HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 Critical Areas Report_20251106
Prepared for
Mike Thomas
Prepared For:
City of Yelm
November 6, 2025
Vetera ns Memorial Park
Wetland Delineation Report and Mitigation Plan
Yelm, WA
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
i
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Executive Summary
Site Name: Veterans Memorial Park
Parcel Number Acreage Legal Description
62320000002 2.87 Section 25 Township 17 Range 1E Quarter NE NE Plat MILLPOND
ESTATES TR B (POND & WETLAND OPEN SPACE) Document 3705690
DEDICATED ON FACE OF PLAT TO THE CITY OF YELM
Project Staff: Alex Callender MS, PWS
Field Survey Conducted: 9.15.2025
Findings: One wetland, Mill Pond, was found and delineated during the survey on August 15, 2025.
Mill Pond is a Category III wetland with an overall score of 17 and a habitat score of four (LLM) as
determined using the 2023, version 2 of the Wetland Rating System. This score translates to a wetlands
score of 30-50 with a habitat score of four (less than or equal to 19). Wetlands in the City of Yelm with
an overall score of 30-50 carry an 80-ft buffer. This buffer can be reduced using buffer averaging or
other measures in code if it meets the mitigation criteria of avoidance and minimization.
Project Description: The City is proposing a Veterans Memorial Park with various facilities such as
gathering areas, memorials, interpretive signs, parking, restrooms, trails, plantings, and recreational
areas.
Impacts: No direct impacts to Mill Pond are proposed. Buffer averaging is available to allow
encroachment of the outer 25% of the wetland buffer. Other mitigation will provide for unavoidable
impacts within the inner 75% of the wetland buffer. This mitigation will meet the no net loss of wetland
ecological functions by enhancement of the buffer and removal of invasive species.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
ii
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Figure 1-Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE.................................................................. 2
2.1 Historical and Current Land Use .............................................................................. 2
Figure 2 - Current Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 2
3.0 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Existing Information Review .................................................................................... 3
3.2 Analysis of Existing Information .............................................................................. 3
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map ............................................................................................................... 3
NRCS Soils Map ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Thurston County Geodata Wetland Inventory ....................................................................................................... 4
WADNR Forest Practices Map ............................................................................................................................. 4
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Inventory (PHS) and Salmonscape ........................................................... 5
NOAA NOW Precipitation Data ........................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Field Investigation .................................................................................................... 5
Determination Guidelines ...................................................................................................................................... 5
General Field Guidelines ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 1 Indicator Status Ratings ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.4 Wetland Study ........................................................................................................... 6
Field Survey ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 – Test Pit Locations ................................................................................................................................. 7
4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 8
Mill Pond ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUES .............................................................................. 8
5.1 Wetland Functional Analysis Methodology ............................................................. 8
5.2 Wetland Functions .................................................................................................... 9
Mill Pond ............................................................................................................................................................... 9
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 9
6.1 City of Yelm Regulations ........................................................................................ 9
6.2 Corps Regulations ................................................................................................... 16
6.3 Department of Ecology ........................................................................................... 16
7.0 WILDLIFE ......................................................................................................................... 16
8.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 17
8.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 17
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
iii
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
8.2 Development Impacts ............................................................................................. 17
8.3 Impact Avoidance and Minimization...................................................................... 17
8.4 Minimization of Water Quality Impacts ................................................................. 17
Figure 4 - Insert Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 17
9.0 MITIGATION......................................................................................................................... 18
9.1 Mitigation Requirements ..................................................................................................... 18
9.2 Integrated Pest Management .............................................................................................. 19
9.3 Mitigation Functional Analysis ............................................................................................. 19
TABLE 3 – Buffer Functions Comparison Before and After Mitigation ................................................................. 20
9.4 Planting Plan (Objectives) .................................................................................................... 20
Table 4 – Mitigation Area #1 RED (1,640 sq ft).................................................................................................... 21
Table 5 – Mitigation Area #2 WHITE (1,640 sq ft) ................................................................................................ 21
Table 6 – Mitigation Area #3 BLUE (1,640 sq ft) .................................................................................................. 21
Table 7- Total Costs .............................................................................................................................................. 22
9.4 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................................... 22
9.5 Performance Standards ....................................................................................................... 22
9.6 Contingency Plans ................................................................................................................ 23
10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 23
11.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................... 24
12.0 REFERENCE .......................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A – Photographs .................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix B - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NWI MAP ................................................................................... 33
Appendix C - Thurston County NRCS Soil Survey Map .................................................................................... 34
Appendix D - Thurston County Wetland, Stream and Waterbody Inventory ...................................................... 35
Appendix E - USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map ............................................................................................. 36
Appendix F - WDNR Forest Practices Activity Map .......................................................................................... 37
Appendix G - WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and Salmonscape .............................................................. 38
Appendix H - NOAA Now Precipitation Data .................................................................................................... 43
Appendix I - COE Wetland Data Sheets ............................................................................................................. 44
Appendix J - Wetland Rating Forms for Western Washington ........................................................................... 45
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
1
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is the result of a critical areas study of the following parcel in Thurston County (Figure 1):
Parcel Number Acreage Legal Description
62320000002 2.87 Section 25 Township 17 Range 1E Quarter NE NE Plat MILLPOND
ESTATES TR B (POND & WETLAND OPEN SPACE) Document 3705690
DEDICATED ON FACE OF PLAT TO THE CITY OF YELM
This report was prepared to satisfy the critical areas review process required by the City of Yelm
Development Regulations Title 18 Critical Areas Review.
The City of Yelm and possibly other agencies that may evaluate impacts to critical areas from the
proposed project will be able to utilize information in this report.
Figure 1-Vicinity Map
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
2
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE
2.1 Historical and Current Land Use
Historically, the property has been undeveloped with State Hwy 507 to the west. There are single-family
residences on small lots to the south and east as well as single-family residences with outbuildings on
large parcels to the north. In addition, there are undeveloped parcels to the west. Around the mill pond,
there are scrub-shrub with invasive blackberries, reed canarygrass and various weeds (Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Current Conditions
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
3
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Existing Information Review
Background information on possible wetlands was reviewed prior to field investigations and included
the following:
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map, USFWS Shapefile Data (Appendix B)
Thurston County Area Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973)
National Resource Conservation Service Shapefiles (NRCS Soils Data Mart, 2006) (Appendix C)
Thurston County Geodata Wetland Inventory (Appendix D)
USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Maps (Appendix E)
WDNR Forest Practices Activity Map (Appendix F)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database and Salmonscape
(Appendix G)
NOAA Now Precipitation Data (Appendix H)
Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Database
United States Hydric Soils List (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991)
Thurston County Code Chapter 24
3.2 Analysis of Existing Information
The following existing information was reviewed to gain a better understanding of onsite conditions and
the position in the landscape.
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map (Appendix B), developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), shows the following wetlands on or within 300 ft. of the subject property.
• Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded (PEM1C)
• Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, excavated (PUBHx)
NRCS Soils Map
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the site (Appendix C) as containing:
• Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes
• Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15% slopes
Spanaway soils
Map Unit Setting
• National map unit symbol: 2ndb6
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
4
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
• Elevation: 330 to 1,310 feet
• Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 65 inches
• Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F
• Frost-free period: 150 to 200 days
• Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
• Spanaway and similar soils: 100 percent
• Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Spanaway
Setting
• Landform: Terraces, outwash plains
• Parent material: Volcanic ash over gravelly outwash
Typical profile
• H1 - 0 to 15 inches: gravelly sandy loam
• H2 - 15 to 20 inches: very gravelly loam
• H3 - 20 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
• Slope: 0 to 3 percent
• Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
• Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
• Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
• Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
• Frequency of flooding: None
• Frequency of ponding: None
• Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
• Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
• Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
• Hydrologic Soil Group: A
• Ecological site: R002XA006WA - Puget Lowlands Prairie
• Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA)
• Other vegetative classification: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA)
• Hydric soil rating: No
Thurston County Geodata Wetland Inventory
The Thurston County Geodata has a mapping tool that depicts various critical areas such as streams and
wetlands. (Appendix D). This site shows the following on the subject property:
• Pond
• Palustrine Emergent Open Water (PEM/OW)
• Palustrine Open Water (POW)
WADNR Forest Practices Map
The WADNR Forest Practices Division has a mapping tool for determining predictive stream types in
accordance with attributes for WAC222-16-32 WATER TYPING. (Appendix F). This map shows McKenzie
Lake on the parcel.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
5
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Inventory (PHS) and Salmonscape
The Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains an inventory of priority habitats and species information
(Appendix G).
The PHS database shows the following:
The WDFW SalmonScape does not show salmonid usage on or in the vicinity of the subject property.
NOAA NOW Precipitation Data
NOAA maintains a database that graphs the current precipitation against the wettest, driest, and normal
accumulations of record (Appendix H). This data shows that the precipitation has been drier than
normal during the study period.
3.3 Field Investigation
Determination Guidelines
Land Services Northwest based its wetland identification and delineation upon the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the regional specificity
found in Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Generally, as outlined in the
manuals, wetlands are distinguished from other landforms by three criteria: 1) hydrophytic vegetation,
2) hydric soils, and 3) wetland hydrology.
General Field Guidelines
Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy in Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and
Cronquist, 1973), and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to: The National
Wetland Plant List: 2016 (Lichvar, 2016). Wetland classes were determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s system of wetland classification (FGDC, 2013). The wetland determination was based on soils,
vegetation, and hydrology characteristics indicative of wetland conditions.
The Corps Manual and Supplement describes soil, vegetation, and hydrological indicators of wetlands. A
hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper par (National Technical Committee for
Hydric Soils, 1994). Anaerobic conditions cause redoximorphic features to develop, which can be
evidenced through the observation of mottling or gleying in the soil. Soils are hydric if they match the
indicators in the supplement or meet the technical definition.
A soils evaluation was performed to determine if the area contained hydric soils. Additional test plots
were sampled to gage wetland indicators and characteristics. Soils are normally excavated to 18 in. or
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
6
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
more below the surface within a test pit to evaluate soil characteristics and hydrological conditions in
both Mill Pond and upland areas. Soil chroma (color) is evaluated using the Munsell Color Chart
(Munsell Color, 1988).
The COE describes a rating system for plants. Each plant species is assigned to have a probability of
occurrence within wetlands, which is referred to as its wetland plant indicator status. The wetland plant
indicator system is as follows:
Table 1 Indicator Status Ratings
Indicator Status Abbr. Definitions - Short Version ( ERDC/CRREL TN-12-
1 )
Obligate OBL Almost always occur in wetlands.
Facultative Wetland FACW Usually occur in wetlands but may occur in non-wetlands.
Facultative FAC Occur in wetlands and nonwetlands.
Facultative Upland FACU Usually occur in non-wetlands but may occur in wetlands.
Upland UPL Almost never occur in wetlands. (USACE, 2016)
In general, under the federal methodology, more than 50% of the predominant plant species within a
test plot must be rated FAC or wetter (i.e., FACW, OBL) to satisfy the wetland criteria for hydrophytic
vegetation. Dominant species are those when ranked comprise 50% of the total or those that have a
percentage cover greater or equal to 20% within the test plot. Only dominant plant species were
considered in the data analysis.
If wetland hydrology, including pooling, ponding, and soil saturation, is not clearly evident, hydrological
conditions may be observed through surface or soil indicators. Indicators of hydrological conditions
include drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, historic records, visual
observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation.
3.4 Wetland Study
Field Survey
A wetland reconnaissance was performed on August 15, 2025, to identify wetlands present on the
subject property. Observations were made of the general plant communities, wildlife habitats, and the
locations of potential wetlands and other critical areas. Present and past land-use practices were noted
as were significant geological and hydrological features.
Once likely wetland areas were located, the Routine Onsite Determination Method was used to identify
the presence of wetland parameters and to delineate the outer edge of the wetlands using the
procedures outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). The Routine Onsite Determination Method was used in areas that maintained normal
circumstances, were not significantly disturbed, and were not potential problem areas. A formal
wetland delineation was performed on August 15, 2025, to flag and document onsite wetlands and to
identify and map offsite wetlands within 315 ft. of the subject property as we are able.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
7
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Test pits were dug on August 15, 2025, to develop a better understanding of soil profiles onsite. Soils
were excavated to 18 in. or more below the surface within a test pit to evaluate soil characteristics and
hydrological conditions throughout the site. Soil chroma (color) is evaluated using the Munsell Color
Chart (Munsell Color, 1988). These results were entered in wetland data sheets (Appendix I) (Figure 3).
Figure 3 – Test Pit Locations
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
8
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Existing Conditions
The site has a pothole depression with SR507 to the west and the edge of the oval depression is
relatively consistent in elevation with a Oregon white oak with some Oregon ash near the
Ordinary High Water Mark and an understory of Beaked hazelnut, snowberry, swordfern and
trailing blackberry that surrounds the depression. The depression itself is mostly vegetated with
reed canary grass and a hedge of invasive Himalayan and Cut leaf blackberries exist from the
edge of the forest to the edge of the depression.
4.2 Wetlands
Mill Pond
Mill Pond is a 1.2-acre depressional HGM wetland. It is a Category III wetland with an overall score of 17
and a habitat score of 4(LLM)
• Plants
The predominant plant found within Mill Pond was Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea; FACW)
although there is Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia; FACW), Black cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus armeniacus; FAC), Cut leaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus; FAC), Arrowroot (Canna edulis; OBL)
and other weedy species like Canadian thistle. In the buffer there is an Oak woodland that
surrounds the wetland with an understory of snowberry, swordfern, beaked hazelnut.
• Soils
Soils in Mill Pond consist of a 10YR3/1 at 0-18 inches. An underlying layer is found deeper with a
10YR 4/2 and 10YR 4/6 redox 18-24 inches. The Spanaway soils that are in the upland have a similar
look in the A horizon, however, the soils are not depleted below this layer until you get deeper in
the strata.
• Hydrology
Water-stained leaves and geomorphic position were the two secondary indicators of wetland
hydrology.
5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUES
5.1 Wetland Functional Analysis Methodology
Wetlands, in general, provide many valuable ecological and social functions, including: 1) stormwater
storage, 2) groundwater recharge, 3) erosion control, 4) water quality improvement, 5) natural
biological support, 6) overall habitat functions, 7) specific habitat functions, and 8) cultural and
socioeconomic value.
Several procedures have been developed for assessing the importance and magnitude of functions and
include the Washington Functional Assessment Method (WAFAM) Wetland Evaluation Technique, the
Hydrogeomorphic Assessment Method, the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), and numerous regional
and/or local procedures. However, none of these methods were consistent with the needs of this
project.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
9
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Wetland functions were also semi-quantitatively assessed using information gathered while performing
the ECY Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). The scores from the analysis of
the Mill Pond are found in Appendix H. This method is a comprehensive approach requiring substantial
data input and assessment of onsite and landscape functions. The descriptions of wetland functions and
the factors and parameters considered by that method are very helpful in interpreting the functioning of
the subject wetlands and buffer areas. The methodology is scientifically based, in that its application
requires a prior understanding of how wetlands function. Advanced experience, training and scientific
objectivity of a wetland scientist applying the method is essential for an accurate assessment. Alex
Callender has attended and received credit for the training in this method.
5.2 Wetland Functions
Mill Pond
Mill Pond is a 1.2-acre isolated pothole depressional wetland with no outlet that we could find. Like
many urban wetlands, it has been impacted by different activities and this use has caused of the
degradation of this urban wetland.
• Water Quality
Mill Pond is a depression with no surface water leaving it. The soil 2 in. below the surface is not true
clay or true organic. The wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 95% of area. The area seasonally
ponded is > ½ total area of wetland. The wetland unit does not receive stormwater discharges and >
10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants (Highway). There
are no septic systems within 250 ft of the Mill Pond and no other sources of pollutants coming into
the wetland. The wetland does not discharge directly to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is
on the 303(d) list. It is in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list. The site
has not been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality.
• Hydrologic
Mill Pond is a depression with no surface water leaving it. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above
the surface or bottom of outlet. The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit. The
wetland does not receive stormwater discharges and >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land
uses that generate excess runoff. More than 25% of the basin of the wetland covered with intensive human
land uses. There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. The site has not been identified
as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan.
• Habitat
There is one Cowardin class: Emergent. There are two Hydroperiods: Seasonally flooded or
inundated and Saturated only. Mill Pond has 5-19 plant species and no interspersion of habitat.
There is one special habitat feature: At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody
branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. Accessible habitat is <
10% of 1 km Polygon and total habitat is 10-50% and > 3 patches. Mill Pond has > 50% of 1 km
Polygon is high intensity land use. The site has two priority habitats: Oregon white oak and Snags
and logs.
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 City of Yelm Regulations
The City of Yelm regulates wetlands under YMC 18.21.060 Wetlands. Which states
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
10
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
A. Designating Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the Washington
State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997), that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All areas within the
city meeting the wetland designation criteria in the Identification and Delineation Manual, regardless of
any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this
chapter.
Mill Pond would meet the definition of a wetland.
The City of Yelm requires the delineation to follow the methodology found in the Corps Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the Mountains Valleys and Coast Regional Supplement which has
replaced the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual as required by
RCW 36.70A.175. Wetland Ratings are conducted using the most recent “Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington” (Hruby, Yahnke, 2023).
The wetlands were rated as a Category III wetland with an overall score of 16 and a habitat score of 4
(LLM). The table below taken from code shows that Category III wetlands with a habitat score of four
(LLM) carry an 80-foot buffer. It should be noted that the overall score of 16 translates to a score of 30-
50 and the score of four (LLM) translates to less than or equal to 19.
Tables for translating category scores
Category
2004
Score Range
Western WA
2014 Score Range
Eastern WA
2014 Score Range
I > 70 23-27 22-27
II 51-69 20-22 19-21
III 30-50 16-19 16-18
IV < 30 9-15 9-15
Tables for translating function scores
Function scores
2004
Score Range
2014
Score Range
Habitat — High 29-36 8-9
Habitat — Medium 20-28 5-7
(July 2018 modified to 6-7)*
Habitat — Low < 19 3-4
(July 2018 modified to 3-5)*
Water quality — High 24-32 8-9
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
11
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
*Based on a review of the rating system reference wetland data, Ecology adjusted
the ranges for the habitat scores.
So, as we can see, Mill Pond would be a Category III wetland with a habitat score of < 19.
Category III. Category III wetlands are those with a moderate level of functions (scores between 30 and 50 points).
Wetlands scoring between 30 and 50 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse
or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.
Category II and III Wetlands.
a. Water-dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less adverse
impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas.
b. Where non-water-dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and
activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that:
i. The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a
wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and
ii. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, that would avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its
buffer, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, are not feasible.
Category III:
Moderate level of function for habitat (score of 20 – 28 points) 150 feet
Not meeting above characteristic 80 feet
There has been some discussion, and the City would like to bring the trail closer to the wetland to allow
for wildlife viewing, and other water enjoyment activities with some interpretive signs for the Memorial
and bike facilities. . Buffer averaging will be utilized to reduce the buffer by 25% in the areas where the
trails will provide view access in accordance with YMC 18.21. 030 states:
18.21.040 Allowed Activities states: Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. Public and private pedestrian trails, except in
wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or their buffers, subject to the following:
a. The trail surface shall meet all other requirements including water quality standards set forth in the [locally adopted
stormwater management regulations];
b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor, including
disturbed areas; and
c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in a manner that does not increase the
risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an approved geotechnical report;
The applicant will be using construction BMPs in order to make sure that the trail will not increase the risk of landslide or
erosion.
6. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities; provided, that no vegetation shall be
removed from a critical area or its buffer without approval from the administrator:
a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor, light equipment or regulated grazing:
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
12
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
i. Invasive and noxious weeds;
ii. English ivy (Hedera helix);
iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus);
iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus); and
v. Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius);
This report identifies the target species which will be removed in the extensive invasive species removal
plan.
18.21.060 Wetland Buffer Width Averaging.
The administrator may allow modification of the standard wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical
area report and the best available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Averaging of buffer
widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that:
i. It will not reduce wetland functions or functional performance;
A functional assessment is provided in this report to show that there will be no-net-loss of wetland
ecological functions after installation of the buffer.
ii. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer
varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be
adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places;
There are areas of buffer that have Oregon white oak woodlands and a larger buffer in this area would benefit wildlife
that uses the area for food and water. The oaks will be maintained and the area will be improved with an invasive
species removal plan.
iii. The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within
the standard buffer; and
The total area of the buffer will not be less than what would be contained in the standard buffer
iv. The buffer width is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the standard width or 35 feet.
A portion of the project will be located in the outer 25% of the buffer and will require buffer averaging
for that portion. The buffer width will be reduced up to 25% for a portion of the project. Another portion
of the project will be located in the inner 75% of the standard 80 ft buffer and will be consistent with the
conditions found in YMC 18.21.110Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Which is found below.
3. Aquatic Habitat. The following specific activities may be permitted within a riparian habitat area, pond, lake,
water of the state, and marine habitat or associated buffer.
a. Clearing and Grading. When clearing and grading is permitted as part of an authorized activity or as otherwise
allowed in these standards, the following shall apply:
i. Grading is allowed only during the dry season, which is typically regarded as beginning on May 1st and ending on
October 1st of each year; provided, that the city may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis,
determined on actual weather conditions.
Work will be conducted in the dry season as indicated above.
ii. Filling or modification of a wetland or wetland buffer is permitted only if it is conducted as part of an approved
wetland alteration.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
13
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
The filling or grading in the wetland buffer will be the minimum necessary to accomplish the goals of
creating a public trail. The construction bmps will be installed before work begins. The cut and fill areas
will be created on site and soil should not be required to fill or remove site from the soils.
iii. The soil duff layer shall remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. Where feasible, any soil disturbed
shall be redistributed to other areas of the project area.
This will be done in order to make the least possible impact, however it may be necessary to stabilize the
soils in order to make sure that the trail is well built.
iv. The moisture-holding capacity of the topsoil layer shall be maintained by minimizing soil compaction or reestablishing
natural soil structure and infiltrative capacity on all areas of the project area not covered by impervious surfaces.
The contractor shall use the lightest means possible to develop the trail and the soil will not be
compacted and will be restored in order to maintain the infiltration capacity of the surrounding area.
v. Erosion and sediment control that meets or exceeds the standards set forth in the [locally adopted stormwater management
regulations] shall be provided.
The contractor shall use methods consistent with the most recently accepted stormwater management
regulations for the City of Yelm.
The pond is regulated by the City of Yelm as a Fish and Wildlife Conservation area under YMC 18.21.110
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas (FWHCA)
Ponds are “Naturally Occurring Ponds under 20 Acres. Naturally occurring ponds are those ponds under
20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial
ponds intentionally created from dry areas to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring ponds do
not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities,
unless such artificial ponds were intentionally created for mitigation.”
Roads, Trails, Bridges, and Rights-of-Way. Construction of trails, roadways, and minor road bridging, less than or
equal to 30 feet wide, may be permitted in accordance with an approved critical area report subject to the
following standards:
i. There is no other feasible alternative route with less impact on the environment;
The area to provide this park is limited, and the City would like the public to have the opportunity to
enjoy a feature like the Mill pond, and the added area for the trail is one way to maximize the public
benefit of this park. The route is reasonable and will use the natural contours that are available to
reduce the necessary amount of grading.
ii. The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel;
No interruption of downstream movement of wood or gravel will occur.
iii. Roads in riparian habitat areas or their buffers shall not run parallel to the water body;
There is not a crossing and it will run adjacent to the water body, but not as a parallel linear feature, it will
be following the southern edge around the wetland.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
14
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
iv. Trails shall be located on the outer edge of the riparian area or buffer, except for limited viewing platforms and
crossings;
We have tried to limit the trail to the outer edge as much as possible except for a small portion which will
be near the edge, however, the wetland will be protected by a rail or spit rail cedar fence.
v. Crossings, where necessary, shall only occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible;
No crossing is necessary
vi. Mitigation for impacts is provided pursuant to a mitigation plan of an approved critical area report;
The mitigation plan will be found in the following section of this report.
vii. Road bridges are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Design at Road
Culverts, 1999, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000; and
No road bridges are necessary for the project.
viii. Trails and associated viewing platforms shall not be made of continuous impervious materials.
The trail material will be pervious to prevent dewatering of the wetland.
Performance Standards – Compensatory Mitigation Requirements. Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall
achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with the state Department
of Ecology Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals, 1994, as revised.
1. Mitigation shall be required in the following order of preference:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
The city will maintain most activities outside of the Mill Pond and its buffer with the exception of a water
enjoyment nature trail which will be allowed within 8.2 feet from the edge of the wetland. This will be
built in accordance with Yelm Municipal Code to maintain water quality and other functions. Buffer
averaging will be used to minimize the impacts on the project and there is an extensive native plant
enhancement and invasive species removal maintain functions of the wetland in accordance with the no-
net-loss policies of Yelm Municipal Critical Areas Code.
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate
technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
The applicant has minimized the impact by staging in a designated area outside of the buffer and will use
buffer averaging which will allow the city to maintain buffer functions in the outer 75% of the buffer. The
portion of the trail that is project was built allow others to enjoy the wetland, so its location near the
wetland is necessary to view the wetland.
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
We will be enhancing an equal area with invasive species removal and replacement with native plants and
a native plant enhancement area along the path and viewing area.
We will be conducting buffer enhancement and removing blackberries and other invasive species like one
seeded hawthorne and replacing with native species
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
15
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
There will be an ongoing maintenance and operations by the city to make sure the plantings are
performing well and there is not any degradation of the wetlands..
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments.
A 1:1 enhancement will occur in the area in accordance with the mitigation requirements in code.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
16
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Table 2 - Summary of Wetlands and Streams on or in the Vicinity of the Subject Property
Wetland
Size Category
Ba
s
e
B
u
f
f
e
r
Wi
d
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
Buffer
after
mitigatio
n
Mitigation
Ratio
Co
w
a
r
d
i
n
C
l
a
s
s
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
On
-si
t
e
Of
f
-si
t
e
(e
s
t
i
m
a
t
ed
)
Ci
t
y
o
f
Ye
l
m
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Bu
f
f
e
r
Av
e
r
a
g
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
1:
1
Mill Pond 1.18
acres Category III 80
Buffer
averaging
Has been
used to
mitigate
for
impacts
to the
outer 75%
1,640
4,920
Of
Native
plant
enhanc
ement
PE
MC
No Net
Loss of
wetland
ecologic
al
function
s will be
maintain
ed
1. Palustrine , Forested Flooded (or Saturated)
6.2 Corps Regulations
The wetland does not have a connection to any waters of the US and is isolated. No direct impacts to
the Mill Pond are planned.
6.3 Department of Ecology
Under RCW 90.48, the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) reserves regulatory authority to
regulate “waters of the state” under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. No direct wetland impacts are
proposed.
7.0 WILDLIFE
Observed Federally listed/PHS Federally listed salmonid Wildlife observed during site visit
None None None None
Wildlife found onsite are typical of urban/suburban adapted species. The European starling, racoons,
possum, Columbian deer and other species adapted to urbanization may inhabit or visit the site for food
and shelter.
No other federally listed, or priority species was observed on the subject property or near the site based
on the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and field observations during the reconnaissance and
delineation. During the limited duration of the site reconnaissance and delineation, no evidence of the
federally listed bald eagle, marbled murrelet, or spotted owl was observed onsite.
No wildlife was observed onsite during the visit.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
17
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
8.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
8.1 Description
The applicant is seeking to build a park with parking a flag plaza, informational kiosk, restrooms and a
path with various memorials to those who fought for our country.
8.2 Development Impacts
Development impacts of 1,664 sq ft of impact to the outer 75% of the wetland buffer will be offset with
an expansion of the buffer in an area that would improve the buffer near the oaks that will create a
larger corridor of vegetated area. There are 4,920 sq ft of area within the inner 75% of the wetland
buffer that will require necessary impacts to allow for a pathway where visitors can enjoy the attributes
of the Mill Pond for respite.
8.3 Impact Avoidance and Minimization
As shown in Section 6, the project will avoid impacts to the extent possible. We will have a trail that is
necessarily near the pond edge to allow for water enjoyment and respite. The city has considered all
the critical areas such as wetlands, steep slopes, priority habitats, groundwater hazard areas, and HCP
species of interest to provide a development that has avoided impact to the fullest however there will
still be some unavoidable impacts necessary to provide the .
8.4 Minimization of Water Quality Impacts
Implementing water quality and sedimentation best management practices (BMPs) will act to minimize
sedimentation and protect water quality onsite. Any bare areas will be planted with a cover crop. Silt
fences and straw waddles will be used where necessary. Splash blocks and infiltration galleries will be
used to reduce stormwater impacts from the residences.
Figure 4 - Insert Proposed Site Plan
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
1
0
0
'
`P
A
R
C
E
L
#
62
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
A
N
D
2
1
7
2
4
4
4
0
5
0
0
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
Y
E
L
M
V
E
T
E
R
A
N
'
S
ME
M
O
R
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
AC
R
E
A
G
E
-
2
.
8
7
A
N
D
2
.
0
5
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
18
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
9.0 MITIGATION
9.1 Mitigation Requirements
As mentioned earlier, there are 4,920 sq ft of unavoidable impacts to the inner 75% of the wetland
buffer. The Mitigation BAS (Ecology 2023) requires a 1:1 enhancement mitigation to maintain no net
loss of wetland ecological functions.
Activities Allowed in Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and
consistent with, the provisions established in allowed activities, and do not require submission of a critical area report, except
where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include:
1. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail changing the
structure or functions of the existing wetland.
The City will be conducting BMP’s to preserve the soils and vegetation in the area to benefit the area
wildlife. Since we are removing invasive species, there will be limited soil disturbance and the area will be
stabilized using hand tools, replanting native roses in the removal area and providing mulch to ensure
that the plantings will be successful. Watering may be required during the first year or two, but no mor
than once or twice a month and limiting the amount of water to prevent soil erosion and rilling.
2. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not
require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or
water sources.
There should not be any harvesting of crops as the fruits will be used to provide a source of food for
wildlife.
3. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water
connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific
studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the
wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column is disturbed.
Utilities may be needed for light. If electrical or other utilities are required along the trail it should not be
a problem as the Spanaway soils that surround the Mill Pond are excessively drained and the utilities will
not interfere with the hydrologic process.
4. Enhancement of a Wetland through the Removal of Nonnative Invasive Species. Weeding shall be
restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain
after weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand
seeding may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs.
Weeding will be done by hand removal and weed materials will be removed from the site and replanted
with native plants. Native herbs (Indigenous Prairie) will be planted in some area and shrubs and trees
will be planted in others.
As directed, the city will do the following:
• Lights will be directed away from the wetland/pond and buffers.
• Pesticide limited within 150 ft of wetland.
• Runoff will be directed away from the wetland since it is uphill.
• Use infiltration galleries and level spreaders if found necessary to reduce the energy
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
19
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
• Plant 4,920 sq ft of native vegetation in buffer between the development and the Mill Pond with
breaks for viewing areas.
• Remove invasive species in the planting and surrounding areas removing by hand and grubbing
blackberry root balls.
• Other mitigation measures will be implemented as applicable.
9.2 Integrated Pest Management
The applicant will use the integrated pest management plan (IPM) methods and utilize management
recommendations from the Thurston County Website The primary objectives of the planting plan is to
provide shrub species that will shade and outcompete the main species which require control;
Himalayan blackberry, English holly and the Single seeded hawthorne. The applicant will use manual or
mechanical means as the preferred method for removal of the Himalayan and Evergreen blackberries on
site. If these methods are found to be ineffective or infeasible, Other more aggressive methods will be
considered to include use of popular effective herbicides consistent with the recommended label
application rates and conducted during the dry season by licensed applicators. Other species which may
require control from time to time will use recommendations from the Thurston County Noxious Weed
website and the Homeowner IPM recommendations adopted for this particular purpose.
9.3 Mitigation Functional Analysis
The following planting plan to enhance the buffer will improve wetland functions and improve the
overall landscape as well by:
• providing increase roughness
• increasing nutrient uptake of stormwater
• Provide screening for wildlife,
• Provide shade for water quality and habitat,
• Produce food for wildlife and structure.
Currently, the area that will be impacted is reed canary grass and blackberry. In the mitigation areas
there is a lot of Himalayan blackberry. There is a lack of native shrub vegetation and the screening that
it provides in this area, so this plan will provide an enhanced proper buffer in the area, where it matters
most, between the Mill Pond and the residence. The planting plan will provide species diversity and
structure as well as roughness. The invasive species in the area will be replanted with native roses
(Nootka and Clustered rose).
Areas will be planted with buffer plants, which will not only provide benefits already mentioned, but will
also become a landscape amenity that combines the practical plantings with aesthetic attributes of our
native flora.
The following analysis uses the qualitative scoring values like the values developed in the Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). The best available science has found that the
resolution of value can only be rated using a qualitative system and maintain a rapid assessment of less
than one day. Therefore, we have examined common buffer functions for wetland protection and other
habitats to show the overall expected lift by the enhancement plan. The functions we are studying were
found in the latest buffer BAS (Hruby, 2013)
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
20
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
TABLE 3 – Buffer Functions Comparison Before and After Mitigation
Buffer
Perf
criteria
Screening Nutrient
uptake
Snags
and
Logs
Structure Surface
roughness
Temperature
attenuation
Diversity
Before
mitigating
measures
Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium
After
mitigating
measures
High Medium Medium High Medium Medium High
9.4 Planting Plan (Objectives)
The outcome of the planting plan is to provide for a higher functioning wetland, using buffer
enhancement at the required 1:1 impact to native plant coverage ratio. The plan was developed to
make the remaining buffer more resilient and effective by providing buffer continuity. Figure 6
illustrates the placement zones which were created to maximize plant performance by placing species in
a position in the landscape where they meet these objectives (Between the wetland and the trail). In
addition, we have provided a functional landscape amenity that will contribute to the overall patriotic
tone of the park by using plants that would be red, white and blue.
Trees and shrubs will be planted at grade in holes 2-3 times the width of the container or root ball.
Mulch will be applied around each tree 2-4 inches deep in a three-foot diameter around the tree with an
edge to retain water. Containerized rootbound trees will be cut with sharp shears on the bottom in an x
pattern to promote root growth. Four cuts will be made vertically to allow roots to spread. Trees and
shrubs will be thoroughly watered after installation. In addition, we have provided a functional
landscape amenity that will contribute to the overall patriotic tone of the park by using plants that
would be red, white and blue.
Trees and shrubs will be planted at grade in holes 2-3 times the width of the container or root ball.
Mulch will be applied around each tree 2-4 inches deep in a three-foot diameter around the tree with an
edge to retain water. Containerized rootbound trees will be cut with sharp shears on the bottom in an x
pattern to promote root growth. Four cuts will be made vertically to allow roots to spread. Trees and
shrubs will be thoroughly watered after installation.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
21
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Table 4 – Mitigation Area #1 RED (1,640 sq ft)
Common
Name
Species Quantity Spacing Cost Total
Red osier
dogwood
Cornus
sericea
10 8 ft oc $10.00 $100.00
Red
elderberry
Sambuca
racemosa
10 12 oc $10.00 $100.00
Kinnick
Kinnick
Arctostaphyl
os urva ursi
10 15 ft oc $10.00 $100.00
High bush
cranberry
Prunus
emarginata
10 15 ft oc $10.00 $100.00
Baldhip rose Rosa gymno
carpa
10 5 ft oc $10.00 100.00
Flowering
currant
Ribes
sanguineum
10 8 ft oc $10.00 $100.00
Total 60 $600.00
Table 5 – Mitigation Area #2 WHITE (1,640 sq ft)
Common
Name
Species Quantity Spacing Cost Total
Snowberry Symphoricarpos
alba
20 8 ft oc $10.00 $200.00
Mock orange Philadelphus
lewisii
10 12 oc $10.00 $100.00
Kinnick kinick Arctostaphylos
urva ursi
10 15 ft oc $10.00 $100.00
Quacking
aspen
Populus
tremuloides
10 15 ft oc $40.00 $400.00
Total 50 $1200.00
Table 6 – Mitigation Area #3 BLUE (1,640 sq ft)
Common
Name
Species Quantity Spacing Cost Total
Blue elder
berry
Cornus
sericea
10 8 ft oc $10.00 $100.00
Evergreen
huckleberry
Vaccinium
ovatum
20 12 oc $10.00 $200.00
Tall Oregon
grape
Mahonia
Aquifolium
20 15 ft oc $10.00 $200.00
Total 50 $500.00
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
22
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Table 7- Total Costs
Labor 100/hour $2,500.00
Mulch $100/5 yards $100.00
Monitoring w/report (10
years)*
200.00/yr. $2,000.00
Plants and Materials $2300.00
Total $4,900.00
*=Not included in Costs
9.4 Monitoring Plan
The planting plan will be monitored for ten years following the as – built (Year 0). Monitoring of the
performance standards will be provided each spring, shortly after leafing out, to aid in plant
identification. A report that communicates the findings will be provided to the County staff a month
following the monitoring. The report will contain pictures to allow the County personnel to evaluate site
conditions and performance standards. The photos in the report will be taken in four cardinal
directions, unless there is a direction that provides a better view. Four photo points that will be
established during the as-built (Year 0). Management of performance deficiencies or maintenance will
occur during the spring or fall season following monitoring and a summary of management actions will
be included in the following year’s monitoring report to track effectiveness and adaptively manage the
site.
9.5 Performance Standards
The performance standards are as follows:
Year 0 an inventory of plants and photo points will be established for monitoring during the monitoring
period within 1 month of the installation.
Year 1 will have 100% survival of installed plants. Noxious weeds will be less than 10% aerial coverage.
Volunteer trees or shrubs may account for up to 10 percent of the overall count of surviving plants.
Dead plants will be replaced in kind unless a volunteer is a replacement.
Year 2 -3 will have a survival rate of 80 percent of the original count. Volunteers can account for 10
percent of the total if present. Noxious weeds such as Himalayan blackberry, Reed canary grass, and
other invasives will not have more than 10 percent aerial coverage of the planting area. Japanese
knotweed, yellow flag iris, or hogweed will have a zero percent tolerance and be removed or sprayed
using an appropriate herbicide approved for aquatic use by a licensed applicator.
Year 4-5 will have a coverage goal which will provide a 80 percent aerial coverage of at least four
species of shrubs with less than 10 percent invasive species coverage.
Failure to meet standards by year 10 will require an additional plantings to maintain the objective of 80
percent aerial coverage.
Insert Figure 6– Site Plan with Mitigation Planting Area
PA
R
C
E
L
#
62
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
1
0
0
'
`P
A
R
C
E
L
#
62
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
A
N
D
2
1
7
2
4
4
4
0
5
0
0
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
Y
E
L
M
V
E
T
E
R
A
N
'
S
ME
M
O
R
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
AC
R
E
A
G
E
-
2
.
8
7
A
N
D
2
.
0
5
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
23
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Goals
If the performance plan is met, the goals of the plan will be met which is to
• Provide 4,920 sq ft of a 1:1 enhancement to impact ratio of shrubs and trees that:
• Reestablish a vegetated buffer that screens wildlife with 80% aerial coverage
• Reduces invasive species to 10% aerial coverage
• Prevent access to humans in the mitigation area with a fence.
• Provide at least 4 different shrub species
• Provide 2 different tree species
9.6 Contingency Plans
If the site does not meet performance standards. Contingencies may be developed to adapt to the site-
specific conditions. Contingencies may include:
• Increased watering
• Mulching
• Integrated Pest Management
• Microtopography changes
• Species substitution
• Herbivory protection
• Bark wrap
The area is frequented by deer and the choice of plants were chosen to avoid herbivory issues, but
exclusion fencing may be necessary until the plants reach maturity. This is not expected to be needed to
be a permanent fixture if required. Any contingencies will be developed in conjunction with
landscapers, nursery staff, and other experts. The city would be notified in advance of the contingency
plans. No contingencies will be applied without city consent.
10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The City has designed a Veteran Memorial Park with parking, restrooms, walking paths landscaping and
memorials to honor the service of our area veterans with commemorative areas for each war that
Americans served and died for our country.
This will be a wonderful example of the City’s American Pride and in doing so they will improve the
ecological aspects of the pond and surrounding area to benefit the natural resources that make the City
of Yelm such a special place to live.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
24
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
11.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was created with care and best professional judgment using the current best available
science, but the report is subject to interpretation by local state and federal regulators who have the
final regulatory authority on wetlands, buffer widths and other critical area determinations. No
outcomes are warranted by this report.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
25
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
12.0 REFERENCE
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior. FWSOBS-70/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal
Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press. 730 pp.
Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.
Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. December 5.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016.
The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings.
Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X
Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore,
Maryland.
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). 2015. The hydric soil technical
standard. Hydric Soils Technical Note 11. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_
DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051608.pdf (accessed 19 September 2016).
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. G.W.
Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
USDA, NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 5/28/2017).
National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
26
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
http://plants.usda.gov
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Lacey Quadrangle.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington. Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. August.2014
Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. Water Quality Assessment for Washington.
Accessed April 30, 2017. http//fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wqamapviewer/default.aspx?res-1280x720
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Endangered, Threatened and
Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. Species of concern: State candidate
species. WDFW. Olympia, WA
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
27
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix A – Photographs
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
28
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
29
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
30
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
31
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
32
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
33
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix B - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NWI MAP
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
34
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix C - Thurston County NRCS Soil Survey Map
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
35
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix D - Thurston County Wetland, Stream and Waterbody Inventory
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
36
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix E - USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
37
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix F - WDNR Forest Practices Activity Map
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
38
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix G - WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and Salmonscape
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
39
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
40
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
41
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
42
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
43
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix H - NOAA Now Precipitation Data
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
44
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix I - COE Wetland 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: Veterans Memorial Park City/County: Yelm/Thurston Sampling Date: 9.15.25
Applicant/Owner: City of Yem State: WA Sampling Point: TP1
Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section, Township, Range: 25, 17, 1E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): 2 Lat: 46.937081 Long: -122.614808 Datum: Wgs84
Soil Map Unit Name: Spanaway NWI classification: PUBHx
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Phalaris arundinacea
90 Y FACW
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
90 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= 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:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - 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 x No
Remarks: Greater than 50% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: TP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR3/1 100 Silt loam
18-24 10YR4/2 98 10YR5/6 2 Silt 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)
x Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Thick dark surface present.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) x
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Water-stained leaves present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Veterans Memorial Park City/County: Yelm/Thurston Sampling Date: 9.15.25
Applicant/Owner: City of Yem State: WA Sampling Point: TP2
Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section, Township, Range: 25, 17, 1E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): 2 Lat: 46.937081 Long: -122.614808 Datum: Wgs84
Soil Map Unit Name: Spanaway NWI classification: PUBHx
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Phalaris arundinacea
99 Y FACW
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
99 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= 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:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - 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 x No
Remarks: Greater than 50% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: TP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR3/1 100 Silt 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)
x Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Thick dark surface present.
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 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) x
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) x Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Water-stained leaves and geomorphic position are the secondary 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: Veterans Memorial Park City/County: Yelm/Thurston Sampling Date: 9.15.25
Applicant/Owner: City of Yem State: WA Sampling Point: TP3
Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section, Township, Range: 25, 17, 1E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): 2 Lat: 46.937081 Long: -122.614808 Datum: Wgs84
Soil Map Unit Name: Spanaway NWI classification: PUBHx
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Phalaris arundinacea
95 Y FACW
2. Galium aparine
2 N FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
97 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= 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:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - 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 x No
Remarks: Greater than 50% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: TP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR3/1 100 Silt 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)
x Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Thick dark surface present.
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 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) x
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) x Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Secondary indicators are water-stained leaves and geomorphic position.
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: Veterans Memorial Park City/County: Yelm/Thurston Sampling Date: 9.15.25
Applicant/Owner: City of Yem State: WA Sampling Point: TP4
Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section, Township, Range: 25, 17, 1E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): 2 Lat: 46.937081 Long: -122.614808 Datum: Wgs84
Soil Map Unit Name: Spanaway NWI classification: PUBHx
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No x
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No x
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Prunus virginiana
25 Y FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
25 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Rubus ursinus
45 Y FACU
2. Pteridium aquilinum
20 Y FACU
3. Phalaris arundinacea
5 N FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
70 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= 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: 3 (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:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - 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 x
Remarks: Less than 50% of dominant vegetation is FAC or wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: TP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR3/1 100 Silt 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
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x
Depth (inches):
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators present.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators present.
City of Yelm Veterans Memorial Park Critical Areas Review and Mitigation Plan
45
Land Services Northwest November 6, 2025
Appendix J - Wetland Rating Forms for Western Washington
wp�r
woa
�m' m
o m o
,Z-
m�
UN
W
0
II 1111-k
;o
D
2
Q
D
M
f'
n
_
rn
=
UO
a
�D
r-r +
fD ♦ ��
W.�
!
� OTSON - rn o
T SF
D �
-
rnAt_
-
N3SN-�C
BERRY
VALLEY
'_ SE
••sf fs ��, e ;: - .cr Vq���� CT SE .
k i SF
'� *.- ,;�,�► '�' . � ` '` - D D VIEVN^
TERRA -,
o%,� ;` •. = 1 CT SE rn STSE
aMh7 cn � DURANT ST SE
Ir
• t 3 F-�
•
I'T7 Q
fF • C` ' D M
rn oo i rn rn 7�
P
LO
N �AsFy rnPARRY •� '• O ���; ,�
�ES • r •
S,T SEl 7,r •. % TF r� s
-Voj rn N. • •
1p
cnrn ST SF �-N q
SFC`
0 O 4 • `rT
F
UMTANUM
SST SEI
L _ D D
VANCIL rn O
rn Z
vz
rnn.ri
s�. F
rn;'o AIS�� <o
rn w
rn
2 ,
� y
RHOTON ROTON
a RD Sr: RD SE
9LFSC
SF
2
OHO s fn D
C>
l �I D
o
m�,..
-�s <4vN,, >
)GSWd21 F
O,,ti ,
Land Use Calculations
ACRES %
1KM 844.59 Percent
Wetland A 1.18
1KM-Wetland A 843.41 0.998603
High Intensity 363.8 0.431344 43.13442
Relatively Undisturbed 91.31212 0.108114 10.81141
Low Medium Use 388.2979 0.459747 45.97472
Accessible Habitat 20 0.023713 2.371326
Wetland A 1.18
AH-Wetland A 18.82 0.022314 2.231418
RU 0 0 0
Low/Medium LU 4.92 0.005833 0.583346
High Intensity 13.9 0.016481 1.648072
(D (D
� r-r flJ fl)
O Z5 Z5
D D
! rD
r, r to
C o
rt
Ir
A n °
�
N D
o�y�w
om°
v�
co
*1.
i rA
s�
so
z s��
11000
O v n
� r_r
rt
Q
ro �• r D
Q
NO
ig
i (f) =ram
0
0
1041-H wAY SE
L � �
T �
m �I
II b
* sivr
�
o•
a
Q
o
�
r_r
v
Su
b
j
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
30
3
d
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
A
t
l
a
s
M
a
p
WS
U
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
G
I
S
,
W
A
S
t
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
s
G
I
S
,
E
s
r
i
,
T
o
m
T
o
m
,
G
a
r
m
i
n
,
Sa
f
e
G
r
a
p
h
,
G
e
o
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
,
I
n
c
,
M
E
T
I
/
N
A
S
A
,
U
S
G
S
,
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
n
d
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
E
P
A
,
N
P
S
,
U
S
C
e
n
s
u
s
B
u
r
e
a
u
,
U
S
D
A
,
U
S
F
W
S
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
5
0
0.
4
5
0.
9
0.
2
3
Mi
l
e
s
K
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
/
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
Wa
t
e
r
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
5
-
3
0
3
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
C
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
B
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
A
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
2
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
1
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
5
-
3
0
3
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
C
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
B
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
A
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
2
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
1
Pa
r
c
e
l
s
Pa
r
c
e
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Su
b
b
a
s
i
n
s
(
1
2
d
i
g
i
t
H
U
C
s
)
HU
C
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Su
b
j
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
p
WS
U
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
G
I
S
,
W
A
S
t
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
s
G
I
S
,
E
s
r
i
,
T
o
m
T
o
m
,
G
a
r
m
i
n
,
Sa
f
e
G
r
a
p
h
,
G
e
o
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
,
I
n
c
,
M
E
T
I
/
N
A
S
A
,
U
S
G
S
,
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
n
d
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
E
P
A
,
N
P
S
,
U
S
C
e
n
s
u
s
B
u
r
e
a
u
,
U
S
D
A
,
U
S
F
W
S
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
5
0
0.
4
5
0.
9
0.
2
3
Mi
l
e
s
K
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
/
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
Wa
t
e
r
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
5
-
3
0
3
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
C
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
B
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
A
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
2
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
1
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
5
-
3
0
3
d
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
C
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
B
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
4
A
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
2
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
1
WQ
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
TM
D
L
-
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
4B
-
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
ST
I
-
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
AR
P
-
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
TM
D
L
-
I
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ST
I
-
I
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
AR
P
-
I
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pa
r
c
e
l
s
Pa
r
c
e
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
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 required figures (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY __III__ (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
Score for eachfunction 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
Alexander Callender X 12/13
Depressional X
ESRI 2024
N/A
A
x
x
7 45 16
Yelm Mem Wet A 9/15/2024
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
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 total 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 total 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 total 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 total 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
Cowardin
Hydro
1 KM
303d
TMDL
Cont Basin
150 Ft
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
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.
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 sheet flow, 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).
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
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.
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 – Version 2, July 2023
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 in development or in effect 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
0
4
0
0
0
1
x
0
1
3
5
12
x
1
0
1
x
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
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/ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 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 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. Is the unit 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 downgradient 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 downgradient of unit. points = 2
•Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther downgradient. 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
0
A
0
1
2
0
4
7
1
0
0x
x
11
x
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
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 if the unit is at least 2.5 ac, or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac.
____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/groundcover) 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 if the unit is < 2.5 ac, or ¼ ac if the unit is at least 2.5 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
____Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to
name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canada 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.
x
x
x
1
0
1
0
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
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 extend at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over open water or 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 above for the
list of strata and H 1.5 in the manual for the list of aggressive plant species)
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 polygons accessible from the wetland.
Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
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. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Total habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Total habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Total habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon:
> 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 data
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
2312 35 1
0 2.5 0
-2
-1
x
1
3
x
1
x
2.5
A
x
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
WDFW Priority Habitats
See complete descriptions of Priority Habitats listed by WDFW, and the counties in which they can be
found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008 (current year, as revised). Priority Habitat and
Species List.133 This list was updated for consistency with guidance from WDFW.
This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the Priority Habitat. All vegetated
wetlands are by definition a Priority Habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed by this
rating system.
Count how many of the following Priority Habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit:
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. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the PHS online map within 100m
of the wetland. If not mapped, a determination can be made in the field.
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.
Fresh Deepwater: Lands permanently flooded with freshwater, including environments where surface
water is permanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which
the dominant organisms live. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream
habitat is also present, or if the entire Deepwater feature is included in the wetland unit being rated
(such as a pond with a vegetated fringe).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
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. Do not select if
Fresh Deepwater habitat is also present.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast
Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore.
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) diameter at breast height (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.
133 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of
the oak component is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW’s
Management Recommendations for Oregon White Oak 134 provides more detail for determining if they
are Priority Habitats
Riparian: The area adjacent to freshwater aquatic systems with flowing or standing water that contains
elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
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.
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.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry
prairie or a wet prairie.
134 https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdf
x
A
x-----
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes – Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 1.2
Cat. I
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If non-native species are Spartina, see chapter 4.8 in the
manual.
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Does the wetland overlap with any known or historical rare plant or rare & high-quality ecosystem polygons
on the WNHP Data Explorer?135 Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 2.2
SC 2.2. Does the wetland have a rare plant species, rare ecosystem (e.g., plant community), or high-quality common
ecosystem that may qualify the site as a WHCV? Contact WNHP for resources to help determine the
presence of these elements.
Yes – Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination,136 Go to SC 2.3 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Did WNHP review the site within 30 days and determine that it has a rare plant or ecosystem that meets their
criteria?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
Cat. I
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in.
or more of the first 32 in. of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in. deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in. deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and
the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Category I bog No = Not a bog
Cat. I
135 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata
136 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdf
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Version 2, July 2023
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as Priority Habitats? If you answer YES, you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in. (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in. (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
The lagoon retains some of its surface water at low tide during spring tides
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species in H 1.5 in the manual).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer YES, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 and Ocean Shores Blvd SW, including lands west
of E. Oceans Shores Blvd SW.
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat I
Cat. II
Cat. III
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
N/A
A