20130331 Critical Areas Report 08212013W TLANDS VILDLIFE
Environmental Consulting
CRITICAL AREAS R PORT Sc PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN
WEBER PF OPERTY CITY OF YELM, WA
THURSTON CC U NTY PA E # 227192403000
Prepared For:
Mr. Randy Weber
26550 SE 354th Place
Black Diamond, WA 98010
Prepared B}
Weflands & Wildlife, lnc.
15129-55t" Drive SE
Everett, Washington 98208
425) 337-6450
June 10, 2013
T D
AUG 21 2013
BY:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION 1
METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION 2
RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION 3
EXISTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ANALYSIS 4
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5
DISCUSSION REGARDING MITIGATION SEQUENCING 6
PROPOSED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION EFFORTS 6
DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUIRED FINANCIAL GUARANTEE 8
MITIGATION PLAN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, MONITORING, MAINTENANCE,AND CONTINGENCY 8
HABITAT ASSESSMENT 1 O
PROJECT'S(MPACT DETERMINATION RELATED TO CRITICAL AREAS 11
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT 2
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE REVIEWED 13
ATTACHMENTS:
1. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS(4 DATA POINTS ON-SITE
2. DOE WETLAND RATING FORM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON(1 RATING FORM)
3. CRITICAL AREAS&MITIGATION PLAN MAP MAP SHEET CA1.00
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located northwest of the intersection of Rhoton Road SE and Northern Pacific Road
NW in the City of Yelm, Washington. This site is further located as a portion of Section 19, Township 17N,
Range 2E, W.M. The Thurston County tax parcel number for the property follows: 22719240300, Per
information obtained from the Thurston County Assessor's Office, the site encompasses approximately
7.51 acres and is zoned for Industrial use. The property is currently owned by Randy and Linda Weber,
also the applicants for the proposed grading permit. Vehicular site access is gained from the east via
Rhoton Road SE. The property is currentiy undeveloped and is generally level, with the western border
occupied by Yelm Creek (a Type 5 stream) antl an associated Category III wetland. In the City of Yelm,
Yelm Creek on the subject site is afforded a Riparian Habitat Area that extends to the outer edge of the
floodplain (frequently flooded area), while Category III wetlands with habitat scores of less than twenty
points receive 80-foot protective buffers.
The property owner retained Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. to evaluate the site features and assist with
complying with provisions of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC), Chapter 14.08 (Critical Areas and Resource
Lands). Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. conducted site visits to the subject property on February 18, 2013 and
May 9, 2013 to perform a detailed Critical Areas evaluation of the site, pursuant to the YMC and
professional industry standards. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. delineated the regulated Critical Areas on the site
on May 9, 2013. The delineated Critical Areas locations and other site features are depicted on the
attached Critical Areas & Mitigation Plan Map (Map Sheet CA1.00). Please review the attached map and
See th@ RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION S2Ct1011 Of thlS C2pOC fOr fUl heC IC1fOr1718t1011.
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
Section 14.08.050.A.1 requires applicants to submit a Critical Areas Report prepared by a qualified
professional to the City for review. The following provides a brief overview of my experience and
credentials to conduct this Critical Areas evaluation. I am the Founder, Owner, and Principal Wetland and
Wildlife Ecologist of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. I attended the University of Montana where I graduated cum
laude with a tlegree in Wildlife Biology. As of 2013, I have 12 years of direct experience as a professional
Biologist/Ecologist in western Washington and 16 years of overall experience completing natural resource
assessments among many different ecosystems across the western United States. I have worked as a
professional Biologist/Ecologist for federal, state, and county environmental agencies, as well as several
private environmental consulting firms with specialties in wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, and wildlife
habitat. In my 16 years of experience, I have specialized in review of proposed land use and building
development permit applications as they pertain to Critical Areas (wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, and
habitats of protected fish and wildlife species). Much of that experience came as a Senior Reviewing
Ecologist for King County DDES and a Regulatory Biologist for Snohomish County PDS.
I am listed on several Preferred /Qualified Consultant Rosters throughout western Washington. I am highly
experienced with the required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington state wetland delineation
methods. In addition to the wetland delineation certification, I am trained by the Washington Department of
Ecology and have 6 years of experience in the use of the required Wetland Rating Form for western
Washington. I am trained by the Washington Department of Ecology to determine Ordinary High Water
Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc. June 10,2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report&Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300)Page 1
Mark (OHWM) locations for rivers, streams, and lakes. In addition to my expertise related to wetlands and
streams, I have many years of experience conducting surveys of special status wildlife species in the
western U.S. I received certifications from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for terrestrial
wildlife habitat assessments and wildlife surveys of special status wildlife species in Washington.
Over the past 16 years, I have conducted literally over 1,300 biological/ecological assessments in different
capacities on properties with many habitat types and zoning designations, from small, urban properties
0.25 acres) to large, rural properties (up to 2,000 acres in size). I have been selected by several local city
jurisdictions to provide on-call 3rd-party environmental reviews of proposed development projects for
compliance with local Critical Areas Ordinances and the FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment and
Mitigation document.
METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. used methodologies described in Determininq the Ordinarv Hiqh Water Mark on
Streams in Washinqton State (Washington Department of Ecology Publication #08-006-001, April 2008) to
make a determination regarding the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the stream located on the subject
site.
The routine methodologies described in the Washinqton State Wetlands Identification and Delineation
Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94, March 1997) were used to make a
determination of wetlands, as required by the City of Yelm. In addition, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. evaluated
the site using the U.S. Armv Corps of Enqineers Wetland Delineation Manual produced in 1987 and the
U S Armv Corps of Enqineers Reqional Supplement to the Corps of Enqineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Reqion produced in May 2010 (hereinafter referred to as
the Corps Regional Supplement"). The Corps Regional Supplement is designed for concurrent use with
the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and ail subsequent versions. The 2010 Regional Supplement
provides technical guidance and procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands that may be subject to
regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Where differences in the two documents
occur, this Regional Supplement takes precedence over the Corps Manual for applications in the Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region.
According to the federal and state methodologies described above, identification of wetlands is based on a
three-factor approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and presence or evidence
of persistent hydrology. Except where noted in the manuals, the three-factor approach discussed above
requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology to make a
determination that an area is a regulated wetland. Using the aforementioned manuals, the site
characteristics for making a wetland determination include the following:
1. Examination of the site for h dro h tic ve etation (species present/percent cover);Y pY 9
2.) Examination for the presence of hydric soils in areas where hydrophytic vegetation is present; and
3.) Examination to determine if adequate hydrology exists for sufficient durations during the early part of the
growing season in the same locations as the previous two steps.
Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc. June 10, 2013
Weber Properry—Critical Areas Report&Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300)Page 2
Per industry standards, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined the entire subject site. Per current City of Yelm
requirements, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. also assessed adjacent properties within 300 feet of the proposed
project limits, to the maximum extent possible without entering adjacent properties. While a detailed
assessment of critical areas on adjacent properties was not possible due to lack of legal access, Wetlands
Wildlife, Inc. conducted a review of all available information to assess the presence of off-site critical
areas within 300 feet of the subject site. This review is necessary to determine if any regulated Critical
Areas exist off-site which would cause associated protective buffers to extend onto the property and affect
the development proposal.
In addition to on-site field reviews, Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc. examined aerial photographs and topographical
data (elevation contours) on Thurston County's GeoData maps. Soil survey maps produced by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Wetlands Inventory maps produced by the U.S. Fish
and Wildiife Service (USFWS), SalmonScape fish distribution maps produced by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), StreamNet fish distribution maps produced by Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices
Application Review System Water Type Maps, and Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps produced by
WDFW.
The boundary of the subject stream and wetland were delineated using bright pink ribbon (highly visible).
These flags were then located by a professional surveyor. After the delineation flags were located using
this method, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. imported the flag location data into a computer-aided drawing (CAD)
program to depict the wetland boundary location on-site in relation to the property boundary and other
existing site features.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
Yelm Creek (Type 5 stream) and an associatetl Category III wetland are located on the western portion of
the subject site as shown on the attached Critical Areas & Mitigation Plan Map (Map Sheet CA1.00). No
other regulated Critical Areas were located on or near the subject site that would affect the proposed
development.
Cowardin Classifications:
According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States, the classifications for the subject wetland and streams follow:
Yelm Creek: Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Cobble-Gravel (R4SB3).
Wetland A: Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonafly flooded/Saturated (PEM1 E).
City of Yelm Code Classifications:
Per the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC), Chapter 14.08 (Critical Areas and Resource Lands), the subject
wetland and stream are classified as follows:
Wet/ands& Wildlife, Inc. June 10, 2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report&Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300)Page 3
Yelm Creek flows north along the western border of the subject site. The on-site reach of Yelm Creek is an
intermittent (Type 5) stream that is dry for much of the year. Type 5 streams in the City of Yelm typically
receive a protected 150-foot Riparian Habitat Area. However, when frequently flooded areas exceed the
150-foot riparian habitat area width, the riparian habitat area shall extend to the outer edge of the frequently
flooded area. Therefore, the effective Riparian Habitat Area of the stream extends to the edge of the
frequently flooded area (100-year floodplain).
Wetland A is located entirely within the OHWM of Yelm Creek. Per industry standards and City of Yelm
requirements, Wetland A was rated using the Revised Wetland Rating form for Western Washington. The
wetland appears to meet the outlined criteria for a "Riverine" wetland. Therefore, the hydrogeomorphic
HGM) class used to rate the wetland is a "Riverine" wetland on the Wetland Rating Form. Using the
Wetland Rating Form, the subject wetland scored a total of 45 points (14 points for Water Quality
Functions, 16 points for Hydrologic Functions, and 15 points for Habitat Functions) and is therefore
considered a Category III wetland. The rating form is attached to this report for viewing. Per YMC
14.08.100F.6, Category III wetlands with habitat scores of less than 20 points, typically require a standard
buffer width of 80 feet to be applied parallel to the wetland boundary. Therefore, the standard buffer
width required for Wetland A equals 80 feet. Please see the attached Critical Areas & Mitigation Plan
Map (Map Sheet CA1.00)for a depiction of Wetland A and the associated buffer.
On-site Veqetation and Soils Data:
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. collected detailed vegetation and soils data at four different locations on the
subject property to gain representative data regarding on-site vegetative and soil characteristics. Please
view the four Wetland Determination Data Forms (produced by the Army Corps of Engineers) which
describe the actual vegetation and soil characteristics at each data point location. The data forms are
attached to this report, and are labeled as DP1 through DP4. Please also view the location of these data
points (labeled as DP1 through DP4) shown on the attached Critical Areas & Mitigation Plan Map (Map
Sheet CA1.00).
Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils Description:
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapped the subject property as being underlain by
Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.
Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes is described by the NRCS as a moderately deep,
somewhat excessively drained soil on terraces and outwash plains. This soil formed in volcanic ash over
gravelly outwash. The surface layer is gravelly sandy loam from 0 to 15 inches below the surface. From 15
to 20 inches below the surface, soils are very gravelly sand. The subsoil in extremely gravelly sand from 20
to 60 inches below the surface. Available water capacity of this soil is low. Spanaway and similar soils
comprise this entire unit.
EXISTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ANALYSIS
The methodologies for this functions and values analysis are based on professional opinion developed
through past field analyses and interpretations. This assessment pertains specifically to the subject wetland
Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc. June 10, 2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report&Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300)Page 4
i .
and stream system, but is typical for assessments of similar systems throughout western Washington. The
three main functions provided by wetlands include water quality, stormwater / hydrologic control, and
wildlife habitat. The on-site wetland and stream corridor is comprised primarily of weedy grass land with
some patches of scrub-shrub vegetation.
When flowing, Yelm Creek provides important functions to its surrounding environment such as
hydrological transport, transport of solids (suspended and dissoived), and important fish and wildlife habitat
features, among other functions. As discussed previousiy in this report, the on-site reach of Yelm Creek is
an intermittent stream that is dry for much of the year. As a result, this stream has a limited ability to
provide the above functions. However, even when not flowing on the surface, this reach of Yelm Creek
likely supplies hydrology to fish bearing portions of the stream located downstream. The dense shrubs
among parts of this riparian corridor provide very important ecological functions. In addition to providing
direct habitat for wildlife species, the dense shrubs among the riparian corridor provide very valuable shade
and a source for the future recruitment of large woody debris (LWD) and organic matter to the stream and
wetland environments.
Wetlands in western Washington often contain necessary wildlife habitat resources such as food, water,
thermal cover, and hiding cover in close proximity, and the subject wetland and stream provide a secure
corridor for wildlife movement. The wetlands and associated buffers provide protected habitat, which
becomes increasingly important as areas become further populated with humans and habitat areas
become fragmented. The established, emergent vegetation serves to intercept rain fall before it strikes the
soil, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality. Furthermore, the dense vegetation and
adsorbent soils serve to trap sediment and pollutants and provide increased water quality functions to aid in
a reduction of sediment which results in cleaner water leaving the site. The association of this wetland to
Yelm Creek allows it to moderate stream flows (when flowing) by adsorbing water during storm events and
slowly releasing it during periods of lower flows, as weil as to help maintain base flows.
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Please see Map Sheet CA1.00 which depicts the project proposal on the project site. The applicant is
proposing to raise the elevation level of the eastern portion of the property through placement of fill
materials to an approximate elevation level of 335 feet above sea levei. The eastern portion of the property
is located outsitle of all wetlands, stream, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation area but is currently
mapped as being located within a FEMA flood hazard area. The applicant is proposing to fill 132,264
square feet of area located among the eastern portion of the on-site flood hazard area. Based on
information from the project engineer, the project proposal will result in a total volume of approximately
3,650 cubic yards of fill material being placed in this portion of the flood hazard area, and will modify the
flood hazard area to eliminate this area from the floodplain of Yelm Creek. During this construction
process, the applicant is proposing to scrape the topsoil from this proposed fill area and stockpile the
topsoil for future placement among the proposed restoration planting areas in the western portion of the
site.
In order to rovide e uivalent otential flood storage capacity on the site, the applicant is proposing toPqP
Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc, June 10,2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report&Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300)Page 5
remove (cut) 3,650 cubic yards of existing soil (equivalent volume to that which is proposed for fili) from
83,350 square feet of area which is located among the western portion of the property. This project will
result in a balanced cut and fill volume, and the proposed cut will maintain the level of flood storage
capacity that currently exists on the site, while also creating a more connected floodplain for Yelm Creek.
After this project is completed, the Riparian Habitat Area associated with Yelm Creek will extend further
east on the property than it currently does, and will extend out to the eastern edge of the newly created
flood hazard areas (per YMC section 14.08.140.D.2.c.ii).
The proposed project will avoid impacts to Yelm Creek and the associated riparian wetland. However, the
proposal will result in unavoidable temporary grading impacts to much of the western portion of the
property, including portions of the on-site buffer for Yeim Creek and associated wetland. The proposed
grading areas have been heavily disturbed in the past (dump truck piles of fiii material can be seen in
several locations), contain large quantities of Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius, Nol/Upl), and currently
provide a relatively low level of ecological functions and values. The vast majority of the proposed grading
areas are currently dominated by Scots broom, currently classified as a Class B noxious weed in
Washington State. All Scots broom within the project work areas will be removed and transported to an
approved off-site location as part of this project. To ensure that no loss of ecological functions and values
occurs on the site or within close proximity of Yelm Creek, the applicant is proposing to retain large patches
of existing native, intact trees and shrubs which are located among the northwestern portion of the site (see
Map Sheet CA1.00 for locations). After the grading efforts have been completed, the applicant is also
proposing to restore the entire 83,350 square feet of temporarily impacted Riparian Habitat Area by
planting native trees and shrubs as described below.
DISCUSSION REGARDING MITIGATION SEQUENCING
Pursuant to YMC 14.08.050D, the applicant explored other development options which would avoid or
minimize impacts to the on-site flood hazard areas. However, due to the location and extent of the flood
hazard area on the site it would be difficult to derive a reasonable use of the property while avoiding all
impacts to the floodplain. As an alternative, the applicant is proposing to minimize impacts to the floodplain
and the Riparian Habitat Area by placing the proposed building pad in the eastern portion of the site,
adjacent to Rhoton Road SE in a portion of the floodplain that is partially isolated from Yelm Creek by the
presence of the Centex property and piles of fill material to the south. In addition, the applicant is proposing
to limit the creation of the compensatory flood storage area to portions of the site that currentiy contain a
high percentage of invasive species and provide a low level of functions and values. By creating
compensatory flood storage area nearer to Yelm Creek, preserving native vegetation on the site, and
restoring/enhancing the flood storage area with beneficial native trees and shrubs, it appears that the
potential ecological lift to functions and values outweighs a no action approach.
PROPOSED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION EFFORTS
To ensure that no loss of functions and values occurs to the flood hazard areas or on-site critical areas, the
applicant is proposing to restore the entire 83,350 square feet (1.91 acres) of cut with native trees and
Wetlands& Wildlife, lnc. June 10,2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report& Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300)Page 6
shrubs. During grading, topsoil in the proposed cut area should be reserved and stockpiled on-site. This
should be repiaced on the surface of the cut at a minimum depth of six inches to ensure a suitable planting
medium. Please see Map Sheet CA1.00 for a depiction of the proposed restoration area on the subject site.
Per industry standards and guidelines, this mitigation proposal inciudes calculating required plant quantities
by planting 60% of the mitigation area with native trees and planting 40% of the mitigation area with native
shrubs. The native trees are proposed to be planted on 12-foot centers (spaced a minimum of 12 feet
apart), while the native shrubs are proposed to be planted on 6-foot centers (spaced a minimum of 6 feet
apart) among the mitigation areas. Using this approach, the applicant is proposing to plant a total of 348
trees and 924 shrubs among the buffer restoration, as outlined in the table below.
Please see the table below which describes the proposed restoration plantings among the cut area:
Proposed Buffer Restoration Plantings (quantities based on 83,350 SF)
Common Name Latin Name S¢e Spacinq Quantitv
1. Dou las fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 allon 12 ft. min 87
2. Big-leaf maple Acermacrophyllum 1-gallon 12 ft. min 87
3.Oregon uvhite oak Quercus garryana 1 allon 12 ft. min 87
4.Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 1 allon 12 ft. min 87
5.Snowberry S mphoricarpos albus 1 allon 6 ft. min 154
6.Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 1 gallon 6 ft. min 154
7. Hazelnut Corylus cornuta 1 gallon 6 ft. min 154
8.Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 1 gallon 6 ft. min 154
9.Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis 1 gallon 6 ft. min 154
10.Oregon grape Berberis nervosa 1 gailon 6 ft. min 154
Prior to any earthwork within or near Critical Area buffers, temporary erosion and sediment control
measures (silt fence or similar best management practices) will be installed around the proposed
disturbance limits to minimize potential erosion from reaching the adjacent wetland and stream.
Please see Map Sheet CA1.00 for a depiction of the proposed conceptual mitigation plan associated with
the required Critical Areas Variance on the project site.
The applicant is proposing to seed all bare ground areas which are temporarily disturbed as part of this
project immediately upon completion of the grading. To aid in soils stabilization, all bare ground areas
within the impacted buffer area shall be seeded to the grass seed mixtures below, or a similar grass seed
mixture:
Common Name Latin Name Ibs./1,000 s.f.
Colonial bentgrass Agrostis tenuis 0.6
Retl fescue Festuca rubra 0.3
White clover Trifolium repens 0.2
The siit fence and all erosion and sediment control measures will remain in place until the soil is sufficientiy
stabilized to prevent erosion of soil in close proximity to Yelm Creek and the associated riparian wetland.
Weflands& Wildlife, Inc. June 10, 2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report&Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300)Page 7
DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUIRED FINANCIAL GUARANTEE
A performance bond shall be provided to the City of Yelm for the period of five years from the completion of
the project, in the amount of 150% of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions. Annual monitoring
reports and seasonal maintenance wili be required to assure the success of this enhancement plan. Yelm
shall release this bond at the end of five years, upon a determination that all portions of this mitigation
project have succeeded per the performance standards outlinetl in this report, The following is an estimate
of plant materials and labor only, and does not represent a bid to install:
ESTIMATED COST OF PLANT MATERIAL AND LABOR (1,272 plants @$9.50/plant) 12,084.00
ESTIMATED COST OF MONITORING @$600/YEAR FOR 5 YEARS 3,000
ESTIMATED COST OF MAINTENANCE @$600/YEAR FOR 5 YEARS 3,000
ESTIMATED COST OF GRASS SEED 50.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS TO IMPLEMENT THIS MITIGATION PLAN 18,134.00
TOTAL BOND AMOUNT(150% OF TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS) 27,201.00
MITIGATION PLAN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, MONITORING, MAINTENANCE,AND CONTINGENCY
Goals and Obiectives of the Mitiqation Plan
The primary goals of the mitigation plan described above follow:
1. Off-set all proposed Riparian Habitat Area impacts associated with the proposed development
described above;
2. Remove the non-native, invasive vegetation among the restoration area;
3. Increase the quantity& diversity of native vegetation within the Riparian Habitat Area; and
4. Allow for responsible residential development and associated infrastructure, while also
increasing the ecological functions provided by the on-site stream, wetland, and Riparian
Habitat Area.
Mitiqation Plan Installation Inspection and As-Built Report
Following the instaliation of the compensatory mitigation plan components detailed in this report, the
applicant will contact Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. or another qualified professional of their choosing to
conduct a site visit to confirm that all mitigation plan components have been implemented as outlined in
this report. After conducting that installation inspection, Weflands & Wildlife, Inc. will prepare a
Mitigation Plan As-Built Report and submit that report to the City of Kirkland. The As-Built Report will
provide confirmation that the plan was implemented as outlined, or detail any minor adjustments
required to the mitigation plan during its on-site implementation. The 5-year monitoring and
maintenance period associated with the project will begin after the As-Built Report has been reviewed
and approved by the City of Kirkland, or assigned representatives.
Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc. June 10, 2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report&Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300)Page 8
Success Criteria/ Performance Standards:
The applicant proposes to meet the following plant cover and survival standards among the on-site
mitigation areas in an attempt to measure success of the proposed mitigation planting plan and
compensate for project impacts among the on-site stream buffer:
Performance Standards
Monitorin Year after installation Year One Year Two Year Three Year Four Year Five
Shrub and Sapling Tree Cover* 30% >30°/o >50% 60% 75%
Shrub and Sapling Tree Survival 100% >90% >80% 80% 75%
Percent Non-native, Invasive Species <20% <20% <20% 20% 20%
Note: The performance standards above include beneficial native plants in that naturally pioneer in the
planted area.
Monitorinq and Maintenance Duration and Schedule:
Pursuant to the City of Yelm standards and requirements, approved / installed mitigation projects shall be
monitored for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of plant installation to ensure that the performance
standards outlined in the approved mitigation plan have been met. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. or another
qualified professional will conduct one (1) annual monitoring visit to examine the status and determine
success among the mitigation areas. During the first annual monitoring site visit, representative photo
points shall be established among the mitigation areas. The photographs taken at these photo points shall
provide a general overview of the mitigation areas. Photographs shall be taken from the same photo points
during each subsequent monitoring visit to provide visual information from known locations. The qualified
professional will submit one (1) annual progress report to the City of Yelm for the first four (4) years of the
monitoring period. These annual monitoring reports shall assess both achievement of yeariy goals and
progress towards overall achievement of the project goals. Monitoring reports will include an assessment of
the approximate percent cover of native vegetation, presence of invasive vegetation, any other ecological
concerns or recommendations among the mitigation areas, and overall effectiveness of the mitigation site.
A final monitoring report will be submitted to the City of Yelm at the end of the fifth (5th) year to ensure that
the performance standards outlined in the mitigation plan have been met.
During the 5-year monitoring period, the applicant or retained professionals shall also perform maintenance
of the mitigation area(s) in accordance with industry standards and guidelines. Maintenance may include
regular watering, weeding around the base of installed piants, pruning, replacement plantings as necessary
to achieve performance standards, removal of all noxious and invasive weeds, and any other measures
needed to ensure performance standards are met throughout the mitigation areas as outlined above.
If the project meets all of the criteria for success at the end of the five-year monitoring period, no further
action will be required by the applicant and the financial guarantee amount described above will be
returnetl to the applicant in full. If the definition of success is not met for any reason at the end of the five-
year monitoring period, the maintenance and monitoring period will be extendetl for one year at a time until
the site meets the performance standards outlined. This mitigation plan and the accompanying
maintenance and monitoring will not be considered fully complete until written confirmation is received from
the City of Yelm.
Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc. June 10, 2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report& Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington(Tax Parcel#22719240300)Page 9
Continqency Plan Related to Plant Success:
If it is determined at any time during the monitoring period that the performance standards or goals of the
mitigation plan are not being met, a contingency plan will be devised to improve or alter those elements that
are deficient. If ineasures beyond standard maintenance of the mitigation areas are required, a plan
containing these measures shall be submitted to the City of Yelm for their review prior to implementation.
Continqencv Plan Related to Propertv Ownership:
If the subject properties change ownership at any time during implementation of the proposed mitigation
plan described above, or during the 5-year monitoring and maintenance period associated with the
proposed mitigation plan, the current property owner(s) shall inform the prospective real propert r
purchaser(s) of the mitigation requirements. The proposed mitigation plan shall run with the land (in
perpetuity), and the current property owner(s) shall ensure that the approved mitigation components are
implemented as stated, monitored for compliance with the performance standards outlined in this plan, and
maintained in accordance with this plan and ecological industry standards.
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Typical vegetation over the subject site is dominated by Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius, Nol/Upl), with
smaller amounts of serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia, FacU), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa, FacU),
colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis, Fac), and common vetch (Vicia sativa, Upl) present in portions of the
site as well. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia, Nol/Upl) trees are also present in the northwestern
portion of the subject property.
No endangered species are present on or adjacent to the subject site. NVo species of local importance,
priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species are known to have a primary
association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area.
Threatened winter Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are known to utilize the lower reaches of Yelm Creek
west of NW Crystal Springs Road) for rearing and migration. Mazama Pocket Gophers (Thomomys
mazama) are mapped by WDFW as occurring approximately 0.7 miles northwest of the subject site.
Mazama Pocket Gophers are currently classified by WDFW as a State Threatened species. A communal
roost of State Candidate, Townsend's big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townesendii) is located approximately
0.78 miles to the south of the subject site. The 0.7 mile distance of the project site from the Mazama Pocket
Gopher colony is well outside of the 5.64-meter radial buffer distance needed to protect this species. While
no buffer setback is recommended for Townsend's big-eared bats, the proposed project will not disturb
suitable roosting habitat crucial for the bats survival which include caves, mines, hollow trees, and built
structures such as bridges and silos. The distance of the project from these species is also well outside of
the 100 feet at which the project-related construction noise is anticipated to attenuate to the ambient
existing baseline) noise level. For a detailed description of how the 100-foot distance was determined, as
well as for a detailed assessment of the impact that the proposed project will have on threatened fish
species, please refer to the FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment associated with this project which was
prepared by Wetlands and Wildlife, Inc. Given the distance of the proposed project from the above species,
and the fact the project-related construction noise is anticipated to attenuate to the ambient noise level
Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc, lune 10, 2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report& Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300) Page 10
within 100 feet, the proposed project is anticipated to have no effect on State Threatened Mazama Pocket
Gophers or on State Candidate, Townsend's big-eared bats. Furthermore, the FEMA Floodplain Habitat
Assessment determined that this project will also have no effect on threatened fish species. No other
special-status species are known to exist on the site, and no special-status species are expected to utilize
the site for habitats of primary association. Therefore, this project is not expected to adversely affect any
s ecial-status fish or wildlife s ecies. In fact, the ro osed miti ation lan associated with this ro ect willPPpP9pP1
likely create beneficial ecological effects for wildlife species when compared to existing site conditions.
PROJECT'S IMPACT DETERMINATION RELATED TO CRITICAL AREAS
The current floodplain location is not located in a landscape position (context)where it is able to provide the
most beneficial ecological functions to Yelm Creek. The current floodplain located among the eastern
portion of the site is nearly entirely disconnected from Yelm Creek due to a significant amount of man-made
disturbances such as fill, impervious surfaces, and industrial land use activities (see Figure 4 attached to
this report). The proposed increase in floodpiain area closer to Yelm Creek would allow for more effective
and natural floodplain processes to occur. In addition, the applicant is proposing to create compensatory
flood storage area among portions of the site that are currently dominated by non-native, invasive
vegetation (Scots broom) and therefore provide a low level of ecological functions. By creating
compensatory flood storage area nearer to Yelm Creek, preserving native vegetation on the site, and
restoring/enhancing the flood storage area with beneficial native trees and shrubs, the proposed project will
provide an ecological lift to the level of functions and values provided by this site.
Pursuant to YMC section 14.08.120.E.6, the proposed project will not block any existing side channels of
Yelm Creek. The proposed project will not inhibit natural channel migration processes and will not be
located within a channel migration zone. There will be no loss of floodpiain water storage capacity or
increase in stormwater runoff to adjacent properties as a result of this project. In fact, this project will
significantly increase the connectivity between the existing eastern portion of the floodplain and Yelm
Creek. Some scrub-shrub vegetation will be impacted during the proposed project activities, and the
applicant is proposing to replace all impacted vegetation by planting a total of 348 native trees and 924
native shrubs as outlined in this report. Floodplain refugia will be relocated from the eastern portions of the
site to the western portions of the site, and will function more effectively during times when the area is
flooded (due to a direct connection to Yelm Creek). No water quality impacts (increase in sedimentation or
pollutants) are expected to occur as a resuit of this project, and temporary erosion and sediment control
best management practices will remain in place and functioning until all soils are stabilized on the site.
Based on the detailed site evaluation in conjunction with the applicant's proposal, it is the professional
opinion of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. that no long-term adverse environmental impacts will occur to the on-
site Critical Areas or associated buffers as a result of the proposed project. In fact, this project will result in
an overall increase in ecological functions provided by the subject site if all mitigation measures are
implemented as stated in this plan.
Wet/ands& Wildlife, Inc. June 10, 2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report&Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300) Page 11
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT
This Critical Areas Report& Proposed Mitigation Plan is supplied to Randy and Linda Weber as a means of
determining whether any wetlands, streams, and/or wildlife habitat conservation areas regulated by the City
of Yelm Critical Areas Regulations exist on the site or within close proximity of the site which would affect
the permit requirements of the proposed development on the site. This report is intended to provide
information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the regulations currently in effect.
The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the
Puget Sound region. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report. This
report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable
conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. If such conditions
arise, the information contained in this report may change based upon those conditions. Please note that
Weflands & Wildlife, Inc. did not provide detailed analysis of other permitting requirements not discussed in
this report(i.e. structural, drainage, geotechnical, or engineering requirements).
The laws applicable to Critical Areas are subject to varying interpretations. While Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.
upheld professional industry standards when completing this review, the information included in this report
does not guarantee approval by any federai, state, and/or local permitting agencies. Therefore, the work
associated with this proposal shall not commence until permits have been obtained from ail applicable
agencies.
If any questions arise regarding this review, please contact me directly at(425) 337-6450.
Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc.
d
Scott Spooner
Owner/Principal Wetland&Wildlife Ecologist
Wetlands& Wildlife, Inc. June 10, 2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report&Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300) Page 12
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE REVIEWED
Citv of Yelm Municipal Code. Chapter 14.08 (Critical Areas and Resource Lands).Yelm, Washington.
Cowardin, et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I.
Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979.
Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-
87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Hruby, T. 2004. Washinqton State wetland rating svstem for western Washinqton – Revised. Washington
State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Species under NMFS'
Jurisdiction. (Updated February 28, 2013).
SalmonScape. Interactive Mapping website administered by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.qov/maqpinq/salmonscape/index.html. Website last visited on June 3, 2013.
Thurston County Geodata Center. t,ttp:uwww.qeodata.orq. Website last visited on June 3, 2013.
StreamNet. Fish Data for the Northwest. Administered by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
http://www.streamnet.orq/. Website last visited on June 3, 2013.
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)," ERDC/EL TR-10-3,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010). Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and
Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Thurston County as prepared by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. (Revised December 15, 2010).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper.
http://107.20.228.18/Wetlands/WetlandsMapper.html#. Last updated May 22, 2013. Vllebsite last visited
on June 2, 2013.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Priority Habitats and Species map for Section 19,
Township 17 North, Range 02 East. http://wdfinr.wagov/conservation/phs/.
Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of
Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997.
Web Soil Survev. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
http://websoilsurvev.nres.usda.qov/app/HomePaqe.htm. Website last visited on June 3, 2013.
Wetlands& Wildlife, lnc. June 10,2013
Weber Property—Critical Areas Report& Proposed Mitigation Plan
City of Yelm,Washington (Tax Parcel#22719240300) Page 13
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Vaileys, and Coast Region
ProjecUSite: Parcel#22719240300 City/County: ncorporated City of Yeim Sampling Date: 05/09/13
ApplicanUOwner: Randy and Linda Weber State: Wp`Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Scott Spooner(Wetlands&Wildlife, Inc.) Section,Township,Range: S19,T17N,R02E,W.M.
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Floodplain/Stream channel Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope(oo: 0-1%
Subregion(LRR): LRR-A Lat: 46.9467 Long: '122.6048 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Spanaway gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: PEM1E
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No If no,explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ,Soil or Hydrology_ _signi cantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes_ _ No
Are Vegetation ,Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes______ No_ _Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No_ —
Within a Wetland? Yes NoWetlandHydrologyPresent? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland A(see attached Map Sheet CA1.00 for location on-site)
VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1• That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 A)
2
Total Number of Dominant
3• Species Across All Strata:2 B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
30 feet
Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 00 q gSalina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
Fraxinus latifolia(saplings) 2 Y FacW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Total%Cover of: Multiplv by:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2=
5. FAC species x 3=
2 Total Cover FACU species x 4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 feet
UPL species x 5=
Phalaris arundinacea 90 Y FacW
Geum macro h Ilum 5 N Fac+
Column Totals: A) B)
2. P Y
3o Prevalence Index =B/A=
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5, Dominance Test is>50%
6. Prevalence Index is s3.0'
7. Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting
8.data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain)
indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must11. be present,unless disturbed or probiematic.
95 =Totai Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1. Hydrophytic
2 Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Total Cover
Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0
I
SOIL Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
inches)Color(moist) %Color(moist Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 2/1 100 cobbly muck saturated at surface during investigation
T e: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linin ,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 Materiai(TF2)
Black Histic(A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Other(Explain in Remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2)
Depfeted Below Dark Surtace(A11)Depleted Matrix(F3)
Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer(if present):
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators(minimum of one reauired:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more requiredZ
Surface Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2,
High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B)
Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Pattems(B10)
Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) Geomorphic Position(D2)
Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3)
Iron Deposits(65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6)FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) _ Other(Explain in Remarksj Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7)
i, Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8)
Field Observations:
Surtace Water Present? Yes No__ Depth(inches): '18"
Water Tabfe Present? Yes No Depth(inches): '18"
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): "Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains, Valleys,and Coast Region
ProjecUSite: Parcel#22719240300 City/County: ncorporated City of Yelm Sampling Date: 5/9/13
ApplicanUOwner: Randy and Linda Weber State: Wp`Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s}: Scott Spooner(Wetfands&Wildlife,Inc.) Section,Township, Range: S19,T17N,R02E,W.M.
Landform(hilislope,terrace,etc.): Floodplain near stream channel Local relief(concave,convex,none): Convex Slope(%): 2%
Subregion(LRR): LRR-A Lat: 46.9467 Long: '122•6048 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Spanaway gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No If no,explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_ _significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes_ _ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No_ _Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ _ No_ _
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
W thin a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
See Map Sheet CA1.00 for location of this data point
VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet Cover ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1• That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3• Species Across Ali Strata:2 B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
30 feet
Total Cover ThatAre OBL,FACW,or FAC: 50 BSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. Symphoricarpos albus 50 Y FacU- Prevalence Index worksheet:
2 Rosa nutkana 5 N Fac Total%Cover of: Multipfy by:
3. OBL species 0 x 1 =
4. FACW species 60 x 2= 120
5. FAC species 5 x 3= 15
55 =Total Cover FACU species x 4= 300
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 feet
UPL species x 5=
Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FacW
Column Totals: 135 A 435 g
2 Cirsium vulgare 10 N FacU
g Galium aparine 10 N FacU Prevalence Index =B/A= 3•22
4 Capsella bursa-pastoris 5 N FacU Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators:
5. Dominance Test is>50%
g, Prevalence Index is<_3.0'
7. Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8.data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
85 =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Piot size:
1• Hydrophytic
2 Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Total Cover
Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
inches)Color(moist) %Color(moist)Type' LocZ Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR 2/2 100 sandy loam dry during investigation
T e: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Linin ,M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
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) Other(Explain in Remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surtace(A11)Depleted Matrix(F3)
Thick Dark Surtace(Al2} Redox Dark Surtace(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or probiematic.
Restrictive La er if resent:Y P )
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primar ndicators(minimum of one reauired:check all that aaoly) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required
Surtace Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2,
High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 46) 4A,and 4B)I
Saturation(A3)Salt Crust(611) Drainage Pattems(B10)
Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Tabie(C2)
Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2)
Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3)
Iron Deposits(B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) FAGNeutral Test(D5)
Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A)
inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8)
Field Observations:
Surtace Water Present? Yes No__ Depth(inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains, Valieys,and Coast Region
ProjecUSite: Parcel#22719240300 City/County: Incorporated City of Yelm Sampling Date: 5/9/13
ApplicanUOwner: Randy and Linda Waber State: Wp`Sampiing Point: DP3
Investigator(s): Scott Spooner(Wetlands&Wildlife,Inc.) Section,Township, Range: S19,T17N,R02E,W.M.
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): terrace above floodplain Local relief(concave,convex, none): none Slope(%): 0'2%
Subregion(LRR): LRR-A Lat: 46.9469 Long: '122.6032 Datum:I
Soil Map Unit Name: Spanaway gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No If no,explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_ _significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes_ _ No
Are Vegetation ,Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?If needed,explain any answers in Remarks,)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes___. __ No_ _Is the Sampied Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ _ No_ _
W thin a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
See Map Sheet CA1.00 for location of this data point
VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet Cover Saecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: A)
2.Total Number of Dominant
3• Species Across All Strata:4 B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
Total Cover That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 25 A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet
Cytisus scoparius 40 Y Nol/Upl prevalence Index worksheet:
2 Amelanchier alnifolia 30 Y FacU Total%Cover of: Multiply by:
3, OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2=
5, FAC species x 3=
Total Cover FACU species x 4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 feet UPL species x 5=
Agrostis tenuis 70 Y Fac
Column Totals: A) B)
2 Vicia sativa 25 Y Upl
3. Prevalence Index =B/A=
q. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5, Dominance Test is>50%
g, Prevalence Index is<_3.0'
7. Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
8.
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
9.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation(Explain)10.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must11. be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
95 =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1. Hydrophytic
2 Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Total Cover
Bare Ground in Herb Stratum '
Remarks:
I
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
inchesl Color(moist) %Color(moist)Type, Loc Texture Remarks
0-14 10YR 2/2 100 gr sa loam dry during investigation
T e: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
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) Other(Explain in Remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11)Depleted Matrix(F3)
Thick Dark Surtace(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions(FS) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer(if present):
Type:
Depth(inches}: Hydric Soil Presentl Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators(minimum of one required:check all that applyl Secondary Indicators(2 or more required)
Surtace Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2,
High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 46)
Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Patterns(610)
Water Marks(61) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
Drift Deposits(63) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2)
Algal Mat or Crust(84) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shailow Aquitard(D3)
Iron Deposits(B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surtace(B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No__ Depth(inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitonng well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region
Project/Site: Parcel#22719240300 City/County: Incorporated City of Yelm Sampling Date: 5/9/13
ApplicanUOwner: Randy and Linda Weber State: W'4 Sampling Point: DP4
Investigator(s): Scott Spooner(Wetlands&Wildlife,Inc.) Section,Township, Range: S19,T17N,R02E,W.M.
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.); terrace above floodplain Local relief(concave,convex,none); none Slope(%): 0'2%
Subregion(LRR): LRR-A Lat: 46.9469 Long: '122.6011 Datum:
Soii Map Unit Name: Spanaway gravelly sandy loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No If no,explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_ _significantly disturbed? Are"Normai Circumstances"present? Yes _ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No_ _Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ _ No_ _
Within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
See Map Sheet CA1.00 for location of this data point
VEGETATION—Use scientific names of piants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator pominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: A)
2' Total Number of Dominant
3• Species Across Ail Strata:4 B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
30 feet
Total Cover That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 25 A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
Amelanchier alnifolia 90 Y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet•
2 Cytisus scoparius 5 N Nol/Upl Total%Cover of: Multioly by:
3, OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2=
5, FAC species x 3=
95 =Total Cover FACU species x 4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 0 feet UPL species x 5=
Agrostis tenuis 50 Y Fac
Column Totals: A) B)
2 Vicia sativa 30 N Upl
3 Galium aparine 5 N FacU Prevalence Index =B/A=
q. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. Dominance Test is>50%
g. Prevalence Index is<_3.0'
7. Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
9.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain)10.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must11. be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
85 =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1. Hydrophytic
2 Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Total Cover
Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
inches)Color(moist) %Color(moist)Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR 2/2 100 gr sa loam dry during investigation
T e: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Linin ,M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soiis3:
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)(ezcept MLRA 1) Other(Explain in Remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11)Depleted IVlatrix(F3)
Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surtace(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions(F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer(if presentj:
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators(minimum of one required:check ail that aoaly) Secondary Indicators(2 or more reauired
Surtace Water(A1) Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves(69)(MLRA 1,2,
High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 4B)
Saturation(A3) Salt Crust(B11) Drainage Pattems(B10)
Water Marks(61) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
Sediment Deposits(82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
Drift Deposits(B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2)
Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Shallow Aquitard(D3)
Iron Deposits(B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Surface Soil Cracks(B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(67) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No__ Depth(inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth(inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca illa frin e
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available;
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Version 2.0
Wetland name or number Wet A
WETLAND RATING FORM—WESTERN WASHINGTON
Version 2-Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users
Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats
Name of wetland(if known): Neber Property (Yelm) - Wetland A Date of site visit: 5/9/13
Rated by Scott Spooner (W tW, Inc.) Trained by Ecology? YesONo Date of training 10/2005
SEC: 19 TWNSHP;17N RNGE:02E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No
Map of wetland unit: Figure CA1 Estimated size 740 SF
SUMMARY OF RATING
Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland
I II III IV
Score for Water Quality Functions 14CategoryI= Score >=70
Category II= Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 16
Category III= Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions 15
Cate orv IV= Score < 30
TOTAL score for Functions 45
Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
I II Does not Apply
Final Category cnoose tne "highest" category from above) I
Summary of basic information about the wetland unit
Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class
Characteristics used for Ratin
Estuarine De ressional
Natural Herita e Wetland Riverine
Bo Lake-frin e
Mature Forest Slo e o-°io
Old Growth Forest Flats
Coastal La oon Freshwater Tidal
Interdunal
None of the above Check if unit has multiple
HGM classes resent
Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 1 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008
Wetland name or number Wet Q
R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points
WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve (°nlY' S°°re
per box)
water uali
R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? see p.52)
R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments Figure_
during a flooding event:
Q Depressions cover>3/4 area of wetland points=8
Q Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland points=4 8
If depressions > 'h of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map
Q Depressions present but cover< 1/2 area ofwetland points=2
ONo de ressions resent oints=0
R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit(areas with>90%co er at person height): Figure_
0 Trees or shrubs>2/3 the area of the unit points= 8
OTrees or shrubs> 1/3 area of the unit points=6 6
0Ungrazed,herbaceous plants>2/3 area of unit points=6
DUngrazed herbaceous plants> 1/3 area of unit points=3
Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous< 1/3 area of unit points=0
Aerial hoto or ma showin ol ons of different ve etation t es
R Add the points in the boxes above 14
R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? see p.53)
Answer YES ifyou know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water
coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or
groundwater downgradient from the wetland?Note which ofthefollowing conditions
provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingfrom several
sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity.
Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft
Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland
Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland
A stream ar culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas,
residential areas, farmed fields,roads, or clear-cut logging
Residential,urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland
The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human
activities have raised levels of sediment,toxic compounds or nutrients in the river
water above standards for water quality multiplier
Other
YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1
R TOTAL-Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 14Addscoretotableon . 1
Comments
Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 7 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008
Wetland name or number Wet Q
jZ Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points
HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce y 1 S°°re
per box)
floodin and stream erosion
R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? seep.54)
R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure i
Estimate the average width ofthe wetland unit perpendicular to the direction ofthe
flow and the width of the stream or river channel(distance between banks). Calculate
the ratio: (average width ofunit)/(average width ofstream between banks).
0 If the ratio is more than 20 points=9 1
If the ratio is between 10—20 points=6
If the ratio is 5 - <10 points=4
If the ratio is 1 -<5 points=2
If the ratio is< 1 points= 1
Aerial hoto or ma showin avera e widths
R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure_
large woody debris as `forest or shrub". Choose the points appropriatefor the best
desCYiption. (polygons need to have >90%cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes):
Forest or shrub for>1/3 area OR herbaceous plants>2/3 rea points=7 7
Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area points=4
Vegetation does not meet above criteria points=0
Aeriai hoto or ma showin ol ons of different ve etation t es
R Add the points in the boxes above I g I
R R 4. Does the vvetland unit have the opqortunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57)
Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or
reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic
resources from flooding ar excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of thefollowing
conditions apply.
Q There are human structures and activities downstream(roads,buildings,bridges,
farms)that can be damaged by flooding.
QThere are natural resources downstream(e.g. salmon redds)that can be damaged
by flooding
0 Other multiplier
Answer NO ifthe major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the
wetland is tadalfringe along the sides ofa dike) 2QYESmultiplieris2QNOmultiplieris1
R TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4
16Addscoretotableonp. 1
Comments
Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 8 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008
Wetland name or number Wet A
These questions apply to wetlands ofall HGM classes. Points
only 1 score
HABITAT FLTNCTIONS - Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat per boX)
H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species?
H 1.1 Ve etation structure(see p. 72) Figure
Check the types ofvegetation classes present(as defined by Cowardin)-Size thresholdfor each
class is '/a acre or more than 10%of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres.
Aquatic bed
QEmergent plants
QScrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have>30%cover)
QForested(areas where trees have>30% cover)
Ifthe unit has aforested class check if
QThe forested class has 3 out of 5 strata(canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs,herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover)that each cover 20%within the forested polygon
Add the number ofvegetation structures that qual. Ifyou have:
0 4 structures or more points=4
Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 03 structures points=2
Q 2 structures points= 1
0 1 structure oints=0
H 1.2. Hydroperiods (see p. 73) Figure_,
Check the types ofwater regimes (hydroperiods)present within the wetland. The water
regime has to cover more than 10%ofthe wetland or'/ acre to count. (see textfor
descriptions ofhydroperiods)
QPermanently flooded ar inundated 4 or more types present points=3
QSeasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points=2
QOccasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point= 1 1
QSaturated only 1 type present points=0
Q Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to,the wetland
Q Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to,the wetland
Q Lakefringe wetland =2 points
QFreshwater tidal wetland=2 points Map of hydroperiods
H 1.3. Richness ofPlant Species (see p. 75)
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft. (different patches
ofthe same species can be combined to meet the size threshold)
You do not have to name the species.
Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, urple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle
Ifyou counted: 19 species points=2
List species below ifyou want to: 5 - 19 species points= 1 15speciespoints=0
Total for page
Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 13 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008
nam or number Wet QWetlande
H 1.4. Inters ersion of habitats (see p. 76) igure_
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation
classes(described in H L 1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or
mudflats) is high,medium, low, ar none.
O
None=0 points Q Low= 1 point Moderate=2 points
1
J
C
riparian braided channels]
High =3 points
NOTE: Ifyou have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water
the ratin is alwa s"hi h". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes
H 1.5. S ecial Habitat Features: (see p. 77)
Check the habitatfeatures that are present in the wetland. The number ofchecks is the
number ofpoints you put into the next column.
QLarge, downed,woody debris within the wetland(>4in. diameter and 6 ft long).
QStanding snags (diameter at the bottom>4 inches) in the wetland
QUndercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft(2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at
least 3.3 ft(lm)over a stream(or ditch)in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft
lOm) 1
QStable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning
30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that
have not yet turned grey/brown)
QAt least '/4 acre ofthin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas
that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structuresfor egg-laying by amphibians)
Q Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants
NOTE: The 20%stated in early printings ofthe manual on page 78 is an error.
H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat 4
Add the scores rom Hl.l, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, Hl.S ____
Comments
Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 14 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008
Wetland name or number Wet A
H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species?
H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure_
Choose the description that best represents condition ofbuffer ofwetland unit. The highest scoring
criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See textfor definition of
undisturbed."
100 m(330ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas, or open water >95%
of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively
undisturbed also means no-grazing,no landscaping,no daily human use) Points=5
Q 100 m(330 ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >
50% circumference. Points=4
50 m(170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas, or open water>95%
circumference. Points=4
100 m(330ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas,rocky areas, or open water>25% 4
circumference, s Points=3
50 m(170ft)of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for>
50% circumference.Points=3
If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above
No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m(80ft) of wetland>95%
circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points=2
No paved areas or buildings within SOm ofwetland for>50%circumference.
Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points=2
Heavy grazing in buffer. Points= 1
Vegetated buffers are<2m wide(6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference(e.g. tilled
fields,paving,basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points=0.
Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points= 1
Aerial hoto showin buffers
H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81)
H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor
either riparian or upland)that is at least 150 ft wide,has at least 30%cover of shrubs, forest
or native undisturbed prairie,that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed
uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily usedgravel
roads,paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor).
YES =4 points (go to H 2.3) Q NO=go to H 2.2.2
H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridar
either riparian or upland)that is at least SOft wide,has at least 30%cover of shrubs or 1
forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25
acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in
the question above?
YES=2 oints (go to H 2.3) NO=H 2.2.3P
H 2.23 Is the wetland:
within 5 mi(8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR
Q within 3 mi of a large field or pasture(>40 acres) OR
within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres?
YES= 1 oint NO=0 oints
Total for a e 5Pg
Wetland Rating Form—westem Washington 15 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008
Wetland name or number Wet Q
H 2.3 Near or ad cent to other priority habitats listed bv WDFW (see new and complete
descriptions of WDFWpriority habitats, and the counties in which they can befound, in
the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.QOV/hab/phslis htm)
Which ofthe following priority habitats are within 330ft(100m) of the wetland unit?NOTE: the
connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha(1 acre).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various
species of native fish and wildlife(full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152),
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock,
Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-g,rowth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree
species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20
trees/ha(8 trees/acre)>81 cm(32 in)dbh or>200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands
with average diameters exceeding 53 cm(21 in)dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%;
crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence,numbers of snags, and quantity of
large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old
west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where
canopy coverage of the oak component is important(full descriptions in WDFW PH.S
reportp. 158).
QRiparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of
both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
QWestside Prairies: Herbaceous,non-forested plant communities that can either take the
form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161).
QInstream: The combination of physical,biological, and chemical processes and conditions
that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife
resources.
QNearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore,
Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions ofhabitats and the
definition ofrelatively undisturbed are in WDFW report:pp. 167-169 and glossary in
Appendix A).
QCaves: 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.
OCliffs: Greater than 7.6 m(25 ft)high and occurring below 5000 ft.
QTalus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m(0.5 -6.5 ft),
composed ofbasalt, andesite, and/ar sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine
tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
QSnags 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>51 cm(20 in) in western Washington and are>2 m(6.5 ft) in
height. Priority logs are>30 cm(12 in)in diameter at the largest end, and>6 m(20 ft)
long. 3QIfwetlandhas3ormorepriorityhabitats=4 points
Q If wetland has 2 priority habitats=3 points
QIf wetland has 1 priority habitat= 1 point No habitats=0 points
Note:All ve etated wetlands are b de inition a riori habitat but are not included in thisgY .P h'
list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in uestion H 2.4)
Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 16 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
I
Wetland name or number Wet A
H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that
bestfits) (see p. 84)
Q There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/z mile, and the connections between them are
relatively undisturbed(light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some
boating,but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields,or other
development. points=5
Q The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe
wetlands within '/z mile points= 5 3
Q There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/2 mile,BUT the connections between them are
disturbed points=3
Q The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe
wetland within '/z mile points=3
Q There is at least 1 wetland within '/z mile. points=2
Q There are no wetlands within'/2 mile.points=0
H 2. TOTAL Score - opporiunity for providing habitat r
11
Add the scores rom H2.I,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4
TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 4
Total Score for Habitat Functions —add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on 151
Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 17 August 2004
version 2 U dated with new WDFW definitions Oct.2008P
UOLSLAa u.o71 rv„„.
Q. 21 wora;i p i n-spue;arn a;ox:iew3O1086dMaNOwviaNtne 3I'IQ'IIM SQI Id'IJ.Ml/Ol/90 a ed 00£01 Z66LZZ# 3 2Jdd Jl1Nf10 NOlS21f1H1 OSb9-L££(SZb) a a4d
3 Vld 4 b5£35 OSS9Z 80Z86`dM`l a a 3133HS auoodS;o S dM Wl3Jl 0 JIJ.I) A1213d021d 21393M 213NM0 J lb3d02ld) 35 a^No 4 55 6ZlSl
9"Me'° d"IW Nd d NOIldJIlIW 3 SV'321d d IlRIJ b383M.14N`V! 'bW u`af p M spuv aMdWSoEN q rM 210 U321dd321d A9 4321bd32fd
u
z
W
Zw
RHONT ON ROAD SE W ° zZ
W
JWQwJW
Q Q• y
Q Z
zo 0 #iv
z Zap
N t vWi Z
ON
I
wW
a _.M
m W m
ma UG
WaaW
a Woam
i a a °N Z J WwQa0azap O
H W a
W
W L 2
N H H
aa w z
awo aw o "'
m p N p N Q a Z a p Wm
W N N wQa p H W j Zu a
Op °n wZ XQJ Z
a ,.,-, p v QO woow HQF- O
O nn. a O w in
a 00 pa p 1 i, ; Q2o.
a ;aa I
ww vvi
I, 1 tn w tn
w Q
w Z W J a I i/ Q W J a a Q WI=' r' i X H yj v1 U
I uZQ W O OF- w zau
i aa
w Z oQ
wZw
Zo aNO Z O m
w ? Q
r a v, a 2
J i ii/
i i.
Mi i
r
I j -
azz
LLa,
Q ,,:, 3 z oc Q
Q Q Qoo
333 W F- J a'Z
u u- w o aZQ w H
Oo o p Q tip0MiQN a
a marna
p O
Z I
Q
I,
v in o
w
w 2 Q I /: % U N Z Q
W W t/1
W Z W w " w W C7
p a > 2 a vi
N Z Q _ W a'w w p W vi Q Q
d' Z a JQag m Q u
W W p J3Q °° V Q uUZ
H1210N g o o a ° o
a a Q a
3 a a o a
I e
O