 102.9 Pass 28 0.0268 0.0275 102.7 Pass 29 0.0265 0.0271 102.5 Pass 30 0.0260 0.0266 102.2 Pass Jul1 0.0256 0.0261 102.1 Pass 2 0.0250 0.0255 101.9 Pass 3 0.0244 0.0249 101.7 Pass 4 0.0239 0.0243 101.4 Pass 5 0.0235 0.0237 101.2 Pass 6 0.0230 0.0232 100.9 Pass DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:08 PM Page 23 7 0.0226 0.0227 100.6 Pass 8 0.0225 0.0225 100.3 Pass 9 0.0222 0.0222 99.9 Pass 10 0.0220 0.0219 99.6 Pass 11 0.0216 0.0215 99.3 Pass 12 0.0213 0.0211 99.1 Pass 13 0.0209 0.0207 98.9 Pass 14 0.0205 0.0202 98.6 Pass 15 0.0201 0.0198 98.3 Pass 16 0.0198 0.0194 98.0 Pass 17 0.0195 0.0190 97.7 Pass 18 0.0191 0.0186 97.3 Pass 19 0.0188 0.0182 97.0 Pass 20 0.0184 0.0178 96.6 Pass 21 0.0181 0.0174 96.3 Pass 22 0.0178 0.0171 95.9 Pass 23 0.0175 0.0167 95.5 Pass 24 0.0172 0.0164 95.2 Pass 25 0.0169 0.0160 94.8 Pass 26 0.0166 0.0157 94.4 Pass 27 0.0163 0.0153 94.0 Pass 28 0.0160 0.0150 93.6 Pass 29 0.0157 0.0147 93.1 Pass 30 0.0155 0.0143 92.7 Pass 31 0.0152 0.0140 92.3 Pass Aug1 0.0150 0.0138 91.8 Pass 2 0.0148 0.0135 91.4 Pass 3 0.0146 0.0133 91.0 Pass 4 0.0144 0.0130 90.5 Pass 5 0.0142 0.0128 90.1 Pass 6 0.0140 0.0126 89.7 Pass 7 0.0140 0.0125 89.5 Pass 8 0.0139 0.0124 89.2 Pass 9 0.0136 0.0121 88.8 Pass 10 0.0134 0.0118 88.3 Pass 11 0.0131 0.0115 87.8 Pass 12 0.0129 0.0113 87.3 Pass 13 0.0127 0.0110 86.9 Pass 14 0.0125 0.0108 86.4 Pass 15 0.0123 0.0106 86.1 Pass 16 0.0122 0.0105 85.7 Pass 17 0.0121 0.0103 85.4 Pass 18 0.0119 0.0101 85.1 Pass 19 0.0118 0.0101 84.9 Pass 20 0.0117 0.0099 84.6 Pass 21 0.0117 0.0098 84.2 Pass 22 0.0116 0.0097 84.0 Pass 23 0.0117 0.0098 84.2 Pass 24 0.0119 0.0100 84.2 Pass 25 0.0121 0.0102 84.4 Pass 26 0.0121 0.0102 84.4 Pass 27 0.0120 0.0101 84.3 Pass 28 0.0119 0.0100 84.2 Pass 29 0.0120 0.0102 84.7 Pass 30 0.0120 0.0102 84.9 Pass 31 0.0118 0.0100 84.7 Pass Sep1 0.0116 0.0098 84.4 Pass 2 0.0114 0.0095 84.1 Pass DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:08 PM Page 24 3 0.0113 0.0095 84.3 Pass 4 0.0112 0.0094 84.4 Pass 5 0.0111 0.0094 84.3 Pass 6 0.0111 0.0094 84.1 Pass 7 0.0111 0.0093 84.0 Pass 8 0.0112 0.0094 84.5 Pass 9 0.0115 0.0098 85.5 Pass 10 0.0116 0.0100 86.1 Pass 11 0.0115 0.0099 86.1 Pass 12 0.0112 0.0097 86.0 Pass 13 0.0111 0.0095 86.0 Pass 14 0.0109 0.0094 86.1 Pass 15 0.0109 0.0094 86.2 Pass 16 0.0114 0.0100 87.4 Pass 17 0.0125 0.0112 89.4 Pass 18 0.0137 0.0123 89.9 Pass 19 0.0142 0.0128 90.0 Pass 20 0.0142 0.0128 90.1 Pass 21 0.0141 0.0127 90.3 Pass 22 0.0148 0.0133 90.1 Pass 23 0.0155 0.0138 88.5 Pass 24 0.0154 0.0135 87.7 Pass 25 0.0147 0.0129 87.7 Pass 26 0.0139 0.0122 88.1 Pass 27 0.0132 0.0118 89.1 Pass 28 0.0127 0.0115 90.4 Pass 29 0.0123 0.0113 91.3 Pass 30 0.0119 0.0110 92.4 Pass Oct1 0.0118 0.0110 93.3 Pass 2 0.0117 0.0110 94.0 Pass 3 0.0117 0.0110 94.4 Pass 4 0.0120 0.0114 94.8 Pass 5 0.0134 0.0127 94.4 Pass 6 0.0157 0.0148 93.8 Pass 7 0.0173 0.0162 93.8 Pass 8 0.0188 0.0181 96.2 Pass 9 0.0194 0.0189 97.6 Pass 10 0.0194 0.0193 99.2 Pass 11 0.0192 0.0194 100.9 Pass 12 0.0189 0.0192 102.0 Pass 13 0.0182 0.0187 102.5 Pass 14 0.0177 0.0182 103.1 Pass 15 0.0173 0.0181 104.3 Pass 16 0.0173 0.0184 106.2 Pass 17 0.0179 0.0192 107.7 Pass 18 0.0190 0.0206 108.5 Pass 19 0.0224 0.0248 110.6 Pass 20 0.0284 0.0324 114.1 Pass 21 0.0332 0.0358 107.8 Pass 22 0.0350 0.0370 105.7 Pass 23 0.0346 0.0364 105.1 Pass 24 0.0353 0.0370 105.0 Pass 25 0.0362 0.0382 105.5 Pass 26 0.0371 0.0403 108.4 Pass 27 0.0378 0.0419 111.0 Pass 28 0.0377 0.0424 112.4 Pass 29 0.0382 0.0428 112.1 Pass 30 0.0410 0.0450 109.9 Pass DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:08 PM Page 25 31 0.0426 0.0471 110.4 Pass Nov1 0.0470 0.0521 110.9 Pass 2 0.0505 0.0566 112.1 Pass 3 0.0531 0.0595 112.1 Pass 4 0.0533 0.0594 111.5 Pass 5 0.0525 0.0585 111.3 Pass 6 0.0552 0.0625 113.1 Pass 7 0.0584 0.0657 112.6 Pass 8 0.0606 0.0669 110.5 Pass 9 0.0634 0.0690 108.8 Pass 10 0.0680 0.0743 109.3 Pass 11 0.0739 0.0834 112.8 Pass 12 0.0804 0.0915 113.8 Pass 13 0.0862 0.0982 113.9 Pass 14 0.0880 0.1012 115.0 Pass 15 0.0864 0.1003 116.1 Pass 16 0.0846 0.0990 117.0 Pass 17 0.0859 0.1006 117.2 Pass 18 0.0909 0.1139 125.4 Fail 19 0.0956 0.1127 117.9 Pass 20 0.1023 0.1179 115.2 Pass 21 0.1080 0.1257 116.3 Pass 22 0.1105 0.1260 114.0 Pass 23 0.1206 0.1470 121.9 Fail 24 0.1334 0.1557 116.8 Pass 25 0.1406 0.1637 116.4 Pass 26 0.1439 0.1648 114.5 Pass 27 0.1425 0.1626 114.1 Pass 28 0.1359 0.1552 114.2 Pass 29 0.1287 0.1475 114.6 Pass 30 0.1257 0.1458 116.0 Pass Dec1 0.1297 0.1543 119.0 Pass 2 0.1382 0.1665 120.5 Fail 3 0.1461 0.1714 117.3 Pass 4 0.1500 0.1715 114.4 Pass 5 0.1492 0.1701 114.0 Pass 6 0.1444 0.1648 114.1 Pass 7 0.1370 0.1572 114.8 Pass 8 0.1346 0.1585 117.7 Pass 9 0.1325 0.1571 118.5 Pass 10 0.1376 0.1625 118.1 Pass 11 0.1450 0.1677 115.7 Pass 12 0.1534 0.1754 114.4 Pass 13 0.1620 0.1846 113.9 Pass 14 0.1731 0.2011 116.2 Pass 15 0.1780 0.2052 115.3 Pass 16 0.1816 0.2042 112.4 Pass 17 0.1762 0.1972 111.9 Pass 18 0.1705 0.1893 111.0 Pass 19 0.1657 0.1842 111.2 Pass 20 0.1651 0.1869 113.2 Pass 21 0.1650 0.1842 111.7 Pass 22 0.1651 0.1835 111.2 Pass 23 0.1648 0.1821 110.5 Pass 24 0.1627 0.1792 110.2 Pass 25 0.1666 0.1890 113.4 Pass 26 0.1690 0.1881 111.3 Pass 27 0.1751 0.2012 114.9 Pass DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:08 PM Page 26 28 0.1771 0.1970 111.3 Pass 29 0.1796 0.2001 111.4 Pass 30 0.1784 0.1930 108.2 Pass 31 0.1769 0.1895 107.1 Pass DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:29 PM Page 29 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:30 PM Page 30 Mitigated Schematic DR A F T C24-109 Berry Valley Road Basin 1 3/18/2024 1:59:31 PM Page 45 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2024; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com