CAR_Meadowdale_11-19-2018EdmondsJune 2018 Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Critical Areas Report
Prepared for Snohomish County Parks and Recreation
This document prepared for and submitted to Snohomish County.
Information on City of Edmonds resources is included; this report would
also be submitted to City of Edmonds as part of permit applications.
Project Number: 160723-02.01 \\fuji\Anchor\Projects\Snohomish County\Meadowdale Beach Park\Park and Habitat Design\Task 6 Env Review Permitting\Deliverables\CAR\CAR_Meadowdale_06-29-2018.docx
June 2018 Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Critical Areas Report
Prepared for Snohomish County Parks & Restoration 6705 Puget Park Drive Snohomish, Washington 98296
Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 720 Olive Way, Suite 1900 Seattle, Washington 98101
Critical Areas Report i June 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose and Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Critical Areas Report Content and Organization..................................................................................... 2
2 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Railroad Bridge, Estuary, and Beach............................................................................................................. 4
2.1.1 Railroad Bridge ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Pocket Estuary....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.3 Beach ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Park Uplands ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Road Access, Parking, and Drainage Improvements ............................................................................. 6
2.4 Construction Methods....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4.1 Railroad Bridge, Estuary, and Beach Construction Methods .............................................. 7
2.4.2 Park Uplands Construction Methods ........................................................................................... 9
2.4.3 Road Access, Parking, and Drainage Improvement Construction Methods ............. 11
2.4.4 Project Timing .................................................................................................................................... 12
3 Project Area Description ........................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Topography ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Soils........................................................................................................................................................................ 13
3.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.3.1 Lund’s Gulch Creek .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.3.2 Creek Delta and Marine Shoreline ............................................................................................. 15
3.4 Plant Communities........................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4.1 Riparian Stream Buffer ................................................................................................................... 16
3.4.2 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................................. 16
4 Wetlands Assessment ............................................................................................................. 18
4.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................................................ 18
4.1.2 Wetland Classification .................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.3 Wetland Ratings and Functions Assessment ......................................................................... 19
4.1.4 State Hydrogeomorphic Classification System ..................................................................... 20
4.2 Wetland Delineation Results ........................................................................................................................ 20
4.2.1 Wetland A ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Critical Areas Report ii June 2018
4.2.2 Wetland B ............................................................................................................................................ 21
4.2.3 Wetland C ............................................................................................................................................ 22
4.2.4 Wetland D............................................................................................................................................ 22
4.2.5 Wetland E ............................................................................................................................................ 23
4.2.6 Wetland F ............................................................................................................................................ 23
4.2.7 Wetland G ............................................................................................................................................ 24
4.2.8 Wetland H ........................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Wetland Classification and Rating ............................................................................................................. 25
4.4 Wetland Functional Assessment................................................................................................................. 28
4.4.1 Improving Water Quality Functions .......................................................................................... 28
4.4.2 Hydrologic Functions ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.4.3 Habitat Functions ............................................................................................................................. 29
4.5 Wetland Buffer Guidance .............................................................................................................................. 29
4.6 Wetland Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 30
4.6.1 Permanent Wetland Impacts........................................................................................................ 30
4.6.2 Temporary Wetland Impacts ........................................................................................................ 31
4.6.3 Wetland Buffer Impacts ................................................................................................................. 31
5 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas and Habitat Management Plan ..................... 33
5.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................... 33
5.2 Wildlife Conservation Areas Assessment ................................................................................................ 33
5.2.1 Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................................... 33
5.2.2 Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................................................................. 36
5.2.3 Critical Species and State Natural Habitats ............................................................................ 37
5.3 Wildlife Conservation Areas Impacts Assessment ............................................................................... 40
5.3.1 Wildlife Conservation Areas Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 42
6 Streams and Marine Waters Assessment.......................................................................... 43
6.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Stream and Marine Waters Results ........................................................................................................... 44
6.2.1 Lund’s Gulch Creek .......................................................................................................................... 44
6.2.2 Marine Waters ................................................................................................................................... 46
6.3 Stream and Marine Waters Impacts Assessment................................................................................. 47
7 Environmental Resources Impact and Mitigation Summary ....................................... 48
7.1 Impact Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 48
7.1.1 Fill and Excavation Within Surface Waters or Wetlands .................................................... 48
Critical Areas Report iii June 2018
7.1.2 Buffer Impacts to Surface Waters and Wetlands ................................................................. 50
7.1.3 Change in Overwater Cover ......................................................................................................... 50
7.1.4 Upland Grading ................................................................................................................................. 50
7.1.5 Changes in Impervious Surfaces ................................................................................................. 51
7.1.6 Changes to Vegetation and Habitat Types ............................................................................ 51
7.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 52
7.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures................................................................................... 52
7.2.2 Impacts Associated with Estuary Restoration—No Additional Mitigation Necessary ............................................................................................................................................. 54
7.2.3 Mitigation for Impacts Outside of Estuary Restoration ..................................................... 54
7.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards.............................................................. 55
7.3.1 Goal 1: Establish Native Plant Communities .......................................................................... 56
7.3.2 Mitigation Monitoring, Maintenance, and Contingency Plan ......................................... 56
7.4 Estuary Restoration Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 59
8 Geologically Hazardous Areas Assessment ....................................................................... 61
8.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................... 61
8.2 Geologically Hazardous Areas Results ..................................................................................................... 61
8.3 Geologically Hazardous Areas Impact Assessment ............................................................................ 62
8.3.1 Geotechnical Report Results Summary .................................................................................... 63
8.3.2 Landslide Hazard Area Review Summary ................................................................................ 63
9 Special Flood Hazard Areas .................................................................................................. 64
10 References ................................................................................................................................ 68
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 1a Soil Types within Project Area
Figure 1b Existing National Wetland Inventory Mapping Data
Figure 2 Project Area and Existing Site Features
Figure 3a Existing Conditions Plan (1 of 3)
Figure 3b Existing Conditions Plan (2 of 3)
Figure 3c Existing Conditions Plan (3 of 3)
Figure 5a Composite Site Plan (1 of 3)
Figure 5b Composite Site Plan (2 of 3)
Figure 5c Composite Site Plan (3 of 3)
Critical Areas Report iv June 2018
Figure 6a Grading Plan (1 of 3)
Figure 6b Grading Plan (2 of 3)
Figure 6c Grading Plan (3 of 3)
Figure 7a Cross Sections
Figure 7b Cross Sections
Figure 7c Cross Sections
Figure 7d Cross Sections
Figure 7e Cross Sections
Figure 7f Cross Sections
Figure 7g Cross Sections
Figure 7h Cross Sections
Figure 7i Cross Sections
Figure 8a Construction Materials Plan (1 of 3)
Figure 8b Construction Materials Plan (2 of 3)
Figure 8c Construction Materials Plan (3 of 3)
Figure 13a Planting Plan (1 of 3)
Figure 13b Planting Plan (2 of 3
Figure 13c Planting Plan (3 of 3)
Figure 14 Planting Schedule
Figure 15 Restroom Enclosure
Figure 16 Construction Elements
TABLES
Table 4-1 Summary of Wetland Classes and State and Local Ratings Using Ecology 2014 Wetlands Rating System ....................................................................................................................... 26
Table 4-2 Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores .................................................. 26
Table 4-3 Wetland Rating and Standard Buffer Widths .............................................................................. 30
Table 4-4 Summary of Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................................ 31
Table 4-5 Summary of Stream and Wetland Buffer Impacts ..................................................................... 32
Table 5-1 Plant Communities and Species in the Project Area ................................................................ 34
Table 5-2 ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat that May Occur in the Action Area and Effect Determinations ............................................................................................................................. 38
Table 6-1 Snohomish County Code Stream Classification and Standard Buffer Distance ........... 46
Table 6-2 Snohomish County Code Marine Waters Standard Buffer Distance ................................. 46
Table 7-1 Existing Marine Water, Stream, and Wetland Characteristics .............................................. 48
Critical Areas Report v June 2018
Table 7-2 Summary of Fill and Excavation within Surface Water or Wetlands .................................. 49
Table 7-3 Summary of Impacts to Buffers of Surface Waters and Wetlands ..................................... 50
Table 7-4 Summary of Changes in Overwater Cover .................................................................................... 50
Table 7-5 Summary of Upland Grading Extents .............................................................................................. 51
Table 7-6 Impact and Mitigation Summary ...................................................................................................... 55
APPENDICES
Appendix A Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation Report
Appendix B Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment Report
Appendix C Eelgrass Survey
Appendix D Biological Assessment
Appendix E Geotechnical Report: Erosion and Landslide Hazardous Areas
Critical Areas Report vi June 2018
ABBREVIATIONS
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
BA Biological Assessment
BMP best management practice
CAR Critical Areas Report
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CHHA Coastal High Hazard Area
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
cy cubic yards
DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
DPS distinct population segment
ECC Edmonds City Code
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU evolutionary significant unit
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
GHA geologic hazard area
HGM hydrogeomorphic
H:V horizontal to vertical
lf linear feet
LHA landslide hazard area
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
MHHW mean higher high water
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OHWM ordinary high water mark
Parks Snohomish County Parks and Recreation
PEM Palustrine emergent
PFO Palustrine forested
PHS Priority Habitats and Species
Project Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Critical Areas Report vii June 2018
PSS Palustrine scrub-shrub
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SCC Snohomish County Code
sf square feet]
SPCC Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Critical Areas Report 1 June 2018
1 Introduction
Snohomish County Parks and Recreation (Parks) is seeking regulatory approvals for the Meadowdale
Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project (Project), which proposes to address several interrelated
issues associated with sediment deposition at the existing box culvert for Lund’s Gulch Creek under
the BNSF railroad berm at Meadowdale Beach County Park. The Project is located within the western
portion of Meadowdale Beach County Park at 15433 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington 98036,
in Township 27 North, Range 4 East, Section 5 (Figure 1). The park is located along a segment of
Puget Sound nearshore between Seattle and Everett that is impacted by the presence of the railroad
along the entire shoreline. The railroad acts as a nearly continuous barrier to natural sediment supply
processes to Puget Sound (Anchor QEA 2016). Meadowdale Beach Park and the Lund’s Gulch Creek
mouth are among the few opportunities between Seattle and Everett where watershed and land use
conditions are suitable for pocket estuary restoration and improving natural sediment transport
processes (Anchor QEA 2016).
1.1 Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the Project is to improve habitat conditions for salmon in the lower creek and creek
delta, while addressing public safety and beach access for park users. The Project is needed to
address the inadequacy of the box culvert in the railroad berm to safely accommodate public beach
access, creek waters, and sediment loads. The existing conditions (i.e., high creek velocities in the
culvert and sediment deposition) also degrade habitat for salmon, including juvenile Endangered
Species Act (ESA)-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon that have been documented as using the
lower 600 linear feet (lf) of the creek for rearing (Beamer et al. 2013).
The Project would include replacement of the culvert with a bridge, restoration and enhancement of
the stream and estuary, and improvements to park facilities. Parks is proposing the following
activities:
• Replace an existing box culvert with a five-span railroad bridge
• Convert existing lawn area to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat
• Restore and enhance stream habitat
• Improve park and recreation facilities
Specific project objectives include the following:
• Remove approximately 130 lf of hard armored railroad embankment and the undersized
(6-foot-wide) culvert
• Install a multi-span bridge with a 90-foot opening to dissipate flood waters, restore natural
sediment transport processes, and allow the creek to meander dynamically over time,
thereby creating essential fish habitat
Critical Areas Report 2 June 2018
• Create approximately 1 acre of tidal estuary habitat
• Restore approximately 1 acre of nearshore and stream riparian buffers along shoreline and
stream using native trees and shrubs
• Restore instream habitat conditions by placing large wood in the lower creek and restored
estuary
• Address public safety (railroad crossing) and beach access issues associated with the
undersized culvert, sediment, and flooding
• Provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant and year-round access to the beach
• Enhance park user experience through provision of diverse natural habitats
• Enhance environmental education opportunities, including providing interpretive signage
1.2 Critical Areas Report Content and Organization
This Critical Areas Report (CAR) supports the proposed Project permitting and land use approvals by
providing information regarding the presence of critical areas within the Project area and identifying
potential impacts to existing critical areas and associated regulated buffers as defined in Snohomish
County Code (SCC) Chapter 30.62A.140 (Snohomish County 2017). The following critical areas were
identified as occurring within the Project area: Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas
(SCC 30.62A) and Geologic Hazardous Areas (SCC 30.62B). Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Areas located within the Project area include wetlands, streams, marine waters, wildlife
conservation areas, and frequently flooded areas. Geologic Hazardous Areas located within the
Project area include landslide hazard areas.
Project ecologists conducted a review of the Critical Areas chapter of the SCC, gathered and
reviewed existing information, and performed field surveys of the Project area in 2016 to identify and
assess existing critical areas. As part of the analysis to identify natural resources and critical areas in
the Project area, Anchor QEA ecologists reviewed the following sources of information to support
field observations and subsequent analysis necessary to prepare the CAR:
• Snohomish County Code (Snohomish County 2017)
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2017a)
• Hydric Soil List for Washington State (USDA 2017b)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) map information (USFWS 2017a)
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
Maps (WDFW 2017a)
• WDFW SalmonScape website (WDFW 2017b)
• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ESA status reviews and listing information (NMFS
2017)
Critical Areas Report 3 June 2018
• USFWS Western Washington endangered species status and listing information (USFWS
2017b)
• Aerial photographs, Google Earth, October 2017
In addition to this CAR, several documents associated with the proposed Project have been prepared
that address and describe critical areas within the Project area. These companion documents are
included as appendices to the CAR, with information from these documents summarized and/or
included by reference in this CAR.
The following sections of this CAR describe the methods used in the field investigation and
Anchor QEA’s findings, and are organized as follows:
Section 1 – Introduction
Section 2 – Project Description
Section 3 – Project Area Description
Section 4 – Wetlands Assessment
Section 5 – Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas and Habitat Management Plan
Section 6 – Streams and Marine Waters Assessment
Section 7 – Environmental Resources Impact and Mitigation Summary
Section 8 – Geologically Hazardous Areas Assessment
Section 9 – Special Flood Hazard Areas
Section 9 – References
Figures
Appendix A – Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation (Anchor QEA 2017)
Appendix B – Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment (Confluence 2016)
Appendix C – Eelgrass Survey of Meadowdale Beach Park (Confluence 2017)
Appendix D – Biological Assessment (BA; Anchor QEA 2018)
Appendix E – Geologically Hazardous Areas Assessment (Shannon & Wilson 2018)
Critical Areas Report 4 June 2018
2 Project Description
The 108-acre Meadowdale Beach County Park is located on the northern end of Brown’s Bay on
Puget Sound and extends from tidelands up to the rim of Lund’s Gulch, a deeply incised forested
ravine (Figure 1). The railroad embankment parallels the shoreline and separates the tidelands from
the park’s lawn area at the bottom of the ravine (Figure 2). The proposed Meadowdale Beach Park
and Estuary Restoration Project is intended to address several interrelated issues associated with
sediment deposition at the current box culvert for Lund’s Gulch Creek under the railroad berm. The
project area encompasses approximately 10 acres of lower Lund’s Gulch Creek, the lawn area, and
tideland area. The Project would include: replacement of the box culvert with a bridge; restoration
and enhancement of the stream and estuary; improvements to park facilities; and repaving of the
access road. Existing conditions at the site are detailed on Figures 3a through 3c. The proposed
Project site plan is shown in Figure 4 and described in the sections below, with detailed project
elements depicted in Figures 5 through 8.
2.1 Railroad Bridge, Estuary, and Beach
The existing box culvert would be replaced with a five-span railroad bridge to address flooding and
maintenance issues associated with sediment deposition, improve habitat for salmon and other fish
and wildlife species, and improve public safety and ADA access. The proposed changes would
convert much of an existing lawn area to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat, and provide
habitat improvements farther upstream in and along Lund’s Gulch Creek. A portion of the beach area
would be temporarily graded to support railroad bridge construction and final graded to support the
widened creek mouth at the railroad bridge, which would allow for continued development of
natural spit/barrier beach pocket estuary habitat. Specific project actions in this area of the park are
summarized below.
2.1.1 Railroad Bridge
• Remove the undersized 6-foot-wide box culvert under the BNSF railroad
• Remove approximately 130 lf of the existing hard armored railroad embankment, along with
10 native trees and shrub vegetation on the railroad embankment and within the 100-foot-
wide railroad right-of-way
• Construct a new five-span, 128-lf-long rail bridge
• Construct a new ADA-accessible pathway under the southern section of the bridge linking the
park and beach
• Replace existing railroad safety fencing with new chain link fencing that meets BNSF safety
requirements
Critical Areas Report 5 June 2018
• Excavate the existing railroad embankment to create a 90-foot-wide channel to dissipate high
flood flows, allow for natural creek meandering over time, restore natural sediment transport
processes, and restore a functioning pocket estuary
2.1.2 Pocket Estuary
• Place fill material east of the existing railroad embankment to create a temporary work
platform for use during construction (fill material unsuitable for creek/estuary restoration
would be removed following construction)
• Remove existing restroom enclosure and developed park features in the proposed estuary
area, including picnic tables, concrete pads, lawn and ornamental and invasive vegetation, as
well as approximately 40 native and non-native trees; reuse removed trees as large woody
materials or snag features within riparian planting areas, to support habitat enhancement
• Remove approximately 210 lf of rock bank armoring along the lowermost 300 feet of Lund’s
Gulch Creek
• Remove a portion of the loop asphalt path north of the proposed estuary to maximize estuary
riparian area restoration
• Excavate, grade, and contour the area east of the railroad embankment to create riparian and
pocket estuary habitat, including restored tidal marsh with a fringe of freshwater emergent
wetland to accommodate future sea level rise
• Create sufficient space and grades to allow Lund’s Gulch Creek to naturally meander and
deposit sediment in the restored estuary area on both sides of the railroad
2.1.3 Beach
• Place temporary fill material over a temporary geotextile on the beach west of the existing
railroad embankment to install a temporary work platform for use during construction (fill
unsuitable for creek/estuary restoration material would be removed following construction)
• Excavate, place sand, and grade beach to support the new park and habitat features, including
the widened creek mouth on the west side of tracks, and to restore beach habitat, including
sandy substrates
• Revegetate beach backshore with supratidal native vegetation in regraded areas
2.2 Park Uplands
Upland improvements to park and recreation facilities would focus on areas east of the restored
pocket estuary at Lund’s Gulch Creek. The existing pedestrian bridge near the ranger residence
would remain in place and other pedestrian, recreational, and habitat features would be improved to
Critical Areas Report 6 June 2018
improve ADA access, provide a safer trail system, and reduce maintenance needs. Specific project
actions in the park uplands are summarized below.
• Install new restroom enclosure, foot wash, and drinking fountain near the existing picnic
shelter, which would be updated but remain in place
• Convert existing sand volleyball court to lawn and construct improvements to lawn, drainage,
and stormwater treatment
• Enhance riparian and in-stream habitat including conifer planting and large woody material
placement
• Improve connectivity and habitat function of a previously constructed off-channel pond
• Realign existing pedestrian paths and construct ADA-accessible walkways
• Construct pedestrian connections, including installing a new pedestrian bridge across the
restored stream channel (downstream of the existing pedestrian bridge and upstream of the
restored estuary to replace the northern loop trail route affected by estuary restoration) and a
pedestrian connection from the picnic shelter to the new pedestrian bridge with a 40-foot
elevated path segment over an existing wetland area
• Create picnic viewpoints along the relocated loop path, providing visual access to the
restoration areas, and install new benches and four interpretive signs
• Regrade and repave the main paved pedestrian path on the south side of the lawn and
restored estuary to connect to the new beach path under the proposed railroad bridge
2.3 Road Access, Parking, and Drainage Improvements
The existing one-lane access road—for ADA and Park Ranger/service and emergency vehicle access
only—from 75th Place West to the lower park area would be improved to allow construction
equipment and material delivery and to ensure stability and ongoing ADA and Park Ranger access
after the Project is complete. Existing stormwater facilities would be improved to meet current
stormwater treatment standards. Specific Project actions related to the road, ADA parking, and
drainage improvements are summarized below.
• Regrade the lower portion of the limited-access road so the maximum longitudinal slope
would be reduced to 15% and install new asphalt paving
• Resurface the remaining length of the limited-access road after construction
• Reconfigure, resurface, and restripe the existing ADA-compliant lower parking area, including
potential addition of one ADA parking stall, to provide parking that meets current Snohomish
County Code requirement and to ensure proper drainage
• Replace the paved swale along the existing roadway with a flexible liner and rock (quarry
spall) surfacing
• Stabilize the slope supporting the road on the downhill side with soil nails in selected areas, to
support anticipated construction traffic
Critical Areas Report 7 June 2018
• Construct catch basins from the bottom of the road through the ADA parking area to collect,
control, and convey stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and construct a wet
biofiltration swale along the south side of the southern pedestrian path for stormwater
treatment; the treated swale flow would discharge to a catch basin and then be conveyed in a
storm drain under the path to a cobble-lined swale that would discharge to the restored
estuary
2.4 Construction Methods
To complete the work, the existing limited-access road into the park would be used for delivery of
construction equipment and materials and for removing excess excavated soils for the railroad
bridge replacement and estuary restoration. Rail access may be used for delivery of some equipment
and materials, pending additional discussions with BNSF and future contractor selection.
The general construction sequence is anticipated as follows:
1. Improve access road for construction
2. Deliver equipment and materials
3. Provide diversion for creek
4. Install temporary work pad adjacent to the railroad bridge
5. Replace culvert with railroad bridge
6. Remove temporary work pad
7. Excavate railroad berm under new bridge to proposed estuary subgrade, stockpile, and haul
8. Excavate area east and west of railroad berm for estuary, stockpile and haul
9. Install new pedestrian bridge
10. Conduct final material placement, park restoration and improvements, and planting at beach
area, estuary, and riparian buffer
11. Install permanent stormwater/drainage and other utility improvements
12. Finish access road repaving
In-water construction work would be planned to accommodate work windows for fish species, as
determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), WDFW, USFWS, and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. Work windows include July 1 to October 1 for anadromous
fish species and March to July for sand lance.
2.4.1 Railroad Bridge, Estuary, and Beach Construction Methods
During the approved in-water work window, a temporary diversion would be created at the upstream
portion of Lund’s Gulch Creek. The diversion would involve the placement of multiple 36-inch-
diameter corrugated metal pipe culverts, along with sandbags to divert creek flow into the pipe. The
pipes would be routed to the beach area, where they would extend as far into the water as
Critical Areas Report 8 June 2018
practicable, and the discharge would be dispersed. This diversion would allow for stream work to be
conducted in the dry and minimize potential impacts to water quality.
With the stream diversion in place, the beach area adjacent to the railroad bridge would be
temporarily graded to accommodate the temporary work areas needed for railroad bridge
construction. Streambed substrate would be removed and salvaged. Temporary work areas would be
established as follows:
• Temporary work pads consisting of quarry spalls capped with crushed surfacing base course
would likely be required on both the beach and lawn sides of the railroad tracks. These
temporary embankments would be approximately 30 feet wide along the length of the new
railroad bridge alignment and a 50- by 50-foot section would be brought up to the rail
elevation south of the proposed bridge location on the beach side of the embankment.
• Laydown areas within a 30-foot boundary on both sides of the temporary embankments
would also be required for staging bridge components.
• A temporary staging and stockpile area on the lower lawn area where the estuary is proposed
would be needed during railroad bridge construction.
• A second temporary staging and stockpile area for equipment and material would also likely
be needed on the upper lawn (outside of existing wetlands) during estuary construction.
Railroad bridge construction would be sequenced to maintain live track conditions throughout
construction, and the bridge would be constructed one track at a time. All work associated with the
railroad bridge would be coordinated with BNSF. Temporary shoring would be installed between the
tracks to allow excavation during construction of the first half of the bridge. Temporary shoring may
be continuous sheet pile wall or driven H-piles with steel sheet lagging, depending on the
contractor’s preference. Approximately 40 steel H-pile bridge foundations would be driven during
BNSF work windows. No in-water pile driving is proposed for the Project; the pile driving would
occur in upland areas or during low tide above the water line. The remainder of the bridge would be
constructed using BNSF standard precast concrete components that meet applicable Federal
Railroad Administration, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, or
internal BNSF requirements.
Approximately 2,000 cubic yards (cy) of existing railroad embankment material (sand and rock of
varying size) would be removed using an excavator. The excavated embankment material is assumed
to require disposal at an approved off-site upland facility. The existing box culvert would be removed
using a rubber tire crane and excavator. Any concrete debris would be hauled off site and disposed
of at an approved upland site.
A rock curtain would be installed at the northern bridge abutment. A gravity block wall would be
installed and backfilled on the south end of the bridge instead of a rock curtain wall to support the
Critical Areas Report 9 June 2018
embankment and accommodate the pedestrian path proposed to go under the new railroad bridge.
Perforated pipe would be installed to drain water from the gravity block wall, and 245 feet of chain-
link fence would be installed along the perimeter of the BNSF right-of-way.
Once the railroad bridge is constructed and the regulatory work window opens for the marine
environment, the new channel would be graded out into the estuary and the beach area would be
regraded to support the widened creek mouth. The beach area would be restored with sand
substrate and revegetated with backshore/supratidal vegetation.
Grading of the new channel and estuary areas would occur during low tide cycles, using machinery.
Machinery would not be allowed to enter the water, to minimize disturbance to sediment in the
estuary and the potential for leaks or spills of hazardous materials. The estuary tidal marsh
restoration would include excavation of nearly 17,000 cy of material landward of the railroad
(excluding the berm removal for the railroad bridge). Excavation in the estuary area may require
materials sorting for disposal and management of groundwater near the surface depending on
conditions at the time of construction.
Estuary excavation would require removal of at least 40 trees. Material placement within the pocket
estuary would include gravel/cobble streambed substrate, sand/gravel fish mix substrate, beach
sand, and topsoil for wetland plants. All removed trees would be used as large woody materials
(approximately 19 uncut logs with rootwads and 34 cut logs of rootwads or tree tops) or reinstalled
as snag features (10 features) within riparian planting areas. Twelve of the largest woody debris
pieces would be placed within the pocket estuary, with an additional 15 pieces placed near the
bridge abutments; 22 medium-size pieces would be located within the existing stream channel, and
4 within the restored pond. These large wood features would provide additional habitat structure
and complexity, providing pools and slow-water habitat that is supportive to juvenile salmonids.
Eight snag features would be installed north of the existing creek channel and two south of the
creek; all snags would be located within riparian habitat areas as habitat for cavity-nesting birds. The
estuary and riparian areas would be revegetated with native vegetation.
2.4.2 Park Uplands Construction Methods
Upland Demolition
Upland demolition and removal of park features would occur from land and would include removal
of the restroom enclosure; site furnishings; volleyball court; lower creek bank armoring; select trees;
and lawn, ornamental, and invasive vegetation. Best management practices (BMPs) would be
employed during proposed demolition work to address potential erosion or hazardous material
spills. All debris from upland demolition would be collected and disposed of at an approved upland
site.
Critical Areas Report 10 June 2018
Site Grading
Grading would be performed using typical equipment including dump trucks, front-end loaders,
backhoes, and/or tracked excavators. Imported sand, habitat gravel, topsoil, or other substrate
materials would be brought to the site using dump trucks. Materials would be placed using either a
backhoe or tracked excavator for rock and a tracked excavator or a front-end loader and bulldozer
for beach gravel. Materials would be placed in the dry.
Park Paths and Pedestrian Bridge
Park recreation paths would primarily consist of asphalt trails within the site as shown in the figures.
Base and top course would be imported to build these features, and material would be placed using
a tracked excavator or a front-end loader and bulldozer. The recreation paths would also include a
pedestrian bridge and a 40-foot-long elevated path segment.
Construction of the pedestrian bridge would involve land-based equipment. Concrete footers would
be formed at the site. The pre-fabricated bridge would be delivered via truck, and would be
assembled using a crane. The south end of the pedestrian bridge would connect to the elevated path
segment.
The elevated path segment would consist of a 6-foot-wide ADA-compliant trail with fiberglass
grating for the decking, elevated a minimum of 1.5 foot above the existing grade by a substructure
and foundation. The foundation and substructure would consist of diamond pier-supported
foundations with treated timber posts, cross beams, and joists. Substructure members (e.g., beams
and joists) would only be in contact with foundations, not the soil, water, or sediments. Diamond pier
foundations would consist of pre-cast concrete pier heads that secure clusters of four steel-pipe-
bearing pins. Light construction equipment and hand tools would be used to install the elevated
path segment.
Restroom Enclosure, Picnic Shelter Updates, and Site Furnishings
The restroom enclosure (Figure 15) would primarily consist of a concrete pad and footings, steel
columns, log beams, and laser cut steel panels for the surround. The roof would be standing seam
metal. To install the restroom enclosure, a concrete pad with board-formed concrete upstands would
be placed using a cement truck and hand tools. Steel columns would be installed into the concrete
upstands and the steel panels welded to them. Peeled log beams would be installed with bracket
hardware to the steel columns, with cedar rafters resting on the log beams. The standing seam metal
roof system would consist of plywood sheathing on the rafters, a weather resistive barrier, flashing as
needed, and the standing seam metal roofing panels. The portable restroom units would be installed
within the restroom enclosure and maintained by a portable restroom service.
Critical Areas Report 11 June 2018
The existing stone cladding at the base of the picnic shelter columns would be removed and
replaced with a laser cut steel surround, similar to the restroom enclosure, and a new concrete cap.
There would be no change to the existing structure of the picnic shelter, and the existing roof
sheathing would remain; only the roofing material would be replaced with new panels to match the
adjacent restroom enclosure.
Site furnishings including picnic tables and a foot wash and drinking fountain would be surface-
mount installed based on manufacturers’ instructions, on concrete pads in the locations shown in the
figures in Attachment 1.
Planting and Habitat Restoration/Enhancement
Native plants would be placed in the riparian buffer and all areas of exposed soil based on the
planting plan (Figures 13 and 14). The existing freshwater pond feature in this area would be
enhanced by placing salvaged streambed cobbles to provide shallow water habitat, placing large
woody material for added structure, and planting the banks with riparian vegetation. Woody
plantings would include planting a riparian fringe around the pocket estuary, as well as enhancing
existing riparian areas with conifer interplanting along Lund’s Gulch Creek. Park restoration and
plantings would be timed to be initiated once all grading is complete. Temporary irrigation (2- to
5-year operation) would be installed to support new riparian planting areas.
2.4.3 Road Access, Parking, and Drainage Improvement Construction
Methods
The limited-access road would be improved by the contractor at the start of construction to establish
a minimum longitudinal slope of 15% to allow for equipment and materials access. Access road
downhill shoulder reinforcement would be provided where necessary by installing soil nails (spiral
nail reinforcement). The access road would be resurfaced with new asphalt paving near the end of
project construction. Standard grading equipment would be used. Engineered fill and base course
would be imported to establish the road bed where grading changes would occur. The existing lower
parking area would be restriped to provide parking that meets current Snohomish County Code
requirements and to accommodate an additional ADA-compliant parking stall.
The paved swale along the existing roadway would be replaced with a rock-lined drainage swale
installed over a flexible impermeable liner. Catch-basin inlets and storm drains would be added at
the bottom of the roadway and in the ADA parking area, along with stormwater conveyance to a wet
biofiltration swale. The biofiltration swale would be installed along the toe of the slope adjacent to
the pathway near the picnic shelter and restroom enclosure, and stormwater pipe would be installed
from the biofiltration swale under the paved recreation path to a cobble-lined swale outletting in the
restored estuary at the mean higher high water (MHHW) line. Stormwater runoff from paved
Critical Areas Report 12 June 2018
pathways would sheet flow to adjacent landscaping for dispersal. Runoff from building roofs would
be discharged to existing roof drain systems or to adjacent landscaping for dispersal.
2.4.4 Project Timing
In-water construction work would be planned to accommodate work windows for fish species as
determined by the Corps, WDFW, USFWS, and NMFS. Work windows include July 1 to October 1 for
anadromous fish species and March to July for sand lance.
Critical Areas Report 13 June 2018
3 Project Area Description
The Project area encompasses approximately 10 acres of the Meadowdale Beach Park along the
marine shoreline of Puget Sound (Figure 2). The Project area consists of walking trails, a gated access
service road, mowed grass areas, picnic shelters, park maintenance facilities, and undeveloped forest
and shrub habitat. The park consists of several parcels and is owned by Snohomish County under
custodianship of the County’s Parks and Recreation department. A small portion of the southwestern
side of the park, including the ADA access road, is located within the jurisdiction of the City of
Edmonds. The marine shoreline of Puget Sound forms the west boundary of the park. Railroad tracks
are also located on a berm along the Puget Sound shoreline, which is part of the BNSF Railway right-
of-way that lies within the western edge of the park. The north, south, and east areas of the park
consist of a steep, forested ravine with a trail along the creek. Adjacent properties consist of single-
family residences. Upstream of the site, the City of Lynnwood has preserved 90 acres of upland
forested property adjacent to the site. The park is only open to the public by using walking trails. A
paved access road, used by park staff, is located on the sloped hillside to the south.
3.1 Topography
The topography of the Project area ranges from close to sea level, in the relatively flat lower park
areas, to very steep forested slopes as the park extends to the north, south, and east. Slopes in the
Project area range from 0% to 70%, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture soil data (USDA
2017a). The majority of the slopes along the north and south valley walls are 3 Horizontal to 1
Vertical (3H:1V) or steeper; however, the valley bottom near the creek is relatively flat.
3.2 Soils
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2017a) identifies three soil series in the Project area: 1) Alderwood
gravelly sandy loam, 0% to 8% slopes and 15% to 30% slopes; 2) Alderwood–Everett gravelly sandy
loams, 25% to 70% slopes, and 3) Fluvaquents tidal. The Alderwood gravelly sandy loam soil is the
primary constituent within the Project area. According to the Hydric Soil List for Washington State
(USDA 2017b), the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and the Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams
soil series are moderately drained soils with hydric features in depressions. Fluvaquents tidal are soils
in tidal areas. Soils in the Project area are shown on Figure 3 in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine
Delineation Report (Appendix A).
Sample plot soil profiles are summarized in Section 4.2, Wetland Delineation Results. Soils data
collected at each wetland delineation sample plot is presented in the field data forms in the Wetland,
Stream, and Marine Delineation Report (Appendix A).
Critical Areas Report 14 June 2018
Based on geologic maps of the area (Minard 1982) and conditions observed during project
subsurface explorations (Shannon & Wilson 2018), the project site contains the following geologic
units and subsurface conditions:
• (Hf) Fill: Materials placed in locations other than their original native locations. The
engineering properties of such deposits vary widely with soil density and composition. Slope
stability will be negatively affected where loose fill soils are present, and positively affected
where dense fill soils are present. Older fills, such as along the outside edge of the park
entrance road, are commonly very loose to loose, because they were not compacted during
original construction. They were likely excavated from the inboard side of the road prism and
dumped on the outboard side. Permeability of these soils ranges from highly pervious to
relatively impervious, depending on their source and the amount of compaction during
construction.
• (Qls/Hc) Landslide Debris/Colluvium: Loose or soft landslide debris/colluvium deposits cover
nearly all of the slopes, except for those that are too steep to maintain a colluvial cover. These
deposits generally reflect the soils that are uphill from them. They may be relatively pervious,
but within close proximity, the soil may have a low permeability. Landslide debris and
colluvium is generally loose to medium dense, with density increasing with depth. Engineering
properties of such deposits vary widely with soil density and composition. On steep slopes,
such soils are susceptible to failure, particularly at the contact with underlying undisturbed
formations.
• (Qvt) Vashon Till: Very dense, low permeability diamict that blankets much of upland to the
east of the project area, but does not outcrop near the proposed improvements. Till is very
dense, has a low permeability, and has high shear strength properties because it is poorly
sorted, contains 20 to 50 percent fine-grained particles and has been overridden by glacial
ice. As a foundation material, it can support heavy loads. Slopes in this material generally
exhibit stable behavior. Surface water commonly ponds on top of this layer.
• (Qva) Advance Outwash Sand: Very dense, glaciofluvial, advance outwash consisting of sand
and/or gravel with relatively few fine-grained particles. It has a relatively high permeability
and can support heavy loads where it is undisturbed. This soil type generally exhibits high
shear strength due to its density and granular composition. Where exposed in slopes, it can
exhibit both stable and unstable behavior. In locations where it is underlain by lower
permeability Transitional Beds, groundwater commonly perches on the finer-grained soil and
forms seeps or springs where exposed. This seepage can cause slope instability.
• (Qtb) Transitional Beds: Interbedded glacial and nonglacial fine sand, silt, and clay in the
exposed cut slopes along the southern end of the entrance road. The fine sand and silt are
dense to very dense and clay is commonly very stiff to hard. The silt and clay have a very low
to low permeability, except where they have been fractured, and water is able to move in the
cracks. The fine sand is commonly wet. Where undisturbed, these soils support moderate
Critical Areas Report 15 June 2018
loads. These soils typically exhibit moderate to high shear strength values, and in slopes
exhibit both stable and unstable behavior. Along the park entrance road, fractured and
jointed silt, clay, and fine sand are exposed and have a history of small failures.
• (Qog) Olympia Gravel: Very dense, nonglacial, relatively pervious sand and gravel deposit
lying at and below the entrance road level. The gravel is very dense, where undisturbed,
exhibits high shear strength, and can support heavy loads. It is locally cemented and can
stand vertically for years. Where cemented and containing fine-grained particles in the matrix,
it has a low permeability.
• (Qw) Whidbey Formation: Very dense, nonglacial, fluvial, interbedded fine to medium sand
with fine gravel interbedded with silt and clay exposed in the vertical bluff along the BNSF
tracks to the west of the entrance road. No seepage was observed. The exposure was blocky,
and colluvium at the toe of the slope contained small soil blocks. Due to its compaction by ice
and fine-grained particles in its matrix, it exhibits high shear strength and low permeability at
this site.
3.3 Hydrology
The Project is located in the Cedar-Sammamish Basin Water Resource Inventory Area 8
(Ecology 2017). Hydrologic characteristics in the Project area are influenced by regional groundwater,
direct precipitation, surface water runoff, Lund’s Gulch Creek, and Puget Sound. Flows for Lund’s
Gulch Creek vary from 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) under a 2-year peak flow event, to 135 cfs under
a 100-year flow event. Results of the creek and marine ordinary high water mark (OHWM)
delineations are presented in Section 6.2, Stream and Marine Waters Results.
3.3.1 Lund’s Gulch Creek
The park includes the lower reach of Lund’s Gulch Creek, which flows through the park for
approximately 4,000 feet at a relatively constant gentle grade (3%) until its confluence with Puget
Sound, near the existing culvert under the railroad berm. The creek is influenced by upland flows,
incoming sediment loads, and tidal inundation at the mouth of the creek.
3.3.2 Creek Delta and Marine Shoreline
The delta on the west side of the BNSF Railway berm is one of the larger ones found between Seattle
and Everett and offers some limited pocket estuary habitat. Current conditions do not allow for a
natural estuary to establish upstream of the railroad embankment, although the elevations and creek
size are sufficient to support one. Instead of supporting a wider creek delta and estuarine area, the
creek is narrowly constricted to flow through the concrete channel of the box culvert. This
constriction also affects the estuary conditions waterward of the culvert, as high current velocities at
the downstream end of the culvert caused by the creek constriction during high flows carves out a
straight channel to the west. The straight channel bypasses high-functioning sub-estuary habitat to
Critical Areas Report 16 June 2018
the north that dries out when the creek flows due west. A natural saltmarsh existed at the creek
mouth prior to the construction of the railroad and subsequent land uses. The existing railroad berm
and culvert opening, as well as past fill placement east of the railroad berm for upland uses, have
eliminated most of the natural transition between freshwater and saltwater pocket estuary habitat
beneficial for juvenile salmonids.
The culvert acts as a grade control for the creek and confines it to an artificially narrow corridor
under the railroad berm. An additional connected concrete channel extends for another 20 feet
upstream, further confining the creek within its narrow alignment. Past fill placement for a variety of
upland uses during the 20th century cover the majority of the Lund's Gulch Creek ravine bottom for
approximately 700 lf upstream of the railroad berm. The historical tidal marsh extended
approximately 300 lf upstream of the berm (Anchor QEA 2016).
3.4 Plant Communities
Vegetation within the Project area includes a variety of native, non-native, and ornamental trees,
shrub, grass, and herbaceous species associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitat.
3.4.1 Riparian Stream Buffer
Approximately 210 feet of lower Lund’s Gulch Creek is confined by rock bank armoring, which
partially limits overhanging vegetation within the stream riparian buffer. Upstream of this lowermost
reach, the vegetated riparian buffer comprises upland and wetland habitat and includes mostly
native woody and emergent wetland species. The riparian buffer ranges in width from 5 feet at the
lowermost edge, between 15 and 50 feet within the central reach of the Project, and up to 70 feet at
the uppermost reach of the site. The tree species in the riparian stream buffer are dominated by
native deciduous species, the most populous being red alder (Alnus rubra), followed by big leaf
maple (Acer macrophyllum) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). A smaller proportion of the
riparian buffer trees are non-native deciduous, and native and non-native conifers. An effort to plant
native conifers in this segment of the riparian stream occurred in the last 10 to 20 years, and these
trees are generally 10 to 15 feet tall, healthy, and currently functioning as an understory canopy
component. Upstream of the Project area, the riparian buffer expands substantially and is dominated
by native second-growth deciduous and coniferous trees.
3.4.2 Wetlands
The USFWS Wetlands Mapper for NWI Map Information does not identify any freshwater wetland
features in the Project area (USFWS 2017a). The estuarine habitat of Puget Sound is identified on the
NWI map information. WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2017a) also do not identify freshwater wetland
habitat within the Project area. Figure 4 in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation Report
presented in Appendix A shows the NWI information in the Project area.
Critical Areas Report 17 June 2018
Eight wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) were delineated within the Project area. Wetland
habitats include palustrine forested and shrub and palustrine emergent wetland systems. Six
wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, E, G, and H) are located within the jurisdiction of Snohomish County and
two wetlands are located within the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds (Wetlands D and F). Information
on wetlands within the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds is provided because the buffers of these
wetlands extend into Snohomish County. Wetland and upland vegetation for the wetland areas are
described in Section 4.2, Wetland Delineation Results. Vegetation data collected at each wetland
delineation sample plot are presented in the field data forms in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine
Delineation Report (Appendix A). A complete description of vegetation in the Project area is described
in Section 5, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas and Habitat Management Plan.
Critical Areas Report 18 June 2018
4 Wetlands Assessment
Wetlands in the Project area were identified and delineated based on the criteria identified in the
SCC 30.62A (Snohomish County 2017). The wetland delineation methods and results are presented in
the following sections. The Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation Report (Anchor QEA 2017) is
included in Appendix A. Information within in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation Report
includes a summary of data collected at each sampling plot during the wetland delineation, wetland
delineation field data forms, and the 2014 Ecology Wetland Rating Forms. This section also includes
an assessment of wetland functions, wetland impacts, and wetland mitigation measures, goals,
objectives, and performance standards.
Anchor QEA ecologists performed a wetland delineation of the proposed Project area on October 19,
November 1, and December 19, 2016; they also performed a wetland rating and functional analysis of
wetland habitat delineated within the Project area. Eight wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H)
were delineated within the Project area. Wetland habitats include Depressional, Riverine, and Slope
wetland systems. Six wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, E, G, and H) are located within the jurisdiction of
Snohomish County, and two wetlands (Wetlands D and F) are located within the jurisdiction of the
City of Edmonds. Information on wetlands within the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds is provided
because the buffers of these wetlands extend into Snohomish County jurisdiction. Wetland locations
are shown on Figure 9.
4.1 Methods
4.1.1 Wetland Delineation
As specified by the SCC (Snohomish County 2017), the wetland delineation was conducted according to
the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0; Corps 2010) and the Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Update (Hruby 2014). Soil colors were classified
by their numerical description, as identified on a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell 1994).
The methods for delineating wetlands are based on the presence of three parameters: hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Project ecologists examined soils for hydric
indicators and layers, visually and texturally estimated its organic content, and determined its color
using a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell 1994). Project ecologists assessed hydrology by observing
levels of inundation or saturation. They also identified and characterized vegetation communities,
estimated the percent cover for each plant species, and determined dominant species. Trees within a
30-foot radius, shrubs within a 15-foot radius, and emergents within a 3-foot radius were identified
and recorded. A plant indicator status, designated by USFWS (Lichvar et al. 2016), was assigned to
Critical Areas Report 19 June 2018
each species, and a determination was made as to whether the vegetation in the plot was
hydrophytic. To meet the hydrophytic parameter, more than 50% of the dominant species (20% or
greater cover) must have an indicator of obligate wetland, facultative wetland, or facultative.
Vegetation, soils, and hydrology information were collected at sample plots and recorded on field
data sheets. Wetland determination data forms from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2010)
were recorded for each wetland. Wetland delineation data forms are presented in the Wetland,
Stream, and Marine Delineation Report. A County representative was present during the site visits and
confirmed the wetland and OHWM boundaries.
4.1.2 Wetland Classification
Wetland community types were identified according to the USFWS classification developed by
Cowardin et al. (1979) for use in the NWI. This system bases the classification of wetlands on their
physical characteristics, such as the general type of vegetation in the wetland (e.g., trees, shrubs,
grass) and where and how much water is present in the wetland. All wetlands in the Project area are
palustrine systems. Palustrine wetlands are inland, non-tidal wetlands characterized by the presence
of trees, shrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation that is rooted below water but grows above
the surface). Palustrine wetlands range from permanently saturated or flooded land (as in marshes,
swamps, and lake shores) to land that is wet only seasonally. The following community types were
found during this investigation:
• Palustrine forested (PFO): These wetlands have at least 30% cover of woody vegetation that is
more than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS): These wetlands have at least 30% cover of woody vegetation
that is less than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine emergent (PEM): These wetlands have erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation
present for most of the growing season in most years.
4.1.3 Wetland Ratings and Functions Assessment
Wetland ratings were determined using the most current version of Ecology guidance in the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014) and
according to Snohomish County wetland rating criteria, as defined in the SCC (Snohomish County
2017). The Ecology wetland rating system was updated as of January 1, 2015.
The system developed by Ecology is used to differentiate wetlands based on their sensitivity to
disturbance, their significance in the watershed, their rarity, ability to be replaced, and the beneficial
functions they provide to society. The Ecology rating system requires the user to collect specific
information about the wetland in a step-by-step process. Three major functions are analyzed (water
Critical Areas Report 20 June 2018
quality improvement, hydrologic functions, and wildlife habitat). Ratings are based on a point system,
where points are given if a wetland meets specific criteria related to the wetland’s potential and the
opportunity to provide certain benefits.
Per Ecology’s rating system, wetlands are categorized according to the following criteria and to
points given:
• Category I wetlands (23 or more points) represent a unique or rare wetland type, are more
sensitive to disturbance, or are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that
are impossible to replace within a human lifetime.
• Category II wetlands (20 to 22 points) are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and
provide high levels of some functions.
• Category III wetlands (16 to 19 points) have moderate levels of functions. They 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 IV wetlands (less than 16 points) have the lowest levels of functions and are often
heavily disturbed.
The SCC classifies wetlands into four categories (Categories I, II, III, and IV) based on the updated
2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Snohomish County 2017,
Hruby 2014).
4.1.4 State Hydrogeomorphic Classification System
Scientists have come to understand that wetlands can perform functions in different ways. The way a
wetland functions depends to a large degree on hydrologic and geomorphic conditions. To
recognize these differences among wetlands, a way to group or classify them has been developed.
This classification system, called hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification, groups wetlands into
categories based on the geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics that control many functions. The
Washington State Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2 (Ecology 2008) and the
updated 2014 wetland rating system (Hruby 2014) incorporates the HGM classification system as
part of the questionnaire for characterizing a wetland’s functions. The rating system uses only the
highest grouping in the classification (i.e., wetland class). Wetland classes are based on geomorphic
settings, such as Riverine, Slope, Lake-fringe, or Depressional. A classification key is provided within
the rating form to help identify which of the following HGM Classifications apply to the wetland:
Riverine, Depressional, Slope, Lake-fringe, Tidal Fringe, or Flats.
4.2 Wetland Delineation Results
This section describes the results of the wetland delineation. Vegetation communities within the
Project area and a complete list of plant species observed in the Project area are presented in
Critical Areas Report 21 June 2018
Section 5.2.1, Vegetation Communities. A summary of data collected at each sampling plot during the
wetland delineation is included in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation Report included in
Appendix A. A soil map of the Project area and the USFWS NWI map of the Project area are provided
as Figures 1a and 1b, respectively. Wetland delineation results are shown on Figure 9.
4.2.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is an approximately 0.13-acre (5,470-square-foot [sf]) wetland with PFO and PEM
vegetation classes and a Depressional HGM class. Wetland A is located adjacent to the railroad track
berm and the toe of slope of the hillside to the north. The entire boundary of Wetland A was delineated
within the Project area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa,
red alder (Alnus rubra), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea).
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland A includes big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder,
salmonberry, sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and piggyback plant (Tolmiea menziesii).
Soils typically consisted of dark brown loam in the upper few inches with grayish brown clay loam
with yellowish brown to brownish yellow redox features below about 3 inches. Soils in the upland
plot were dark yellowish loam with no redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland A sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface, with the water table typically at about
3 inches from the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP1Wet and SP2Up. The wetland plot (SP1Wet) contained
indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot (SP2Up)
had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils.
4.2.2 Wetland B
Wetland B is an approximately 0.21-acre (9,180-sf) wetland with PFO and PSS vegetation classes and
Slope and Riverine HGM classes. Wetland B is located adjacent to the left bank of Lund’s Gulch Creek
and includes some of the mowed grass area to the south. The entire boundary of Wetland B was
delineated within the Project area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, salmonberry,
creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), piggyback plant, and reed canarygrass.
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland B includes Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), salmonberry,
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), piggyback plant, sword fern, and mowed grass.
Soils typically consisted of very dark grayish brown to dark gray sandy loam with gravel with dark
yellowish brown redox features below about 5 inches. Soils in the upland plot were very dark grayish
brown sandy loam with gravel with no redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
Critical Areas Report 22 June 2018
In the Wetland B sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface, with the water table typically at about
10 inches from the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP3Wet and SP4Up. The wetland plot (SP3Wet) contained
indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot (SP4Up)
had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils.
4.2.3 Wetland C
Wetland C is an approximately 0.03-acre (1,140-sf) wetland with PFO and PSS vegetation classes and
Slope and Riverine HGM classes. Wetland C is also located adjacent to the left bank of Lund’s Gulch
Creek and is also adjacent to the turn in the access road. The entire boundary of Wetland C was
delineated within the Project area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, salmonberry, and
piggyback plant.
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland C includes red alder, salmonberry, creeping buttercup, and
sword fern.
Soils typically consisted of very dark grayish brown silt loam and gley soils with dark yellowish brown
redox features below about 12 inches. Soils in the upland plot were very dark grayish brown loam to
dark grayish brown with sandy loam with gravel with no redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland C sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface, with no water table observed to
18 inches. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP5Wet and SP6Up. The wetland plot (SP3Wet) contained
indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot (SP4Up)
had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils.
4.2.4 Wetland D
Wetland D is an approximately 0.10-acre (4,140-sf) wetland with PFO and PSS vegetation classes and
a Slope HGM class. Wetland D is also located adjacent to the left bank of Lund’s Gulch Creek but the
bank is a few feet high, preventing overbank flooding from the stream to enter the wetland. The
entire boundary of Wetland D was delineated within the Project area. Although Wetland D is located
within the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds, the Wetland D buffer extends into the area within
Snohomish County jurisdiction. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, salmonberry, creeping
buttercup, piggyback plant, and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina).
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland D includes red alder, salmonberry, and piggyback plant.
Wetland D is also located adjacent to the paved access road.
Critical Areas Report 23 June 2018
Soils typically consisted of dark gray silty sand with gravel below about 8 inches. Dark brown to light
olive brown redox features were present throughout the sample plot. Soils in the upland plot were
dark grayish brown loam to grayish brown silty sand with no redox features. Rock, cobble, and sand
material was located below about 14 inches from the surface.
In the Wetland D sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface and the water table was typically
located at about 10 inches from the surface. Surface water that collects in the access road ditch also
flows into Wetland D. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP7Wet and SP8Up. The wetland plot (SP7Wet) contained
indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot (SP8Up)
had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils.
4.2.5 Wetland E
Wetland E is an approximately 0.05-acre (2,060-sf) wetland with PFO and PSS vegetation classes and
Depressional and Riverine HGM classes. Wetland E is located adjacent to the right bank of Lund’s
Gulch Creek, and a walking trail is located north of the wetland. The entire boundary of Wetland E
was delineated within the Project area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, salmonberry,
piggyback plant, and field horsetail (Equisitum arvense).
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland E includes red alder, salmonberry, piggyback plant, and
English ivy (Hedera helix).
Soils typically consisted of very dark gray silt loam with dark grayish brown redox features below
about 6 inches. Gley silty sand soils with dark grayish brown redox features were located about
14 inches below the surface. Soils in the upland plot were very dark grayish brown loam with no
redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland E sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface and the water table was typically
located at about 10 inches from the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below
18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP9Wet and SP10Up. The wetland plot (SP9Wet) contained
indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot (SP10Up)
had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils.
4.2.6 Wetland F
Wetland F is an approximately 0.08-acre (3,440-sf) wetland with PSS and PEM vegetation classes and
a Slope HGM class. Wetland F is located adjacent to the access road where the mowed grass is
located to the north. The entire boundary of Wetland F was delineated within the Project area.
Critical Areas Report 24 June 2018
Although Wetland F is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds, the Wetland F buffer
extends into the area with Snohomish County jurisdiction. Wetland vegetation is dominated by
salmonberry and piggyback plant.
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland F includes big-leaf maple, red alder, salmonberry, sword fern,
and piggyback plant.
Soils typically consisted of very dark gray to dark gray silt with gray to yellowish brown redox
features below about 6 inches. Soils in the upland plot were very dark brown loam with no redox
features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland F sample plot, standing water was 1 to 2 inches deep with soil saturation, and the
water table was typically at the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches
from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP11Wet and SP12Up. The wetland plot (SP11Wet)
contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot
(SP12Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and
hydric soils.
4.2.7 Wetland G
Wetland G is an approximately 0.22-acre (9,400-sf) wetland with PFO and PSS vegetation classes and
Depressional, Riverine, and Slope HGM classes. Wetland G is also located adjacent to the right bank
of Lund’s Gulch Creek. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, salmonberry, and piggyback
plant.
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland G includes red alder, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry,
and sword fern.
Soils typically consisted of very dark gray sandy silt to silty sand to about 14 inches. Gley sand with
gravel soils were located about 16 inches below the surface. Soils in the upland plot were dark
brown loam with gravel to dark grayish brown sandy loam with no redox features within 18 inches
of the surface.
In the Wetland G sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface and the water table was typically
located at about 16 inches from the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below
18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP13Wet and SP14Up. The wetland plot (SP13Wet)
contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot
Critical Areas Report 25 June 2018
(SP14Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and
hydric soils.
4.2.8 Wetland H
Wetland H is an approximately 0.05-acre (2,210-sf) wetland with PFO and PSS vegetation classes and
Slope and Riverine HGM classes. Wetland H is located adjacent to the left bank of Lund’s Gulch
Creek and the ponded (off channel) area of the creek. The mowed grass area is located to the south
of the wetland. The entire boundary of Wetland H was delineated within the Project area. Wetland
vegetation is dominated by red alder, salmonberry, and piggyback plant.
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland H includes big-leaf maple, red alder, salmonberry, and
piggyback plant.
Soils typically consisted of very dark brown to very dark gray sandy silt and gley soils with yellowish
brown redox features below about 9 inches. Soils in the upland plot were very dark grayish brown
loam to silt loam with gravel with no redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland H sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface, with the water table observed at
about 9 inches. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP15Wet and SP16Up. The wetland plot (SP15Wet)
contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot
(SP16Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and
hydric soils.
4.3 Wetland Classification and Rating
Per the SCC (Snohomish County 2017), wetland ratings are determined using Ecology’s Washington
State Wetlands Rating System – Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014). As described
previously, two wetlands (Wetlands D and F) are located within the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds
that have buffers that extend into Snohomish County. Under the Edmonds City Code (ECC; City of
Edmonds 2017), wetland ratings are also determined using Ecology’s wetland rating system. Table 4-1
lists the 2014 Ecology and local (Snohomish County and City of Edmonds) wetland rating and
classification.
Critical Areas Report 26 June 2018
Table 4-1 Summary of Wetland Classes and State and Local Ratings Using Ecology 2014 Wetlands Rating System
Wetland Area (acres) Hydrogeomorphic Classification 20141 State Rating (Ecology)
Local Rating (Snohomish County)2
Local Rating (City of Edmonds)3
Wetland A 0.13 Depressional III III -
Wetland B 0.21 Slope and Riverine II II -
Wetland C 0.03 Slope and Riverine II II -
Wetland D 0.10 Slope III - III
Wetland E 0.05 Depressional and Riverine III III -
Wetland F 0.08 Slope IV - IV
Wetland G 0.22 Depressional, Slope, and Riverine III III -
Wetland H 0.05 Slope and Riverine II II -
Notes:
1. Hruby, T., 2014. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Publication No. 14-06-029. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology. 2. Snohomish County 2017. Snohomish County Code. Cited: October 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/. 3. City of Edmonds, 2017. City of Edmonds Code. Cited: October 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/
For the 2014 Ecology wetland rating system (Hruby 2014), a Low, Moderate, or High rating is based
on three functions: 1) Improving Water Quality; 2) Hydrologic; and 3) Habitat. Within each of these
three functions are three sub-function categories: 1) Site Potential; 2) Landscape Potential; and
3) Value. Each of these sub-function categories is rated as Low, Moderate, or High. Wetland
functional values and scores for Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H under the 2014 Ecology rating
system are shown in Table 4-2. The 2014 Ecology wetland rating forms are provided in the Wetland,
Stream, and Marine Delineation Report in Appendix A.
Table 4-2 Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores
Wetland and Function Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Total Functions Score1
Wetland A
Site Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Landscape Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Value High Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 5 7 19
Critical Areas Report 27 June 2018
Wetland and Function Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Total Functions Score1
Wetland B
Site Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Landscape Potential High High Moderate
Value Moderate Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 6 7 20
Wetland C
Site Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Landscape Potential High High Moderate
Value Moderate Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 6 7 20
Wetland D
Site Potential Low Low Moderate
Landscape Potential Moderate Low Moderate
Value High Low High
Score Based on Rating1 6 3 7 16
Wetland E
Site Potential Moderate Low Moderate
Landscape Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Value High Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 4 7 18
Wetland F
Site Potential Low Low Low
Landscape Potential Moderate Low Moderate
Value High Low High
Score Based on Rating1 6 3 6 15
Wetland G
Site Potential Moderate Low Moderate
Landscape Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Value High Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 4 7 18
Wetland H
Site Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Landscape Potential High High Moderate
Value Moderate Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 6 7 20
Note: 1. Potential total score per function is 9, for a potential total score of 27.
Critical Areas Report 28 June 2018
4.4 Wetland Functional Assessment
The following subsections provide a description of the functions of Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H
based on the 2014 Ecology wetland rating system.
4.4.1 Improving Water Quality Functions
All eight wetlands have the opportunity to improve water quality based on their location in a park
located within an urban environment and the presence of developed residential areas outside the park.
Wetlands A, B, C, E, G, and H have moderate function scores for the site potential to improve water
quality functions due to the characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland and the
relative area of depressions within the wetland that influences its ability to trap sediments during a
flooding event. Wetlands D and F have low function scores because the slope characteristics of these
wetlands reduces the ability to trap sediments. None of the wetlands have soil characteristics that
include clay or organic material, which contributes to the moderate or low function scores. The
characteristic of vegetation within the wetlands to restrict flow and trap sediments and pollutants also
contributes to the moderate or low function scores. Wetlands with a moderate function score have a
higher relative area of depressions within the wetland that influences its ability to trap sediments.
Wetlands B, C, and H have high function scores, and Wetlands A, D, E, F, and G have moderate
functions scores for the landscape potential to support water quality functions of the site because of
the potential of the surrounding land uses to generate pollutants and discharge stormwater to the
wetlands. Wetlands B, C, and H have high function scores compared to the other wetlands because
they were rated under the Riverine hydrogeomorphic classification, which has different rating criteria
than the Slope and Depressional rating classifications.
Wetlands A, D, E, F, and G have high function scores, and Wetlands B, C, and H have moderate
function scores to provide water quality improvement valuable to society because they are located in
the vicinity of aquatic resources that are on the Ecology 303(d) list. Wetlands B, C, and H have
moderate function scores compared to the other wetlands because they were rated under the
Riverine hydrogeomorphic classification, which has different rating criteria than the Slope and
Depressional rating classifications.
4.4.2 Hydrologic Functions
Wetlands A, B, C, and H provide moderate function scores, and Wetlands D, E, F, and G provide low
function scores for potential to reduce flooding and erosion based on the specific characteristics of
the surface water outflows from the wetlands, the depth of storage provided by the wetlands during
wet periods, and the contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed.
Critical Areas Report 29 June 2018
The wetlands vary in potential to support hydrologic functions at the site based on the
hydrogeomorphic classification used to rate the wetlands. Riverine, Slope, and Depressional rating
classifications have slightly different rating criteria regarding the potential of the surrounding land
uses to generate pollutants and discharge stormwater to the wetlands. Wetlands B, C, and H provide
high function scores, Wetlands A, E, and G provide moderate function scores, and Wetlands D and F
provide low function scores.
Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H have low function scores to provide hydrologic functions valuable
to society because they are located in a landscape where they do not flow downgradient into areas
where flooding has damaged human or natural resources.
4.4.3 Habitat Functions
All of the wetlands, with the exception of Wetland F, have moderate function scores for the potential
to provide habitat due to the diverse vegetative structure (more than one Cowardin [1979]
vegetation class), the number of water regimes or hydroperiods, the limited plant richness
(between 5 and 19 native species observed), the habitat diversity, and special habitat features
present. Wetland F has a low function score because it is not adjacent to the creek and has fewer
special habitat features than the other wetlands.
All eight wetlands have moderate scores for the landscape potential to support habitat functions of
the site because of the characteristics of disturbed and undisturbed habitats surrounding the
wetlands and the land-use intensity of the surrounding area.
All eight wetlands have high function scores to provide habitat functions valuable to society because
of the proximity of WDFW priority habitats in the vicinity of the wetlands, including snags and logs,
and riparian, instream, and marine nearshore habitats. The Project area is also identified as a
biodiversity area and corridor based on WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2017a).
4.5 Wetland Buffer Guidance
Required wetland buffers have been identified according to the current SCC (Snohomish County
2017). The SCC identifies minimum protective buffer widths based on the wetland category, land use
intensity, and the Ecology habitat rating score, per the 2014 Ecology rating system. Accordingly,
Wetlands A, B, C, E, G, and H require 75-foot buffers for low-intensity land use because they are
Category II or Category III wetlands with a habitat function score of 5 to 7.
Required wetland buffers have also been identified for Wetland D and F according to the current ECC
(City of Edmonds 2017) because these two wetlands are located within the jurisdiction of the City of
Edmonds and have buffers that extend into the jurisdiction of the County. The ECC identifies
minimum protective buffer widths based on the wetland category and the Ecology habitat rating
Critical Areas Report 30 June 2018
score, per the 2014 Ecology rating system. Accordingly, Wetland D requires a 165-foot buffer
because it is a Category III wetland with a habitat function score of 6 to 7. Wetland F requires a
40-foot buffer because it is a Category IV wetland with a habitat function score of 6 to 7. Table 4-3
summarizes SCC and ECC ratings and buffer widths based on the 2014 Ecology rating system.
Table 4-3 Wetland Rating and Standard Buffer Widths
Wetland
2014 State
Rating
(Ecology)
Local
Rating
(Snohomish
County)
Local Rating
(City of
Edmonds)
Ecology
Habitat
Rating Score
Snohomish
County Code
Buffer Width
(feet)1
City of
Edmonds
Code Buffer
Width
(feet)2
Wetland A III III - 7 75 -
Wetland B II II - 7 75 -
Wetland C II II - 7 75 -
Wetland D III - III 7 - 165
Wetland E III III - 7 75 -
Wetland F IV - IV 6 - 40
Wetland G III III - 7 75 -
Wetland H II II - 7 75 -
Notes:
1. Buffer based on Low Intensity Land Use. Snohomish County 2017. Snohomish County Code. Cited: October 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/. 2. City of Edmonds 2017. City of Edmonds Code. Cited: October 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/
4.6 Wetland Impact Assessment
4.6.1 Permanent Wetland Impacts
Under the Proposed Project, permanent impacts to one of the wetlands, Wetland B, would occur as a
result of installing an elevated walkway segment over the wetland. The total wetland area of
disturbance is 8 sf. The elevated pedestrian walkway segment would provide park visitors access to
the northern side of the restored estuary, while minimizing wetland disturbance and preserving
existing wetland hydrology. This ADA-accessible pedestrian path is a key component of the public
access for the park. Additional impacts to Wetland B were avoided by using the following measures:
• Locate the pedestrian walkway in the narrowest portion of the wetland
• Elevate the walkway over the wetland, to maintain wetland hydrology
• Use diamond pier foundations with smaller footprint to minimize wetland disturbance
Critical Areas Report 31 June 2018
• Locate all estuary excavation at least 10 feet from existing wetland boundaries
• Minimize footprint of new walkways and relocated restroom enclosure, for a net decrease in
impervious surface of 4,800 sf
A summary of wetland impacts is provided in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4 Summary of Wetland Impacts
Wetland Area (acres)
20141 State Rating (Ecology)
Local Rating (Snohomish County)2 Impact Type
Wetland Impact Area (sf)
Wetland B 0.21 II II Permanent 8
Wetland F 0.08 IV IV Temporary 640
Notes:
1. Ecology 2015 2. Snohomish County Code. Cited: November 12, 2016. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/.
4.6.2 Temporary Wetland Impacts
Temporary impacts to wetlands are associated with the work pads necessary for the railroad bridge
construction. The temporary fill placed in Wetland F of 0.01 acre would be removed following
construction, and the wetland would be restored with additional plantings.
4.6.3 Wetland Buffer Impacts
Under the Proposed Project, permanent and/or temporary impacts to the buffers of all eight
wetlands in the Project area would occur. As shown in Figure 9, the wetland buffers overlap
considerably with the stream buffer for Lund’s Gulch Creek. Buffer extents also occur within both
Snohomish County and City of Edmonds jurisdictions. As such, the buffer impacts for the stream and
wetlands are considered collectively and summarized in Table 4-5.
Critical Areas Report 32 June 2018
Table 4-5 Summary of Stream and Wetland Buffer Impacts
Resource Permanent Buffer Impact Area (sf) Temporary Buffer Impact Area (sf)
Stream Buffer Area Only
Snohomish County 800 3,700
City of Edmonds 100 0
Stream Buffer Subtotal 900 3,700
Stream and Wetland Buffer Overlap Area
Snohomish County 8,100 11,300
City of Edmonds 2,200 0
Stream and Wetland Buffer Overlap Subtotal 10,300 11,300
Wetland Buffer Area Only
Wetland D (City of Edmonds) 100 0
Wetland F (City of Edmonds) 1,100 200
Wetland Buffer Subtotal 1,200 200
Total – Snohomish County 8,900 15,000
Total – City of Edmonds 3,500 200
Total 12,400 15,200
Critical Areas Report 33 June 2018
5 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas and Habitat Management Plan
Fish and wildlife conservation area were assessed based on the criteria identified in the SCC 30.62A
(Snohomish County 2017). This section focuses on wildlife species and habitats. Fish species and
freshwater and marine aquatic habitats are described in Section 6, Streams and Marine Water
Assessment, and in the Fish Habitat Assessment Report (Appendix B) and the Eelgrass Survey
(Appendix C). Per critical areas reporting requirements, information in the Wildlife Conservation
Areas Assessment includes a description of vegetation communities and wildlife habitat conditions in
the Project area, and critical species and state natural habitats. Critical species are state and federally
protected species and native species that are at risk of being lost from the County and/or require
habitat protection. Also included in the assessment is a summary of the analysis of federally listed
species protected under ESA that may occur in the Project area, as described in the BA that was
prepared for the Project (Anchor QEA 2018). Information in this section and the CAR also meet the
SCC requirements of a Habitat Management Plan (SCC 30.62A.460).
5.1 Methods
To document and describe habitat characteristics within the Project area, Project ecologists reviewed
existing information (as described in Subsection 1.1, Purpose and Objectives), performed an aerial
photograph assessment, and conducted site visits in November and December 2016. During the site
visits, ecologists documented general information regarding habitats and dominant plant species
and communities while walking through the Project area. The entire Project area was accessible
during the investigation. All wildlife species, tracks, and other signs observed during the site visits
were documented. All observations were qualitative; no quantitative wildlife surveys were performed.
5.2 Wildlife Conservation Areas Assessment
5.2.1 Vegetation Communities
The Project area consists of walking trails, an ADA access road, picnic shelters, park maintenance
facilities, mowed grass areas, upland, wetland, and riparian habitat. Vegetation within the Project
area includes a variety of native, non-native, and ornamental trees, shrub, grass, and herbaceous
species. Wetlands, the riparian habitat of Lund’s Gulch Creek, and the steep forested ravine in the
park are typically dominated by native plant species in natural conditions, as opposed to park
settings that often maintain managed landscaped conditions. The following subsections provide a
general description of vegetation within the Project area. A list of plant species in the Project area is
provided in Table 5-1.
Critical Areas Report 34 June 2018
Table 5-1 Plant Communities and Species in the Project Area
Scientific Name Common Name
Trees
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple
Alnus rubra Red alder
Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorne
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce
Pinus strobus Eastern white pine
Prunus sp. Cherry
Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow
Salix scouleriana Scouler's willow
Thuja plicata Western red cedar
Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock
Shrubs
Acer circinatum Vine maple
Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood
Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut
Gaultheria shallon Salal
Hedera helix English ivy
Ilex aquifolium Holly
Mahonia nervosa Low Oregon grape
Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum
Prunus laurocerasus English laurel
Rhododendron occidentale Western azalea
Ribes lacustre Prickly currant
Rosa nutkana Nootka rose
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rubus parviflorus Western thimbleberry
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry
Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry
Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry
Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry
Grass, Ferns, and Herbaceous
Agrostis capillaris Colonial bentgrass
Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern
Convolvulvus arvensis Orchard morning glory
Critical Areas Report 35 June 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail
Festuca rubra Red fescue
Geranium robertianum Stinky bob
Grass spp. Mowed Grass
Hedera helix English ivy
Holcus lanatus Common velvet-grass
Juncus effusus Soft rush
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass
Plantago lanceolata English plantain
Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass
Polystichum munitum Sword fern
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup
Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant
Trifolium pratense Red clover
Trifolium repens White clover
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle
5.2.1.1 Mowed and Unmowed Grassland Areas
Mowed and unmowed grassland areas are common in the park setting of the Project area. Plant
species within the grassland habitat include a variety of native and nonnative grasses and
herbaceous species that are common within Snohomish County, including Colonial bentgrass
(Agrostis capillaris), common velvet-grass (Holcus lanatus), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), red
fescue (Festuca rubra), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), English plantain (Plantago
lanceolata), red clover (Trifolium pratense), and white clover (Trifolium repens).
5.2.1.2 Shrubland
Shrub communities are dominated by native plant species, with infrequent ornamental species. In
general, shrubs near the access road and walking trails are in a more landscaped, managed
condition, while further from the access road and trail shrubs are in a more natural condition. Native
shrub species observed in the Project area include western azalea (Rhododendron occidentale), red
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus),
beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), low Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), vine maple (Acer
circinatum), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). Ornamental and
nonnative shrub species include English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus
Critical Areas Report 36 June 2018
armeniacus), and holly (Ilex aquifolium). Non-native invasive plants are typically removed as part of
management of the park.
5.2.1.3 Mixed Deciduous/Coniferous Forest
Similar to the shrub communities, the mixed deciduous/coniferous forest habitat is dominated by
native plant species, with infrequent ornamental species. Trees near the access road and walking
trails are in a more landscaped, managed condition while further from the access road and trails
trees are in a more natural condition. Trees in the ravine and on the slopes are in undisturbed natural
forested conditions. Dominant native tree species observed within the Project area include big-leaf
maple (Acer macrophylum), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), red alder (Alnus rubra), western
hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Nonnative and ornamental
species include Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) and cherry (Prunus sp.).
5.2.1.4 Wetlands
Eight wetlands were delineated within the Project area. Information on wetlands in the Project area is
presented in Section 4, Wetlands Assessment, and in in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Report (Anchor QEA 2017), provided in Appendix A.
5.2.1.5 Marine Vegetation
The marine shoreline in the Project area includes a mix of native and non-native vegetation at the
base of the railroad berm inland of the MHHW. Eelgrass habitat in the intertidal area offshore of the
Project area shoreline were mapped as part of the Project analysis (Confluence 2017) provided in
Appendix C.
5.2.2 Wildlife Habitat
Vegetation communities within the Project area provide a range of habitat features for terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife. Wildlife relies on vegetation for food, shelter, and cover from predators. Wildlife
diversity is generally related to the structure and composition of plant species within vegetative
communities. In general, vegetation communities that contain few species or vegetative layers
(herbaceous vegetation, shrubs, or trees) support a low diversity of wildlife, whereas vegetation
communities that are more complex and contain a wide variety of plant species and vegetative layers
can support a greater diversity of wildlife. Forested and riparian areas with well-developed shrub
layers are likely to support the greatest number of species and populations of wildlife (Brown 1985).
Although a comprehensive wildlife survey has not been conducted within the Project area,
vegetation communities within the Project area likely provides habitat for a variety of terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife species common to Snohomish County and western Washington that are adapted to
park settings within urban residential areas. The area provides habitat for native and nonnative bird,
amphibian, reptile, insect, fish, and small and large mammal species to breed, forage, and rest.
Critical Areas Report 37 June 2018
Wildlife habitat in the Project area ranges in quality from low in the managed areas of the park with
mowed lawns to moderate to high in the riparian habitat adjacent to Lund’s Gulch Creek and the
associated wetland systems and the upland forested ravine habitat in the park. Habitat features such
as snags and downed wood are located within the Project area in the forested habitat away from the
walking trails. Snags and downed trees provide potential habitat for perch sites and nesting areas for
raptors and cavity-nesting wildlife. As described in Section 4, most of the wetland habitat within the
Project area includes a variety of emergent, shrub, and tree vegetation. The majority of habitat in the
Project area is adjacent to mowed lawn or walking trails but residential development that typically
provides habitat for disturbance-tolerant species is located outside the Project area, elevated over
the park on the top of hillsides. The park is surrounded by residential development, so vegetated
corridors connecting habitat within the Project area to undisturbed habitats is limited. Forested habitat
north of the park is bisected by roads.
Marine shoreline habitat conditions include exposed beach with shoreline vegetation, compared to
conditions north and south of the park where exposed beach is typically not present and the MHHW
line is up against the riprap of the railroad berm. The aquatic habitat of Puget Sound and Lund’s
Gulch Creek provides quality habitat for aquatic species. A detailed discussion of the stream and
marine habitat conditions and potential fish use is presented in Section 6, Stream and Marine Waters
Assessment.
5.2.3 Critical Species and State Natural Habitats
Standards and requirements for the protection of critical species and state natural habitats are
defined in the SCC (30.62A.410). Critical species and state natural habitats that could occur within the
Project area were identified based on observations during the site visits, the presence of potential
suitable habitat for critical species within the Project area, and the WDFW PHS data. Federally
protected species and critical habitats are discussed in Section 5.2.3.1.
The Project area is identified as a biodiversity area and corridor based on WDFW PHS maps (WDFW
2017a). The WDFW PHS website (2017a) does not identify any documented occurrences of any
terrestrial species in the vicinity of the Project area. No presence of state or federally protected
terrestrial species is documented within the Project area (WDFW 2017a). State and federally
protected fish species are present in Lund’s Gulch Creek and marine waters in the Project area, as
described in Section 6.2 Stream and Marine Waters Results and Section 5.2.3.1.
While no state or federally protected terrestrial species are documented within the Project area
(WDFW 2017a), as described in Sections 4.2, 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, the Project area includes a variety of
vegetation communities associated with wetland and upland habitats and buffers of freshwater and
marine aquatic habitats that support a variety of bird, amphibian, reptile, insect, and small and large
mammal species to breed, forage, and rest.
Critical Areas Report 38 June 2018
5.2.3.1 Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats
A BA was prepared for the Project to evaluate the potential effects on ESA-listed species and critical
habitat in compliance with Section 7(a)(2) and Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA (Anchor QEA 2017).
Information from the BA is summarized in this CAR. There are several threatened or endangered
(also called ESA-listed) species and critical habitats under the NMFS (2017) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS 2017b) jurisdiction that may occur in the proposed Project area. Table xx presents
the federally listed species and designated critical habitats identified in the BA as potentially
occurring in the Project area and the ESA effect determination identified in the BA.
Table 5-2 ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat that May Occur in the Action Area and Effect Determinations
Species Status Agency Effect Determination Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat Effect Determination
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Threatened (Puget Sound ESU) NMFS NLTAA Designated NLTAA
Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Threatened (Puget Sound DPS) NMFS NLTAA Designated NLTAA
Bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus)
Threatened
(Puget Sound DPS)
USFWS NLTAA Designated Puget Sound NLTAA
Marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus
marmoratus) Threatened USFWS NLTAA Designated No Effect
Other Listed Species Considered
Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinus)
Endangered
(Georgia Basin DPS) NMFS No Effect Designated Puget Sound No Effect
Green sturgeon
(Acipenser medirostris)
Threatened
(Southern DPS) NMFS No Effect None in Puget Sound NA
Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus)
Threatened (Southern DPS) NMFS No Effect Designated Puget Sound No Effect
Yelloweye rockfish
(Sebastes ruberrimus)
Threatened (Georgia Basin DPS) NMFS No Effect Designated Puget Sound No Effect
Killer whale (Orcinus
orca)
Endangered
(Southern Resident DPS) NMFS No Effect Designated No Effect
Critical Areas Report 39 June 2018
Species Status Agency Effect Determination Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat Effect Determination
Humpback whale (Megapterus novaeangliae) Endangered NMFS No Effect None designated or proposed NA
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered NMFS No Effect
None designated or proposed in Washington state
NA
Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris
strigata)
Threatened USFWS No Effect Designated No Effect
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Threatened USFWS No Effect Proposed No Effect
Wolverine (Gulo gulo
luscus) Proposed Threatened USFWS No Effect None designated or proposed NA
Listed and proposed ESA species that could potentially occur in the Project area during construction
include Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bull trout, and marbled murrelets.
Three terrestrial species identified by USFWS (2017a) as potentially occurring in the Project area were
not addressed in the BA due to the lack of suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Project area.
These terrestrial species include two ESA-listed species, streaked horn lark and yellow-billed cuckoo,
and one species proposed for listings, wolverine. Potential habitat for streaked horn lark, yellow-
billed cuckoo, and wolverine is not located within or within the vicinity of the Project area.
In addition, eight marine species identified by NMFS (2017) as potentially occurring in the Project
area were not addressed in the BA due to the location of the Project area, the species life history and
habitat requirements, and the lack of proposed marine in-water work associated with the Project. The
marine mammal and sea turtle species, humpback whale, killer whale, and leatherback sea turtle
occur in the deep water habitat of Puget Sound and could occur offshore of the site, but are very
unlikely to occur in the shallow marine environment adjacent to the site. The fish species bocaccio,
green sturgeon, Pacific eulachon, and yelloweye rockfish are associated with deepwater habitats of
Puget Sound and typically breed and forage near the ocean floor. Adults of these species are also
very unlikely in the shallow marine environment adjacent to the site. Juveniles of these species do
migrate in nearshore habitats and could occur in the offshore habitat of the site, but there are no
potential in-water impacts to disturb these species. The marine habitat adjacent to the site is within
designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Areas with water less than
Critical Areas Report 40 June 2018
20 feet deep are not designated as critical habitat for killer whale. Offshore habitat from the site with
water depths deeper than 20 feet meet the criteria for killer whale designated critical habitat.
5.2.3.2 Species of Local Importance
According to SCC. 30.91C.370, the following species are identified as species of local importance:
• Larch Mountain salamander (Plerhodon larselli)
• Common loon (Gavia immer)
• Peregrine falcon (Falco pereginus)
• Olympic mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi)
• Pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulterii)
• Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)
However, the preferred habitats of the following species are such that they do not occur in the
vicinity of the project:
• Larch Mountain salamander – lives in rock fields and in the lava rock rubble associated with
the lava tubes of the southern Cascade Mountains of Washington (WDFW 1993)
• Olympic mudminnow – intolerant of saltwater and avoid areas of current (Mongillo and
Hallock 1999)
• Pygmy whitefish – lives in nine lakes in Washington State, none located in Snohomish County
(Hallock and Mongillo 1998)
Common loons, peregrine falcons, and gray whales may be present in the vicinity of the project.
These species along with species listed as threatened or endangered under the State of Washington,
if present in the vicinity of the project, are expected to experience similar impacts and protections as
those summarized in Section 5.3 and described in detail in the BA (Anchor QEA 2018) provided in
Appendix D.
5.3 Wildlife Conservation Areas Impacts Assessment
The primary potential construction impact on wildlife species and associated habitat (wetlands and
upland vegetation communities) is removal and loss of habitat. In general, the severity of impact
varies, depending on the type and quantity of affected vegetation. For example, losing plant
communities that offer limited wildlife, or habitat such as mowed lawn vegetation in a park setting,
results in less of an adverse effect than losing more complex vegetation associations, such as
forested areas and wetlands. In the case of this Project, there would be temporary and permanent
impacts to wildlife habitat during construction, but the Project would provide improved terrestrial
and freshwater and marine aquatic habitat conditions following construction. Impacts to marine and
freshwater aquatic habitats are discussed in Section 6.3, Streams and Marine Waters Assessment.
Critical Areas Report 41 June 2018
Clearing and grading associated with the Project would include areas with existing impervious
surfaces, mowed grass in the park setting, wetland and wetland buffers, stream and marine riparian
buffers, and upland vegetation communities. Wildlife species that would potentially occupy habitat in
these areas include birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals typically associated with urban parks
and residential development in Snohomish County. Details of construction features, habitat features
that would be disturbed, and over-water coverage removal and new over-water features are
presented in Section 2.
As described in Section 4.6 Wetland Impact Assessment, impacts to wetland and wetland buffer
habitat would cover a relatively small area and the proposed Project activities and mitigation
measures include creating and enhancing habitat features in the park.
Disturbances caused by construction may affect wildlife in adjacent habitats by disrupting feeding
and nesting activities. Increased noise levels created by heavy machinery and upland pile driving
could cause birds to abandon their nests and may temporarily displace wildlife during construction.
While noise associated with construction activities could result in avoidance behavior by some
wildlife species, wildlife would likely resume use of the site once construction is complete because
human disturbance associated with the park has been occurring in the Project area for several
decades.
Operational impacts on wildlife and habitat communities associated with the Project would be minor
and related principally to ambient noise levels, including regular train traffic, associated with
continued use of the park. Noise levels associated with operation Park after construction are
expected to be consistent with current ambient noise levels.
Overall, habitat losses to sensitive areas resulting from the Project are expected to be relatively small
and are unlikely to result in a significant impact on native wildlife and species and habitats compared
to the Project goals of enhancing and improving existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat features.
Proposed habitat improvements that would improve habitat conditions over existing conditions
include converting existing lawn to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat, widening the creek
mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for continued natural spit/barrier beach pocket estuary habitat
development, enhancing the creek and wetland buffers by planting native vegetation, and placing
woody debris in and along the creek.
As shown in Table 5-2, the BA prepared for the proposed Project identified the potential presence of
one terrestrial species, marbled murrelet, in the vicinity of the Project area. The potential presence of
marbled murrelet would be within Puget Sound, offshore of the Project area; this bird species would
not be expected to occur on land within the Project area. Fish species and associated critical habitats
were the only other federally listed species identified with documented presence in or potential to
occur in the Project area. The ESA analysis in the BA concluded that potential effects related to the
Critical Areas Report 42 June 2018
proposed Project that could affect fish, wildlife, and associated habitats include temporary behavioral
disturbance related to noise disturbance from upland pile driving and other construction activities.
However, the proposed activity is localized and temporary, and these impacts are minimized via
Project timing and other avoidance and minimization measures, in accordance with permit
conditions. The Project would also result in long-term habitat improvements in the marine and
freshwater aquatic habitat of Puget Sound and Lund’s Gulch Creek and upland habitats near the
shorelines.
Although the proposed Project would result in better-quality aquatic and upland habitat, the BA
analysis determined that as a result of some construction activities occurring below OHWM and
MHHW, the proposed Project effect determination for the fish species Puget Sound Chinook salmon,
Puget Sound steelhead, and bull trout is May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. The effect
determination for marbled murrelet is May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. The effect
determination for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout associated critical habitats
is May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (Anchor QEA 2018).
The BA also performed an analysis for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation with NMFS, in
compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). The BA analysis concluded that the proposed Project would not adversely affect EFH for
salmonid species. It is also concluded that this project would not adversely affect salmonid EFH.
Groundfish and coastal pelagic EFH are not applicable in the freshwater environment of the Project
area (Anchor QEA 2018).
5.3.1 Wildlife Conservation Areas Mitigation Measures
Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats would be mitigated by proposed habitat improvements and
wetland mitigation measures that would improve wetland, wetland buffer, upland, and freshwater
and marine buffer habitat conditions over existing conditions. Habitat improvement and
enhancement measures include converting existing lawn to a restored pocket estuary and riparian
habitat, widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for continued natural spit/barrier
beach pocket estuary habitat development, enhancing the creek and wetland buffers by planting native
vegetation, and placing woody debris in and along the creek. Section 7 details the mitigation measures
for the project.
Critical Areas Report 43 June 2018
6 Streams and Marine Waters Assessment
Streams and marine waters in the Project area were identified and delineated based on the criteria
identified in the SCC 30.62A (Snohomish County 2017). Anchor QEA ecologists identified and
delineated the shorelines of two waterbodies within the Project area: the OHWM of Lund’s Gulch
Creek and the MHHW of the marine shoreline of Puget Sound. The OHWM delineation methods,
results and Project impacts are described in the following sections. A detailed description of the fish
habitat of Lund’s Gulch Creek is presented in the Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment Report
(Confluence 2016), included in Appendix B. Eelgrass survey results are presented in the Eelgrass
Survey of Meadowdale Beach Park (Confluence 2017), included as Appendix C.
6.1 Methods
To document the OHWM of Lund’s Gulch Creek and the MHHW of the marine shoreline within the
Project area, Anchor QEA ecologists reviewed existing information (described in Section 1.1, Purpose and
Objectives), performed an aerial photograph analysis, and conducted a site visit on November 19, 2016.
The OHWM delineation was completed by walking the stream and marine shorelines and identifying
the OHWM with flagging. Flagging was then documented on an aerial photograph for survey.
Anchor QEA ecologists identified the stream and marine OHWM boundaries consistent with
Chapter 90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Chapter 173-22 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The WAC defines the OHWM as:
“’Ordinary high water line’” means the mark on the shores of all waters that will be
found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and
action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in ordinary years, as
to mark upon the soil or vegetation a character distinct from that of the abutting
upland: Provided, that in any area where the ordinary high water line cannot be found
the ordinary high water line adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high
water and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be the elevation of
the mean annual flood.”
The following criteria clarify this mark on tidal waters:
(a) “Tidal waters.
(i) In high energy environments where the action of waves or currents is sufficient to
prevent vegetation establishment below mean higher high tide, the ordinary high water
mark is coincident with the line of vegetation. Where there is no vegetative cover for less
than one hundred feet parallel to the shoreline, the ordinary high water mark is the
Critical Areas Report 44 June 2018
average tidal elevation of the adjacent lines of vegetation. Where the ordinary high water
mark cannot be found, it is the elevation of mean higher high tide;
(ii) In low energy environments where the action of waves and currents is not sufficient to
prevent vegetation establishment below mean higher high tide, the ordinary high water
mark is coincident with the landward limit of salt tolerant vegetation. ‘Salt tolerant
vegetation’ means vegetation which is tolerant of interstitial soil salinities greater than or
equal to 0.5 parts per thousand.”
The marine shoreline of Puget Sound within the Project area is a high-energy environment.
6.2 Stream and Marine Waters Results
6.2.1 Lund’s Gulch Creek
The OHWM of one stream system, Lund’s Gulch Creek, was delineated within the Project area. Lund’s
Gulch Creek is also associated with six of the wetlands that were delineated as part of the
investigation (Section 4) and flows into Puget Sound after flowing through a box culvert located
below the railroad tracks berm. The stream OHWM delineation began at the box culvert and ended
at the upstream end of the Project area (Figure 9).
Lund’s Gulch Creek is associated with six wetlands, Wetlands B, C, D, E, G, and H. A 1,230-foot reach
of Lund’s Gulch Creek was delineated within the Project area. A small ponded area associated with
the creek was also delineated. The ponded area is located off the left bank of the creek near
Wetland H. The ponded area appears to have been an excavated feature. The delineated length of
the ponded area was about 240 feet. The Lund’s Gulch Creek OHWM delineation results are shown
on Figure 9.
Lund’s Gulch Creek meets the criteria of a Type F Water, perennial flow with potential fish habitat
characteristics. The WDFW PHS website does not document any fish species presence in Lund’s Gulch
Creek (WDFW 2017a). The WDFW Salmonscape website identifies the presence of coho salmon in the
creek (WDFW 2017b). The Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment Report prepared for the Project
identifies salmon use of the creek to include Chinook, coho, chum, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat
trout (Confluence 2017).
Several species of salmonids utilize Lund’s Gulch Creek, including Chinook, coho, and chum salmon,
steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout. Salmon spawning ground surveys document coho and chum
salmon spawning each year. Salmon return data collected by community volunteers since 1997
indicate that in some years, more than 100 adult coho or chum would return to the creek; however,
most recently the numbers have been lower (Uusitalo 2015). The last time spawner surveys reported
more than 100 coho adults returned was 2001, as annual counts from 2002 to 2012 ranged between
Critical Areas Report 45 June 2018
2 and approximately 35. Chum adults numbers have been higher with more than 100 chum adults
observed in 2007 while annual counts from 2008 to 2012 ranged between 10 and approximately 75.
Coho and chum spawning occurs in the lower portions of the creek and in years when higher
numbers of adults return the spawning occurs over a larger portion of the creek.
In addition to any fry produced by adult coho and chum salmon spawning in the creek, hatchery
origin fry have been released into the creek for many years (Uusitalo 2015). Approximately 10,000
chum fry (Chico Creek origin from Suquamish Tribe) and 1,000 coho fry (Wallace River origin from
WDFW) are released in the spring each year by a retired school teacher who has been releasing fish
in the creek since the 1980s (Uusitalo 2015).
Sea-run cutthroat trout also spawn and rear in the Lund’s Gulch Creek system. Pfeifer (1979)
documented sea-run cutthroat trout throughout Lund’s Gulch Creek, including headwater areas
outside of the park.
Only two separate observations of steelhead adults have been reported, and both were for only one
adult. Pfeifer (1979) referenced Don Hendricks' (WDFW) observation of a single steelhead adult in
Lund’s Gulch Creek, presumably in the late 1970s. More recently, Tom Murdoch, of the Adopt A
Stream Foundation, reported seeing one steelhead adult relatively high in the system (Murdoch
2015).
Juvenile Chinook, coho, and chum salmon were documented in the lower 650 feet of the creek in a
study by Beamer et al. (2013). Because the creek does not provide habitat for Chinook spawning, the
presence of juvenile Chinook salmon indicates that the fish originated in other river systems,
outmigrated to Puget Sound, and, during their movements and rearing along the marine nearshore,
moved back into the available freshwater habitat associated with Lund’s Gulch Creek.
Other fish species documented in the creek are starry flounder and sculpins (Pfeifer 1979, Adopt A
Stream Foundation 2013). Starry flounder are entering the lower creek from the Puget Sound
shoreline. Sculpin distributions in the creek are generally restricted to the lower reaches of Lund’s
Gulch Creek due to partial barriers inadvertently created by vertical drops downstream of log
structures installed for restoration (Lantz et al. 2014).
Habitat data collected as part of the fish habitat assessment and described in the Lund’s Gulch Creek
Fish Habitat Assessment Report (Confluence 2017) includes channel type, flow regime, substrate,
wetted width and depth, pool characteristics, large woody debris (LWD), and habitat ratings. The
Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment Report is included as Appendix B.
6.2.1.1 Snohomish County Stream Buffer Guidance
Stream classifications and protective buffer widths for Lund’s Gulch Creek, per Chapter 30.62A.320 of
the SCC (Snohomish County 2017), are provided in Table 6-1.
Critical Areas Report 46 June 2018
Table 6-1 Snohomish County Code Stream Classification and Standard Buffer Distance
Stream
Snohomish County Water Typing
System Rating Snohomish County Buffer Width (feet)1
Lund’s Gulch Creek Type F 150
Note:
1. Snohomish County 2017. Snohomish County Code. Cited: October 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/.
6.2.2 Marine Waters
The marine OHWM delineation within the Project area included a 1,440-foot reach of shoreline,
bisected by Lund’s Gulch Creek and featuring a large tributary delta. Lund’s Gulch Creek flows from
the box culvert at about the midpoint of the marine OHWM delineation. The northerly net shore drift
contributes to a sand spit formation that forms a small protected sub-estuary, like a pocket estuary,
when the estuary channel turns to the north after flowing out of the culvert under the railroad. The
marine OHWM delineation results are shown on Figure 9.
The WDFW PHS database (2017a) identifies the estuarine marine habitat of Puget Sound offshore of
the Project area as Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), geoduck (Panopea generosa), and hard shell
clam priority habitat. Fish species documented in the Puget Sound include Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus
keta), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus malma) according to the WDFW PHS and
Salmonscape websites (WDFW 2017a and 2017b).
Eelgrass habitat in the intertidal area offshore of the Project area shoreline mapped as part of the
Project analysis are presented in the Eelgrass Survey of Meadowdale Beach Park (Confluence 2017).
6.2.2.1 Snohomish County Marine Waters Buffer Guidance
The protective buffer width for the marine waters within the Project area, per Chapter 30.62A.320 of
the SCC (Snohomish County 2017), is provided in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 Snohomish County Code Marine Waters Standard Buffer Distance
Waterbody Snohomish County Marine Waters Buffer Width (feet)1
Puget Sound 150
Note:
1. Snohomish County 2017. Snohomish County Code. Cited: October 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/.
Critical Areas Report 47 June 2018
6.3 Stream and Marine Waters Impacts Assessment
Under the proposed Project, habitat improvements that would improve freshwater and marine
aquatic habitat conditions over existing conditions include converting existing lawn to a restored
pocket estuary and riparian habitat, widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for
continued natural spit/barrier beach pocket estuary habitat development, enhancing the creek and
wetland buffers by planting native vegetation, and placing woody debris in and along the creek.
Construction activities include installation of a temporary diversion pipe to route water from the
creek to the beach during construction. This diversion would allow for stream work below the
OHWM to be conducted in the dry and minimize potential impacts to water quality. With the stream
diversion in place, streambed substrate would be removed, the existing box culvert would be
demolished, and grading of the new channel and wetland areas would occur. Grading below MHHW
for the new channel into the estuary would occur above the water line during low tides. These
measures to limit in-water work would avoid potential impacts to fish and aquatic wildlife species
that occur in the freshwater and marine environment.
Replacing the existing railroad berm and stream culvert with a bridge and installation of a pedestrian
bridge over the creek would result in a net increase in existing overwater cover. While the Project
results in a net increase in overwater cover, the increase in overwater cover from construction of the
railroad bridge allows for the removal of an existing barrier to fish passage, and provides renewed
opportunities for fish migration and refuge. No in-water pile driving is proposed; pile driving would
occur in upland areas or during low tide above the water line.
Details of the shoreline construction features and overwater coverage removal and new overwater
features are presented in Sections 2 and 7.1.3.
Critical Areas Report 48 June 2018
7 Environmental Resources Impact and Mitigation Summary
7.1 Impact Summary
A discussion of how the Project may affect marine, stream, and wetland habitats is provided here,
focusing on key construction and design elements related to water resources and fisheries habitat. A
brief summary of the existing stream and wetlands in the Project area is shown in Table 7-1; Figure 9
provides the location of these features.
Table 7-1 Existing Marine Water, Stream, and Wetland Characteristics
Resource Size (acres)
2014 State Rating (Ecology)
Habitat Rating Score (Ecology)
Local Rating Buffer Width (feet)1, 2
Snohomish County City of Edmonds Snohomish County City of Edmonds
Puget Sound Marine Waters 150
Lund’s Gulch Creek Type F 150
Wetland A 0.13 III 7 III 75
Wetland B 0.21 II 7 II 75
Wetland C 0.03 II 7 II 75
Wetland D 0.10 III 7 III 165
Wetland E 0.05 III 7 III 75 -
Wetland F 0.08 IV 6 IV 40
Wetland G 0.22 III 7 III 75
Wetland H 0.05 II 7 II 75
Notes:
1. Buffer based on Low Intensity Land Use. Snohomish County 2017. Snohomish County Code. Cited: October 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/. 2. City of Edmonds 2017. City of Edmonds Code. Cited: October 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/
7.1.1 Fill and Excavation Within Surface Waters or Wetlands
Grading would be conducted to allow the construction of park features including pedestrian access,
stormwater management, and recontouring the creek bed and shoreline, in order to support the
estuary restoration and provide a natural shoreline transition area.
The majority of earthwork would involve grading and excavation to create estuarine and freshwater
wetlands. A small portion of the fill and grading would occur below the OHWM of Lund’s Gulch
Creek or MHHW of Puget Sound (Table 7-2); this filling would occur in the creek bed and near the
shoreline for the purposes of aquatic habitat enhancement with approved materials (i.e., habitat
gravels). All fill material would be clean and sourced from approved borrow facilities.
Critical Areas Report 49 June 2018
One wetland on the site would have permanent, direct impacts from construction of the Project,
namely, to installed diamond pier foundations for the elevated pedestrian path segment over
Wetland B. The extent of impacts to Wetland B of 8 sf is extremely small. Temporary impacts to
Wetland F are associated with the temporary work pads for railroad bridge construction.
Table 7-2 Summary of Fill and Excavation within Surface Water or Wetlands
Activity Waterbody Impact Location Duration of Impact
Material to be Placed in or Removed from Waterbody
(cy)
Area of Waterbody Directly Affected (sf)
Shoreline Fill for Work Pads Puget Sound Beach below MHHW Temporary +4 102
Beach Excavation for Estuary Restoration
Puget Sound
Estuary restoration west of railroad, following removal of work pads below MHHW
Permanent (Enhancement) -85 2,868
Beach Sand Fill for Restoration Puget Sound
Estuary restoration west of railroad, following removal of work pads below MHHW
Permanent (Enhancement) +106 2,868
Culvert Removal and Excavation
Lund’s Gulch Creek
Existing channel below OHWM Permanent (Enhancement) -10 482
Sand and Gravel Fill for Channel Creation
Lund’s Gulch Creek
Under railroad berm below OHWM Permanent (Enhancement) +18 482
Stream Channel Fill for Work Pads
Lund’s Gulch Creek
Existing channel below OHWM Temporary +135 1,016
Excavation for Conversion to Estuary1
Lund’s Gulch Creek Stream channel Permanent (Enhancement) -390 3,286
Habitat Material Fill (gravel and large woody material)
Lund’s Gulch Creek Stream channel Permanent (Enhancement) +122 3,286
Fill for Elevated Path Segment Foundations Wetland B Diamond pier foundations (eight) Permanent +8 8
Fill Wetland F Work pad for railroad bridge construction Temporary +30 640
Note: A total of nearly 17,000 cy of excavation will be required for estuary restoration. The table only reflects excavation below the ordinary high water mark of Lund’s Gulch Creek.
Critical Areas Report 50 June 2018
7.1.2 Buffer Impacts to Surface Waters and Wetlands
Table 7-3 summarizes the impacts to marine, stream, and wetland buffers. All of the stream and
wetland buffers in the Project area would be impacted during and/or following construction of the
Project. As shown on Figure 9, the buffer areas for these resources overlap considerably.
Table 7-3 Summary of Impacts to Buffers of Surface Waters and Wetlands
Resource Category
Snohomish County City of Edmonds
Permanent
Buffer
Impact (sf)
Temporary
Buffer Impact
(sf)
Permanent
Buffer Impact
(sf)
Temporary
Buffer Impact
(sf)
Marine Buffer Area Only 370 7,700
Stream Buffer Area Only 780 3,700 80 0
Stream and Wetland Buffer Overlap Area 8,000 11,300 2,200 0
Wetland Buffer Area Only
Wetland D 70 0
Wetland F 1,060 230
Totals 9,150 22,700 1,130 230
7.1.3 Change in Overwater Cover
Change in overwater cover in Snohomish County will occur with removal of the stream culvert and
installation of a 40-foot-long pedestrian bridge over Lund’s Gulch Creek. Table 7-4 summarizes the
existing and proposed overwater cover over Lund’s Gulch Creek.
Table 7-4 Summary of Changes in Overwater Cover
Project Element
Overwater Cover (sf)
Removed New Net Change
Remove existing box culvert -530
Install new grated pedestrian bridge N/A +400
Totals -530 +400 -130
7.1.4 Upland Grading
Total upland (above OHWM and MHHW) excavation for the Project would remove approximately
17,100 cy of existing material from the site. Fill in upland areas for the project would place more than
Critical Areas Report 51 June 2018
4,200 cy of imported and salvaged materials. Table 7-5 summarizes the proposed upland grading,
excavation, and fill.
Table 7-5 Summary of Upland Grading Extents
Activity Snohomish County City of Edmonds Total
Grading (square feet) 144,000 24,000 168,000
Excavation/removal (cy) 17,000 600 17,600
Fill (cy) 3,900 600 4,500
7.1.5 Changes in Impervious Surfaces
The site currently includes 50,900 sf of impervious surfaces, including paved walkways, concrete slabs
supporting the restroom enclosure and picnic shelter, the access road and parking area, and the
existing pedestrian bridge. The proposed Project would remove approximately 9,400 sf of impervious
surface and add approximately 4,600 sf of new impervious surface, for a net reduction of 4,800 sf.
The new impervious surfaces include the railroad bridge, paved walkways on the south side of the
creek, minor widening of the access road east of the ADA parking area, and the concrete pad for the
relocated restroom enclosure.
7.1.6 Changes to Vegetation and Habitat Types
The Project seeks to protect native vegetation and existing mature trees to the extent possible. New
plantings would feature all native species. Much of the existing native vegetation and mature trees in
the ravine area would be protected. Figures 13 and 14 provide additional information regarding
vegetation removal and alteration, in addition to the following summary of vegetation removal and
alteration:
• Beach Shrub Vegetation: Removal of 7,500 sf of existing shrubs on the west side of the
railroad embankment would be addressed by planting new backshore native beach grass and
new riparian plantings on the beach north and south of the restored estuary channel.
• Conversion of Lawn Area to Creek and Estuary Habitat: Removal of 32,400 sf of lawn area
and installation of native vegetation, and a variety of wetland and riparian plant species would
be planted in the fringe areas of the restored estuary and stream.
• Conversion of Riparian Areas to Instream, Intertidal Wetland, and Freshwater Emergent
Wetland: Approximately 18,900 sf of riparian area would be converted to instream or wetland
habitat. The existing freshwater wetlands on the site would be preserved.
• Retention and Enhancement of Riparian Areas: All of the existing riparian area that is not
converted to instream or wetland habitat would remain and be enhanced with additional
Critical Areas Report 52 June 2018
native tree and shrub plantings, and approximately 11,300 sf of lawn, paths, and paved areas
would be converted to riparian areas
• Tree Removal and Replacement: Removal of approximately 40 trees in the restored estuary
location and 10 trees in the railroad right-of-way would be offset by new 275 native tree
plantings, as well as native shrub plantings, in riparian areas along Lund’s Gulch Creek and the
restored pocket estuary. The removed trees would also be reused as large woody materials or
snag features within riparian planting areas to support habitat enhancement.
7.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
The overarching ecological goal of the project is to restore the estuary of Lund’s Gulch Creek, which
will provide restoration of approximately 1.7 acres, including the following:
• Approximately 1.18 acres of tidal wetland habitat
• Approximately 0.28 acre of freshwater wetland habitat
• Approximately 0.23 acre of instream habitat
These restoration areas, as well as the planned additional beach substrate enhancement and
plantings of 0.46 acre and approximately 1.62 acres of riparian enhancement plantings, are depicted
on Figure 10.
7.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The proposed Project would avoid permanent adverse impacts to marine and stream waters below
MHHW and OHWM, respectively. The Project is designed to avoid direct impacts to existing wetlands
as much as possible, and the only direct impact to wetlands would be a negligible amount (8 sf, or
0.0001 acre) of impact to Wetland B. The impact to Wetland B is due to an elevated pedestrian
walkway segment that would provide park visitors access to the northern side of the restored
estuary. This ADA-accessible pedestrian path is a key component of the public access for the park.
Additional impacts to Wetland B were avoided by using the following measures:
• Locate the pedestrian walkway in the narrowest portion of the wetland
• Elevate the walkway over the wetland, to maintain wetland hydrology
• Use diamond pier foundations with smaller footprint to minimize wetland disturbance
Other impact minimization and avoidance measures for the project include the following:
• Locate all estuary excavation at least 10 feet from existing wetland boundaries
• Reconfigure improvements to the ADA access road to avoid fill in Wetland D
• Minimize footprint of new walkways and relocated restroom enclosure for a net decrease in
impervious surface of 4,800 sf
• Locate footings for new pedestrian bridge above OHWM; provide grating on bridge surface
to minimize potential shading impacts
Critical Areas Report 53 June 2018
• Avoid permanent impacts to Wetland F by locating widening of the southern pedestrian path
to meet ADA requirements outside of the wetland
Measures to minimize impacts to surface water during construction include the following:
• Provide a temporary diversion of Lund’s Gulch Creek to allow in-stream work to be conducted
in the dry and minimize water quality impacts; salvage fish from the whole distance of channel
diversion
• Install a sediment curtain at the discharge area for the temporary diversion to minimize water
quality impacts
• Construct improvements to the stormwater capture and treatment system
• Require the contractor to prepare and implement a Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan and a Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan to be used
for the duration of the Project
• Require the contractor to implement and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control
BMPs through construction until the site is vegetated
In addition, the following BMPs will be employed during construction:
• All work will be performed according to the requirements and conditions of the Project
permits
• In-water work will occur during the approved regulatory work window, or an approved
extension of the work window
• Turbidity and other water quality parameters will be monitored to ensure construction
activities are in compliance with Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (173-
201A WAC)
• The contractor will be required to develop and implement a SPCC Plan to be used for the
duration of the Project to safeguard against an unintentional release of fuel, lubricants, or
hydraulic fluid from construction equipment
• Excess or waste materials will not be disposed of or abandoned waterward of OHWM or
allowed to enter waters of the State
• No petroleum products; fresh cement, lime or concrete; chemicals; or other toxic or
deleterious materials will be allowed to enter surface waters
• The contractor will be required to retrieve any floating debris generated during construction
using a skiff and a net; debris will be disposed of at an appropriate upland facility
• The contractor will be required to properly maintain construction equipment and vehicles to
prevent them from leaking fuel or lubricants; if there is evidence of leakage, the further use of
such equipment will be suspended until the deficiency has been satisfactorily corrected
Critical Areas Report 54 June 2018
7.2.2 Impacts Associated with Estuary Restoration—No Additional
Mitigation Necessary
The Project is designed to restore and enhance the existing waterbodies on site. This includes
removing the existing culvert and creating a bridge to allow Lund’s Gulch Creek to return to a more
natural meander; restoring natural sediment transport processes at the mouth and on the delta;
improving connectivity of the creek channel, upland water sources, and Puget Sound; restoring and
enhancing riparian and in-stream habitat by planting conifers and placing large woody material;
restoring and creating estuary habitat; and providing stormwater treatment on site.
Nearly all the potential permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands discussed in Section 7.1.1,
classified as “Enhancement” in Table 7-2 and depicted on Figure 10, are impacts caused by the
construction of the estuary restoration. The restoration design provides the mitigation for these
impacts, and no additional mitigation is necessary. The single exception is the potential impact to
Wetland B, discussed in Section 7.2.3.
Some of the potential temporary impacts to surface waters and wetlands and their buffers, discussed
in Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2, respectively, are caused by necessary construction-related elements for
estuary restoration shown on Figure 16, including the stream diversion, work pads, and staging areas.
Temporary impacts of 0.002 acre to marine waters, 0.02 acre of stream waters, and 0.01 acre of
wetland waters will be addressed through restoration of tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, and
instream habitat at the location of the impact. For example, the temporary fill placed below OHWM
and MHHW for the work pads necessary for the railroad bridge construction will be removed during
construction of the estuary restoration. Similarly, the temporary fill placed in Wetland F of 0.01 acre
will be removed following construction and the wetland will be restored with additional plantings.
Finally, temporary impacts of 0.28 acre to stream and wetland buffers from construction staging
areas located inside the restored estuary area will be addressed through the restored habitat created
by construction of the estuary.
7.2.3 Mitigation for Impacts Outside of Estuary Restoration
The potential permanent impact to Wetland B would occur from the installation of diamond pier
foundations for the elevated pedestrian walkway segment. The permanent impact of 8 square feet is
nearly negligible, but will be mitigated through restoration of freshwater wetland habitat in the
estuary. (Additional avoidance and minimization measures for impacts to Wetland B are discussed in
Section 7.2.1.)
The potential permanent impacts to surface water and wetland buffers identified in Section 7.1.2 and
depicted on Figure 10, total 0.28 acre and are largely due to the installation of ADA-accessible
pedestrian walkways and overlooks. Permanent buffer impacts will also occur with minor widening of
the ADA-access road, which will also be used for construction access and material hauling. The
Critical Areas Report 55 June 2018
permanent impacts to buffer areas will be mitigated through riparian plantings along Lund’s Gulch
Creek.
The potential temporary impacts in surface water and wetland buffers of 0.31 acre will be mitigated
through habitat restoration or enhancement at or near the location of the impact. All temporary
impacts would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Temporary impacts to buffers outside of the restored
estuary area from staging on the lawn area, and construction access for installation of the pedestrian
bridge will be addressed through riparian plantings along Lund’s Gulch Creek, upstream of the new
pedestrian bridge.
A summary of impacts and associated mitigation measures is shown in Table 7-6.
Table 7-6 Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact Type/Activity
Impact Amount (acre)
Required Mitigation Ratio1
Required Mitigation (acre)
Proposed Mitigation Methods Total
Construction of Restored Estuary
Riparian Enhancement Plantings
Permanent Impacts
Wetland B (diamond pier installation) 0.0001 3:1 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003
Stream and wetland buffers (pedestrian walkways and overlooks; access road widening)
0.28 3:1 0.84 0.84 0.84
Permanent Totals 0.29 0.86 0.86
Temporary Impacts
Stream and wetland buffers (construction staging and access outside of estuary area)
0.31 1:1 0.31 0.31 0.31
Temporary Totals 0.31 0.31
Note:
1. Per Snohomish County Code 30.62A.320
7.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards
This section describes the goals, objectives, and performance standards for the proposed mitigation
to address permanent impacts to wetland, stream, and marine habitat identified in Table 7-6. Goals
describe the overall intent of mitigation efforts, and objectives describe individual components of the
Critical Areas Report 56 June 2018
mitigation site in detail. Performance standards set the guidelines for monitoring and evaluation of
the restored estuary and improved wetland and stream habitats. Restoration goals, objectives, and
performance standards are described in Section 7.4.
Because the majority of the mitigation is for wetland, stream, and marine buffer impacts, the
mitigation goals, objectives, and performance standards are directed at the establishment of a
functioning native plant community. The minor component of estuary restoration is discussed in
Section 7.4.
7.3.1 Goal 1: Establish Native Plant Communities
Objective 1-1: Plant communities will be restored by installing native trees, shrubs, and emergent
species.
• Performance Standard 1: Average survival of planted trees will be at least 90% at the end of
Year 1.
• Performance Standard 2: Within planted areas identified in Table 7-6, native riparian
vegetation species cover shall be at least 25% by Year 3, at least 50% by Year 5, and 70%
cover by Year 10.
• Performance Standard 3: Native herbaceous coverage within designated estuary and beach
areas shall be at least 50% by Year 3, 70% by Year 5, and 95% by Year 10.
• Performance Standard 4: Invasive, non-native plant species are maintained at levels below
20% total cover within planted riparian areas. Species such as creeping buttercup may not
necessarily be included in invasive cover standards as long as those species do not interfere
with long-term goals.
7.3.2 Mitigation Monitoring, Maintenance, and Contingency Plan
To ensure success of the mitigation, a 10-year monitoring and reporting program will be
implemented. Monitoring will include restored or enhanced wetland, stream, and buffer habitat
impacted by the Project construction. Installed vegetation communities will be monitored to assess
habitat function and, in the case of temporary wetland and wetland buffer impacts, performance of
enhancement efforts, including monitoring at Years 1, 3, 5, and 10. Prior to the first monitoring visit,
as-built (or Year 0) plans will be prepared to document the constructed site conditions. Any changes
to the approved planting designs that are required by field conditions encountered during plan
implementation must be documented on the as-built plans. Based on as-built plans or record
drawings, monitoring will take place during the growing season, (preferably late summer or early fall)
prior to leaf drop, during the first 10 years after construction, in accordance with the monitoring
reporting years. A report for those years of monitoring will be submitted to the County, Ecology, the
Corps, and others, if required. This report will be submitted by December 31 of the applicable year.
Critical Areas Report 57 June 2018
Four reports (following Years 1, 3, 5, and 10) will be prepared. If issues are identified during off-years,
they will be addressed immediately, triggering potential contingency actions.
Monitoring activities will focus on the collection of vegetation data to evaluate, describe, and
quantify to the extent possible riparian functions and compliance with the performance standards.
Monitoring would also include photographic documentation of site features and the development of
habitat features on the site.
All monitoring would use standard ecological techniques to sample, measure, or describe vegetation
and wildlife habitat conditions. General monitoring methods are described in the following
subsections.
7.3.2.1 Methods to Monitor Progress in Attaining the Performance Standards
Each monitoring report will include an evaluation of the mitigation to ensure that the goals,
objectives, and performance standards are being met. The performance standards above will be
monitored using the following methods.
7.3.2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Planted and naturally colonizing vegetation will be monitored to measure both the success of the
planting efforts and interspersion of wetland classes, as defined by Cowardin and others (1979). The
following information on shrub and tree vegetation will be collected:
• All plant species, in the order of dominance, based on relative percentage cover of each
species within each of the vegetative strata
• The species composition (i.e., percentage of each species, exotic or native
• Average height and general health of each planted species
Permanent photograph stations will be established; photographs will be taken in the same direction
at these stations every monitoring year.
7.3.2.3 Maintenance Actions
Maintenance will be performed regularly to address conditions that could jeopardize the success of
the mitigation. During regular monitoring visits, any necessary maintenance actions will be identified
and reported to the County.
Established performance standards for the Project will be compared to the monitoring results to
judge the success of the mitigation. If there is a significant problem with achieving the performance
standards, the County shall develop a corrective action plan. Corrective actions may include, but are
not limited to, additional plant installation and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and
location. Maintenance and remedial action on site will be implemented immediately upon
Critical Areas Report 58 June 2018
completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). Typical
maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to, the following:
• During Year 1, replace all dead planted material to achieve 90% survival.
• Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goals and
objectives of the mitigation.
• Re-plant the area after reason for failure has been identified and corrected (e.g., moisture
regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.).
• Remove and control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass,
non-native blackberries, bindweed, purple loosestrife, etc.). Use of herbicides or pesticides
within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were
considered unlikely to be successful. Mulch rings may be maintained on trees and shrubs,
until they become established.
• Remove trash and other undesirable debris.
7.3.2.4 Contingency Plan
Contingency plans describe what actions can be taken to correct site deficiencies. Mitigation goals,
objectives, and performance standards create a baseline by which to measure if the site is
performing as proposed and whether or not a contingency plan is necessary. All contingencies
cannot be anticipated. The contingency plan will be flexible so that modifications can be made if
portions of the final design do not produce the desired results. Problems or potential problems will
be evaluated by a qualified wetland ecologist, the County, the Corps, and Ecology. Specific
contingency actions will be developed, agreed to by consensus, and implemented based on all
scientifically and economically feasible recommendations.
Contingencies may include the following:
• Additional plantings or changing species selections to correct excessive mortality
• Fencing or other measures to reduce trampling
• Additional monitoring or unscheduled monitoring during Years 1 through 10
The County will implement contingency plans on an as-needed basis. Contingency plans will be
developed for review and approval by regulatory agencies, as appropriate. In addition, implemented
contingency plans will be described in the next monitoring report. Contingency plans shall be
submitted by December 31 of the year in which deficiencies are discovered. A contingency plan, if
required, will be submitted before construction activities.
If, during the monitoring program, other maintenance needs are identified as necessary to ensure
the success of the mitigation Project, they will be implemented, unless generated by third parties or
acts of nature.
Critical Areas Report 59 June 2018
7.4 Estuary Restoration Monitoring
To measure success of the estuary restoration, a 10-year monitoring program will be implemented to
evaluate the function of the restored estuary in relationship to the goals for the Project. The goals of
the estuary restoration effort and associated monitoring protocols are provided below.
Goal No. 1: Restore natural tidal regime to improve salmonid access and refuge opportunities
Target: Restored estuary will allow natural tidal fluctuations and appropriate depths and velocities
for juvenile and adult passage
Monitoring Protocol:
• Install velocity meter in the low-flow channel to record velocities for one year following
construction. Develop velocity/frequency curve.
• Install water-level logger in estuary upstream of the railroad for 1 year following construction.
Develop depth/frequency curve.
• Conduct channel cross-section and profile surveys in Years 1, 5, and 10 following construction
to evaluate if fish access conditions are maintained. Document changes and identify causal
factors for changes observed.
Goal No. 2: Improve habitat for fish and wildlife species
Targets:
• Achieve 50–70% cover of native vegetation species planted per design at designated
representative monitoring plots within 5 years post-construction and sustain for lifetime of
the Project.
• Reduce non-native vegetation species to less than 20% cover within 5 years post-
construction.
• Document habitat functions via the Washington State Wetlands Rating System (Hruby 2014)
and Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions (HGM model, Hruby et al. 2001) in Year 10
following construction. Compare scores to the baseline condition.
Monitoring Protocol:
• Establish five permanent vegetation plots to be representative of the plant communities and
restored areas. Permanent plots shall be 33-foot-diameter circular plots (center point of each
plot will be documented via GPS coordinates to reoccupy in each sampling). Percent cover will
be visually assessed and documented for each stratum (herbs, shrubs, trees, woody vines) and
each species with more than 5% cover. Sampling will occur in Years 1, 3, 5, and 10 following
construction. Meet mitigation performance standards for plant communities.
Critical Areas Report 60 June 2018
• Conduct stream/estuary survey of habitat units and large wood in Years 1, 3, 5, and 10
following construction, using appropriate protocol such as recommended in the Status and
Trends Monitoring of Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery (Ecology 2006).
• Conduct habitat functions via the Washington State Wetlands Rating System (Hruby 2014)
and Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions (HGM model; Hruby et al. 1999) in Year 10
following construction. Compare scores to the baseline condition.
Prior to the first monitoring visit, as-built (or Year 0) plans will be prepared to document the
constructed estuary and restoration site conditions. Any changes to the approved estuary restoration
designs would be documented on the as-built plans. Based on as-built plans or record drawings,
monitoring will take place during the growing season, (preferably late summer or early fall) prior to
leaf drop, during the first 10 years after construction, in accordance with the monitoring reporting
years. A report for those years of monitoring will be provided to the County, Ecology, the Corps, and
others, if desired. This report will be submitted by December 31 of the applicable year.
Critical Areas Report 61 June 2018
8 Geologically Hazardous Areas Assessment
Geologic Hazardous Areas (SCC 30.62B, ECC 23.80) in the Project area include erosion hazard areas,
landslide hazard areas, and seismic hazard areas (Snohomish County 2017, Edmonds, 2018).
8.1 Methods
Geologic hazard areas (GHAs) were evaluated in 2016 and 2017 via an analysis of Light Detection
and Ranging (LiDAR) data, site reconnaissance, and analysis of the information and site classifications
based on regulatory geologic hazard definitions. Results of the GHA analysis are presented in the
Geologically Hazardous Areas, Meadowdale Beach Park Estuary Restoration Project Memorandum
(Shannon & Wilson 2018), included as Appendix D and summarized in the following subsections.
8.2 Geologically Hazardous Areas Results
Erosion hazard areas are present throughout much of the site, and after construction are anticipated
to be essentially unchanged from their present condition except during construction. During
construction, BMPs are anticipated to mitigate erosion hazard until permanent erosion control
features and site restoration are completed.
Seismic hazards include ground rupture, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The
liquefaction susceptibility map of Snohomish County (Palmer et al. 2004) indicates the Project site
has low to very low susceptibility.
Most of the site is defined as a Landslide Hazard Area (SCC 30.91L.040, ECC 23.80.020), as it includes
the following elements:
• As defined in SCC 30.91L.040 because they have:
‒ Vertical height greater than 10 feet
‒ Areas of historical and active landslides
‒ Most of the slope areas are steeper than 33%
‒ Slopes intersect geologic contacts between relatively permeable sediment overlying
relatively impermeable sediment
‒ Slopes contain springs and groundwater seeps
• As defined in ECC 23.80.020 because they have:
‒ Areas of ancient or historical failures
‒ Coastal areas mapped as u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides) in the Department of
Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas
‒ Most of the slope areas are steeper than 40% with a vertical height of more than 10 feet
‒ Slopes intersect geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a
relatively impermeable sediment.
‒ Slopes contain springs or groundwater seepage
Critical Areas Report 62 June 2018
Additionally, the relatively flat valley bottom is classified as a landslide hazard area (LHA), as defined
in SCC 30.91L.040 because of the following:
• It is in a canyon and an active alluvial fan, susceptible to inundation by debris flows or
catastrophic flooding
• It is entirely encompassed within the boundaries defined as twice the valley wall steep slope
height measured from the toe of the slope
The park and stream areas qualify as GHA, as defined in both SCC 30.91L.040 and ECC 23.80.020
because they have the following:
• An area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion.
• They are on an alluvial fan, presently potentially subject to inundation by debris flow or
deposition of stream-transported sediments.
Geologic hazards in the Project area are shown on Figure 12.
8.3 Geologically Hazardous Areas Impact Assessment
Potential landslide hazards are both deep-seated and shallow, and may be natural or the result of
past disturbance of the natural conditions. The deep-seated landslides are relict, and very unlikely to
reactivate naturally or as the result of the proposed site improvements. There are many instances of
shallow landsliding, as follows:
• The cut slope of the road is too steep to maintain a stable condition. This slope has failed
many times in the past, and can be expected to fail in discrete small areas (on the order of 5
to 100 cy) in the future. The trees on this slope will also fall of their own volition or along with
a soil mass. The trees constitute a particular danger to the walking and driving public. Sudden
shallow landslides and tree falls are likely, but not exclusively, to occur during the winter
months.
• The outside edge of the roadway is loose sidecast fill for perhaps as much as 80% of the road
alignment length. Where there are signs of distress in the pavement or the guard rail,
measures need to be taken to remediate the road; however, other sidecast fill areas are still
susceptible to failure or settlement in the future. Such failures could endanger drivers if failure
of soils beneath the existing roadway occurred and a void developed suddenly and was
undetected.
The bluff along the BNSF tracks is exposed and vertical, and fails periodically in blocks defined by
joints in the glacially overridden soil. The soil comes to rest in the railroad drainage ditch. Failures of
this type will not affect the Project area, and BNSF has posted No Trespassing signs, making access
off limits.
Critical Areas Report 63 June 2018
8.3.1 Geotechnical Report Results Summary
The Project geotechnical report includes slope stability analyses and recommendations to improve
stability along the downslope access road shoulder under anticipated construction traffic.
Recommended stability improvements include installing soil nail reinforcement and slope face
confinement features within specified portions of the access road shoulder. Recommended stability
improvement analyses indicate recommended factors of safety are satisfied under anticipated
construction traffic loading.
8.3.2 Landslide Hazard Area Review Summary
To comply with SCC 30.62B.340, structures in LHA must be designed to provide protection
commensurate to being located outside of the LHA. This condition applies to the proposed restroom
enclosure. A retaining wall structure, located immediately south of the asphalt walking path and
between the proposed restroom enclosure and steep slope south of the structure, will be included in
the Project design to provide protection from landslide runout. Recommendations for the retaining
wall structure will be included in the Project geotechnical report.
To comply with ECC 23.40.280, structures in LHA buffer zones must not cause landslides. In our
opinion, the proposed restroom enclosure will not cause landslides and will not increase the
potential for landslides on the slope above the proposed structure.
The south entrance road stability improvements will increase slope stability within the footprint of
those features and, in our opinion, will neither increase the risk of property damage, injury, or death,
nor increase similar risks to neighboring properties.
Liquefaction is not likely along the access road because groundwater is low or non-existent.
However, in the parking lot and in the open field and picnic area to the west of the Ranger’s house,
the groundwater level is high and the soils may be very loose to medium dense, making them
susceptible to liquefaction and damage under seismic shaking. This hazard could potentially
heighten the risk for structures in this area, such as the proposed restroom enclosure and pedestrian
bridge across Lund’s Gulch Creek. Mitigative measures have been recommended, as appropriate, in
the Project geotechnical report. In the parking lot, it may be more economical in the long term to
repair damaged pavement due to liquefaction.
To maintain stability and prevent erosion along the entrance road, existing surface grades should be
maintained such that surface water and groundwater continue to flow toward ditches, and ditches
should be regularly cleared. Impervious surfaces will be minimized to the extent possible, and native
vegetation will be retained. The exception to this is the cutting of leaning trees along the entrance
road that could fall with or without slope movement. Evaluation of the trees could be provided by a
professional forester.
Critical Areas Report 64 June 2018
9 Special Flood Hazard Areas
Portions of the proposed Project are located within the special flood hazard area (Zone AE) of the
Puget Sound per FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel, 53061C1305 E, effective date
November 18, 1999 (Figure 11). The County is also in the process of adopting new flood hazard
maps and Flood Insurance Study (FIS). These Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs)
were made available to the county in July 2016. The 2016 DFIRM (currently preliminary) map is
provided on page 67. The proposed Project, if the maps are adopted, would be located partially
within, and adjacent to, the coastal velocity zone “VE” Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) per FEMA
DFIRM panel 53061C1305F, revised preliminary July 22, 2016. Based on the preliminary FIS and
corresponding DFIRMs, the base flood elevation in this area is 16 feet North American Vertical
Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), which was determined based on the 2% wave runup elevation combined
with the 1% water surface stillwater elevation.
To support the County’s issuance of a Flood Hazard permit, the BA prepared for the Project serves to
demonstrate compliance with the Biological Opinion written by NMFS on September 22, 2008,
regarding National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Based on the preliminary 2016 DFIRM, the portions of the site located west of the existing railway
berm are located within the CHHA designated as “VE” for high energy wave and storm surge flood
hazards. The affected areas of the site include the coastal sediments extending upland to the existing
railroad berm at the site. No flood flow evaluation was performed for Lund’s Gulch Creek as part of
the 1999 or 2016 FIS to determine the 100-year base flood elevations due to the creek or for any
areas located east of the railroad. The VE zone does not currently extend landward of the railroad
berm despite potential for high waters from coastal storms to affect upland areas east of the railroad
through the existing box culvert. Therefore, the only existing site features that are located within the
official VE flood hazard zone based on the 2016 preliminary FIS and DFIRM include only the beach
sediments located on the west side of the railroad extending up to an elevation of 16 feet NAVD88
on the west side of the railroad berm.
However, SCC Chapter 30.65.100, Floodprooofing: Use of Available Data, requires that where the
County can reasonably utilize base flood elevation data available from federal, state or other sources,
the specific flood hazard protection standards are required (SCC 30.65.120 and 30.65.230). Therefore,
it may be required to consider the existing box culvert and upland areas east of the railroad bridge
below elevation 16 feet NAVD88 to be within the VE flood hazard zone. This assumption would
require additional aspects of the Project, including the proposed railroad bridge and estuary grading
work, to be considered as part of the VE flood hazard zone in areas with an elevation below 16 feet
NAVD88.
Critical Areas Report 65 June 2018
With the proposed habitat restoration Project, which requires regrading the beach sediments,
removing the existing culvert and replacing it with a wide railroad bridge, and excavating the upland
soils west of the railroad to create a tidal estuary, it is expected that the extents of the VE hazard
zone would include many of these Project areas with excavations below the 16 feet NAVD88 base
flood elevation. It is reasonable to assume that the coastal hazard zone proposed railroad bridge is
wide enough to allow for tidal exchange and potentially for waves and wave runup (i.e., VE-level
hazards) to propagate east of the railroad bridge. The location of temporary construction staging
and laydown areas that will be partially or wholly within the coastal high hazard area VE is provided
on Figure 16. Figure 6a shows the proposed grade at the site and the area that would be below the
16 feet NAVD88 base flood elevation. Therefore, for the purposes of evaluating the flood hazard
criteria requirements, it was assumed that the areas of the proposed shoreline regrading, new
railroad bridge, and upland excavation would be subject to future VE zone flood hazard
requirements.
The applicable requirements from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 44, Section 60.3(e)
for VE Zones were evaluated for the proposed project. Many of the requirements in Section 60.3(e)
are not applicable to the proposed construction in the flood zone VE for the Project, as they pertain to
construction of residential structures. The applicable requirements of the CFR include the following:
• The bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member must be elevated to or above the
base flood level
• The pile or column foundation and supported structure must be anchored to resist collapse,
displacement, or structural damage to either the supporting structure or elevated portion of
the structure due to the combined effects of winds and water loads, with water loads
consisting of the water loads associated with the base flood (wave runup).
• Prohibit man-made alterations of sand dunes which would increase potential flood damage.
Based on the evaluation of these criteria, it was determined that the proposed Project satisfies the
minimum NFIP requirements for CFR Chapter 44, Section 60.3(e). The low chord elevation of the
design railroad bridge is 16.45 feet NAVD88, which is 0.45 foot higher than the required 2016 DFIRM
base flood elevation of 16 feet NAVD88. In addition, the railroad bridge design uses structural steel
columns that are designed to be resistant to the highest flows in Lund’s Gulch Creek as well as resist
wave runup forces combined with inundation of the piles (i.e., buoyant forces). Appropriate factors of
safety were used during the structural design of the railroad for the combined effects of each loading
scenario. The proposed grading of the Lunch’s Gulch Creek delta channel and grading required for
the staging areas does not qualify as a man-made alteration of sand dunes that would increase
potential flood damage. Based on the Preliminary FIS, there are no primary frontal dunes identified
at the site that help to prevent coastal flooding as the beach is separated from the upland by the
railroad berm.
Critical Areas Report 66 June 2018
Placeholder for FIRM map
Critical Areas Report 67 June 2018
Placeholder for DFIRM map
Critical Areas Report 68 June 2018
10 References
Adopt A Stream Foundation, 2013. Lund's Gulch Creek Rapid Assessment. Available at
http://www.streamkeeper.org/aasf/Lunds_Gulch_Creek.html.
Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2016. Feasibility Report: Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility
Study. Prepared for Snohomish County. June 2016.
Anchor QEA, 2017. Meadowdale Beach County Park Project Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Report. Prepared for Snohomish County. November 2017.
Anchor QEA, 2018. Meadowdale Beach Park Estuary Restoration Project Biological Assessment.
Prepared for Snohomish County. March 2018.
Brown, E.R., (ed.), 1985. Management of Wildlife Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and
Washington, Volumes 1 and 2.
Beamer, E.M., W.T. Zackey, D. Marks, D. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R. Henderson, 2013. Juvenile Chinook
Salmon Rearing in Small Non-Natal Streams Draining into the Whidbey Basin. Skagit River
System Cooperative. Accessed December 3, 2013. Available at:
http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/EB2752_Beamer%20et%20al_2013.pdf
City of Edmonds, 2017. Edmonds City Code. Available at:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/
Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company), 2016. Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment
Report. Prepared for Snohomish County. December 2016.
Confluence, 2017. Eelgrass Survey of Meadowdale Beach Park. Prepared for Snohomish County.
November 2017.
Corps (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). J.S. Wakeley,
R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble (eds.). ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Ecology, 2006. Status and Trends Monitoring for Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery, Quality
Assurance Monitoring Plan. Ecology Publication No. 06-03-203.
Ecology, 2008. Wetland Rating Form – Western Washington, Version 2. October 2008.
Critical Areas Report 69 June 2018
Ecology, 2017. Environmental Information; Watersheds; WRIA 8 Cedar-Sammamish Basin. Accessed
October 13, 2017. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/wria/08.html.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station.
Hallock, M., and P.E. Mongillo. 1998. Washington State status report for the pygmy whitefish. Wash.
Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 20 pp. Accessed February 13, 2018. Available at:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00222/.
Hruby, T., T. Granger, K. Brunner, S. Cooke, K. Dublanica, R. Gersib, L. Reinelt, K. Richter, D. Sheldon,
E. Teachout, A. Wald, F. Weinmann, 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions, Volume I:
Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 99-115.
Hruby, T., 2014. Washington State Wetlands Rating System – Western Washington: 2014 Update.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029.
Lantz, D.W., H.B. Berge, and R.A. Tabor, 2014. Effects of Small Barriers on the Distribution of Sculpins
(Cottus spp.) in Puget Sound Lowland Streams. Poster presented at the 2014 Salish Sea
Ecosystem Conference in Seattle, Washington. Available at:
http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-andland/science/SalishSea-2014/04POSTER-
2014-04-30-Lantz-Berge-Tabor-Effects-of-small-barriers-ondistribution-of-sculpins.pdf.
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.
Available at: http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/index.html
Minard, J.P., 1982. Geologic map of the Mukilteo quadrangle, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1438, scale 1:24,000.
Mongillo, P.E. and Hallock, M., 1999. Washington state status report for the Olympic mudminnow.
Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 36 pp. Accessed February 13, 2018. Available at:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00221/wdfw00221.pdf
Munsell, 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland.
Murdoch, Tom, 2015. Personal communication between Tom Murdoch, Executive Director of Adopt A
Stream Foundation, and Paul Schlenger, Confluence Environmental Company, on March 9, 2015.
Critical Areas Report 70 June 2018
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2017. Endangered Species Act status reviews and listing
information. Accessed October 13, 2017. Available at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.
noaa.gov/ protected_species/salmon_steelhead/salmon_and_steelhead.html
Palmer, S.P., S.L. Magsino, E.L. Bilderback, and others, 2004. Liquefaction susceptibility map of
Snohomish County, Washington, in liquefaction susceptibility and site class maps for
Washington State, by county: Washington State Department of Geology and Earth Resources,
Open File Report 2004–20, sheet 61, scale 1:150,000.
Pfeifer, R.L., 1979. A Survey of Lund’s Gulch Creek in Edmonds, Washington. Washington State Game
Department. February 1979.
Shannon & Wilson (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.), 2018. Geologically Hazardous Areas, Meadowdale Beach
Park Estuary Restoration Project. Prepared for Snohomish County. April 2018.
Snohomish County, 2017. Snohomish County Code. Accessed October 13, 2017. Available at:
http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2017a. Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil
Survey. Accessed October 13, 2017. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app.
USDA, 2017b. Hydric Soil List for Snohomish County Area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Accessed October 13, 2017. Available at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateId=WA.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2017a. Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands Inventory
Map Information. Accessed October 13, 2017. Available at: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov.
USFWS, 2017b. Endangered Species Act status reviews and listing information. Accessed October 13,
2017. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
Uusitalo, Duane, 2015. Personal communication with Mr. Uusitalo (retired school teacher who rears and
releases hatchery salmon) and Paul Schlenger (Confluence Environmental Co.) on March 9, 2015.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 1993. Status of the Lrch Mountain Salamander
(Plethodon larselli) in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia. Accessed
February 13, 2018. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01519/wdfw01519.pdf
WDFW, 2017a. Priority Habitats and Species Maps. Accessed October 13, 2017. Available at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/.
WDFW, 2017b. SalmonScape. Accessed October 13, 2017. Available at:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/.
Figures
Puget Sound
Meadowdale BeachCounty Park
Lund's Gulch Creek
Railroad Right-of-Way (ROW)
City of Edmonds
Snohomish County
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:Project AreaLund's Gulch CreekPark BoundarySnohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:04 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-01\Figure1_VicinityMap.mxd
Figure 1Vicinity MapMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
)Project Site
KING COUNTY
SNOHOMISH COUNTYEdmonds
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
[0 300
FeetSOURCE:USDS NRCS Web Soil Survey
LEGEND:
Soil TypesAlderwoodAlderwood-Everett-ComplexFluvaquents
Project Area
Publish Date: 2017/02/21, 10:30 AM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2017_01\SitePlan_Soils.mxd
Figure 1aSoil Types within Project AreaMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:NWI WetlandsEstuarine and Marine DeepwaterEstuarine and Marine Wetland
Project Area
Publish Date: 2017/02/21, 10:31 AM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2017_01\SitePlan_NWI.mxd
Figure 1bExisting National Wetland Inventory Mapping DataMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
Upper Lawn Area
Tunnel/Culvert
BNSF Railroad
ADA/Service Vehicle Access Road
Pedestrian Bridge
EntranceGate
75th Place W
Beach Area
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:Lund's Gulch CreekProject AreaSnohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:06 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-01\Figure2_ExistingFeatures.mxd
Figure 2Project Area and Existing Site FeaturesMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
10891112121
2 1210108892522 2324152013141
6
171819152
011
12
1314 1617181818
192
1
21
21
2222
2324151520121213131414
1
6 1617171
8
192122232424152
0
25131314161718181819
212223
241010101010101515202020201
5
2011
11
11
12
12
12
131
4
1
414
1616161616 17
1818181818 191919
21100' BNSF ROW
PICNIC SHELTER
VOLLEYBALL
COURT
ASPHALT
PATH
CONCRETE CULVERT, SLABS,
GRATING, AND CHANNEL MATERIALS
CONC. PAD, PICNIC
TABLE, GRILL
RESTROOMENCLOSURE,
FOUNDATION,
AND CONC. SLAB
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
ROCKERY
STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN(TYPE I)
CONIFER
DECIDUOUS
EDGE OF ASPHALT
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UNDERGROUND STORM LINE
UNDERGROUND SEWER GRAVITY LINE
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE
UNDERGROUND WATER LINE
UNDERGROUND POWER LINE
FENCING
CONC
P.A.
ABBREVIATIONS:
PLANTED AREA
CONCRETE
POWER VAULT
GRAVEL PATH
LOG DEBRIS
UNDERGROUND SEWER FORCEMAIN LINE
PICNIC TABLE
MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEVATION (+9')
WETLAND BOUNDARY
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM)
LEGEND:
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:34 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Existing.dwg Figure 3a
Figure 3a
Existing Conditions Plan (1 of 3)
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
25222324 2627283540
36 37 38 39
4142
5560653531
31
32
323232
33
3334
34
362
5 3035
2
1
21
21
2222
23242626 2627 28
2
9
31
32
3
3
3
4
36
20253021222324242426272829
313233
25 303
5
35
3540452223
24
2
6 2
7
2
8 2931323334343436373839 4142434446512025301818181818191919212223242627
2727
282
828
292929
31 32 33PICNIC SHELTER
VOLLEYBALL
COURT
RANGER
RESIDENCE
ASPHALTPARKING LOT
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
ROCKERY
STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN(TYPE I)
CONIFER
DECIDUOUS
EDGE OF ASPHALT
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UNDERGROUND STORM LINE
UNDERGROUND SEWER GRAVITY LINE
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE
UNDERGROUND WATER LINE
UNDERGROUND POWER LINE
FENCING
CONC
P.A.
ABBREVIATIONS:
PLANTED AREA
CONCRETE
POWER VAULT
GRAVEL PATH
LOG DEBRIS
UNDERGROUND SEWER FORCEMAIN LINE
PICNIC TABLE
MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEVATION (+9')
WETLAND BOUNDARY
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM)
LEGEND:
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Existing.dwg Figure 3b
Figure 3b
Existing Conditions Plan (2 of 3)
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
40
4
5
50
39
4142
43
4
4
4
6
47
48
4955606570758085909510010511011512012540455
0
37
38 39 4142434446
47
48
49
5
1
ASPHALTROAD
1151201
2
5
12
5
13
0
ACCESS GATE
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
ROCKERY
STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN(TYPE I)
CONIFER
DECIDUOUS
EDGE OF ASPHALT
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UNDERGROUND STORM LINE
UNDERGROUND SEWER GRAVITY LINE
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE
UNDERGROUND WATER LINE
UNDERGROUND POWER LINE
FENCING
CONC
P.A.
ABBREVIATIONS:
PLANTED AREA
CONCRETE
POWER VAULT
GRAVEL PATH
LOG DEBRIS
UNDERGROUND SEWER FORCEMAIN LINE
PICNIC TABLE
MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEVATION (+9')
WETLAND BOUNDARY
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM)
LEGEND:
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Existing.dwg Figure 3c
Figure 3c
Existing Conditions Plan (3 of 3)
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWFIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Figure 4 Proposed Project Site Plan Overview Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project Filepath: \\fuji\anchor\Projects\Snohomish County\Meadowdale Beach Park\Park and Habitat Design\Task 6 Env Review Permitting\Deliverables\Draft Figures\Figure4_Project Site Plan.docx
152
0
25131314161718181819
212223
2410891112121
2 1210108892522 2324152013141
6
171819152
011
12
1314 1617181818
192
1
21
21
2222
2324151520121213131414
1
6 1617171
8
1921222324241010101010
10151520202020888 99
9 1111121213131414161617171818191921211
5
20PUGET SOUND
PICNIC TABLE (TYP)
BENCH (TYP)
8' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
10' WIDEASPHALT PATH
40' PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
6' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
FOOTWASH AND
LANDSCAPE BOULDER
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
CONCRETE
SEATWALL
10' WIDE
ASPHALT PATH
CONCRETE PLINTH
SWALE
ROCK ARMOR AND RAILROAD BRIDGE
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Composite Site Plan.dwg Figure 5a
Figure 5a
Composite Site Plan (1 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
12" BEACH SAND
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
SNAG
ROCK ARMORING
STREAMBED AND SWALE COBBLES
CRUSHED ROCK PATH OR TRENCH
ASPHALT PATH/PAD
CONCRETE PATH/PAD
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
PICNIC TABLE
BENCH
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT PLANTING
RIPARIAN PLANTING
FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANTING
HIGH TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
LOW TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
BACKSHORE BEACH PLANTING
LAWN
ROCK-LINED SWALE
PROPOSED CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
EXISTING ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
10
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
25 303
5
35
3540452223
24
2
6 2
7
2
8 2931323334343436373839 41424344465125222324262728352
5 3035
2
1
21
21
2222
23242626 2627 28
2
9
31
32
3
3
3
4
36
20253021222324242426272829
3132332025 303540
36 37 38 39
4142
LUND'
S
G
U
L
C
H
C
R
E
E
K
PICNIC TABLE (TYP)
BENCH (TYP)
8' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
10' WIDEASPHALT PATH
40' PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
6' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
CONCRETE PLINTH
SWALE
RESTRIPE ADA PARKING STALLS
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Composite Site Plan.dwg Figure 5b
Figure 5b
Composite Site Plan (2 of 3)
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
12" BEACH SAND
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
SNAG
ROCK ARMORING
STREAMBED AND SWALE COBBLES
CRUSHED ROCK PATH OR TRENCH
ASPHALT PATH/PAD
CONCRETE PATH/PAD
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
PICNIC TABLE
BENCH
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT PLANTING
RIPARIAN PLANTING
FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANTING
HIGH TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
LOW TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
BACKSHORE BEACH PLANTING
LAWN
ROCK-LINED SWALE
PROPOSED CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
EXISTING ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
10
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
40455
0
37
38 39 4142434446
47
48
49
5
1
40
4
5
50
39
4142
43
4
4
4
6
47
48
49
ROAD RESURFACING, REGRADING AND STABILIZATION
ROAD RESURFACING,REGRADING AND
STABILIZATION
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Composite Site Plan.dwg Figure 5c
Figure 5c
Composite Site Plan (3 of 3)
HORIZONTAL DATUM:
Washington State Plane
North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWLEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
ASPHALT
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
PROPOSED CONTOUR10
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
10891112121
2 1210108891010101010
1015152020202015
20
25 25
25
1
4
1
6
17
1717
18
191919
21 22 23 2424 24
26
PUGET SOUND
TW=22.09'
FG/TW=24.17'
BRIDGE DECK
(TOP OF ARCH)
FG=24.75'ABUTMENT
WING WALLS
FFE=22.65'
BRIDGE DECK
FG=24.50'
FG/TW=23.37'FG=23.44'
FG=23.11'
FG/TW=23.03'
FG=10.50'11:14:115:115:14:14.54%2.8
0
%
4%
3.33%
4%4.89%2%5%15%
3:14:115%4:
1
4.54%2%4:11.5%3:14:13.
90%
10
9
12
13
14
17
18
2012
13
14
15
16
17
20
11
10
9
9 1011121314152121
22
15
2311
22251
9
16
262124
18 19
242322
TW=13.00'
BW=11.00'
TW=12.07'
BW=10.07'
PEDESTRIAN EDGE WALL
STORMWATER
TREATMENT
SWALE
SDSDSDSDSTORMWATER PIPE
SEE UTILITY PLAN
FFE=21.65'AA'N
N'HH'J
J'DD'GG'EE'I
I'
M
M'CC'FF'BB'BRIDGE DECK
FG=24.50'
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic.
Locations will be determined in final
construction documents.
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Grading.dwg Figure 6a
Figure 6a
Grading Plan (1 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING OHWM
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
AND DESIGNATION
10
11
A
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
3540
36 37 38 39
4142
5560653531
31
32
323232
33
3334
34
36
25 25
25 30
35404524 24
26 27 28 29 31 3131 32 33 34 3434363738394142434446 47
4849
LUND'
S
G
U
L
C
H
C
R
E
E
K
TW=22.09'
FG/TW=24.17'
BRIDGE DECK
(TOP OF ARCH)
FG=24.75'ABUTMENT
WING WALLS
FFE=22.65'
BRIDGE DECK
FG=24.50'
FG/TW=23.37'FG=23.44'
FG=23.11'
FG/TW=23.03'4.54%4.54%
4.17%3.33%4.89%7.8%
1%1.5%1.5%3.5%1.5%2%5%1%4.54%15.5%
2%
50454021
22
232225 2627
30242928
242322
STORMWATER
TREATMENT
SWALE
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSTORMWATER PIPESEE UTILITY PLAN
MATCH EX
G
R
A
D
E
S
UPSLOPE
O
F
T
H
I
S
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
FFE=21.65'
N'HH'J'KK'LL'FF'BRIDGE DECK
FG=24.50'
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:58 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Grading.dwg Figure 6b
Figure 6b
Grading Plan (2 of 3)
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING OHWM
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
AND DESIGNATION
10
11
A
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
40
4
5
50
39
4142
43
4
4
4
6
47
48
49556065707580859095100105110115120125354045
34
3434363738
39414243 44 46
47
4849
1%
7.
8
%
1%1.5%1.5%3.5%1%15.5%7.8%504540SDSDSD
MATCH EX GRADES
UPSLOPE OF THIS LOCATION
ROAD RESURFACING, REGRADING AND STABILIZATION
1151201
2
5
12
5
13
0
ROAD RESURFACING,
REGRADING AND
STABILIZATION
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Grading.dwg Figure 6c
Figure 6c
Grading Plan (3 of 3)
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWLEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING OHWM
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
AND DESIGNATION
10
11
A
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130130
A A'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 145
B B'
BEACH SAND
12"
BEACH SANDROCK
ARMORING
PROPOSED RAILROAD BRIDGE
PROPOSED
CONCRETE PATH
SHEETPILE WALL WITH CONCRETE CAP
SHEETPILE WALL WITH
CONCRETE CAP
STREAMBED
SUBSTRATE
80"
STREAMBED SUBSTRATE
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING BNSF GRADE
AT R.R. TRACKS
PED. EDGEWALL
EXISTING CULVERT
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7a
Figure 7a
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 136
C C'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 117
D D'
TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
PROPOSED
STREAMBED
3.5:1
4:1
STREAMBED
SUBSTRATE
STREAMBED
SUBSTRATE
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
12" TEMP CREEK BERM (TYP)PED. EDGEWALL
CONC PED
PATH
SHEETPILE WALL WITH CONCRETE CAP
12" TEMP CREEK BERM (TYP)
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7b
Figure 7b
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
10
20
30
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 129
E E'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 119
F F'
PROPOSED 40-FT SPAN
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
PROPOSED PINNED
FOUNDATION BOARDWALK
PROPOSED
STREAMBED
4:1
20.5:1 22:1
+24.75'
+24.50'CURB WALL
PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH PROPOSED
ASPHALT PATH
BRIDGE ABUTMENT BRIDGE ABUTMENT
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
CONCRETE PLINTH
STREAMBED SUBSTRATETYPE 1 TOPSOIL
+23.17'
LUND'S GULCH CREEK
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7c
Figure 7c
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
20
30
40
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85
H H'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100101
G G'
TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVER
ON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
PROPOSED RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
PROPOSED 6'
CRUSHED GRAVEL PATH
PROPOSED
ASPHALT PATH
PROPOSED 10'
ASPHALT PATH
4:1
WETLAND
2%
2%
WETLAND
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
2%
MOW STRIP
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7d
Figure 7d
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 107
I I'
PROPOSED RAILROAD BRIDGE
80"
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE CONC PED PATH
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7e
Figure 7e
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 115
J
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
115 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230230
J'
50:1
PROPOSED LOW MARSH PROPOSED HIGH MARSH
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
PROPOSED
ASPHALT PATH
4:1
4:1
PROPOSED HIGH MARSH
25:1
PROPOSED
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
PROPOSED RIPARIAN 2%
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWMATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEDRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7f
Figure 7f
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
20
30
40
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 92
K K'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
10
20
30
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 56
L L'
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVER ON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
PROPOSED 6'
CRUSHED GRAVEL PATH PROPOSED 10' ASPHALT PATH
FRESHWATER POND
2%
WET
BIOSWALE
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
SALVAGED COBBLE
LARGE WOODY
DEBRIS
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
MOW STRIP
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7g
Figure 7g
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
M
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
M'
PROPOSED RAILROAD BRIDGE
STREAMBED SUBSTRATEBEACH SAND
BEACH SAND MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWMATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEDRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7h
Figure 7h
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
PROPOSED
RAILROAD BRIDGE
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
PUGET SOUND PROPOSED STREAMBED PROFILE
12" STREAMBED SUBSTRATE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING STREAMBED PROFILE
LUND'S GULCH CREEK
Elevation in Feet (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
5x VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 520
N N'
4%
0.6%
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7i
Figure 7i
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
PUGET SOUND
PICNIC TABLE (TYP)
TOPSOIL TYPE 2
TOPSOIL TYPE 1
8' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
10' WIDE
ASPHALT PATH
40'
PEDESTRIANBRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT6' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
FOOTWASH AND LANDSCAPE BOULDER
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
PEDESTRIAN EDGE WALL
10' WIDE
ASPHALT PATH
BRIDGE ABUTMENT WINGWALLS
CONCRETE
PLINTH
BENCH (TYP)
SHEETPILE WALL
AND CONCRETE CAP
EXISTING PICNIC SHELTER
CURB WALL
10' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
ROCK ARMOR AND
RAILROAD BRIDGE
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State
Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic.
Locations will be determined in final
construction documents.
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Materials.dwg Figure 8a
Figure 8a
Construction Materials Plan (1 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVER
ON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
12" BEACH SAND/GRAVEL
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
ROCK ARMORING
STREAMBED AND SWALE COBBLES
CRUSHED ROCK PATH OR TRENCH
ASPHALT PATH/PAD
CONCRETE PATH/PAD
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
SWALE LOG EDGING
CHAIN LINK FENCE
PICNIC TABLE
BENCH
SNAGS
EXISTING OHWM
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
LUND'
S
G
U
L
C
H
C
R
E
E
K
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVERON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
PICNIC TABLE (TYP)
8' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
10' WIDE
ASPHALT PATH
40'
PEDESTRIANBRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT6' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
BRIDGE ABUTMENT WINGWALLS
CONCRETE
PLINTH
BENCH (TYP)
EXISTING PICNIC SHELTER
CURB WALL
MOW STRIP
10' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Materials.dwg Figure 8b
Figure 8b
Construction Materials Plan (2 of 3)
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic.
Locations will be determined in final
construction documents.
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVER
ON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
12" BEACH SAND/GRAVEL
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
ROCK ARMORING
STREAMBED AND SWALE COBBLES
CRUSHED ROCK PATH OR TRENCH
ASPHALT PATH/PAD
CONCRETE PATH/PAD
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
SWALE LOG EDGING
CHAIN LINK FENCE
PICNIC TABLE
BENCH
SNAGS
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ROAD RESURFACING, REGRADING AND STABILIZATION
ROAD RESURFACING,
REGRADING ANDSTABILIZATION
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Materials.dwg Figure 8c
Figure 8c
Construction Materials Plan (3 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
ASPHALT
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWFIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
Pond
Access Road
¬A
¬G
¬H ¬E
¬C
¬D¬F
¬B
[0 200
Feet
LEGEND:
OHWMOHWM BufferSand Lance Spawning
Continuous Eelgrass
Patchy Eelgrass
Wetland
Wetland BufferProject AreaMean Higher High Water (+9')
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:07 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-02\Figure9_wet-stream-nshore_r2.mxd
Figure 9Wetland, Stream, and Nearshore Habitat Existing ConditionsMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
SOURCES:Confluence Environmental Company2017 Eelgrass SurveyAnchor QEA 2017 Wetland, Stream,and Marine DelineationWDFW Forage Fish Spawning Data,2003¬A
!
!
!!
!!
!!
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
Pond
¬A
ADA Access Road
¬G
¬H ¬E
¬C
¬D¬F
¬B
[0 200
Feet
Marine Impact (Enhancement)Stream Impact (Enhancement)Wetland Impact (Fill)Buffer Impact (Enhancement)Buffer Impact (Fill/Paving)
OHWM
OHWM BufferWetlandWetland Buffer
Project AreaMean Higher High Water (+9')Snohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:11 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-02\Figure10_impacts_r2.mxd
Figure 10Marine, Wetland, and Stream Potential Permanent ImpactsMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
¬A
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
Access Road
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:Inundated by 100-year flooding with velocity hazard (wave action)Outside the 100- and 500-year floodplainsProject AreaSnohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:32 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-01\Figure11_floodplain.mxd
Figure 11Floodplain Existing ConditionsMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
SOURCES:FEMA Flood Hazard Areas (1999)obtained from Snohomish County
Puget Sound Ranger ResidencePicnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
Access Road
[0 300
Feet
Erosion Hazard AreaSevere Erosion Hazard AreaLandslide Hazard AreaSlope < 33%Slope > 33%
Earth Subsidence and Landslide AreaMinimum Buffer Adjacent to HazardProject AreaSnohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:34 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-01\Figure12_geohazard.mxd
Figure 12Geologic Hazards Existing ConditionsMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
SOURCES:City of Edmonds and SnohomishCounty
10891112121
2 1210108892522 2324152013141
6
171819152
011
12
1314 1617181818
192
1
21
21
2222
2324151520121213131414
1
6 1617171
8
192122232424152
0
25131314161718181819
212223
241010101010101515202020201
5
2011
11
11
12
12
12
131
4
1
414
1616161616 17
1818181818 191919
21PUGET SOUND
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet.
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Planting.dwg Figure 13a
Figure 13a
Planting Plan (1 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT PLANTING
RIPARIAN PLANTING
FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANTING
HIGH TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
LOW TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
BACKSHORE BEACH PLANTING
LAWN
PROPOSED CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
10
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
25222324 2627283540
36 37 38 39
4142
5560653531
31
32
323232
33
3334
34
362
5 3035
2
1
21
21
2222
23242626 2627 28
2
9
31
32
3
3
3
4
36
20253021222324242426272829
313233
25 303
5
35
3540452223
24
2
6 2
7
2
8 2931323334343436373839 4142434446512025301818181818191919212223242627
2727
282
828
292929
31 32 33LUND'
S
G
U
L
C
H
C
R
E
E
K
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Planting.dwg Figure 13b
Figure 13b
Planting Plan (2 of 3)
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet.
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT PLANTING
RIPARIAN PLANTING
FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANTING
HIGH TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
LOW TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
BACKSHORE BEACH PLANTING
LAWN
PROPOSED CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
10
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
40
4
5
50
39
4142
43
4
4
4
6
47
48
4955606570758085909510010511011512012540455
0
37
38 39 4142434446
47
48
49
5
1
1151201
2
5
12
5
13
0
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Planting.dwg Figure 13c
Figure 13c
Planting Plan (3 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet.
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWFIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Planting.dwg Figure 14
Figure 14
Planting Schedule
PLANT SCHEDULE - ALL SPECIES ARE NATIVE TO PUGET SOUND REGION
SYMBOL COMMON NAME SPECIES NAME SIZE SPACING REMARKS
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT
TREES
Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis 5 gal.30' O.C.Evergreen
Western Red Cedar Thuja Plicata 5 gal.30' O.C. Deciduous
Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 5 gal.30' O.C.Evergreen, moist deep soil
RIPARIAN
TREES
Big-leaf Maple Acer macrophyllum 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Red Alder Alnus rubra 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Oregon Crabapple Malus fusca 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis 5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen
Shore Pine Pinus contorta var. "contorta"5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen, Full sun
Douglas-Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen, Full sun
Hooker Willow Salix hookeriana 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Scouler Willow Salix scouleriana 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen, moist deep soil
Western Red Cedar Thuja Plicata 5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen
SHRUBS
Vine Mape Acer circinatum 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Saskatoon Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Redosier Dogwood Cornus sericea 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Beacked Hazelnut Corylus cornuta 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Tall Oregon Grape Mahonia aquifolium 2 gal.6' O.C.Evergreen
Indian Plum Oemleria cerasiformis 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Pacific Ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosa 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Common Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 2 gal.6' O.C.Deciduous
GROUNDCOVERS
Vanilla-leaf Achlys triphylla 1 gal.4' O.C. Deciduous
Wild Ginger Asarum caudatum 1 gal.4' O.C. Deciduous
Salal Gaultheria shallon 1 gal.4' O.C.Evergreen
Low Oregon Grape Mahonia nervosa 1 gal.4' O.C.Evergreen
Swordfern Polystichum munitum 1 gal.4' O.C.Evergreen
FRESHWATER WETLAND
TREES
Black Hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Hooker Willow Salix hookeriana livestake 3' O.C.Deciduous
Scouler Willow Salix scouleriana livestake 3' O.C. Deciduous
SHRUBS
Redosier Dogwood Cornus sericea 2 gal.6' O.C.Deciduous
Black Twinberry Lonicera involucrata 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
EMERGENT
Slough Sedge Carex obnupta 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Darkthroat shooting star Dodecatheon pulchellum 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Skunk Cabbage Lysichiton americanus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Small fruited Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Hardstem Bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous, Full sun
American Three-square Scirpus americanus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Piggy-back plant Tolmiea menziesii 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
HIGH TIDAL MARSH
EMERGENT
Douglas Aster Aster subspicatus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Lyngby's Sedge Carex lyngbyei 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Puget Sound Gumweed Grindelia integrifolia 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Pacific Silverweed Potentilla anserina ssp. Pacifica 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
American Three-square Scirpus americanus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Henderson's Checker-bloom Sidalcea hendersonii 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
LOW TIDAL MARSH
EMERGENT
Lyngby's Sedge Carex lyngbyei 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Pacific Silverweed Potentilla anserina ssp. Pacifica 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
BACKSHORE BEACH
EMERGENT
Coastal sand verbena Abronia latifolia 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Sea thrift Armeria maritima 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Coastal Strawberry Fragaria chiloensis 10-in plug 2' O.C.Evergreen
Puget Sound Gumweed Grindelia integrifolia 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Dunegrass Leymus mollis 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
LAWN
ECO TURF See Specifications Seed
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:38 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Arch-Elevation.dwg Figure 15
Figure 15
Restroom Enclosure
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
ADA Access Road
¬A
¬G
¬H ¬E
¬C
¬D¬F
¬B
[0 200
Feet
LEGEND:Temporary Water DiversionTemporary Work PadsLaydown AreaTemporary Staging and Stockpile Area
OHWMOHWM BufferWetlandWetland Buffer
Project AreaMean Higher High Water (+9')Snohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:35 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-02\Figure16_Temp_elements_r1.mxd
Figure 16Construction ElementsMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
¬A
Appendix A
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Report
May 2017 Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Design Project
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
(Impact and Mitigation Summary added June 2018)
Snohomish County Parks and Recreation
Project Number: 160723-02.01 \\fuji\Anchor\Projects\Snohomish County\Meadowdale Beach Park\Park and Habitat Design\Task 4 Data Collection\Critical Areas\Wet & OHWM Delin Report\MeadowdalePark_WetlandDelinRpt_06-07-2018.docx
May 2017 Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Design Project
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Prepared for Snohomish County Parks and Recreation 6705 Puget Park Drive Snohomish, Washington 98296
Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 710 Olive Way, Suite 1900 Seattle, Washington 98101
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation i May 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Review of Existing Information ...................................................................................................................... 1
2 Project Area Description .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Topography ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Soils........................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Plant Communities and Habitats .................................................................................................................. 6
3 Wetland Delineation ............................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Wetland Delineation Results ........................................................................................................................ 19
3.3 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................................... 24
3.4 Wetland Functional Assessment................................................................................................................. 27
3.5 Snohomish County Wetland Buffer Guidance ...................................................................................... 29
3.6 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations ........................................................................................ 29
4 Stream and Marine Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation ....................................... 30
4.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Ordinary High Water Mark Results ........................................................................................................... 31
5 Impact and Mitigation Summary (added March 2018) ................................................. 33
5.1 Fill and Excavation Within Surface Waters or Wetlands.................................................................... 33
5.2 Buffer Impacts to Surface Waters and Wetlands ................................................................................. 34
5.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 35
5.4 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards.............................................................. 39
5.5 Estuary Restoration Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 44
6 References ................................................................................................................................ 47
TABLES
Table 1 Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions ................................................................................................. 14
Table 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Classifications ............................................................. 24
Table 3 Summary of Wetland Classes and Ratings Using Ecology 2014 Wetlands Rating Systems ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Table 4 Summary of Functions and Values 2014 Wetland Rating Scores ....................................... 26
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation ii May 2017
Table 5 Snohomish County Code Wetland Rating and Standard Buffer Width ........................... 29
Table 6 Snohomish County Code Stream Classification and Standard Buffer Distance ........... 31
Table 7 Snohomish County Code Marine Waters Standard Buffer Distance ................................. 32
Table 8 Summary of Fill and Excavation within Surface Water or Wetlands .................................. 33
Table 9 Summary of Impacts to Buffers of Surface Waters and Wetlands ..................................... 35
Table 10 Impact and Mitigation Summary ...................................................................................................... 38
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Project Area and Existing Park Features ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 3 Soil Types within the Project Area ....................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4 Existing National Wetland Inventory Mapping Data ................................................................ 11
Figure 5 Wetland and Stream Delineation Results ...................................................................................... 15
Figure 6 Marine, Wetland, and Stream Potential Permanent Impacts ............................................... 41
APPENDICES
Appendix A Wetland Delineation Data
Appendix B Field Data Forms
Appendix C Ecology Wetland Ratings Forms
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation iii May 2017
ABBREVIATIONS
CAO Critical Area Ordinance
City City of Edmonds
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
FAC facultative
FACW facultative wetland
HGM Hydrogeomorphic
MHHW mean higher high water
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OBL obligate wetland
OHWM ordinary high water mark
PEM Palustrine emergent
PFO Palustrine forested
PHS Priority Habitats and Species
Project Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Design Project
Project Area Meadowdale Beach Park
PSS Palustrine scrub-shrub
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SCC Snohomish County Code
sf square feet
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation iv May 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 1 May 2017
1 Introduction
Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Department is collecting information for the
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Design (Project), located in the Meadowdale Beach
Park, along the Puget Sound shoreline in Snohomish County, Washington, Township 27 North,
Range 4 East, Section 5 (Figure 1). A portion of the Project area also lies within the City of Edmonds.
This report provides information regarding the presence of wetlands, streams, and the marine
shoreline, as defined in the Snohomish County Code (SCC) Critical Area Ordinance (CAO; Snohomish
County 2016). Field studies were completed by biologists and wetland scientists from Anchor QEA in
November and December 2016. These field studies consisted of wetland delineations and ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) delineations for Lund’s Gulch Creek and the marine shoreline. A County
representative was present during the site visits and confirmed the wetland and OHWM boundaries.
Anchor QEA ecologists also performed a wetland rating and functional analysis of wetland habitat
delineated within the Project area. Information from this report will be used to support a Critical
Areas Report for the Project for permitting and land-use approvals.
The proposed Project seeks to improve public access to the shoreline, address flooding, stormwater
maintenance, and fish barrier issues associated with sediment deposition within a 6-foot-wide culvert
for Lund’s Gulch Creek under the BNSF Railway, as shown in Figure 1. A preferred alternative that
combines habitat restoration and public access and safety improvements across an 11.4-acre area
within the park was selected by the County following completion of a Feasibility Study in 2015. The
Project will address public safety issues involving the existing railroad crossing, improve Americans
with Disabilities Act-compliant access to the beach, and improve habitat conditions for salmon in the
lower creek and creek delta. The following sections of this report describe the methods used in the
field investigations and findings. A description of the Project area is included in Section 2. Summaries
of the findings of the wetland delineation are included in Section 3. Summaries of the findings of the
stream and marine shoreline OHWM delineation are included in Section 4. A summary of data
collected at each sampling plot during the wetland delineation is presented in tables in Appendix A
and in the field data forms in Appendix B. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Wetland Rating Forms are included in Appendix C.
1.1 Review of Existing Information
As part of the analysis to identify natural resources and critical areas in the study area, Anchor QEA
ecologists reviewed the following sources of information to support field observations:
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2016a)
• Hydric Soil List for Washington State (USDA 2016b)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) map information (USFWS 2016)
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 2 May 2017
• Snohomish County Code (Snohomish County 2016)
• Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study (Anchor QEA 2015)
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
maps (WDFW 2016a)
• WDFW SalmonScape website (WDFW 2016b)
• Aerial photographs, Google Earth, November 2016
Puget Sound
Meadowdale BeachCounty Park
BNSF RailroadROW
Unincorporated Snohomish County
City of Edmonds
Lund's Gulch Creek
Culvert
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:Lund's Gulch CreekPark BoundaryCity/County Boundary
Railroad Right-of-Way (ROW)Project Area
Publish Date: 2017/05/22, 6:22 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2017_05\VicinityMap.mxd
Figure 1Vicinity MapWetland and Stream Delineation ReportMeadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
)Project Site
Inset
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 4 May 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 5 May 2017
2 Project Area Description
The Project area encompasses 11.4 acres of the Meadowdale Beach Park along the marine shoreline
of Puget Sound (Figure 2). The Project area consists of walking trails, a gated access service road,
mowed grass areas, picnic shelters, park maintenance facilities, and undeveloped forest and shrub
habitat. The marine shoreline of Puget Sound forms the west boundary of the park. Railroad tracks
are also located on a berm along the Puget Sound shoreline, which is part of the BNSF Railway right-
of-way that lies within the park. The north, south, and east areas of the park include sloped forested
areas. The park is only open to the public by using walking trails. A paved access road, used by park
staff, is located on the sloped hillside to the south. Residential property is located north, south, and
east of the park.
2.1 Topography
The topography of the Project area ranges from relatively flat (where the majority of the park
features are located), to close to sea level, to very steep forested slopes as the park extends to the
north, south, and east. Slopes in the Project area range from 0 to 70%, according to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil data (USDA 2016a).
2.2 Soils
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2016a) identifies three soil series in the location of the Project
area: 1) Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8% slopes and 15 to 30% slopes; 2) Alderwood–Everett
gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70% slopes, and 3) Fluvaquents tidal (Figure 3). The Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam soil is the primary constituent within the Project area. According to the Hydric Soil List
for Washington State (USDA 2016b), the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and the Alderwood–Everett
gravelly sandy loams soil series are moderately drained soils with hydric features in depressions.
Fluvaquents tidal are soils in tidal areas.
In Section 3.2, Wetland Delineation Results, sample plot soil profiles are described for the wetlands
within the Project area. A summary of soils data collected at each sample plot is presented in
Appendix A, Table A-3, and in the field data forms in Appendix B. Soils observed in the sample plots
were generally consistent in texture with the identified soil series.
2.3 Hydrology
The Project is located in the Cedar-Sammamish Basin Water Resource Inventory Area 8
(Ecology 2016). Hydrologic characteristics in the Project area are influenced by regional groundwater,
direct precipitation, surface water runoff, Lund’s Gulch Creek, and Puget Sound.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 6 May 2017
Sample plot hydrology is described for the wetlands in Subsection 3.2, Wetland Delineation Results.
A summary of hydrology data collected at each sampling plot is presented in Appendix A, Table A-4,
and in the field data forms in Appendix B.
2.4 Plant Communities and Habitats
Vegetation within the Project area includes a variety of native, non-native, and ornamental trees,
shrub, grass, and herbaceous species associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitat. The
USFWS Wetlands Mapper for NWI Map Information does not identify any freshwater wetland
features in the Project area (USFWS 2016). The estuarine habitat of Puget Sound is identified on the
NWI map information. WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2016a) also do not identify freshwater wetland
habitat within the Project area. Figure 4 shows the NWI information in the Project area.
Wetland and upland vegetation for the wetland areas are described in Section 3.2, Wetland
Delineation Results. A summary of vegetation data collected in the Project area and at each sampling
plot is presented in Appendix A, Tables A-1 and A-2, and in the field data forms in Appendix B.
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter Volleyball Court
Existing Tunnel/Culvert
BNSF Railroad
Meadowdale BeachCounty Park
ADA/Service Vehicle Access Road
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:Lund's Gulch CreekTopographic Contour (10' Interval)Park Boundary
Project Area
Publish Date: 2017/05/22, 6:23 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2017_05\SitePlan_ProjectArea.mxd
Figure 2Project Area and Existing Park FeaturesWetland and Stream Delineation ReportMeadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 8 May 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
[0 300
FeetSOURCE:USDS NRCS Web Soil Survey
LEGEND:
Soil TypesAlderwoodAlderwood-Everett-ComplexFluvaquents
Project Area
Publish Date: 2017/02/21, 10:30 AM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2017_01\SitePlan_Soils.mxd
Figure 3Soil Types within Project AreaWetland and Stream Delineation ReportMeadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 10 May 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:NWI WetlandsEstuarine and Marine DeepwaterEstuarine and Marine Wetland
Project Area
Publish Date: 2017/02/21, 10:31 AM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2017_01\SitePlan_NWI.mxd
Figure 4Existing National Wetland Inventory Mapping DataWetland and Stream Delineation ReportMeadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 12 May 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 13 May 2017
3 Wetland Delineation
On October 19, November 1, and December 19, 2016, Anchor QEA ecologists performed a wetland
delineation and wetland rating analysis of wetland habitat in the Project area. Nine wetlands (Wetlands
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I) were identified (Figure 5). Eight of the nine wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, and H) were delineated. Wetland habitats include Depressional, Riverine, and Slope wetland
systems. The ninth wetland (Wetland I), is located at the top of the slope on the south side of the Project
area, outside of the Project area boundary. A description based on visual observations of Wetland I is
provided in this report. The description of Wetland I is included even though it is located outside the
Project area because water from the wetland was flowing from the wetland down the hillside, along
the road, and into Wetland D at the time of the site visits. Thus, the source of the hydrology flowing
into the Project area was documented. A County representative was present during the December 19
site visit and confirmed the wetland boundaries and the decision not to delineate Wetland I.
A complete description of Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H is provided in Section 3.2, Wetland
Delineation Results. Wetland I is also described based on visual observations. As described above, no
sample plot data were collected at Wetland I. A summary of vegetation, soils, and hydrology data
collected at each sampling plot is presented in Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix B.
3.1 Methods
This subsection describes the methodology used to perform the wetland delineation, including the
review of existing information (described in Section 1.1) and field investigation procedures. These
methods are consistent with current federal and state agency requirements, as well as local jurisdiction
requirements, for performing wetland delineations and identifying protective wetland buffer widths.
3.1.1 Data Collection
As specified by the SCC (Snohomish County 2016), the wetland delineation was conducted according to
the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0; Corps 2010), and the Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Update (Hruby 2014). Soil colors were
classified by their numerical description, as identified on a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell 1994).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps; Environmental Laboratory 1987) defines wetlands as “those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.” The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three
parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 14 May 2017
“the macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil
saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling
influence on the plant species present.” Hydric soils are “formed under conditions of saturation, flooding,
or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.”
Wetland hydrology “encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated
or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season” (Ecology 1997).
Data collection methods for each of these parameters are described in the following subsections.
A total of 16 data plots were sampled and recorded, and each sample plot was identified numerically
as either wetland or upland (e.g., SP1Wet, SP2Up, SP3Wet, SP4Up). Vegetation, soils, and hydrology
information were collected at each of the plots and recorded on field datasheets. A summary of
sample plot data is presented in Appendix A, and the field data forms are provided in Appendix B.
Wetland boundaries were determined based on plot data and visual observations of the wetland.
Each wetland location, wetland boundary, and data plot location was flagged for survey.
3.1.2 Wetland Delineation Results
Plant species occurring in each plot were recorded on field data forms, with one data form per plot
(Appendix B). Percent cover for each plant species was estimated in the plot, and dominant plant
species were identified. At each plot, trees within a 30-foot radius, shrubs within a 15-foot radius,
and emergents within a 3-foot radius from the center of the plot were identified and recorded. A
plant indicator status, designated by USFWS (Reed 1988, 1993), was assigned to each species, and a
determination was made as to whether the vegetation in the plot was hydrophytic. To meet the
hydrophytic parameter, more than 50% of the dominant species, with 20% or greater cover, must
have an indicator of obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (FAC). Table 1
shows the wetland indicator status categories.
Table 1 Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions
Indicator Status Description
Obligate Wetland (OBL) Plant species occur almost always in wetlands (estimated probability greater than 99%) under natural conditions.
Facultative Wetland (FACW) Plant species usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67% to 99%) but are occasionally found in non-wetlands.
Facultative (FAC) Plant species are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34% to 66%).
Facultative Upland (FACU) Plant species usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67% to 99%) but are occasionally found in wetlands.
Obligate Upland (UPL) Plant species occur almost always in non-wetlands (estimated probability greater than 99%) under natural conditions.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland I (Drainage)
Wetland D
Wetland E
Ranger Residence
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
Wetland G Wetland H
Wetland F
Wetland C
Approximate Northern Edge of Wetland I
Pond
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:OHWMOHWM Buffer WetlandWetland Buffer
!Soil Pit LocationProject Area
Publish Date: 2018/03/01, 3:32 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2017_05\SitePlan_Critical_Areas_rev1.mxd
Figure 5Wetland and Stream Delineation ResultsWetland and Stream Delineation ReportMeadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 16 May 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 17 May 2017
3.1.3 Soils
Soils were sampled in each plot and evaluated for hydric soil indicators. Soil pits were dug to a depth
of 18 inches, unless prevented by impenetrable substrate. Hydric soil indicators include low soil
matrix chroma, gleying, and redoximorphic (or “redox”) features. Redox features are spots of
contrasting color that occur within the soil matrix (the predominant soil color). Gleyed soils are
predominantly bluish, greenish, or grayish in color. Soils having a chroma of 2 or less are positive
indicators of hydric soils (Environmental Laboratory 1987; Corps 2010).
3.1.4 Hydrology
Wetland hydrology was evaluated at each plot to determine whether it, “encompasses all hydrologic
characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a
sufficient duration during the growing season” (Ecology 1997). Field observations of saturation,
inundation, and other indicators of wetland hydrology, such as water-stained leaves and drainage
patterns in wetlands, were recorded.
3.1.5 Other Data Sources
Existing information was referenced to identify potential wetlands or site characteristics indicative of
wetlands in the Project area. The sources of reference information that supported field observations
are identified in Section 1.1, Review of Existing Information.
3.1.6 Wetland Classifications
Wetland community types are discussed according to the USFWS classification developed by
Cowardin et al. (1979) for use in the NWI. This system, published in 1979 by a team of USFWS
scientists led by L.M. Cowardin, bases the classification of wetlands on their physical characteristics,
such as the general type of vegetation in the wetland (e.g., trees, shrubs, grass) and how much, and
where, water is present in the wetland. The Cowardin system provides a classification for every
known wetland type that occurs throughout the United States and, under this system, a wetland can
be classified as having one or more wetland classification types. The following community types were
found during this investigation:
• Palustrine forested (PFO): These wetlands have at least 30% cover of woody vegetation that
is more than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS): These wetlands have at least 30% cover of woody vegetation
that is less than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine emergent (PEM): These wetlands have erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation
present for most of the growing season in most years.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 18 May 2017
3.1.7 Wetland Ratings
Wetland ratings were determined using the most current version of Ecology guidance in the
Washington State Wetland Rating System – Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014) and
according to Snohomish County wetland rating criteria, as defined in the SCC (Snohomish County
2016). The Ecology wetland rating system was updated as of January 1, 2015.
The system developed by Ecology is used to differentiate wetlands based on their sensitivity to
disturbance, their significance in the watershed, their rarity, ability to be replaced, and the beneficial
functions they provide to society. The Ecology rating system requires the user to collect specific
information about the wetland in a step-by-step process. Three major functions are analyzed (water
quality improvement, hydrologic functions, and wildlife habitat). Ratings are based on a point system,
where points are given if a wetland meets specific criteria related to the wetland’s potential and the
opportunity to provide certain benefits.
Per Ecology’s rating system, wetlands are categorized according to the following criteria and to
points given:
• Category I wetlands (23 or more points) represent a unique or rare wetland type, are more
sensitive to disturbance, or are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that
are impossible to replace within a human lifetime.
• Category II wetlands (20 to 22 points) are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and
provide high levels of some functions.
• Category III wetlands (16 to 19 points) have moderate levels of functions. They 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 IV wetlands (less than 16 points) have the lowest levels of functions and are often
heavily disturbed.
The SCC classifies wetlands into four categories (Categories I, II, III, and IV) based on the updated
2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Ecology
(Snohomish County 2016).
3.1.8 Wetland Functions Assessment
The functional values of wetlands were rated according to Washington State Wetland Rating System –
Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014). Using Ecology’s system, wetlands were rated based
on a point system where points were awarded to three functional value categories (water quality,
hydrologic functions, and wildlife habitat). Detailed scoring, based on Ecology wetland rating forms,
is provided in Appendix C.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 19 May 2017
3.1.9 State Hydrogeomorphic Classification System
Scientists have come to understand that wetlands can perform functions in different ways. The way a
wetland functions depends to a large degree on hydrologic and geomorphic conditions. To
recognize these differences among wetlands, a way to group or classify them has been developed.
This classification system, called the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classification, groups wetlands into
categories based on the geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics that control many functions. The
Washington State Wetland Rating System – Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014)
incorporates the HGM Classification system as part of the questionnaire for characterizing a
wetland’s functions. The rating system uses only the highest grouping in the classification, i.e.,
wetland class. Wetland classes are based on geomorphic settings, such as Riverine, Slope,
Lake-fringe, or Depressional. A classification key is provided within the rating form to help identify
which of the following HGM Classifications apply to the wetland: Riverine; Depressional; Slope;
Lake-fringe; Tidal Fringe; or Flats.
3.2 Wetland Delineation Results
3.2.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is an approximately 0.13-acre (5,470-square-foot [sf]) wetland with a PFO and PEM
vegetation classes and a depressional HGM class. Wetland A is located adjacent to the railroad track
berm and the toe of slope of the hillside to the north (Figure 5). The entire boundary of Wetland A was
delineated within the Project area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by black cottonwood (Populus
trichocarpa, red alder (Alnus rubra), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea).
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland A includes big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder,
salmonberry, sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and piggyback plant (Tolmiea menziesii).
Soils typically consisted of dark brown loam in the upper few inches with grayish brown clay loam
with yellowish brown to brownish yellow redox features below about 3 inches. Soils in the upland
plot were dark yellowish loam with no redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland A sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface, with the water table typically at about
3 inches from the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP1Wet and SP2Up (Appendix A). The wetland plot
(SP1Wet) contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The
upland plot (SP2Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland
hydrology and hydric soils.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 20 May 2017
3.2.2 Wetland B
Wetland B is an approximately 0.21-acre (9,180-sf) wetland with a PFO and PSS vegetation classes
and Slope and Riverine HGM classes. Wetland B is located adjacent to the left bank of Lund’s Gulch
Creek and includes some of the mowed grass area to the south (Figure 5). The entire boundary of
Wetland B was delineated within the Project area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder,
salmonberry, creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), piggyback plant, and reed canarygrass.
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland B includes Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), salmonberry,
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), piggyback plant, sword fern, and mowed grass.
Soils typically consisted of very dark grayish brown to dark gray sandy loam with gravel with dark
yellowish brown redox features below about 5 inches. Soils in the upland plot were very dark grayish
brown sandy loam with gravel with no redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland B sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface, with the water table typically at about
10 inches from the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP3Wet and SP4Up (Appendix A). The wetland plot
(SP3Wet) contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The
upland plot (SP4Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland
hydrology and hydric soils.
3.2.3 Wetland C
Wetland C is an approximately 0.03-acre (1,140-sf) wetland with a PFO and PSS vegetation classes
and Slope and Riverine HGM classes. Wetland C is located adjacent to the left bank of Lund’s Gulch
Creek and is also adjacent to the turn in the access road (Figure 5). The entire boundary of Wetland C
was delineated within the Project area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, salmonberry,
and piggyback plant.
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland C includes red alder, salmonberry, creeping buttercup, and
sword fern.
Soils typically consisted of very dark grayish brown silt loam and gley soils with dark yellowish brown
redox features below about 12 inches. Soils in the upland plot were very dark grayish brown loam to
dark grayish brown with sandy loam with gravel with no redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland C sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface, with no water table observed to
18 inches. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP5Wet and SP6Up (Appendix A). The wetland plot
(SP3Wet) contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 21 May 2017
upland plot (SP4Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland
hydrology and hydric soils.
3.2.4 Wetland D
Wetland D is an approximately 0.10-acre (4,140-sf) wetland with a PFO and PSS vegetation classes
and a Slope HGM class. Wetland D is located adjacent to the left bank of Lund’s Gulch Creek but the
bank is a few feet high, preventing overbank flooding from the stream to enter the wetland
(Figure 5). The entire boundary of Wetland D was delineated within the Project area. Wetland
vegetation is dominated by red alder, salmonberry, creeping buttercup, piggyback plant, and
lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina).
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland D includes red alder, salmonberry, and piggyback plant.
Wetland D is also located adjacent to the paved access road.
Soils typically consisted of dark gray silty sand with gravel below about 8 inches. Dark brown to light
olive brown redox features were present throughout the sample plot. Soils in the upland plot were
dark grayish brown loam to grayish brown silty sand. Rock, cobble, and sand material was located
below about 14 inches from the surface.
In the Wetland D sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface and the water table was typically
located at about 10 inches from the surface. Surface water that collects in the access road ditch also
flows into Wetland D. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP7Wet and SP8Up (Appendix A). The wetland plot
(SP7Wet) contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The
upland plot (SP8Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland
hydrology and hydric soils.
3.2.5 Wetland E
Wetland E is an approximately 0.05-acre (2,060-sf) wetland with a PFO and PSS vegetation classes
and depressional and Riverine HGM classes. Wetland E is located adjacent to the right bank of Lund’s
Gulch Creek, and a walking trail is located north of the wetland (Figure 5). The entire boundary of
Wetland E was delineated within the Project area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder,
salmonberry, piggyback plant, and field horsetail (Equisitum arvense).
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland E includes red alder, salmonberry, piggyback plant, and
English ivy (Hedera helix).
Soils typically consisted of very dark gray silt loam with dark grayish brown redox features below
about 6 inches. Gley silty sand soils with dark grayish brown redox features were located about
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 22 May 2017
14 inches below the surface. Soils in the upland plot were very dark grayish brown loam with no
redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland E sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface and the water table was typically
located at about 10 inches from the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below
18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP9Wet and SP10Up (Appendix A). The wetland plot
(SP9Wet) contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The
upland plot (SP10Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland
hydrology and hydric soils.
3.2.6 Wetland F
Wetland F is an approximately 0.08-acre (3,440-sf) wetland with a PSS and PEM vegetation classes
and a Slope HGM class. Wetland F is located adjacent to the access road where the mowed grass is
located to the north (Figure 5). The entire boundary of Wetland F was delineated within the Project
area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by salmonberry and piggyback plant.
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland F includes big-leaf maple, red alder, salmonberry, sword fern,
and piggyback plant.
Soils typically consisted of very dark gray to dark gray silt with gray to yellowish brown redox
features below about 6 inches. Soils in the upland plot were very dark brown loam with no redox
features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland F sample plot, standing water was 1 to 2 inches deep with soil saturation, and the
water table was typically at the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches
from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP11Wet and SP12Up (Appendix A). The wetland plot
(SP11Wet) contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The
upland plot (SP12Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland
hydrology and hydric soils.
3.2.7 Wetland G
Wetland G is an approximately 0.22-acre (9,400-sf) wetland with a PFO and PSS vegetation classes
and depressional, Riverine, and Slope HGM classes. Wetland G is located adjacent to the right bank
of Lund’s Gulch Creek, and a walking trail is located north of the wetland (Figure 5). The entire
boundary of Wetland G was delineated within the Project area. Wetland vegetation is dominated by
red alder, salmonberry, and piggyback plant.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 23 May 2017
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland G includes red alder, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry,
and sword fern.
Soils typically consisted of very dark gray sandy silt to silty sand to about 14 inches. Gley sand with
gravel soils were located about 16 inches below the surface. Soils in the upland plot were dark
brown loam with gravel to dark grayish brown sandy loam with no redox features within 18 inches
of the surface.
In the Wetland G sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface and the water table was typically
located at about 16 inches from the surface. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below
18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP13Wet and SP14Up (Appendix A). The wetland plot
(SP13Wet) contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The
upland plot (SP14Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland
hydrology and hydric soils.
3.2.8 Wetland H
Wetland H is an approximately 0.05-acre (2,210-sf) wetland with a PFO and PSS vegetation classes
and Slope and Riverine HGM classes. Wetland H is located adjacent to the left bank of Lund’s Gulch
Creek and the ponded area of the creek (Figure 5). The mowed grass area is located to the south of
the wetland. The entire boundary of Wetland H was delineated within the Project area. Wetland
vegetation is dominated by red alder, salmonberry, and piggyback plant.
Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland H includes big-leaf maple, red alder, salmonberry, and
piggyback plant.
Soils typically consisted of very dark brown to very dark gray sandy silt and gley soils with yellowish
brown redox features below about 9 inches. Soils in the upland plot were very dark grayish brown
loam to silt loam with gravel with no redox features within 18 inches of the surface.
In the Wetland H sample plot, soil saturation was at the surface, with the water table observed at
about 9 inches. In the upland plot, saturation was absent below 18 inches from the surface.
Data were collected at two sample plots: SP15Wet and SP16Up (Appendix A). The wetland plot
(SP15Wet) contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The
upland plot (SP16Up) had indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and lacked indicators of wetland
hydrology and hydric soils.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 24 May 2017
3.2.9 Wetland I
A wetland identified as Wetland I is located at the top of the slope on the south side of the Project
area, outside of the Project area boundary. Wetland I was not delineated, and no sample plot data
was collected. Wetland I is described based on visual observations. Access to observe Wetland I was
difficult due to the steep slope conditions, including erosion and landslide conditions. The wetland is
located on a plateau at the top of the slope above the access road. Another uphill slope is located
south of the wetland.
Wetland I was similar to the conditions in the delineated wetlands in the Project area. Dominant
vegetation includes red alder, salmonberry, creeping buttercup, and piggyback plant. Buffer
vegetation included salmonberry, creeping buttercup, piggyback plant, and sword fern.
Water was observed flowing into Wetland I from seeps in the uphill slope, through landslide soil
debris. Standing water was present within the wetland, and water was flowing down the slope from
the wetland to the access road where it flowed in a ditch with a paved bottom into Wetland D, as
described above in the Wetland D discussion. Flow from Wetland I down the slope to the access road
is a narrow drainage, less than 12 inches wide. The drainage from Wetland I is shown on Figure 1.
Overall, Wetland I has similar characteristics to the wetlands delineated within the Project area.
3.3 Regulatory Framework
Guidance from USFWS, Ecology, and Snohomish County was used to determine the wetland
classifications. Information and excerpts from the specific guidance language are provided in the
following subsections.
3.3.1 USFWS Classification
The wetlands identified in the Project area have been classified using the system developed by
Cowardin et al. (1979) for use in the NWI. Table 2 lists the USFWS classifications for the wetlands and
their connections to surface water.
Table 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Classifications
Wetland USFWS Classification Surface Water Connection
Wetland A PFO & PEM None
Wetland B PFO & PSS Lund’s Gulch Creek
Wetland C PFO & PSS Lund’s Gulch Creek
Wetland D PFO & PSS Lund’s Gulch Creek
Wetland E PFO & PSS Lund’s Gulch Creek
Wetland F PSS & PEM None
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 25 May 2017
Wetland USFWS Classification Surface Water Connection
Wetland G PFO & PSS Lund’s Gulch Creek
Wetland H PFO & PSS Lund’s Gulch Creek
PEM: Palustrine emergent PFO: Palustrine forested PSS: Palustrine scrub-shrub USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores
Per the SCC (Snohomish County 2016), wetland ratings are determined using Ecology’s Washington
State Wetlands Rating System – Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014). Under the updated
2014 Ecology (Hruby 2014) wetland rating systems, Wetlands B, C, and D are rated as Category III
wetlands. Table 3 lists the 2014 Ecology and local (Snohomish County) wetland rating and classification.
Table 3 Summary of Wetland Classes and Ratings Using Ecology 2014 Wetlands Rating Systems
Wetland Area (acres) Hydrogeomorphic Classification 20141 State Rating (Ecology)
Local Rating (Snohomish County)2
Wetland A 0.13 Depressional III III
Wetland B 0.21 Slope and Riverine II II
Wetland C 0.03 Slope and Riverine II II
Wetland D 0.10 Slope III III
Wetland E 0.05 Depressional and Riverine III III
Wetland F 0.08 Slope IV IV
Wetland G 0.22 Depressional, Slope, and Riverine III III
Wetland H 0.05 Slope and Riverine II II
Notes:
1. Hruby, T., 2014. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Publication No. 14-06-029. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology. 2. Snohomish County 2016. Snohomish County Code. Cited: November 12, 2016. Available from: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/.
For the 2014 Ecology wetland rating system (Hruby 2014), a low, moderate, or high rating is based
on three functions: 1) Improving Water Quality; 2) Hydrologic; and 3) Habitat. Within each of these
three functions are three sub-function categories: 1) Site Potential; 2) Landscape Potential; and
3) Value. Each of these sub-function categories is rated as low, moderate, or high. Wetland functional
values and scores for Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H under the 2014 Ecology rating system are
shown in Table 4. The 2014 Ecology wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix C.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 26 May 2017
Table 4 Summary of Functions and Values 2014 Wetland Rating Scores
Wetland and Function
Improving Water
Quality Hydrologic Habitat
Total Functions
Score1
Wetland A
Site Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Landscape Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Value High Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 5 7 19
Wetland B
Site Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Landscape Potential High High Moderate
Value Moderate Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 6 7 20
Wetland C
Site Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Landscape Potential High High Moderate
Value Moderate Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 6 7 20
Wetland D
Site Potential Low Low Moderate
Landscape Potential Moderate Low Moderate
Value High Low High
Score Based on Rating1 6 3 7 16
Wetland E
Site Potential Moderate Low Moderate
Landscape Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Value High Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 4 7 18
Wetland F
Site Potential Low Low Low
Landscape Potential Moderate Low Moderate
Value High Low High
Score Based on Rating1 6 3 6 15
Wetland G
Site Potential Moderate Low Moderate
Landscape Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Value High Low High
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 27 May 2017
Wetland and Function
Improving Water
Quality Hydrologic Habitat
Total Functions
Score1
Score Based on Rating1 7 4 7 18
Wetland H
Site Potential Moderate Moderate Moderate
Landscape Potential High High Moderate
Value Moderate Low High
Score Based on Rating1 7 6 7 20
Notes: 1. Potential total score per function is 9, for a potential total score of 27.
3.4 Wetland Functional Assessment
The following subsections provide a description of the functions of Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H
based on the 2014 Ecology wetland rating system.
3.4.1 Improving Water Quality Functions
All eight wetlands have the opportunity to improve water quality based on their location within a park
located within an urban environment and the presence of developed residential areas outside the park.
Wetlands A, B, C, E, G, and H have moderate function scores for the site potential to improve water
quality functions due to the characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland and the
relative area of depressions within the wetland that influences its ability to trap sediments during a
flooding event. Wetlands D and F have low function scores because the slope characteristics of these
wetlands reduces the ability to trap sediments. None of the wetlands have soil characteristics that
include clay or organic material, which contributes to the moderate or low function scores. The
characteristic of vegetation within the wetlands to restrict flow and trap sediments and pollutants also
contributes to the moderate or low function scores. Wetlands with a moderate function score have a
higher relative area of depressions within the wetland that influences its ability to trap sediments.
Wetlands B, C, and H have high function scores, and Wetlands A, D, E, F, and G have moderate
functions scores for the landscape potential to support water quality functions of the site because of
the potential of the surrounding land uses to generate pollutants and discharge stormwater to the
wetlands. Wetlands B, C, and H have high function scores compared to the other wetlands because
they were rated under the Riverine hydrogeomorphic classification, which has different rating criteria
than the Slope and Depressional rating classifications.
Wetlands A, D, E, F, and G have high function scores, and Wetlands B, C, and H have moderate
function scores to provide water quality improvement valuable to society because they are located in
the vicinity of aquatic resources that are on the Ecology 303(d) list. Wetlands B, C, and H have
moderate function scores compared to the other wetlands because they were rated under the
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 28 May 2017
Riverine hydrogeomorphic classification, which has different rating criteria than the Slope and
Depressional rating classifications.
3.4.2 Hydrologic Functions
Wetlands A, B, C, and H provide moderate function scores, and Wetlands D, E, F, and G provide low
function scores for potential to reduce flooding and erosion based on the specific characteristics of
the surface water outflows from the wetlands, the depth of storage provided by the wetlands during
wet periods, and the contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed.
The wetlands vary in potential to support hydrologic functions at the site based on the
hydrogeomorphic classification used to rate the wetlands. Riverine, slope, and depressional rating
classifications have slightly different rating criteria regarding the potential of the surrounding land
uses to generate pollutants and discharge stormwater to the wetlands. Wetlands B, C, and H provide
high function scores, Wetlands A, E, and G provide moderate function scores, and Wetlands D and F
provide low function scores.
Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H have low function scores to provide hydrologic functions valuable
to society because they are located in a landscape where they do not flow downgradient into areas
where flooding has damaged human or natural resources.
3.4.3 Habitat Functions
All of the wetlands, with the exception of Wetland F, have moderate function scores for the potential
to provide habitat due to the diverse vegetative structure (more than one Cowardin [1979]
vegetation class), the number of water regimes or hydroperiods, the limited plant richness
(between 5 and 19 native species observed), the habitat diversity, and special habitat features
present. Wetland F has a low function score because it is not adjacent to the creek and has fewer
special habitat features than the other wetlands.
All eight wetlands have moderate scores for the landscape potential to support habitat functions of
the site because of the characteristics of disturbed and undisturbed habitats surrounding the
wetlands and the land-use intensity of the surrounding area.
All eight wetlands have high function scores to provide habitat functions valuable to society because
of the proximity of WDFW priority habitats in the vicinity of the wetlands, including snags and logs,
and riparian, instream, and marine nearshore habitats. The Project area is also identified as a
biodiversity area and corridor based on WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2016a).
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 29 May 2017
3.5 Snohomish County Wetland Buffer Guidance
Required wetland buffers have been identified according to the current SCC (Snohomish County
2016). The SCC identifies minimum protective buffer widths based on the wetland category, land use
intensity, and the Ecology habitat rating score, per the 2014 Ecology rating system. Accordingly,
Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, G, and H require 75-foot buffers for low-intensity land use because they are
Category II or Category III wetlands with a habitat function score of 5 to 7. Wetland F requires a
25-foot buffers for low-intensity land use as a Category IV wetland. Table 5 summarizes SCC ratings
and buffer widths based on the 2014 Ecology rating system.
Table 5 Snohomish County Code Wetland Rating and Standard Buffer Width
Wetland
2014 State
Rating
(Ecology)
Local Rating
(Snohomish County)
Ecology Habitat Rating
Score
Snohomish County
Code Buffer Width
(feet)1
Wetland A III III 7 75
Wetland B II II 7 75
Wetland C II II 7 75
Wetland D III III 7 75
Wetland E III III 7 75
Wetland F IV IV 6 25
Wetland G III III 7 75
Wetland H II II 7 75
Note: 1. Buffer based on Low Intensity Land Use. Snohomish County 2016. Snohomish County Code. Cited: November 12, 2016. Available from: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/.
3.6 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations
Wetland identification is an inexact science, and differences of professional opinion often occur
between trained individuals. Final determinations for wetland boundaries and typing concurrence or
adjustments to these are the responsibility of the regulating resource agency. Wetlands are, by
definition, transitional areas; their boundaries can be altered by changes in hydrology or land use. In
addition, the definition of jurisdictional wetlands may change. If a physical change occurs in the
basin, or if 3 years pass before the proposed project is undertaken, another wetland survey should be
conducted. The results and conclusions expressed herein represent Anchor QEA’s professional
judgment based on the information available. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 30 May 2017
4 Stream and Marine Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation
Anchor QEA ecologists identified and delineated the OHWM of two waterbodies within the Project
area: Lund’s Gulch Creek and the marine shoreline of Puget Sound. The OHWM delineation methods
and results are described in the following sections.
4.1 Methods
To document the OHWM of Lund’s Gulch Creek and the marine shoreline within the Project area,
Anchor QEA ecologists reviewed existing information (described in Section 1.1), performed an aerial
photograph analysis, and conducted a site visit on November 19, 2016. The OHWM delineation was
completed by walking the stream and marine shorelines and identifying the OHWM with flagging.
Flagging was then documented on an aerial photograph for survey.
Anchor QEA ecologists identified the stream and marine OHWM boundaries consistent with
Chapter 90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Chapter 173-22 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The WAC defines the OHWM as:
“’Ordinary high water line’” means the mark on the shores of all waters that will be
found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and
action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in ordinary years, as
to mark upon the soil or vegetation a character distinct from that of the abutting
upland: Provided, that in any area where the ordinary high water line cannot be found
the ordinary high water line adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high
water and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be the elevation of
the mean annual flood.”
The following criteria clarify this mark on tidal waters:
(a) “Tidal waters.
(i) In high energy environments where the action of waves or currents is sufficient to
prevent vegetation establishment below mean higher high tide, the ordinary high water
mark is coincident with the line of vegetation. Where there is no vegetative cover for less
than one hundred feet parallel to the shoreline, the ordinary high water mark is the
average tidal elevation of the adjacent lines of vegetation. Where the ordinary high water
mark cannot be found, it is the elevation of mean higher high tide;
(ii) In low energy environments where the action of waves and currents is not sufficient to
prevent vegetation establishment below mean higher high tide, the ordinary high water
mark is coincident with the landward limit of salt tolerant vegetation. ‘Salt tolerant
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 31 May 2017
vegetation’ means vegetation which is tolerant of interstitial soil salinities greater than or
equal to 0.5 parts per thousand.”
The marine shoreline of Puget Sound within the Project area is a high-energy environment.
4.2 Ordinary High Water Mark Results
4.2.1 Lund’s Gulch Creek
The OHWM of one stream system, Lund’s Gulch Creek, was delineated within the Project area. Lund’s
Gulch Creek is also associated with several of the wetlands that were delineated as part of the
investigation (Section 3) and flows into Puget Sound after flowing through a box culvert located
below the railroad tracks berm. The stream OHWM delineation began at the box culvert and ended
at the upstream end of the Project area (Figure 5).
The OHWM boundary of Lund’s Gulch Creek was marked with flags in parallel formation on both
banks, as in LB-1 (left bank) and RB-1 (right bank), LB-2 and RB-2, etc. A total of 105 flags were used
to delineate the Lund’s Gulch Creek OHWM (LB-1 through LB-54 and RB-1 through RB-51).
Lund’s Gulch Creek is associated with six wetlands, Wetlands B, C, D, E, G, and H. A 1,230-foot reach
of Lund’s Gulch Creek was delineated within the Project area. A small ponded area associated with
the creek was also delineated. The ponded area is located off the left bank of the creek near
Wetland H. The ponded area appears to have been an excavated feature. The delineated length of
the ponded area was about 240 feet. The Lund’s Gulch Creek OHWM delineation results are shown
on Figure 5.
Lund’s Gulch Creek appears to meet the criteria of a Type F Water, perennial flow with potential fish
habitat characteristics. Stream classifications and protective buffer widths for Lund’s Gulch Creek, per
Chapter 30.62A.320 of the SCC (Snohomish County 2016), are provided in Table 6.
Table 6 Snohomish County Code Stream Classification and Standard Buffer Distance
Stream
Snohomish County Water Typing
System Rating Snohomish County Buffer Width (feet)1
Lund’s Gulch Creek Type F 150
Note: 1. Snohomish County 2016. Snohomish County Code. Cited: November 12, 2016. Available from: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/.
4.2.2 Marine Shoreline
The marine OHWM delineation within the Project area included a 1,440-foot reach of shoreline.
Lund’s Gulch Creek flows from the box culvert at about the midpoint of the marine OHWM
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 32 May 2017
delineation. The marine OHWM delineation results are shown on Figure 5. The protective buffer
width for the marine waters within the Project area, per Chapter 30.62A.320 of the SCC (Snohomish
County 2016), is provided in Table 7.
Table 7 Snohomish County Code Marine Waters Standard Buffer Distance
Waterbody Snohomish County Marine Waters Buffer Width (feet)1
Puget Sound 150
Note: 1. Snohomish County 2016. Snohomish County Code. Cited: November 12, 2016. Available from: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 33 May 2017
5 Impact and Mitigation Summary (added March 2018)
5.1 Fill and Excavation Within Surface Waters or Wetlands
Grading would be conducted to allow the construction of park features, including pedestrian access,
stormwater management, and recontouring the creek bed and shoreline in order to support the
estuary restoration and provide a natural shoreline transition area.
The majority of earthwork would involve grading and excavation to create estuarine and freshwater
wetlands. A small portion of the fill and grading would occur below the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) of Lund’s Gulch Creek or mean higher high water (MHHW) of Puget Sound (Table 8); this filling
would occur in the creek bed and near the shoreline for the purposes of aquatic habitat enhancement
with approved materials (i.e., habitat gravels). All fill material would be clean and sourced from
approved borrow facilities.
One wetland on the site would have permanent, direct impacts from construction of the Project,
namely to install the diamond pier foundations for the elevated pedestrian path segment over
Wetland B. The extent of impacts to Wetland B of 8 sf is extremely small. Temporary impacts to
Wetland F are associated with the temporary work pad for railroad bridge construction.
Table 8 Summary of Fill and Excavation within Surface Water or Wetlands
Activity Waterbody Impact Location Duration of Impact
Material to be Placed in or Removed from Waterbody
(cubic yards)
Area of Waterbody Directly Affected (square feet)
Shoreline fill for work pads Puget Sound Beach Below MHHW Temporary +4 102
Beach excavation for estuary restoration
Puget Sound
Estuary Restoration West of Railroad, Following Removal of Work Pads Below MHHW
Permanent (enhancement) -85 2,868
Beach sand fill for restoration Puget Sound
Estuary Restoration West of Railroad, Following Removal of Work Pads Below MHHW
Permanent (enhancement) +106 2,868
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 34 May 2017
Activity Waterbody Impact Location Duration of Impact
Material to be Placed in or Removed from Waterbody
(cubic yards)
Area of Waterbody Directly Affected (square feet)
Culvert removal and excavation
Lund’s Gulch Creek
Existing channel below OHWM Permanent (enhancement) -10 482
Sand and gravel fill for channel creation
Lund’s Gulch Creek
Under railroad berm below OHWM
Permanent (enhancement) +18 482
Stream channel fill for work pads
Lund’s Gulch Creek
Existing channel below OHWM Temporary +135 1,016
excavation for conversion to estuary1
Lund’s Gulch Creek Stream channel Permanent (enhancement) -390 3,286
Habitat material fill (gravel and large woody material)
Lund’s Gulch Creek Stream channel Permanent (enhancement) +122 3,286
Fill for elevated path segment foundations Wetland B Diamond pier foundations (eight) Permanent +8 8
Fill Wetland F Work pad for railroad bridge construction Temporary +30 640
Notes:
1. A total of nearly 17,000 cubic yards of excavation will be required for estuary restoration. The table only reflects excavation below the ordinary high water mark of Lund’s Gulch Creek.
MHHW: mean higher high water OHWM: ordinary high water mark
5.2 Buffer Impacts to Surface Waters and Wetlands
Table 9 summarizes the impacts to marine, stream, and wetland buffers. All of the stream and
wetland buffers in the Project area would be impacted during or following the Project. As shown on
Figure 5, the buffer areas for these resources overlap considerably.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 35 May 2017
Table 9 Summary of Impacts to Buffers of Surface Waters and Wetlands
Resource Category
Snohomish County City of Edmonds
Permanent
Buffer Impact (sf)
Temporary
Buffer Impact (sf)
Permanent
Buffer Impact (sf)
Temporary
Buffer Impact (sf)
Marine Buffer Area Only 370 7,700
Stream Buffer Area Only 780 3,700 80 0
Stream and Wetland Buffer Overlap Area 8,000 11,300 2,200 0
Wetland Buffer Area Only
Wetland D 70 0
Wetland F 1,060 230
Totals 9,150 22,700 1,130 230
5.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
The overarching ecological goal of the Project is to restore the estuary of Lund’s Gulch Creek, which
will provide restoration of approximately 1.7 acre, including the following:
• Approximately 1.18 acre of tidal wetland habitat
• Approximately 0.28 acre of freshwater wetland habitat
• Approximately 0.23 acre of instream habitat
Additional beach substrate enhancement and plantings of 0.46 acre and approximately 1.62 acres of
riparian enhancement plantings are planned.
5.3.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The proposed Project would avoid permanent adverse impacts to marine and stream waters below
MHHW and OHWM, respectively. The Project is designed to avoid direct impacts to existing wetlands
as much as possible, and the only direct impact to wetlands would be a negligible amount (8 sf, or
0.0001 acre) of impact to Wetland B. The impact to Wetland B is due to an elevated pedestrian
walkway segment that would provide park visitors access to the northern side of the restored
estuary. This ADA-accessible pedestrian path is a key component of the public access for the park.
Additional impacts to Wetland B were avoided by using the following measures:
• Locate the pedestrian walkway in the narrowest portion of the wetland
• Elevate the walkway over the wetland, to maintain wetland hydrology
• Use diamond pier foundations with smaller footprint to minimize wetland disturbance
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 36 May 2017
Other impact minimization and avoidance measures for the project include the following:
• Locate all estuary excavation at least 10 feet from existing wetland boundaries
• Reconfigure improvements to the ADA access road to avoid fill in Wetland D
• Minimize footprint of new walkways and relocated restroom enclosure for a net decrease in
impervious surface of 4,800 sf
• Locate footings for new pedestrian bridge above OHWM; provide grating on bridge surface
to minimize potential shading impacts
• Avoid permanent impacts to Wetland F by locating widening of the southern pedestrian path
to meet ADA requirements outside of the wetland
Measures to minimize impacts to surface water during construction include the following:
• Provide a temporary diversion of Lund’s Gulch Creek to allow in-stream work to be conducted
in the dry and minimize water quality impacts; salvage fish from the whole distance of channel
diversion
• Install a sediment curtain at the discharge area for the temporary diversion to minimize water
quality impacts
• Construct improvements to the stormwater capture and treatment system
• Require the contractor to prepare and implement a Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan and a Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan to be used
for the duration of the Project
• Require the contractor to implement and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control
BMPs through construction until the site is vegetated
In addition, the following BMPs will be employed during construction:
• All work will be performed according to the requirements and conditions of the Project
permits
• In-water work will occur during the approved regulatory work window, or an approved
extension of the work window
• Turbidity and other water quality parameters will be monitored to ensure construction
activities are in compliance with Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (173-
201A WAC)
• The contractor will be required to develop and implement a SPCC Plan to be used for the
duration of the Project to safeguard against an unintentional release of fuel, lubricants, or
hydraulic fluid from construction equipment
• Excess or waste materials will not be disposed of or abandoned waterward of OHWM or
allowed to enter waters of the State
• No petroleum products; fresh cement, lime or concrete; chemicals; or other toxic or
deleterious materials will be allowed to enter surface waters
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 37 May 2017
• The contractor will be required to retrieve any floating debris generated during construction
using a skiff and a net; debris will be disposed of at an appropriate upland facility
• The contractor will be required to properly maintain construction equipment and vehicles to
prevent them from leaking fuel or lubricants; if there is evidence of leakage, the further use of
such equipment will be suspended until the deficiency has been satisfactorily corrected
5.3.2 Impacts Associated with Estuary Restoration—No Additional
Mitigation Necessary
The Project is designed to restore and enhance the existing waterbodies on site. This includes
removing the existing culvert and creating a bridge to allow Lund’s Gulch Creek to return to a more
natural meander; restoring natural sediment transport processes at the mouth and on the delta;
improving connectivity of the creek channel, upland water sources, and Puget Sound; restoring and
enhancing riparian and in-stream habitat by planting conifers and placing large woody material;
restoring and creating estuary habitat; and providing stormwater treatment on site.
Nearly all the potential permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands, classified as “Enhancement”
in Table 8 and depicted on Figure 6, are impacts caused by the construction of the estuary restoration.
The restoration design provides the mitigation for these impacts, and no additional mitigation is
necessary. The single exception is the potential impact to Wetland B, discussed in Section 5.3.3.
Some of the potential temporary impacts to surface waters and wetlands and their buffers, discussed
in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively, are caused by necessary construction-related elements for
estuary restoration shown on Figure 16, including the stream diversion, work pads, and staging areas.
Temporary impacts of 0.002 acre to marine waters, 0.02 acre of stream waters, and 0.01 acre of
wetland waters will be addressed through restoration of tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, and
instream habitat at the location of the impact. For example, the temporary fill placed below OHWM
and MHHW for the work pads necessary for the railroad bridge construction will be removed during
construction of the estuary restoration. Similarly, the temporary fill placed in Wetland F of 0.01 acre
will be removed following construction and the wetland will be restored with additional plantings.
Finally, temporary impacts of 0.28 acre to stream and wetland buffers from construction staging
areas located inside the restored estuary area will be addressed through the restored habitat created
by construction of the estuary.
5.3.3 Mitigation for Impacts Outside of Estuary Restoration
The potential permanent impact to Wetland B would occur from the installation of diamond pier
foundations for the elevated pedestrian walkway segment. The permanent impact of 8 sf is nearly
negligible, but will be mitigated through restoration of freshwater wetland habitat in the estuary.
Additional avoidance and minimization measures for impacts to Wetland B are discussed in Section 5.3.1.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 38 May 2017
The potential permanent impacts to surface water and wetland buffers identified in Sections 5.1 and 5.2
and depicted on Figure 10, total 0.28 acre and are largely due to the installation of ADA-accessible
pedestrian walkways and overlooks. Permanent buffer impacts will also occur with minor widening of the
ADA-access road, which will also be used for construction access and material hauling. The
permanent impacts to buffer areas will be mitigated through riparian plantings along Lund’s Gulch Creek.
The potential temporary impacts in surface water and wetland buffers of 0.31 acre will be mitigated
through habitat restoration or enhancement at or near the location of the impact. All temporary
impacts would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Temporary impacts to buffers outside of the restored
estuary area from staging on the lawn area, and construction access for installation of the pedestrian
bridge will be addressed through riparian plantings along Lund’s Gulch Creek, upstream of the new
pedestrian bridge.
A summary of impacts and associated mitigation measures is shown in Table 10.
Table 10 Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact Type/Activity
Impact Amount (acre)
Required Mitigation Ratio1
Required Mitigation (acre)
Proposed Mitigation Methods Total
Construction of Restored Estuary
Riparian Enhancement Plantings
Permanent Impacts
Wetland B (diamond pier installation) 0.0001 3:1 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003
Stream and wetland buffers (pedestrian walkways and overlooks; access road widening)
0.28 3:1 0.84 0.84 0.84
Permanent Totals 0.29 0.86 0.86
Temporary Impacts
Stream and wetland buffers (construction staging and access outside of estuary area)
0.31 1:1 0.31 0.31 0.31
Temporary Totals 0.31 0.31
Note:
1. Per Snohomish County Code 30.62A.320
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 39 May 2017
5.4 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards
This section describes the goals, objectives, and performance standards for the proposed mitigation
to address permanent impacts to wetland, stream, and marine habitat identified in Table 10. Goals
describe the overall intent of mitigation efforts, and objectives describe individual components of the
mitigation site in detail. Performance standards set the guidelines for monitoring and evaluation of
the restored estuary and improved wetland and stream habitats. Restoration goals, objectives, and
performance standards are described in Section 5.5.
Because the majority of the mitigation is for wetland, stream, and marine buffer impacts, the
mitigation goals, objectives, and performance standards are directed at the establishment of a
functioning native plant community. The minor component of estuary restoration is discussed in
Section 5.5.
5.4.1 Goal 1: Establish Native Plant Communities
Objective 1-1: Plant communities will be restored by installing native trees, shrubs, and emergent
species.
• Performance Standard 1: Average survival of planted trees will be at least 90% at the end of
Year 1.
• Performance Standard 2: Within planted areas identified in Table 10, native riparian
vegetation species cover shall be at least 25% by Year 3, at least 50% by Year 5, and 70%
cover by Year 10.
• Performance Standard 3: Native herbaceous coverage within designated estuary and beach
areas shall be at least 50% by Year 3, 70% by Year 5, and 95% by Year 10.
• Performance Standard 4: Invasive, non-native plant species are maintained at levels below
20% total cover within planted riparian areas. Species such as creeping buttercup may not
necessarily be included in invasive cover standards as long as those species do not interfere
with long-term goals.
5.4.2 Mitigation Monitoring, Maintenance, and Contingency Plan
To ensure success of the mitigation, a 10-year monitoring and reporting program will be
implemented. Monitoring will include restored or enhanced wetland, stream, and buffer habitat
impacted by the Project construction. Installed vegetation communities will be monitored to assess
habitat function and, in the case of temporary wetland and wetland buffer impacts, performance of
enhancement efforts, including monitoring at Years 1, 3, 5, and 10. Prior to the first monitoring visit,
as-built (or Year 0) plans will be prepared to document the constructed site conditions. Any changes
to the approved planting designs that are required by field conditions encountered during plan
implementation must be documented on the as-built plans. Based on as-built plans or record
drawings, monitoring will take place during the growing season, (preferably late summer or early fall)
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 40 May 2017
prior to leaf drop, during the first 10 years after construction, in accordance with the monitoring
reporting years. A report for those years of monitoring will be submitted to the County, Ecology, the
Corps, and others, if required. This report will be submitted by December 31 of the applicable year.
Four reports (following Years 1, 3, 5, and 10) will be prepared. If issues are identified during off-years,
they will be addressed immediately, triggering potential contingency actions.
Monitoring activities will focus on the collection of vegetation data to evaluate, describe, and
quantify to the extent possible riparian functions and compliance with the performance standards.
Monitoring would also include photographic documentation of site features and the development of
habitat features on the site.
!
!
!!
!!
!!
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
Pond
¬A
ADA Access Road
¬G
¬H ¬E
¬C
¬D¬F
¬B
[0 200
Feet
Marine Impact (Enhancement)Stream Impact (Enhancement)Wetland Impact (Fill)Buffer Impact (Enhancement)Buffer Impact (Fill/Paving)
OHWM
OHWM BufferWetlandWetland Buffer
Project AreaMean Higher High Water (+9')Snohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:11 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-02\Figure10_impacts_r2.mxd
Figure 6Marine, Wetland, and Stream Potential Permanent ImpactsMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
¬A
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 42 May 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 43 May 2017
All monitoring would use standard ecological techniques to sample, measure, or describe vegetation
and wildlife habitat conditions. General monitoring methods are described in the following
subsections.
Methods to Monitor Progress in Attaining the Performance Standards
Each monitoring report will include an evaluation of the mitigation to ensure that the goals,
objectives, and performance standards are being met. The performance standards above will be
monitored using the following methods.
Vegetation Monitoring
Planted and naturally colonizing vegetation will be monitored to measure both the success of the
planting efforts and interspersion of wetland classes, as defined by Cowardin and others (1979). The
following information on shrub and tree vegetation will be collected:
• All plant species, in the order of dominance, based on relative percentage cover of each
species within each of the vegetative strata
• The species composition (i.e., percentage of each species, exotic or native
• Average height and general health of each planted species
Permanent photograph stations will be established; photographs will be taken in the same direction
at these stations every monitoring year.
Maintenance Actions
Maintenance will be performed regularly to address conditions that could jeopardize the success of
the mitigation. During regular monitoring visits, any necessary maintenance actions will be identified
and reported to the County.
Established performance standards for the Project will be compared to the monitoring results to
judge the success of the mitigation. If there is a significant problem with achieving the performance
standards, the County shall develop a corrective action plan. Corrective actions may include, but are
not limited to, additional plant installation and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and
location. Maintenance and remedial action on site will be implemented immediately upon
completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). Typical
maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to, the following:
• During Year 1, replace all dead planted material to achieve 90% survival.
• Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goals and
objectives of the mitigation.
• Re-plant the area after reason for failure has been identified and corrected (e.g., moisture
regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.).
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 44 May 2017
• Remove and control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass,
non-native blackberries, bindweed, purple loosestrife, etc.). Use of herbicides or pesticides
within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were
considered unlikely to be successful. Mulch rings may be maintained on trees and shrubs,
until they become established.
• Remove trash and other undesirable debris.
Contingency Plan
Contingency plans describe what actions can be taken to correct site deficiencies. Mitigation goals,
objectives, and performance standards create a baseline by which to measure if the site is
performing as proposed and whether or not a contingency plan is necessary. All contingencies
cannot be anticipated. The contingency plan will be flexible so that modifications can be made if
portions of the final design do not produce the desired results. Problems or potential problems will
be evaluated by a qualified wetland ecologist, the County, the Corps, and Ecology. Specific
contingency actions will be developed, agreed to by consensus, and implemented based on all
scientifically and economically feasible recommendations.
Contingencies may include the following:
• Additional plantings or changing species selections to correct excessive mortality
• Fencing or other measures to reduce trampling
• Additional monitoring or unscheduled monitoring during Years 1 through 10
The County will implement contingency plans on an as-needed basis. Contingency plans will be
developed for review and approval by regulatory agencies, as appropriate. In addition, implemented
contingency plans will be described in the next monitoring report. Contingency plans shall be
submitted by December 31 of the year in which deficiencies are discovered. A contingency plan, if
required, will be submitted before construction activities.
If, during the monitoring program, other maintenance needs are identified as necessary to ensure
the success of the mitigation Project, they will be implemented, unless generated by third parties or
acts of nature.
5.5 Estuary Restoration Monitoring
To measure success of the estuary restoration, a 10-year monitoring program will be implemented to
evaluate the function of the restored estuary in relationship to the goals for the Project. The goals of
the estuary restoration effort and associated monitoring protocols are provided below.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 45 May 2017
Goal No. 1: Restore natural tidal regime to improve salmonid access and refuge opportunities
Target: Restored estuary will allow natural tidal fluctuations and appropriate depths and velocities
for juvenile and adult passage
Monitoring Protocol:
• Install velocity meter in the low-flow channel to record velocities for one year following
construction. Develop velocity/frequency curve.
• Install water-level logger in estuary upstream of the railroad for 1 year following construction.
Develop depth/frequency curve.
• Conduct channel cross-section and profile surveys in Years 1, 5, and 10 following construction
to evaluate if fish access conditions are maintained. Document changes and identify causal
factors for changes observed.
Goal No. 2: Improve habitat for fish and wildlife species
Targets:
• Achieve 50–70% cover of native vegetation species planted per design at designated
representative monitoring plots within 5 years post-construction and sustain for lifetime of
the Project.
• Reduce non-native vegetation species to less than 20% cover within 5 years post-
construction.
• Document habitat functions via the Washington State Wetlands Rating System (Hruby 2014)
and Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions (HGM model, Hruby et al. 2001) in Year 10
following construction. Compare scores to the baseline condition.
Monitoring Protocol:
• Establish five permanent vegetation plots to be representative of the plant communities and
restored areas. Permanent plots shall be 33-foot-diameter circular plots (center point of each
plot will be documented via GPS coordinates to reoccupy in each sampling). Percent cover will
be visually assessed and documented for each stratum (herbs, shrubs, trees, woody vines) and
each species with more than 5% cover. Sampling will occur in Years 1, 3, 5, and 10 following
construction. Meet mitigation performance standards for plant communities.
• Conduct stream/estuary survey of habitat units and large wood in Years 1, 3, 5, and 10
following construction, using appropriate protocol such as recommended in the Status and
Trends Monitoring of Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery (Ecology 2006).
• Conduct habitat functions via the Washington State Wetlands Rating System (Hruby 2014)
and Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions (HGM model; Hruby et al. 1999) in Year 10
following construction. Compare scores to the baseline condition.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 46 May 2017
Prior to the first monitoring visit, as-built (or Year 0) plans will be prepared to document the
constructed estuary and restoration site conditions. Any changes to the approved estuary restoration
designs would be documented on the as-built plans. Based on as-built plans or record drawings,
monitoring will take place during the growing season, (preferably late summer or early fall) prior to
leaf drop, during the first 10 years after construction, in accordance with the monitoring reporting
years. A report for those years of monitoring will be provided to the County, Ecology, the Corps, and
others, if desired. This report will be submitted by December 31 of the applicable year.
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 47 May 2017
6 References
Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2015. Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study. Prepared for
Snohomish County Department of Parks and Recreation. August 2015.
Corps (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). J.S. Wakeley,
R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble (eds.). ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification
and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Olympia, Washington.
Ecology, 2006. Status and Trends Monitoring for Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery, Quality
Assurance Monitoring Plan. Ecology Publication No. 06-03-203.
Ecology, 2016. Environmental Information; Watersheds; Cedar-Sammamish Water Resource Inventory
Area (WRIA) 8. Cited: November 11, 2016. Available from:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/wria/08.html.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station.
Hruby, T., T. Granger, K. Brunner, S. Cooke, K. Dublanica, R. Gersib, L. Reinelt, K. Richter, D. Sheldon,
E. Teachout, A. Wald, F. Weinmann, 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions, Volume I:
Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 99-115.
Hruby, T., 2014. Washington State Wetlands Rating System – Western Washington: 2014 Update.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029.
Munsell, 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland.
Reed, P.B., Jr., 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9).
Reed, P., Jr., 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9).
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation 48 May 2017
Snohomish County, 2016. Snohomish County Code. Cited: November 11, 2016. Available from:
http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2016a. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web
Soil Survey. Cited: November 11, 2016. Available from:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app.
USDA, 2016b. Hydric Soil List for Snohomish County Area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Cited: November 11, 2016. Available from:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateId=WA.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper for
National Wetlands Inventory Map Information. Cited: November 11, 2016. Available from:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2016a. Priority Habitats and Species Maps.
Cited: November 11, 2016. Available from: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/.
WDFW, 2016b. SalmonScape. Cited: November 11, 2016. Available from:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/.
Appendix A
Wetland Delineation Data
Table A-1
Plant Species Observed During the Investigation
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Meadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Page 1 of 1
May 2017
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator
Trees
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC
Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorne FAC
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce FAC
Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood FAC
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow FACW+
Salix scouleriana Scouler willow FAC
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC
Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU-
Shrubs
Acer circinatum Vine maple FAC-
Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood FACW
Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut FACU
Hedera helix English ivy UPL
Ilex aquifolium Holly FACU
Mahonia nervosa Low Oregon grape FACU
Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum FACU
Rhododendron occidentale Western azalea FAC
Ribes lacustre Prickly currant FAC+
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FAC
Rubus parviflorus Western thimbleberry FAC-
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+
Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry FACU
Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU
Grass, Ferns, & Herbaceous
Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern FAC+
Convolvulvus arvensis Orchard morning glory UPL
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC
Geranium robertianum Stinky bob UPL
Grass spp.Mowed Grass NI
Hedera helix English ivy UPL
Juncus effusus Soft rush FACW
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW
Plantago lanceolata English plantain FAC
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern FACU
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW
Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion FACU
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC
Trifolium pratense Red clover FACU
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC+
Note:
1 These categories, referred to as the “wetland indicator status” (from the wettest to driest
habitats), are as follows: obligate wetland (OBL) plants; facultative wetland (FACW) plants;
facultative (FAC) plants; facultative upland (FACU) plants; and obligate upland (UPL) plants.
Table A-2
Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Vegetation Data
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Meadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Page 1 of 3
May 2017
Wet SP Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Cover %
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 20
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 5
Juncus effusus Soft rush FACW 20
Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood FAC 90
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+15
Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry FACU 5
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 15
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 35
Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut FACU 40
Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorne FAC 25
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 5
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 20
Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood FAC 25
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+60
Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry FACU 60
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 30
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 70
Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern FAC+5
Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood FACW 10
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW 15
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW 60
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW 90
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FAC 5
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+30
Salix scouleriana Scouler willow FAC 15
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 40
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC+10
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 10
Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern FAC+5
Convolvulvus arvensis Orchard morning glory UPL 30
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW 40
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW 5
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce FAC 15
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FAC 35
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+60
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 90
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+85
Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry FACU 5
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 5
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 5
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 15
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 70
Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood FACW 10
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+50
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 10
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW 20
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 20
A
1Wet
2Up
B
3Wet
4Up
C
5Wet
6Up
Table A-2
Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Vegetation Data
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Meadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Page 2 of 3
May 2017
Wet SP Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Cover %
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 75
Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern FAC+10
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 10
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 1
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW 15
Ribes lacustre Prickly currant FAC+5
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+80
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 1
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 1
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 90
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 85
Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut FACU 5
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 1
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 5
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+80
Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry FACU 5
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 1
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 95
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 5
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 90
Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern FAC+2
Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood FACW 10
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 15
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce FAC 5
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+60
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 2
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 70
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 95
Hedera helix English ivy UPL 15
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce FAC 15
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 5
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+60
Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry FACU 5
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 25
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 90
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 1
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW 1
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+75
Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU 5
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 40
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 20
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 30
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 1
Geranium robertianum Stinky bob UPL 1
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 40
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+60
Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU 10
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 35
D
7Wet
8Up
E
9Wet
10Up
F
11Wet
12Up
Table A-2
Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Vegetation Data
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Meadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Page 3 of 3
May 2017
Wet SP Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Cover %
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 5
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 100
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 1
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FAC 5
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+75
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 10
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 95
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 5
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 100
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 1
Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU 35
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FAC 20
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+25
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 5
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 5
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 5
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 5
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 90
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 5
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+90
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 10
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 25
Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU-5
Acer macrophylum Big-leaf maple FACU 90
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC 5
Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern FAC+2
Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood FACW 10
Equisetum arvense Field horsetail FAC 15
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce FAC 5
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+60
Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 2
Tolmiea menziesii Piggyback plant FAC 70
G
13Wet
14Up
H
15Wet
16Up
Table A-3
Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Soils Data
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Meadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Page 1 of 2
May 2017
Wet SP Soil Horizon (inch)Matrix Color Redox Color
Redox
Abundance (%)Texture
0 to 1 NA NA NA Leaf Litter
1 to 3 10YR 3/3 None 0 Loam
3 to 18+10YR 5/2 10YR 5/6 & 10YR 6/6 10 Clay loam
2Up 0 to 18+10YR 3/4 None 0 Loam
0 to 5 10YR 3/2 None 0 Sandy loam with gravel
5 to 8 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/6 5 Sandy loam with gravel
8 to 18+10YR 4/1 10YR 4/4 5 Sandy loam with gravel
4Up 0 to 18+10YR 3/2 None 0 Sandy loam with gravel
0 to 12 10YR 3/2 None 0 Silty loam
12 to 18+Gley1 4/10Y 10YR 4/4 20 Silty sand with cobble and gravel
0 to 8 10YR 3/2 None 0 Loam
8 to 18+2.5Y 3/2 None 0 Sandy loam with gravel
0 to 7 10YR 4/1 10YR 5/8 2 Silty sand
7 to 8 10YR 4/1 None 0 Organics
8 to 18+2.5Y 4/1 2.5Y 5/4 20 Silty sand with gravel
0 to 10 10YR 4/2 None 0 Loam
10 to 14 10YR 5/2 0 0 Silty sand
14 to 18+10YR 5/2 None 0 Rock, cobble, sand
0 to 5 10YR 3/1 None 0 Silt loam
5 to 6 10YR 3/1 None 0 Organics
6 to 14 10YR 3/1 2.5Y 4/2 20 Silt loam
14 to 18+Gley1 4/5G 2.5Y 4/2 50 Silty sand
10Up 0 to 18+10YR 3/2 None 0 Loam
0 to 6 10YR 3/1 None 0 Silt
6 to 10 10YR 3/2 10YR 5/1 60 Silt
10 to 18+10YR 4/1 10YR 5/6 10 Silt
12Up 0 to 18+10YR 3/3 None 0 Loam
0 to 12 10YR 3/1 None 0 Sandy silt
12 to 16 2.5Y 3/1 None 0 Silty sand
16 to 18+Gley1 4/10Y None 0 Sand with gravel
0 to 14 10YR 3/3 None 0 Loam with gravel
14 to 18+2.5Y 4/2 None 0 Sandy loam
F 11Wet
A 1Wet
B 3Wet
C
5Wet
6Up
D
7Wet
8Up
E 9Wet
G
13Wet
14Up
Table A-3
Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Soils Data
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Meadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Page 2 of 2
May 2017
Wet SP Soil Horizon (inch)Matrix Color Redox Color
Redox
Abundance (%)Texture
0 to 3 10YR 2/2 None 0 Sandy silt
3 to 5 Gley1 4/10Y None 0 Sand
5 to 9 10YR 3/1 None 0 Sandy silt
9 to 18+Gley1 4/10Y 10YR 5/6 5 Silty sand
0 to 9 10YR 3/2 None 0 Loam
9 to 12 10YR 3/2 None 0 Loam with gravel and brick pieces
12 to 18+10YR 3/2 None 0 Silt loam with gravel
H
15Wet
16Up
Table A-4
Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Hydrology Data
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Meadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Page 1 of 1
May 2017
Wet SP Hydrology
1Wet Saturation at surface, water table observed at 3 inches from surface
2Up No saturation or water table observed within sample plot
3Wet Saturation at surface, water table observed at 10 inches from surface
4Up No saturation or water table observed within sample plot
5Wet Saturation at surface, no water table observed
6Up No saturation or water table observed within sample plot
7Wet Saturation at the surface and water table observed at 10 inches from surface
8Up No saturation or water table observed within sample plot
9Wet Saturation at surface and water table observed at 14 inches from surface
10Up No saturation or water table observed within sample plot
11Wet Surface water 1 to 2 inches deep, saturation and water table at surface
12Up No saturation or water table observed within sample plot
13Wet Saturation at surface and water table observed at 16 inches from surface
14Up No saturation or water table observed within sample plot
15Wet Saturation at 9 inches and water table observed at 9 inches from surface
16Up No saturation or water table observed within sample plot
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
Table A-5
Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Data and Wetland Determination
Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Meadowdale Beach Park Recreation and Habitat Improvements Project
Page 1 of 1
May 2017
Wet SP Vegetation Soils Hydrology Determination
1Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
2Up Hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
3Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
4Up Hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
5Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
6Up Hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
7Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
8Up Hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
9Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
10Up Hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
11Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
12Up Hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
13Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
14Up Hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
15Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland
16Up Hydrophytic Non-hydric Negative Upland
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
Appendix B
Field Data Forms
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: Meadowdale Park Project City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date: 10/19/16
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish Co. Parks & Rec Department State: WA Sampling Point: We SP1
Investigator(s): C. Douglas & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest, ravine Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam NWI classification: None Mapped
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: Site is a public park. Wetland A wetland sample plot is located about 3 feet from the edge of flagged wetland boundary.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status
1. Alnus rubra 20 Yes FAC
2. Populus trichocarpa 90 Yes FAC
3.
4.
100 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft )
1. Rubus spectabilis 15 Yes FAC+
2. Rubus ursinus 5 No FACU
3.
4.
5.
20 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft )
1. Equisetum arvense 5 Yes FAC
2. Juncus effusus 5 Yes FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
10 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (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:100% FAC or wetter vegetation per the Dominance Test
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: Wet SP2
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 to 1 NA 100 NA NA NA NA Leaf Litter
1 to 3 10YR 3/3 100 None 0 NA NA Loam
3 to 18+ 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 5/6 & 10YR 6/6 10 D M Clay 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) X 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 X No
Depth (inches):
Remarks: 2 chroma with redox features
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
X High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) X Drainage Patterns (B10)
X 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 X No Depth (inches): 3 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No Depth (inches): surface
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Saturation and standing water 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: Meadowdale Park Project City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date: 10/19/16
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish Co. Parks & Rec Department State: WA Sampling Point: Up SP2
Investigator(s): C. Douglas & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Forest, ravine Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam NWI classification: None Mapped
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 No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Site is a public park. Wetland A upland soil plot is located about 4 feet from the edge of flagged wetland boundary.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status
1. Acer macrophylum 15 No FACU
2. Alnus rubra 35 Yes FAC
3. Crataegus douglasii 25 Yes FAC
4. Populus trichocarpa 25 Yes FAC
100 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft )
1. Corylus cornuta 40 Yes FACU
2. Rubus spectabilis 60 Yes FAC+
3. Rubus ursinus 60 Yes FACU
4.
5.
100 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft )
1. Equisetum arvense 5 No FAC
2. Polystichum munitum 20 Yes FACU
3. Tolmiea menziesii 30 Yes FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
55 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 45
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 63 (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:63% FAC or wetter vegetation per the Dominance Test
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: Up SP2
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 to 18+ 10 YR 3/4 100 None 0 NA NA 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: 4 chroma with no redox features
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 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 saturation or standing water
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: Meadowdale Park Project City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date: 10/19/16
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish Co. Parks & Rec Department State: WA Sampling Point: Wet SP3
Investigator(s): C. Douglas & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam NWI classification: None Mapped
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: Site is a public park. Wetland B wetland sample plot is located about 4 feet from the edge of flagged wetland boundary.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status
1. Alnus rubra 70 Yes FAC
2. Fraxinus latifolia 15 No FACW
3. Salix scouleriana 15 No FAC
4.
100 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft )
1. Cornus sericea 10 Yes FACW
2. Rubus armeniacus 5 No FAC
3. Rubus spectabilis 30 Yes FAC+
4.
5.
45 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft )
1. Athyrium filix-femina 5 No FAC+
2. Phalaris arundinacea 60 Yes FACW
3. Ranunculus repens 90 Yes FACW
4. Tolmiea menziesii 40 No FAC
5. Urtica dioica 10 No FAC+
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (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:100% FAC or wetter vegetation
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: Wet SP3
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 to 5 10YR 3/2 100 None 0 NA NA Sandy loam w/gravel
5 to 8 10YR 3/2 100 10YR 4/6 5 D M Sandy loam w/gravel
8 to 18+ 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/4 5 D M Sandy loam w/gravel
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) X 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 X No
Depth (inches):
Remarks: 1 and 2 chroma with redox features
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
X High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) X Drainage Patterns (B10)
X 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 X No Depth (inches): 10 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes X No Depth (inches): surface
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Saturation and standing water 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: Meadowdale Park Project City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date: 10/19/16
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish Co. Parks & Rec Department State: WA Sampling Point: Up SP4
Investigator(s): C. Douglas & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam NWI classification: None Mapped
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 No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Site is a public park. Wetland A upland soil plot is located about 4 feet from the edge of flagged wetland boundary.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status
1. Acer macrophylum 10 No FACU
2. Fraxinus latifolia 40 Yes FACW
3. Picea sitchensis 15 Yes FAC
4.
65 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft )
1. Rubus armeniacus 35 Yes FAC
2. Rubus spectabilis 60 Yes FAC+
3.
4.
5.
95 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft )
1. Athyrium filix-femina 5 No FAC+
2. Convolvulvus arvensis 30 Yes UPL
3. Phalaris arundinacea 5 No FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
40 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (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:80% FAC or wetter vegetation
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: Up SP4
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 to 18+ 10 YR 3/2 100 None 0 NA NA Sandy loam w/gravel
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: 2 chroma with no redox features
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 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 saturation or standing water
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 90 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = 45, 20% = 18 90 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Rubus ursinus 5 no FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 85 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Thuja plicata 5 no FAC OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. FAC species 185 x3 = 555
50% = 47.5, 20% = 19 95 = Total Cover FACU species 5 x4 = 20
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 5 yes FAC Column Totals: 190 (A) 575 (B)
2. . Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 2.5, 20% = 1 5 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 95
Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Dec. 19, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP5 W Wet C
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland C wet soil plot is located 4' from the edge of the flagged wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP5 W Wet C
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 12 10YR 3/2 100 None None None None Silty loam oxidized rhizo. 2- 5%
12 to 18+ Gley1 4/10Y 80 10YR 4/4 20 None None Silty sand oxidized rhizo. small cobble and gravel
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Gley soils at 12" and oxidized root channels throughout..
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 18
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Very saturated soils. Water stained leaves from past over bank events from the stream.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 70 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Acer macrophyllum 15 no FACU
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4.
50% = 42.5, 20% = 17 85 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Cornus sericea 10 no FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 50 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Thuja plicata 10 no FAC OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. FACW species 10 x2 = 20
5. FAC species 150 x3 = 450
50% = 35, 20% = 14 70 = Total Cover FACU species 35 x4 = 140
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Ranunculus repens 20 yes FAC Column Totals: 195 (A) 610 (B)
2. Polystichum munitum 20 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 20, 20% = 8 40 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60
Remarks: 75% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Dec. 19, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP6 Up Wet C
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland C Upland soil plot is located 3' from the edge of the flagged wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP6 Up Wet C
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 8 10YR 3/2 100 None None None None Loam
8 to 18+ 2.5Y 3/2 100 None None None None Loam gravel, rock, and sand
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: The soil profile has a lot of rock, gravel, and sand below 8 inches.
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: The surface of the soil was damp due to recent rains but no saturation was noted.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Thuja plicata 1 no FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Alnus rubra 75 yes FAC
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = 38, 20% = 15.2 76 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Thuja plicata 1 no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 80 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Polystichum munitum 1 no FACU OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. Athyrium filix-femina 10 no FAC FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. Ribes lacustre 5 no FAC FAC species 287 x3 = 861
50% = 48.5, 20% = 19.4 97 = Total Cover FACU species 1 x4 = 4
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 90 yes FAC Column Totals: 288 (A) 865 (B)
2. Equisetum arvense. 10 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
3. Ranunculus repens 15 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 57.5, 20% = 23 90 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 4
Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Nov. 1, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP7W Wet D
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope/Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2% to 25%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland D wetland soil plot is located 6' from the edge of the flagged wetland on a forested slope.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP7W Wet D
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 7 10YR 4/1 98 10YR 5/8 2 None PL Silty sand
7 to 8 10YR 4/1 100 None None None None Organics Buried coarse organics
8 to 18+ 2.5Y 411 80 2.5Y 5/4 15 - 20 None PL Silty sand gravel present
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Much of this wetland is a result of small landslides from the upslope hillside seep.
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 10
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): surface
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Hillside seep present at upper elevation of the wetland. Stormwater from the adjacent road is diverted into the wetland
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 85 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. yes FAC
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = 42.5, 20% = 17 85 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Thuja plicata 1 no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 80 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Polystichum munitum 5 no FACU OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. Rubus ursinus 5 no FACU FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. Corylus cornuta 5 no FACU FAC species 262 x3 = 786
50% = 48, 20% = 19.2 96 = Total Cover FACU species 15 x4 = 60
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 95 yes FAC Column Totals: 277 (A) 846 (B)
2. Equisetum arvense. 1 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 48, 20% = 19.2 96 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 4
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation is present but that may be due to the sample plot being very close to the edge of the wetland. No hydric soils were found or hydrology.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Nov. 1, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP8Up Wet D
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope/Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2% to 25%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland D upland soil plot is located 3' from the edge of the flagged wetland on a forested slope.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP8Up Wet D
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 10 10YR 4/2 100 None None None None Loam Coarse roots.
10 to 14 10YR 5/2 100 None None None None silty sand gravel in silty sand
14 to 18+ 10YR 5/2 100 None None None None Rock/cobble/sand Rock, cobbl;e and sand layer
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Soil plot is upslope of the landslide depression.
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Soil is moist but not saturated. Sand in the soil provides drainage.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 90 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Acer macrophyllum 5 no FACU
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = 47.5, 20% = 19 95 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Picea sitchensis 5 no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 60 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Thuja plicata 2 no FAC OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. Athyrium filix-femina 2 no FAC FACW species 10 x2 = 20
5. Cornus sericia 10 no FACW FAC species 244 x3 = 732
50% = 39.5, 20% = 15.8 79 = Total Cover FACU species 5 x4 = 20
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 70 yes FAC Column Totals: 259 (A) 772 (B)
2. Equisetum arvense. 15 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 42.5, 20% = 17 85 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15
Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Nov. 1, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP9 W Wet E
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland E wet soil plot is located 6' from the edge of the flagged wetland within the stream floodplain near the trail complex.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP9 W Wet E
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 5 10YR 3/1 100 None None None None Silty loam
5 to 6 10YR 3/1 100 None None None None Organics Buried coarse organics
6 to 14 10YR 3/1 80 2.5Y 4/2 20 D None Silty loam
14 to 18+ Gley1 4/5G 50 2.5Y 4/2 50 D M Silty sand sand tubes within the dense silt
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: The lower depths of the soil sho frequent rise and fall of the water table based on the adjacet stream discharge.
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 14
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): surface
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Edge of floodplain depression hold precipitation and overbank events from the adjacent stream.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 95 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = 47.5, 20% = 19 95 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Picea sitchensis 15 no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 60 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Hedera helix 15 no FACU OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. Polystitchum munitum 5 no FACU FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. Rubus ursinus 5 no FACU FAC species 190 x3 = 570
50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover FACU species 30 x4 = 120
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 25 yes FAC Column Totals: 220 (A) 690 (B)
2. . Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 12.5, 20% = 5 25 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15
Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Nov. 1, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP10 Up Wet E
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland E Upland soil plot is located 3' from the edge of the flagged wetland near the park trail complex.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP10 Up Wet E
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 18+ 10YR 3/2 100 None None None None 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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: The soil is slightly damp and vey consistant throughout.
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No hydrology indicators. Soil is slightly damp from recent rain events.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 90 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = 47.5, 20% = 19 90 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Sambucus racemosa 5 no FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 75 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. FAC species 207 x3 = 621
50% = 55, 20% = 22 80 = Total Cover FACU species 5 x4 = 20
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 40 yes FAC Column Totals: 212 (A) 641 (B)
2. Equisetum arvens. 1 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
3. Ranunculus repens 1 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 15, 20% = 6 42 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 58
Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Nov. 1, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP11 W Wet F
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toe of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland F wet soil plot is located 3' from the edge of the flagged wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP11 W Wet F
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 6 10YR 3/1 100 None None None None Silt
6 to 10 10YR 3/2 40 10YR 5/1 60 D PL Silt 50% redox on pore linings
10 to 18+ 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 None PL Silt oxidized rhizoshperes.
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Redox and depleted matrix 6" and below.
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1 to 2 " Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): surface
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Standing water in a few places is only 1-2 inches..
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 30 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Acer macrophyllum 20 yes FACU
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4.
50% = 25, 20% = 10 50 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Alnus rubra 1 no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 60 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Sambucus racemosa 10 no FACU OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. FAC species 126 x3 = 378
50% = 35.5, 20% = 14.2 71 = Total Cover FACU species 71 x4 = 284
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 35 yes FAC Column Totals: 197 (A) 662 (B)
2. Polystichum munitum. 40 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.4
3. Geranium robertainium 1 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 38, 20% = 15.2 76 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 24
Remarks: 60% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Nov. 1, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP12 Up Wet F
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland H Upland soil plot is located 6' from the edge of the flagged wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP12 Up Wet F
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 18 10YR 3/3 100 None None None None 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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Very reddish brown soil..
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No hydrology present.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 100 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = 50, 20% = 20 50 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Rubus armeniacus 5 no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 75 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Thuja plicata 10 no FAC OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. Acer macrophyllum 5 no FACU FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. FAC species 286 x3 = 858
50% = 47.5, 20% = 19 95 = Total Cover FACU species 5 x4 = 20
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 95 yes FAC Column Totals: 291 (A) 878 (B)
2. Equisetum arvens. 1 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 48, 20% = 19.2 96 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 4
Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Dec. 19, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP13 W Wet G
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland G wet soil plot is located 3' from the edge of the flagged wetland near the gravel hiking trail.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP13 W Wet G
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 12 10YR 3/1 100 None None None None Sandy silt
12 to 16 2.5Y 3/1 100 None None None None Silty Sand
16 to 18 Gley1 4/10 100 None None None None Sand with fine gravel
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: layers of silty sand from overbanking events.
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 16
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): surface
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Very saturated upper 16" with water at 16". Soil plot was 3' from the edge of the wetland edge and the gravel trail.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 100 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2.
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4.
50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Acer macrophyllum 5 no FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 25 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Thuja plicata 5 no FAC OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. Rubus armeniacus 20 yes FAC FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. FAC species 156 x3 = 468
50% = 27.5, 20% = 11 55 = Total Cover FACU species 38 x4 = 152
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 5 no FAC Column Totals: 194 (A) 620 (B)
2. Equisetum arvense. 1 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.2
3. Polystichum munitum 33 yes FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 19.5, 20% = 17 39 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 61
Remarks: >50% wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Dec. 19, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP14Up Wet G
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland G Upland soil plot is located 3' from the edge of the flagged wetland and 3' from the gravel hiking trail..
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP14Up Wet G
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 14 10YR 3/3 100 None None None None Loam rock and gravel
14 to 18 2.5Y 4/2 100 None None None None Sandy Loam
1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: The soil profile has a layer of rock and gravel in the upper 14 inches likely associated with the trail construction.
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No hydrology present except for damp soils from recent rains.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 90 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Acer macrophyllum 5 no FACU
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = 47.5, 20% = 19 95 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Tsuga heterophylla 5 no FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 90 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Thuja plicata 10 no FACU OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. Acer macrophyllum 5 no FACU FACW species 0 x2 = 0
5. FAC species 220 x3 = 660
50% = 55, 20% = 22 110 = Total Cover FACU species 15 x4 = 60
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 25 yes FAC Column Totals: 235 (A) 720 (B)
2. Equisetum arvens. 5 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 15, 20% = 6 30 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70
Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Nov. 1, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP15 W Wet H
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 1% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland H wet soil plot is located 6' from the edge of the flagged wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP15 W Wet H
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 3 10YR 2/2 100 None None None None Sandy silt
3 to 5 Gley1 4/10Y 100 None None None None Sand
5 to 9 10YR 3/1 100 None None None None Sandy silt
9 to 18+ Gley1 4/10 95 10YR 5/6 5 None PL silty sand Oxidized root pores
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: layers of silty sand from overbanking events.
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 9
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Very saturated upper 9" with water at 9". Soil plot was 20' from the edge of the OHWM of the stream.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet:
1. Alnus rubra 90 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Acer macrophyllum 5 no FACU
3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4.
50% = 47.5, 20% = 19 95 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 foot radius)
1. Picea sitchensis 5 no FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus spectabilis 60 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. Thuja plicata 2 no FAC OBL species 0 x1 = 0
4. Athyrium filix-femina 2 no FAC FACW species 10 x2 = 20
5. Cornus sericea 10 no FACW FAC species 244 x3 = 732
50% = 39.5, 20% = 15.8 79 = Total Cover FACU species 5 x4 = 20
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius) UPL species 0 x5 = 0
1. Tolmiea menziesii 70 yes FAC Column Totals: 259 (A) 772 (B)
2. Equisetum arvense. 15 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01
7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 42.5, 20% = 17 85 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 foot radius)
1. -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes No 2.
50% = , 20% = = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15
Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance Test.
Project Site: Meadowdale Park City/County: Edmonds /Snohomish Sampling Date: Nov. 1, 2016
Applicant/Owner: Snohomish County State: WA Sampling Point: SP16 Up Wet H
Investigator(s): J. Pursley & B. Severtsen Section, Township, Range: S5 T27N R4E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0% to 2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.85N Long: -122.32W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: None
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 within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The Wetland H Upland soil plot is located 6' from the edge of the flagged wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: SP16 Up Wet H
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 to 9 10YR 3/2 100 None None None None Loam
9 to 12 10YR 3/2 100 None None None None Loam gravel, rock, and brick
12 to 18+ 10YR 3/2 100 None None None None Silt loam Rounded gravel
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)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: The soil profile has a layer of rock and brick from 9-12 inches likely from past site development..
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) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: .
Project Site: Meadowdale Park
Appendix C
Ecology Wetland Ratings Forms
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
A
Meadowdale Park Wetland A 10/19/2016
C. Douglas 2007
Depressional
III
X
7 5 7 19
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3?
Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
A
3
0
3
2
8
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands
with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
A
4
3
0
7
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 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, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
A
1
X
X
1
X
X
1
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
A
1
X
6
1
10 2 12
1
25 5 30
0
2
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
A
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 page 25)
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. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? 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 = Is 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 = Is a 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 = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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)
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 on p. 100).
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
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
A
NA
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
B
Meadowdale Park Wetland B 10/19/2016
C. Douglas 2007
Riverine
II
X
7 6 7 20
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 7
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event:
Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8
Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4
Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2
No depressions present points = 0
R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes)
Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8
Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3
Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0
Total for R 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
R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0
R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut
within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4
Other sources ____________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer
YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for R 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
B
2
6
8
2
1
0
1
0
4
1 & 0
0
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 8
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides:
Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the
stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average
width of stream between banks).
If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9
If the ratio is 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
R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or
shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person
height. These are NOT Cowardin classes).
Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7
Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4
Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0
Total for R 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
R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1
R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1
Total for R 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
R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems?
Choose the description that best fits the site.
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to
human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
R 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 R 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
B
4
7
11
1
1
1
3
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 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, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
B
1X
X
2
X
X
X
1
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
B
1
x
7
0
5 1 6
1
25 5 30
0
1
2
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
B
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 page 25)
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. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? 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 = Is 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 = Is a 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 = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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)
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 on p. 100).
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
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
B
NA
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
C
Meadowdale Park Wetland C 12/19/2016
C. Douglas 2007
Riverine
II
X
7 6 7 20
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
C
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
C
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
C
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 7
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event:
Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8
Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4
Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2
No depressions present points = 0
R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes)
Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8
Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3
Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0
Total for R 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
R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0
R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut
within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4
Other sources ____________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer
YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for R 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
C
2
6
8
2
1
0
1
0
4
1 & 0
0
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 8
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides:
Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the
stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average
width of stream between banks).
If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9
If the ratio is 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
R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or
shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person
height. These are NOT Cowardin classes).
Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7
Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4
Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0
Total for R 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
R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1
R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1
Total for R 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
R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems?
Choose the description that best fits the site.
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to
human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
R 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 R 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
C
4
7
11
1
1
1
3
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 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, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
C
1X
X
2
X
X
X
1
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
C
1
x
7
0
1 .5 1.5
1
25 5 30
0
1
2
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
C
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 page 25)
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. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? 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 = Is 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 = Is a 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 = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
C
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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)
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 on p. 100).
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
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
C
NA
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
D
Meadowdale Park Wetland D 11/1/2016
C. Douglas 2007
Slope
III
X
6 3 7 16
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
D
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
D
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
D
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources ________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 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
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 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
D
1
0
2
3
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows.
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 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 S 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
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
D
0
0
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 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, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
D
1X
X
2
X
X
X
1
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D
2
x
x
8
0
5 1 6
1
25 5 30
0
1
2
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
D
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 page 25)
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. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? 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 = Is 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 = Is a 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 = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
D
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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)
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 on p. 100).
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
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
D
NA
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
E
Meadowdale Park Wetland E 11/1/2016
C. Douglas 2007
Depressional
III
X
7 4 7 18
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
E
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
E
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
E
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3?
Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
E
1
0
3
2
6
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands
with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
E
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 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, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
E
1
X
X
2
X
X
X
1
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
E
1
X
7
0
5 1 6
1
25 5 30
0
1
2
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
E
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 page 25)
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. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? 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 = Is 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 = Is a 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 = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
E
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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)
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 on p. 100).
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
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
E
NA
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
F
Meadowdale Park Wetland F 11/1/2016
C. Douglas 2007
Slope
IV
X
6 3 6 15
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
F
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
F
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
F
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources ________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 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
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 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
F
1
0
2
3
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows.
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 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 S 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
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
F
0
0
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 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, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
F
1
X
X
1
X
X
1
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
F
1
x
6
0
1 .5 1.5
1
25 5 30
0
1
2
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
F
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 page 25)
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. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? 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 = Is 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 = Is a 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 = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
F
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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)
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 on p. 100).
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
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
F
NA
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
G
Meadowdale Park Wetland G 12/19/2016
C. Douglas 2007
Depressional
III
X
7 4 7 18
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
G
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
G
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
G
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3?
Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
G
1
0
3
2
6
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands
with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
G
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 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, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
G
1X
X
2
X
X
X
1
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
G
1
X
7
0
1 .5 1.5
1
25 5 30
0
1
2
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
G
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 page 25)
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. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? 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 = Is 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 = Is a 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 = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
G
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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)
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 on p. 100).
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
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
G
NA
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
H
Meadowdale Park Wetland H 11/1/2016
C. Douglas 2007
Riverine
II
X
7 6 7 20
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
H
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
H
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
H
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 7
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event:
Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8
Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4
Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2
No depressions present points = 0
R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes)
Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8
Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3
Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0
Total for R 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
R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0
R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut
within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4
Other sources ____________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer
YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for R 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
H
2
6
8
2
1
0
1
0
4
1 & 0
0
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 8
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides:
Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the
stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average
width of stream between banks).
If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9
If the ratio is 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
R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or
shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person
height. These are NOT Cowardin classes).
Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7
Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4
Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0
Total for R 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
R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1
R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1
Total for R 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
R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems?
Choose the description that best fits the site.
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to
human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
R 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 R 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
H
4
7
11
1
1
1
3
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 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, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
H
1X
X
2
X
X
X
1
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
H
1
x
7
0
1 .5 1.5
1
25 5 30
0
1
2
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
H
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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 page 25)
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. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? 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 = Is 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 = Is a 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 = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
H
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
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)
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 on p. 100).
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
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
H
NA
Appendix B
Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat
Assessment Report
APPENDIX E
FISHERIES AND HABITAT EVALUATION
MEMORANDUM
July 2, 2015
Page 1
MEADOWDALE BEACH COUNTY PARK – FISH HABITAT BENEFITS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
Snohomish County Parks is conducting a feasibility study to evaluate restoration alternatives for the
Lund’s Gulch Creek estuary in Meadowdale Beach County Park. The 108-acre park encompasses the
lowermost 1 mile of Lund’s Gulch Creek and approximately 750 feet of Puget Sound shoreline. The
BNSF railroad line runs along the shoreline of the park, separating the lower lawn and upland portion of
the park from the large creek delta that is present waterward of the railroad tracks.
Currently, Lund’s Gulch Creek flows through a 6 foot wide by 7 foot tall box culvert through the railroad
embankment. The box culvert is also the only legal access for park users to reach the beach. The box
culvert does not function adequately as the creek conduit or for people’s access to the beach. The box
culvert is significantly undersized for a creek system the size of Lund’s Gulch Creek. As a result, creek
flows are partially impounded upstream of the culvert during high flows which causes flooding in the
park and deposition of large quantities of stream sediment. The sediments accumulate in and upstream
of the box culvert which impacts creek habitat, fish movements, and park visitor access to the beach.
Maintenance of this culvert by county requires several permits and can only be performed during
specific time periods (work windows) defined in the permits. In the last several years maintenance
actions have been unable to sustain clear access for fish or people due to the excessive volume and
frequency of gravel deposition within and upstream of the culvert.
As part of the feasibility study for addressing the problems at the culvert, three alternatives are being
evaluated. Each alternative includes constructing a railroad bridge to provide a wider opening for the
creek, providing a separate pedestrian path adjacent to the creek restoring the upper estuary
(transition zone) and lower stream, and restoring and enhancing riparian habitat. The conceptual
alternatives are described in more detail in the main feasibility report document being prepared by
Anchor QEA. The project area for the restoration work extends from the railroad crossing to the
pedestrian bridge over Lund’s Gulch Creek near the Park Ranger’s house. This encompasses the
lowermost 800 feet of the creek length.
This memorandum describes an evaluation of the relative fish and habitat benefits associated with each
of the restoration alternatives. The memorandum is organized to first provide an overview of fish
resources and existing habitat conditions. Next, an evaluation of the fish and habitat benefits of each
alternative is presented. The memorandum concludes with a section describing a summary of findings.
Meadowdale Beach County Park – Fish Habitat Benefits Analysis
July 2, 2015
Page 2
FISH RESOURCES
Several species of salmonids utilize Lund’s Gulch Creek including Chinook, coho, chum, steelhead, and
sea-run cutthroat trout. Salmon spawning ground surveys document coho and chum salmon spawning
each year. Salmon return data collected by community volunteers since 1997 indicate that in some
years more than 100 adult coho or chum would return to the creek; however, most recently the
numbers have been lower (Uusitalo pers. comm.). The last time more than approximately 100 coho
adults returned was 2001 with numbers ranging between 2 and more than 35. Chum adults numbers
have been higher, but ranging between approximately 15 and more than 75 since 2008. Coho and chum
spawning occurs in the lower portions of the creek and in years when higher numbers of adults return
the spawning occurs over a wider area.
In addition to any fry produced by adult coho and chum salmon spawning in the creek, hatchery origin
fry have been released into the creek for many years (Uusitalo pers. comm.). Approximately 10,000
chum fry (Chico Creek origin from Suquamish Tribe) and 1,000 coho fry (Wallace River origin from
WDFW) are released in the spring each year by a retired school teacher who has been releasing fish in
the creek since the 1980s (Uusitalo pers. comm.).
Sea-run cutthroat trout also spawn and rear in the Lund’s Gulch Creek system. Pfeifer (1979)
documented sea-run cutthroat trout throughout Lund’s Gulch Creek, including headwater areas outside
of the park.
Only two separate observations of steelhead adults have been reported and both were for only one
adult. Pfeifer (1979) referenced Don Hendricks (WDFW) observation of a single steelhead adult in
Lund’s Gulch Creek, presumably in the late 1970s. More recently, Tom Murdoch of the Adopt A Stream
Foundation reported seeing one steelhead adult relatively high in the system (Murdoch pers. comm.).
Juvenile Chinook, coho, and chum salmon were documented in the lower 650 feet of the creek in a
study by Beamer et al. (2013). Since the creek does not provide habitat for Chinook spawning, the
presence of juvenile Chinook salmon indicates that the fish originated in other river systems,
outmigrated to Puget Sound, and during their movements and rearing along the marine nearshore they
moved back into the available freshwater habitat associated with Lund’s Gulch Creek.
Other fish species documented in the creek are starry flounder and sculpins (Pfeifer 1979, Adopt A
Stream Foundation 2013). Starry flounder are entering the lower creek from the Puget Sound shoreline.
Sculpin distributions in the creek are generally restricted to the lower reaches of Lund’s Gulch Creek
due to partial barriers inadvertently created by vertical drops downstream of log structures installed for
restoration (Lantz et al. 2014).
Meadowdale Beach County Park – Fish Habitat Benefits Analysis
July 2, 2015
Page 3
EXISTING HABITAT CONDITIONS
Despite supporting various life stages of multiple salmonid species, habitat conditions in Lund’s Gulch
Creek are degraded. In the Lund’s Gulch Creek watershed beyond the park and gulch, there has been
extensive development which has affected the natural processes of the creek, most notably changing
the flow patterns and erosion associated with storm events (Snohomish County 2002). Compared to
natural flow conditions, the conversion of watershed areas from vegetated to impervious surfaces
results in rainfall events resulting in higher peak flows that then subside more quickly. This creek
“flashiness” results in more erosive power during the peak flow and shorter period of increased flows to
support natural channel and riparian processes. The creek also erodes more sediment which results in
large pulses of stream gravel being transported through the creek system. These changes in the upper
watershed affect habitat conditions throughout the watershed, including the estuary and mouth of the
creek which are the focus of the proposed restoration.
Within the project area, the railroad embankment is a significant feature affecting aquatic habitats
upstream and downstream of it. Following is a description of the fish habitat in the project area starting
on the beach and continuing upstream to the pedestrian bridge near the Park Ranger’s house.
Appendix A provides a series of site photographs documenting representative conditions in the project
area.
Waterward of the railroad crossing is a large tributary delta. There is a sand spit angling to the north
due to the net shore drift of sediment tending to move material to the north in this part of Puget
Sound. Currently, the creek flows out from the culvert and turns to the north behind the sand spit. In
this way, the sand spit reduces the amount of wave energy reaching the estuary’s tidal channel and
semi-protected rearing habitat is provided for juvenile salmon. This semi-protected area is called a
pocket estuary and studies have shown that this type of habitat is utilized by higher densities of juvenile
Chinook than other nearshore habitats (Beamer et al. 2006). The channel alignment across the delta
changes over time, but regardless of alignment the area functions as a pocket estuary.
The railroad embankment on the Puget Sound shoreline and the undersized culvert that flows through
it significantly impair the ecological processes and habitats in the creek and estuary. Lund’s Gulch Creek
flows through a 6 foot wide by 7 foot tall box culvert that is approximately 80 feet long and provides the
route for the creek as well as pedestrian access to the beach. This culvert width is undersized given the
size of the watershed and as evidenced by wetted widths in unconstrained areas upstream ranging
between 13 and 18 feet during a dry winter day and bankfull widths ranging between 15 and 35 feet.
Often during high flow conditions, water backs up above the culvert and floods adjacent areas. High
flows events also commonly cause the deposition of several cubic yards of sediment at the upstream
end of the box culvert (Dailer pers. comm.). This material restricts the movement of fish into and out of
the creek. The sediment also deposits on adjacent park recreational areas so it is excavated out of the
creek and stockpiled elsewhere in the park (Dailer pers. comm.).
Meadowdale Beach County Park – Fish Habitat Benefits Analysis
July 2, 2015
Page 4
The railroad crossing and culvert also prevent the establishment of a natural transition between
freshwater and saltwater. The culvert confines the creek to an artificially narrow corridor and for
another 20 feet upstream of the culvert the creek remains confined in a concrete channel. The current
conditions do not allow for a natural estuary to establish upstream of the railroad embankment,
although the elevations and creek size are sufficient to support one. Instead of supporting a wider creek
delta and estuarine area, this is currently the narrowest part of the creek because it enters the concrete
channel forming the box culvert. The creek is confined to the narrow channel and fill material has been
placed to raise adjacent areas.
In the lowermost 300 feet of Lund’s Gulch Creek, the creek is confined by rock and logs parallel to the
bank. This bank armoring was installed with several small wood structures for habitat purposes in
approximately 2001. However, over the next 8 years, the total quantity of wood in this reach declined
by 40 percent (from 40 to 24 pieces, Snohomish County 2009). Currently, the wood structures that
were installed appear to create partial barriers at some flows as water goes under and over the wood
spanning the creek. The reach provides some pockets of gravel, some cover along the banks, and a
series of small pools (19% of area). At the upstream end of this reach, the creek is unconstrained and
the absence of an established high flow berm allows the creek to overtop its bank and flood across the
park lawn area. Part of the proposed restoration would be to address the problems in this reach by re-
meandering or rerouting the creek. The width of the riparian corridor is narrow through most of this
reach (less than 25 feet), but increases near the upstream end (up to approximately 50 feet).
In the next 500 feet upstream (i.e., from 300 feet to 800 feet from culvert), the creek is wider and
contains a series of riffles and pools. More wood structures were placed in this reach in approximately
2001. These structures create some pool habitat. These structures also appear to be only partially
achieving their intended function. The reach provides a good mix of gravel and cobble substrate. There
is some off-channel habitat provided by a backwater area that is more connected during high flows.
The riparian corridor in this reach is wider (approximately 50 to 80 feet) than the downstream reach.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
All three alternatives entail addressing the undersized culvert at the mouth of the creek, restoring the
estuary upstream of the railroad crossing, and restoring instream and riparian habitat in the lowermost
reaches of Lund’s Gulch Creek. All three alternatives replace the culvert with a trestle bridge for the
railroad that meets or exceeds the minimum width needed to transport sediment from the creek to the
beach. The minimum width was calculated by Anchor QEA as described in the feasibility report. Thus,
all three alternatives alleviate the sediment deposition upstream of the railroad crossing which has
caused problems for fish passage, pedestrian use, and park maintenance.
The degree to which the alternatives address the habitat criteria varies among alternatives. Table 1
characterizes the relative benefits of each alternative in addressing each of the habitat related criteria
established for the project. For each criterion, the relative benefits of the three alternatives were
summarized symbolically by assigning + (least benefit), ++, or +++ (greatest benefit).
July 2, 2015
Page 5
Table 1. Evaluation of Relative Habitat Benefits of Each Alternative
Criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Quantity and
Diversity of
Nearshore Habitat
Waterward of
Railroad Crossing
++
This alternative would restore the natural
delivery of sediment to the estuary and
nearshore and result in more sediment reaching
the beach than currently occurs. This is due
because in existing conditions, the material that
gets impounded upstream of the culvert is
removed from the creek by maintenance crews
and stockpiled/used elsewhere in the park. The
additional material delivered to the beach
would be naturally redistributed over time
through ecosystem processes occurring in the
nearshore and contribute to sustaining the
delta formation at the creek mouth.
In addition to changes in sediment delivery
from the creek, the nearshore areas waterward
of the railroad crossing would be expected to
encounter some changes to the hydraulic forces
of creek flows into the nearshore. The widening
of the creek mouth would lessen the stream
power because the water would be spread out
across a wider area before entering the
nearshore. These changes to hydraulic forces
and sediment delivery could beneficially result
in a more naturally dynamic channel network.
Since this alternative keeps the outlet of the
creek in roughly the same location there is less
uncertainty (compared to Alternative 2) about
inadvertently disrupting processes and
impacting habitats waterward of the railroad
crossing.
+
The analysis presented for Alternative 1 also
applies to Alternative 2, except for the
uncertainty associated with relocating the
creek outlet to a more northerly position in
the park. The delivery of creek water and
sediment to a new location would be
expected to result in more readjustment of
the delta than the other alternatives. Over
time, the delta would shift north in response
to the new creek location. It is difficult to
anticipate whether such a shift would
positively or negatively affect nearshore
habitat quantity or diversity.
The overall effect of the alternative would be
favorable for nearshore habitat because of
the restoration of the sediment delivery,
however, but there are some detrimental
impacts to habitats that would be expected
to occur. There would be impacts to the
nearshore habitats between existed and
proposed alignment of the creek. Currently,
the creek’s channel turns to the north after
flowing through the railroad corridor. These
estuarine channels provide favorable rearing
habitats for juvenile salmonids. The proposed
creek alignment would shorten the length of
the estuary channel before entering Puget
Sound, thereby reducing the amount of
protected channel habitat.
+++
The analysis presented for Alternative 1
also applies to Alternative 3, except that
Alternative 3 would provide more
opportunity for multiple estuarine
channels to form. This alternative restores
a more natural connection between the
upper estuary and Puget Sound than is
provided by the other alternatives. The
wider connection between the upper
estuary (i.e., upstream of railroad) and
nearshore will allow for more dynamic
and diverse habitats to form over time.
The natural delivery of sediment to the
nearshore would provide more areas at
the proper elevations to support
emergent marsh vegetation.
Meadowdale Beach County Park – Fish Habitat Benefits Analysis
July 2, 2015
Page 6
Criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Juvenile Salmon Fish
Passage Conditions
into Lower Creek
+++
All three alternatives would be expected to
eliminate the periodic fish passage issues that
sediment deposition in the culvert currently
creates.
+++
All three alternatives would be expected to
eliminate the periodic fish passage issues that
sediment deposition in the culvert currently
creates.
+++
All three alternatives would be expected
to eliminate the periodic fish passage
issues that sediment deposition in the
culvert currently creates. This alternative
provides the greatest certainty over time
that channel formation and vegetation
growth in the upper estuary coupled with
changes in tidal inundation associated
with sea level rise will not affect
unimpeded juvenile salmon passage
between habitats.
Size of Transition
Zone between Saline
and Freshwater
Habitats
+
This alternative would restore the smallest
transition zone area (shown in figure as
Restored Brackish Wetland). The approximately
0.6 acre size of the transition zone in this
alternative is similar to historic
marsh/cultivated area (joint category) mapped
at the site in the 1872 topographic sheet (“t-
sheet”).
++
This alternative provides an intermediate size
transition zone of approximately 1 acre. The
restored transition zone is larger than the
historic marsh/cultivated area (joint category)
mapped in the 1872 t-sheet. In the absence
of information about modifications impacting
the conditions observed in 1872, this
alternative provides additional area for the
transition zone to naturally develop and
adapt to changes in tidal inundation
associated with sea level rise. It is possible
that part of the transition zone in this
alternative will support a freshwater wetland
immediately adjacent to the salt marsh.
+++
This alternative provides the largest
transition zone among the alternatives.
The approximately 1.6 acre size of the
transition zone provides the most room
for the estuary and lower creek to
naturally adapt to the restored conditions,
as well as future changes in tidal
inundation associated with sea level rise.
This alternative would provide the largest
area for a natural transition from a
freshwater wetland to salt marsh.
Quality of Lund’s
Gulch Creek Habitat +++
All three alternatives would improve the
quality of habitat in Lund’s Gulch Creek by
re-meandering the alignment, widening
the creek corridor by removing bank
armoring, and improving instream habitat.
+++
All three alternatives would improve the
quality of habitat in Lund’s Gulch Creek by
re-meandering the alignment, widening
the creek corridor by removing bank
armoring, and improving instream habitat.
+++
All three alternatives would improve the
quality of habitat in Lund’s Gulch Creek by
re-meandering the alignment, widening
the creek corridor by removing bank
armoring, and improving instream habitat.
Meadowdale Beach County Park – Fish Habitat Benefits Analysis
July 2, 2015
Page 7
Criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Quantity and Quality
of Riparian
Vegetation along
Stream and
Nearshore
+++
All three alternatives would improve the
quality and quantity of riparian vegetation
along the creek. This would occur by
widening the vegetated corridor along the
lower creek and upper estuary. In
addition, it is anticipated that coniferous
and deciduous trees would be planted to
improve conditions in the existing riparian
corridor.
All three alternatives would also provide
the opportunity to plant additional
riparian vegetation in the upland portion
of the delta waterward of the railroad
crossing. The extent of this is expected to
depend more on the compatibility of the
vegetation with the railroad right-of-way
rather than differences between the
alternatives.
+++
All three alternatives would improve the
quality and quantity of riparian vegetation
along the creek. This would occur by
widening the vegetated corridor along the
lower creek and upper estuary. In
addition, it is anticipated that coniferous
and deciduous trees would be planted to
improve conditions in the existing riparian
corridor.
All three alternatives would also provide
the opportunity to plant additional
riparian vegetation in the upland portion
of the delta waterward of the railroad
crossing. The extent of this is expected to
depend more on the compatibility of the
vegetation with the railroad right-of-way
rather than differences between the
alternatives.
+++
All three alternatives would improve the
quality and quantity of riparian vegetation
along the creek. This would occur by
widening the vegetated corridor along the
lower creek and upper estuary. In
addition, it is anticipated that coniferous
and deciduous trees would be planted to
improve conditions in the existing riparian
corridor.
All three alternatives would also provide
the opportunity to plant additional
riparian vegetation in the upland portion
of the delta waterward of the railroad
crossing. The extent of this is expected to
depend more on the compatibility of the
vegetation with the railroad right-of-way
rather than differences between the
alternatives.
Quality of Freshwater
Wetland +
This alternative would provide a small area in
the northwest corner of the restored marsh
where an existing freshwater wetland may be
sustained. Otherwise, the alternative only
provides for a salt marsh.
+++
This alternative would provide a small area in
the northwest corner of the restored marsh
where an existing freshwater wetland may be
sustained. In addition, the size of the
transition zone (shown in figure as Restored
Brackish Wetland) would be expected to
provide enough space for some freshwater
wetland habitat to form, particularly in the
southeast corner of the restored marsh. This
will depend in part on elevations (likelihood
of tidal inundation) and freshwater seepage
into these edge areas.
++
This alternative would provide a natural
transition of vegetation from freshwater
wetland to salt marsh along the creek
corridor. The size of the transition zone is
large enough that as the site evolves over
time there would be enough space for
freshwater wetlands to become
established, particularly in the southeast
corner of the restored marsh. This will
depend in part on elevations (likelihood of
tidal inundation) and freshwater seepage
into these edge areas..
Meadowdale Beach County Park – Fish Habitat Benefits Analysis
July 2, 2015
Page 8
Criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Habitat Connectivity
for Non-fish Species +
All three alternatives would provide a restored
riparian corridor that would benefit non-fish
species, including birds and small mammals. All
three alternatives would also support animal
movement between the creek and beach,
depending on the animal’s willingness to go
under the railroad bridge.
The potential differences in habitat benefits
would also be related to the size of the restored
area and the potential for separation from park
users. Since this alternative would provide the
smallest transition zone, the habitat
connectivity benefits for non-fish species are
the least among the alternatives.
++
All three alternatives would provide a
restored riparian corridor that would benefit
non-fish species, including birds and small
mammals. All three alternatives would also
support animal movement between the creek
and beach, depending on the animal’s
willingness to go under the railroad bridge.
The potential differences in habitat benefits
would also be related to the size of the
restored area and the potential for
separation from park users. Since this
alternative would provide the intermediate
size transition zone, the habitat connectivity
benefits for non-fish species are intermediate
among the alternatives.
+++
All three alternatives would provide a
restored riparian corridor that would
benefit non-fish species, including birds
and small mammals. All three alternatives
would also support animal movement
between the creek and beach, depending
on the animal’s willingness to go under
the railroad bridge. The wider bridge
opening in this alternative would provide
more room for animals to move under the
bridge.
The potential differences in habitat
benefits would also be related to the size
of the restored area and the potential for
separation from park users. Since this
alternative would provide the largest
transition zone, the habitat connectivity
benefits for non-fish species are the
greatest among the alternatives.
July 2, 2015
Page 9
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
All three alternatives entail restoring the Lund’s Gulch Creek connection to Puget Sound by
constructing a railroad bridge that will alleviate the flooding and sediment impoundment problems that
currently exist due to the significantly undersized culvert. Each alternative also includes restoration of
the upper estuary (transition zone), lower creek, and riparian corridor. As a result, all three alternatives
would significantly improve habitat conditions in Lund Gulch Creek, its estuary, and the nearshore. The
differences in the benefits for ecological restoration and fish habitat are primarily related to the size of
the bridge opening and the size of the restored transition zone. Habitat benefits are of greater
magnitude and higher certainty with a wider bridge opening and a larger transition zone. As the
alternative with the widest bridge opening and the largest transition zone, Alternative 3 provides the
greatest benefits for the habitat criteria evaluated and will best restore stream, estuarine, and
nearshore processes in the project area (summarized in Table 2). The width of the bridge opening and
the large transitions zone included in Alternative 3 provide the highest degree of certainty that there is
sufficient area for the restored habitats to naturally evolve and adapt to changing conditions over time,
such as increased tidal inundation resulting from sea level rise. Alternative 3 would provide the greatest
resilience for the park to adapt to changes associated with sea level rise and a changing climate.
Table 2. Summary of Relative Habitat Benefits of Each Alternative
Criterion Alternativea
1 2 3
Quantity and Diversity of Nearshore Habitat Waterward of Railroad Crossing ++ + +++
Juvenile Salmon Fish Passage Conditions into Lower Creek +++ +++ +++
Size of Transition Zone between Saline and Freshwater Habitats + ++ +++
Quality of Lund’s Gulch Creek Habitat +++ +++ +++
Quantity and Quality of Riparian Vegetation along Stream and Nearshore +++ +++ +++
Quality of Freshwater Wetland + +++ ++
Habitat Connectivity for Non-fish Species + ++ +++
Note: a) the relative benefits of the three alternatives were summarized symbolically by assigning + (least benefit), ++
(intermediate benefit), or +++ (greatest benefit).
The possible relocation of the creek mouth to a more northerly location as shown in Alternative 2 is not
justified for habitat purposes. The proposed relocation does not restore the creek to an historic
alignment. The relocation would be expected to have a negative impact on habitat conditions
waterward of the railroad because it would shorten an estuarine channel system that currently provides
more productive rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids.
Overall, the Meadowdale County Park project provides a meaningful opportunity to restore habitats
and ecosystem processes. In addition to providing significant habitat benefits, restoration in park
settings offer exceptional opportunities to educate people on the natural resources of the park, the
purposes of individual habitat components, and the importance of self-sustaining designs.
Meadowdale Beach County Park – Fish Habitat Benefits Analysis
July 2, 2015
Page 10
REFERENCES
Adopt A Stream Foundation. 2013. Lunds Gulch Creek Rapid Assessment. Available at:
http://www.streamkeeper.org/aasf/Lunds_Gulch_Creek.html.
Beamer, E.M., A. McBride, R. Henderson, J. Griffith, K. Fresh, T. Zackey, R. Barsh, T. Wyllie-Echeverria,
and K. Wolf. 2006. Habitat and Fish Use of Pocket Estuaries in the Whidbey Basin and North Skagit
County Bays, 2004 and 2005. Skagit River System Cooperative. January 16, 2006. Available at:
http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/EB2207_Beamer_et_al_2006.pdf
Beamer, E.M., W.T. Zackey, D. Marks, D. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R. Henderson. 2013. Juvenile Chinook
Salmon Rearing in Small Non-Natal Streams Draining into the Whidbey Basin. Skagit River System
Cooperative. December 3, 2013. Available at:
http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/EB2752_Beamer%20et%20al_2013.pdf.
Dailer, D. pers. comm. Discussion between Doug Dailer, Park Ranger at Meadowdale Beach County
Park, and Paul Schlenger, Confluence Environmental Company, during field data collection on February
20, 2015.
Lantz, D.W., H.B. Berge, and R.A. Tabor. 2014. Effects of Small Barriers on the Distribution of Sculpins
(Cottus spp.) in Puget Sound Lowland Streams. Poster presented at the 2014 Salish Sea Ecosystem
Conference in Seattle, Washington. Available at: http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-
land/science/SalishSea-2014/04POSTER-2014-04-30-Lantz-Berge-Tabor-Effects-of-small-barriers-on-
distribution-of-sculpins.pdf.
Murdoch, T. pers. comm. Telephone conversation between Tom Murdoch, Executive Director of Adopt
A Stream Foundation, and Paul Schlenger, Confluence Environmental Company, on March 9, 2015.
Pfeifer, R.L. 1979. A Survey of Lund’s Gulch Creek in Edmonds, Washington. Washington State Game
Department. February 1979.
Snohomish County. 2002. Puget Sound Tributaries Drainage Needs Report DNR No. 11. Prepared by
Snohomish County Surface Water Management Division.
Snohomish County. unpubl. Unpublished data collected by Snohomish County Surface Water
Management in 2009. Data provided by Frank Leonetti.
Uusitalo, D. pers. comm. Telephone conversation between Duane Uusitalo, retired school teacher who
rears and releases hatchery salmon, and Paul Schlenger, Confluence Environmental Company, on
March 9, 2015.
path goes here/path.doc DATEXX/XX/XXXX
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
FISH RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 2
EXISTING HABITAT CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 3
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................... 4
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 9
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Tables
Table 1 Evaluation of Relative Habitat Benefits of Each Alternative
Table 2 Summary of Relative Habitat Benefits of Each Alternative
Appendices
Appendix A Site Photographs
Appendix C
Eelgrass Survey
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
To: Peter Hummel, Anchor QEA
From: Paul Schlenger and Grant Novak
Date: October 4, 2017
Re: Eelgrass Survey of Meadowdale Beach Park
Enclosures: Figure 1. Meadowdale Underwater Video Survey
Figure 2. Meadowdale Eelgrass Beds
Photo Appendix
Confluence Environmental Company conducted an eelgrass survey along the shoreline of
Snohomish County’s Meadowdale Beach Park on August 30, 2017. The purpose of the survey
was to document the location of eelgrass and macroalgae beds to inform preliminary planning
for construction of a shoreline restoration project in the park. This memorandum describes the
survey methods and findings.
1.0 SURVEY METHODS
The survey was conducted in accordance with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Eelgrass/Macroalgae Habitat Interim Guidelines (WDFW 2008) for preliminary surveys. The
survey of intertidal areas occurred during a low tide when tidal elevation was below 0-feet
relative to mean lower low water and included a visual observation of the exposed beach. The
survey of subtidal areas was conducted by towing an underwater video camera with integrated
global positioning system (GPS) to record the presence and/or absence of eelgrass and
macroalgae. The survey area extended along the entire park shoreline, and extended from the
intertidal zone to beyond the depths providing sufficient light to support eelgrass and
macroalgae. The survey extended out to water depths of -30 feet mean lower low water or
deeper to ensure outside edge of eelgrass was delineated.
The underwater video camera was towed along a series of transects spaced approximately 25-
feet apart and oriented parallel to shore. Additional video was collected along a series of
transects aligned generally perpendicular to shore, overlapping the parallel transects. Further
transects were surveyed in areas of interest or question based on our real-time review of the
video screen.
The survey boat was equipped with a GPS and a mapping program to ensure the survey area
was covered fully and each transect was appropriately spaced. The equipment allowed real-
time mapping of location to allow the boat operator to accurately follow survey transects. The
Peter Hummel, Anchor QEA
October 4, 2017
www.confenv.com Page 2
boat maintained a consistent speed and the video was constantly monitored to confirm that the
camera was close enough to the seafloor to accurately characterize vegetation and substrate.
2.0 POST-PROCESSING OF VIDEO
Recorded video was reviewed in the office by qualified biologists familiar with the flora and
fauna of the Pacific Northwest. The entirety of the field-collected video data was reviewed in
the office on a high definition monitor to ensure that observations were accurately
characterized. To aid mapping, a proprietary program created by Confluence Environmental
Company was used when reviewing the video. The video mapping program was synched with
the video data through the video’s time stamp. The program allowed the reviewer to create
tabular records defining the eelgrass and macroalgae observations at one second intervals as the
video was being viewed. These tabular data were then joined, using the time stamp, to the GPS
positions collected with the sub-meter accuracy GPS unit. This allowed the high-quality
characterization of video that occurred in the office to be linked to the highly accurate GPS
positions collected in the field. This provided an efficient method to create accurate eelgrass
distribution maps of the study area.
3.0 RESULTS
Substrate in the surveyed area consists of sand with some gravel. Native eelgrass (Zostera
marina) was documented in beds with both patchy and continuous distribution along the park
shoreline. The non-native dwarf eelgrass (Zostera japonica) was not observed during the survey.
Some sparse, unattached macroalgae (e.g., Ulva, Sarcodiotheca, Fucus) were sporadically
observed drifting with tidal currents through the survey area. No kelp or macroalgae of the
Order Laminariales were observed during the survey.
The video transects and eelgrass observations are provided in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows an
interpretation of the distribution of both continuous and patchy eelgrass beds. Generally, the
eelgrass bed documented along the northern portion of the park shoreline was wider and more
continuous than in the southern portion of the park shoreline. All eelgrass was observed below
mean lower low water. Depending on construction methods used for the project, additional
eelgrass monitoring may be necessary to quantify potential impacts.
4.0 REFERENCES
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008. Eelgrass/Macroalgae Habitat
Interim Survey Guidelines. Available at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00714/wdfw00714.pdf
Document Path: J:\Anchor QEA_001071\1071.010_Meadowdale Beach Park Restoration\GIS_CAD\_Working\1_EelgrassSurvey_20170830\Survey\Figure1_SurveyPoints.mxd --- 9/21/2017 by grant.novak±0 100 200 300 400 500Feet
0 20 40 60 80 100Meters
Washington
Project Location
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community
8/30/2017 Survey
No EelgrassEelgrass (Zostera Marina)
Continuous
Patchy
Figure 1. Meadowdale Underwater Video Survey
Document Path: J:\Anchor QEA_001071\1071.010_Meadowdale Beach Park Restoration\GIS_CAD\_Working\1_EelgrassSurvey_20170830\Survey\Meadowdale_Survey_FullPage.mxd --- 9/21/2017 by grant.novak±0 100 200 300 400 500Feet
0 20 40 60 80 100Meters
Washington
Project Location
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community
8/30/2017 Survey
Continuous Eelgrass
Patchy Eelgrass
!Survey Point
Figure 2. Meadowdale Eelgrass Beds.
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
PHOTO APPENDIX
EELGRASS SURVEY OF MEADOWDALE BEACH PARK
AUGUST 30, 2017
Photo 1. Continuous Eelgrass Bed
Photo 2. Patchy Eelgrass
Photo Appendix Continued
Eelgrass Survey of Meadowdale Beach Park
www.confenv.com Page 2
Photo 3. Representative Sandy Bottom and Loose Ulva
Photo 4. Sea Pens among Sandy Bottom and Loose Ulva
Appendix D
Biological Assessment
June 2018 Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Biological Assessment
Snohomish County Parks and Recreation
Project Number: 160723-02.01 \\fuji\anchor\Projects\Snohomish County\Meadowdale Beach Park\Park and Habitat Design\Task 6 Env Review Permitting\Deliverables\BA\BA_Meadowdale_06-07-2018.docx
June 2018 Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Biological Assessment
Prepared for Snohomish County Parks and Recreation 6705 Puget Park Drive Snohomish, Washington 98296
Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 710 Olive Way, Suite 1900 Seattle, Washington 98101
Biological Assessment i June 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ES-1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Regulatory Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 ESA-Listed Species and Habitats that May Occur in the Action Area ............................................. 6
1.4 Other Species and Habitats Considered but Not Evaluated .............................................................. 7
1.5 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ................................................................................................................ 7
2 Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Site History ............................................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Project Setting ................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Buildings and Facilities ................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.3 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Railroad Bridge, Estuary, and Beach .......................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Park Uplands ...................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Road Access, Parking, and Drainage Improvements .......................................................... 15
2.3.4 Construction Methods .................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.5 Project Timing .................................................................................................................................... 20
2.4 Environmental Resources Impact and Mitigation Summary ........................................................... 21
2.4.1 Fill and Excavation Within Surface Waters or Wetlands .................................................... 21
2.4.2 Buffer Impacts to Surface Waters and Wetlands ................................................................. 23
2.4.3 Change in Overwater Cover ......................................................................................................... 23
2.4.4 Upland Grading ................................................................................................................................. 24
2.4.5 Changes in Impervious Surfaces ................................................................................................. 24
2.4.6 Changes to Vegetation and Habitat Types ............................................................................ 24
2.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 25
2.5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures................................................................................... 25
2.5.2 Impacts Associated with Estuary Restoration—No Additional Mitigation Necessary ............................................................................................................................................. 27
2.5.3 Mitigation for Impacts Outside of Estuary Restoration ..................................................... 28
3 Environmental Baseline ......................................................................................................... 30
3.1 Action Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Biological Assessment ii June 2018
3.2 Action Area Description ................................................................................................................................. 30
3.2.1 In-Water Noise Considerations ................................................................................................... 31
3.2.2 In-Air Noise Considerations ......................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Physical Indicators ............................................................................................................................................ 33
3.3.1 Marine ................................................................................................................................................... 33
3.3.2 Freshwater ........................................................................................................................................... 33
3.3.3 Shoreline Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 33
3.3.4 Saltwater and Freshwater Mixing ............................................................................................... 33
3.3.5 Flows and Currents .......................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.6 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 34
3.4 Biological Indicators ........................................................................................................................................ 34
3.4.1 Aquatic and Upland Vegetation ................................................................................................. 34
3.4.2 Fish ......................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.4.3 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................. 37
4 Species Occurrence, Effects Analysis, and Effects Determination .............................. 38
4.1 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ..................................................................................... 39
4.1.1 Status ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
4.1.2 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 39
4.1.3 Biology and Distribution ................................................................................................................ 41
4.1.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................. 42
4.1.5 Effects Determination ..................................................................................................................... 42
4.1.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination ...................................................................................... 43
4.2 Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ................................................................................. 43
4.2.1 Status ..................................................................................................................................................... 43
4.2.2 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.3 Biology and Distribution ................................................................................................................ 44
4.2.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................. 45
4.2.5 Effects Determination ..................................................................................................................... 45
4.2.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination ...................................................................................... 46
4.3 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) ............................................................................................................ 46
4.3.1 Status ..................................................................................................................................................... 46
4.3.2 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 46
4.3.3 Biology and Distribution ................................................................................................................ 49
4.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................. 49
4.3.5 Effects Determination ..................................................................................................................... 49
Biological Assessment iii June 2018
4.3.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination ...................................................................................... 50
4.4 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) ................................................................................ 50
4.4.1 Status ..................................................................................................................................................... 50
4.4.2 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 50
4.4.3 Biology and Distribution ................................................................................................................ 50
4.4.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................. 51
4.4.5 Effects Determination ..................................................................................................................... 51
4.4.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination ...................................................................................... 52
5 References ................................................................................................................................ 53
Essential Fish Habitat Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
Analysis of Effects on EFH ............................................................................................................................................. 3
EFH Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Groundfish EFH .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Coastal Pelagic EFH ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Salmonid EFH ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
Proposed Conservation and Minimization Measures ........................................................................................ 6
Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusions and Determination of Effect ............................................................................................................... 6
TABLES
Table ES-1 Effect Determinations for ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat that May Occur in the Action Area................................................................................................................................. ES-2
Table ES-2 Effect Determinations for Other ESA-Listed or Proposed Species and Critical Habitat ....................................................................................................................................................... ES-3
Table 1-1 ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat that May Occur in the Action Area .................... 7
Table 2-1 Existing Marine Water, Stream, and Wetland Characteristics .............................................. 21
Table 2-2 Summary of Fill and Excavation within Surface Water or Wetlands .................................. 22
Table 2-3 Summary of Impacts to Buffers of Surface Waters and Wetlands ..................................... 23
Table 2-4 Summary of Changes in Overwater Cover .................................................................................... 24
Table 2-5 Summary of Upland Grading Extents .............................................................................................. 24
Table 2-6 Impact and Mitigation Summary ...................................................................................................... 29
Table 3-1 Project Impact Pile Construction Noise Attenuation to Background Levels ................. 32
Table 4-1 Potential Project Effects on Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Primary Constituent Elements ....................................................................................................................................................... 39
Table 4-2 Potential Project Effects on Bull Trout Primary Constituent Elements ............................. 47
Biological Assessment iv June 2018
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Biological Assessment v June 2018
ABBREVIATIONS
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
BA Biological Assessment
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
cfs cubic feet per second
cy cubic yards
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPS distinct population segment
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU evolutionary significant unit
H:V Horizontal to Vertical
lf linear feet
MHHW mean higher high water
mm millimeter
MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
OHWM ordinary high water mark
Parks Snohomish County Parks and Recreation
PCE primary constituent element
PHS Priority Habitats and Species
Project Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
sf square feet
SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
SPL sound pressure level
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Biological Assessment 1 June 2018
Executive Summary
This Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared in accordance with Section 7(a)(2) and Section 3(5)(A)
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regarding the potential effects on federally listed fish, wildlife,
and plant species and their habitats for the proposed Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary
Restoration Project (Project).
The purpose of the Project is to improve habitat conditions for salmon in the lower creek and creek
delta of Lund’s Gulch while addressing public safety and beach access for park users. The Project
would include replacement of the existing undersized box culvert and adjacent railroad embankment
with a five-span bridge, restoration and enhancement of the stream and estuary, and improvements
to park facilities. At present, the culvert must accommodate creek flows, sediment, and fish passage,
as well as public access to the beach. Year-round creek backwatering, high winter tides and stream
flows, and sand and gravel deposition frequently render the culvert inaccessible. Currently at
Meadowdale Beach Park, there are public safety and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access
issues involving the existing railroad culvert crossing and beach access. In addition, there is a need to
improve habitat conditions for salmon in the lower creek and delta. Maintenance and flooding are
also ongoing issues associated with the culvert.
The Project is located along a segment of Puget Sound nearshore between Seattle and Everett that is
impacted by the presence of the railroad along the entire shoreline. The railroad acts as a nearly
continuous barrier to natural sediment supply processes (Anchor QEA 2016). Meadowdale Beach
Park and the Lund’s Gulch Creek mouth is one of the few opportunities between Seattle and Everett
where watershed and land use conditions are suitable for pocket estuary restoration and improving
natural sediment transport processes.
The Project is needed to address the inadequacy of the box culvert in the railroad berm to safely
accommodate public beach access, creek waters and sediment loads. The existing conditions also
degrade habitat for salmon, including juvenile ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon that have
been documented as using the lower 600 linear feet (lf) of the creek for rearing (Beamer et al. 2013).
Specific Project objectives include the following:
• Remove approximately 130 lf of hard armored railroad embankment and the undersized
(6-foot-wide) culvert
• Install a 128-foot-long multi-span bridge with a 90-foot portion of channel opening to
dissipate flood waters, restore natural sediment transport processes, and allow the creek to
meander dynamically over time, thereby creating essential habitat
• Create approximately 1 acre of tidal estuary habitat
• Restore approximately 1 acre of nearshore and stream riparian buffers along the shoreline
and stream using native trees and shrubs
Biological Assessment 2 June 2018
• Restore instream habitat conditions by placing large woody debris in the lower creek and
restored estuary
• Address public safety (railroad crossing) and beach access issues associated with the
undersized culvert, sediment, and flooding
• Provide ADA-compliant and year-round access to the beach
• Enhance park user experience through provision of diverse natural habitats
• Enhance environmental education opportunities, including providing interpretive signage
The Project includes construction in and over water and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), with associated permit requirements and ESA and Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation. Snohomish County Parks and Recreation is proposing the following
activities, which will be considered part of the proposed Project for the purposes of ESA evaluation:
• Replace an existing box culvert with a five-span railroad bridge
• Convert existing lawn area to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat
• Restore and enhance stream habitat
• Improve park and recreation facilities
There are several threatened or endangered (also called ESA-listed) species and critical habitats
under the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2017a) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS 2017a) jurisdiction that may occur in the proposed Action Area. (Figure 1b) The effect of the
proposed Project on these species and critical habitats was determined by documenting
environmental baseline conditions and evaluating effects of the proposed Project on the species and
environmental baseline. Species, critical habitats, and effect determinations in the proposed Project
are summarized in Table ES-1. Section 4 provides details on these determinations.
Table ES-1 Effect Determinations for ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat that May Occur in the Action Area
Species Status Agency Effect Determination Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat Effect Determination
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Threatened (Puget Sound ESU) NMFS NLTAA Designated NLTAA
Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Threatened (Puget Sound DPS) NMFS NLTAA Designated NLTAA
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Threatened
(Puget Sound DPS) USFWS NLTAA Designated Puget Sound NLTAA
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Threatened USFWS NLTAA Designated No Effect
Notes: DPS: distinct population segment NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service ESU: evolutionary significant unit USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NLTAA: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Biological Assessment 3 June 2018
Table ES-2 identifies additional species that were considered but not evaluated in the BA. Three
species identified by USFWS (2017a) as potentially occurring in the Project Action Area are not
evaluated in this BA due to the lack of suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Action Area. These
terrestrial species include two ESA-listed species, the streaked horn lark and yellow-billed cuckoo,
and one species proposed for listing, the wolverine. In addition, eight species identified by
NMFS (2017a) as potentially occurring in the Action Area are not evaluated in the BA for one of two
reasons: 1) the species are very unlikely to occur in the shallow marine environment adjacent to the
site; or 2) there are no potential in-water impacts anticipated that could disturb these species.
Table ES-2 Effect Determinations for Other ESA-Listed or Proposed Species and Critical Habitat
Species Status Agency Effect Determination Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat Effect Determination
Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) Endangered
(Georgia Basin DPS) NMFS No Effect Designated Puget Sound No Effect
Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) Threatened
(Southern DPS) NMFS No Effect None in Puget Sound NA
Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) Threatened (Southern DPS) NMFS No Effect Designated Puget Sound No Effect
Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) Threatened (Georgia Basin DPS) NMFS No Effect Designated Puget Sound No Effect
Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Endangered
(Southern Resident DPS) NMFS No Effect Designated No Effect
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangered NMFS No Effect None designated or proposed NA
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered NMFS No Effect
None designated or proposed in Washington state
NA
Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris
strigata) Threatened USFWS No Effect Designated No Effect
Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Threatened USFWS No Effect Proposed No Effect
Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) Proposed Threatened USFWS No Effect None designated or proposed NA
Notes: DPS: distinct population segment NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Assessment 4 June 2018
Based on consideration of the EFH requirements of the applicable fisheries, the proposed Project will
not adversely affect groundfish, coastal pelagic, and Pacific Coast Salmon EFH. To avoid or minimize
potential impacts to EFH, best management practices and conservation measures will be
implemented during construction. The EFH assessment is included as Appendix A.
Biological Assessment 5 June 2018
1 Introduction
1.1 Regulatory Overview
This Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973 (as amended), which requires protection of threatened and endangered species and their
habitats. In accordance with Section 7(a)(2) and Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA, this BA addresses the
potential effects on federally listed fish, wildlife, and plant species and their habitats for the proposed
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project (Project).
Snohomish County Parks and Recreation (Parks) is seeking regulatory approvals for implementation
of the Project, which proposes to address several interrelated issues associated with sediment
deposition at the existing box culvert for Lund’s Gulch Creek under the BNSF Railway railroad berm
at Meadowdale Beach County Park (Figure 1). The Project includes construction in and over water
and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), with associated
permit requirements and ESA and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation.
This BA is prepared to support the ESA consultation led by the Corps under Section 7(a)(2) of the
ESA, which requires that:
…each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of
the Secretary, ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by
such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the
Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical,
unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the
Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section.
1.2 Project Overview
The Project is located within the western portion of Meadowdale Beach County Park at
15433 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington 98036, in Township 27 North, Range 4 East, Section 5
(Figure 1). The park is located along a segment of Puget Sound nearshore between Seattle and
Everett that is impacted by the presence of the railroad along the entire shoreline. The railroad acts
as a nearly continuous barrier to natural sediment supply processes to Puget Sound (Anchor QEA
2016). Meadowdale Beach Park and the Lund’s Gulch Creek mouth are among the few opportunities
between Seattle and Everett where watershed and land use conditions are suitable for pocket estuary
restoration and improving natural sediment transport processes (Anchor QEA 2016).
Biological Assessment 6 June 2018
The Project is needed to address the inadequacy of the box culvert in the railroad berm to safely
accommodate public beach access, creek waters, and sediment loads. The existing conditions (i.e.,
high creek velocities in the culvert and sediment deposition) also degrade habitat for salmon,
including juvenile ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon that have been documented as using the
lower 600 linear feet (lf) of the creek for rearing (Beamer et al 2013).
Parks is proposing the following activities, which will be considered part of the proposed Project for
the purposes of ESA evaluation:
• Replace an existing box culvert with a five-span railroad bridge
• Convert existing lawn area to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat
• Restore and enhance stream habitat
• Improve park and recreation facilities
Specific project objectives include the following:
• Remove approximately 130 lf of hard armored railroad embankment and the undersized (6-
foot-wide) culvert
• Install a multi-span bridge with a 90-foot opening to dissipate flood waters, restore natural
sediment transport processes, and allow the creek to meander dynamically over time,
thereby creating essential habitat
• Create approximately 1 acre of tidal estuary habitat
• Restore approximately 1 acre of nearshore and stream riparian buffers along shoreline and
stream using native trees and shrubs
• Restore instream habitat conditions by placing large woody debris in the lower creek and
restored estuary
• Address public safety (railroad crossing) and beach access issues associated with the
undersized culvert, sediment, and flooding
• Provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant and year-round access to the beach
• Enhance park user experience through provision of diverse natural habitats
• Enhance environmental education opportunities, including providing interpretive signage
1.3 ESA-Listed Species and Habitats that May Occur in the Action Area
There are four ESA-listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitats under the
NMFS (2017) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2017a) jurisdiction that may occur in the
proposed Action Area (Figure 1a) during Project construction (Table 1-1).
Biological Assessment 7 June 2018
Table 1-1 ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat that May Occur in the Action Area
Species Status Agency Critical Habitat
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Threatened (Puget Sound ESU) NMFS Designated
Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Threatened (Puget Sound DPS) NMFS Designated
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Threatened (Puget Sound DPS) USFWS Designated Puget Sound
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Threatened USFWS Designated
Notes: DPS: distinct population segment ESU: evolutionary significant unit NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1.4 Other Species and Habitats Considered but Not Evaluated
Three terrestrial species identified by USFWS (2017a) as potentially occurring in the Action Area are
not evaluated in this BA due to the lack of suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Action Area.
These terrestrial species include two ESA-listed species, the streaked horn lark and yellow-billed
cuckoo, and one species proposed for listing, the wolverine. Potential habitat for streaked horn larks,
yellow-billed cuckoos, and wolverines is not located within or in the vicinity of the Project.
In addition, seven species identified by NMFS (2017) as potentially occurring in the Action Area are
not evaluated in the BA for one of two reasons:
1. The species are very unlikely to occur in the shallow marine environment adjacent to the site.
The marine mammal and sea turtle species—humpback whale, killer whale, and leatherback sea
turtle—occur in the deep-water habitat of Puget Sound and could occur offshore of the site, but
they are very unlikely to occur in the shallow marine environment adjacent to the site. The
designated critical habitat for killer whale is also outside of the Action Area.
2. There are no potential in-water impacts anticipated that could disturb these species. The fish
species bocaccio, North American green sturgeon, Pacific eulachon, and yelloweye rockfish are
associated with deep-water habitats of Puget Sound and typically breed and forage near the
ocean floor. Adults of these species are also very unlikely to occur in the shallow marine
environment adjacent to the site. Juveniles of these species do migrate in nearshore habitats
and could occur in the offshore habitat of the site, but there are no potential in-water impacts to
disturb these species.
1.5 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
This BA also provides an Effects Analysis and Determination for EFH pursuant to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries
Biological Assessment 8 June 2018
Act. Under this legislation, an evaluation of impacts to EFH is necessary for activities that may
adversely affect EFH. EFH is defined by the MSFCMA in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 50,
Section 600.905-930 as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity.” Within the Action Area, EFH is designated for groundfish, coastal
pelagic, and Pacific salmon composites. It is concluded that the Proposed Action will not adversely
affect EFH for any managed species assemblage. The EFH assessment is included as Appendix B.
Biological Assessment 9 June 2018
2 Proposed Project
2.1 Project Location
The 108-acre Meadowdale Beach County Park is located on the northern end of Brown’s Bay on
Puget Sound and extends from tidelands up to the rim of Lund’s Gulch, a deeply incised forested
ravine (Figure 1). The railroad embankment parallels the shoreline and separates the tidelands from
the park’s lawn area at the bottom of the ravine (Figure 2). The park consists of several parcels and is
owned by Snohomish County under custodianship of the County’s Parks and Recreation department.
A portion of the southwestern side of the park, including the ADA access road, is located within the
jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds. The marine shoreline of Puget Sound forms the west boundary
of the park. Railroad tracks are also located on a berm along the Puget Sound shoreline, which is part
of the BNSF Railway right-of-way that lies within the western edge of the park. The north, south, and
east areas of the park consists of a steep, forested ravine with a trail along the creek. Adjacent
properties consist of single-family residences. Upstream of the site, the City of Lynnwood has
preserved 90 acres of upland forested property adjacent to the site. The Project area encompasses
approximately 10 acres of lower Lund’s Gulch Creek, the lawn area, the access road, and
tideland area.
2.1.1 Site History
The Project site once housed a natural saltmarsh and was later homesteaded by John Lund in 1878
(Bruce Dees 1986; Snohomish County 2015); the railroad was constructed in the late 1800s. Lund’s
Gulch saw many subsequent landowners and was logged, and a fish hatchery was constructed at one
point.
The property was eventually acquired by the Meadowdale Country Club in the early 1960s, and the
lower portion of the site was intensively developed, including a club house, bath house, well, sports
courts, lawn areas, and a pool. After repeated landslides, which damaged the access road, as well as
other factors, the club closed in the mid-1960s, according to the 1969 property appraisal.
In 1971, Parks acquired the land with bond and grant funds for the purpose of developing a public
park with beach access. The buildings, which had been badly vandalized, were demolished and
removed, along with the remains of the clubhouse, which had been destroyed by fire. The public was
allowed to drive into the park on the access road until its condition degraded due to unstable soils.
The park was closed to the public in 1979, after which a wide range of unsanctioned activities
occurred, including firearms use, motorcycle riding, and large parties (Bruce Dees 1986; Snohomish
County 2015).
Planning and development of the park in its current configuration began in 1986, with the purpose
of providing a passive recreation facility while preserving the site’s natural resources and restoring a
Biological Assessment 10 June 2018
severely down-cut stream channel upstream of the current Project area. The public process
associated with the 1986 design process strongly supported the current hike-in only access for the
public, supplemented by an ADA- and Park Ranger-only access road to the lower park area (the
Project site). As part of the construction, the foundation remnants and other miscellaneous concrete
were buried on site, and the pool area was filled in.
The County entered into an agreement in 1988 with BNSF for shared use of the culvert for the
purpose of providing public beach access as a condition of the Washington State Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation, now Recreation and Conservation Office acquisition funding. To
facilitate access, a boardwalk (first wooden, then recently replaced with steel grating) was installed
above the approximately 2-foot-deep by 4-foot-wide channel within the 50-foot-long culvert; the
total width of the walkway with the grating installed is 6 feet. The culvert is significantly undersized
for the creek, and during high-flow conditions, a wide portion of the lower park is flooded. High-flow
events also commonly cause the deposition of sediment at the upstream end of the box culvert. This
material restricts the movement of fish into and out of the creek. The sediment also deposits on
adjacent park recreational areas. In addition, the trapping of sediment in these areas degrades an
important nearshore habitat-forming process.
2.2 Project Setting
Meadowdale Beach Park is one of only three County-owned and operated parks that provides public
beach access to Puget Sound. The park’s natural forests, trail system, creek, and waterfront access are
the main attractions and are popular with 50,000 to 70,000 annual visitors. Visitors from throughout
the County, other nearby communities, and out of state utilize the park for daily exercise routines,
walking, picnicking, beach-combing, and bird- and wildlife-watching. The park is used extensively for
environmental education by local schools, Boy and Girl Scouts, and Edmonds Community College
(Dailer 2015). The park is also an official Washington Water Trails campsite, providing beach camping
to people using non-motorized watercraft.
The topography of the Project area ranges from close to sea level in the relatively flat lower park
areas to very steep forested slopes as the park extends to the north, south, and east. Slopes in the
Project area range from 0% to 70%, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil data
(USDA 2017). The majority of the slopes along the north and south valley walls are 3 Horizontal to
1 Vertical (3H:1V) or steeper; however, the valley bottom near the creek is relatively flat.
2.2.1 Buildings and Facilities
The main park access for the public is a parking lot located off of 156th Street SW. Amenities in this
upper portion of the park include a small playground, portable toilets, trailhead, and 28 parking
stalls. A 1.25-mile earthen trail begins at the upper parking lot and follows Lund’s Gulch Creek,
Biological Assessment 11 June 2018
terminating at a partially paved loop path in the lower ravine lawn area. This loop trail connects to
the culvert, providing beach access under the BNSF railroad.
Additional facilities in the lower park include a sand volleyball court, picnic shelter, five uncovered
picnic tables on concrete pads, a lawn area, pedestrian bridge, ADA-compliant parking, portable
toilets, and a ranger residence. The site currently includes 50,900 square feet (sf) of impervious
surfaces (approximately 12% of the Project area). These surfaces include paved walkways, concrete
slabs supporting the restroom enclosure and picnic shelter, the access road and parking area, and
the existing pedestrian bridge.
Existing Railroad Embankment and Culvert
The existing earthen railroad embankment parallels the beach, separating the County tidelands from
the park lawn. The embankment is heavily armored with riprap and boulder-sized rock and is
approximately 30 feet wide at the top and 60 feet wide at the base, with top of embankment
approximately 8 feet above the adjacent footpath (top of embankment elevation is approximately 20
to 21 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88]). The embankment lies within the
100-foot BNSF-owned right-of-way.
The existing concrete box culvert is located at the beginning of an approximately 4.5-degree curve in
the railroad line. The culvert opening is 7 feet high by 6 feet wide and has an upstream invert
elevation of 9.6 feet and a downstream invert elevation of 9.1 feet NAVD88. The box culvert at the
railroad crossing at the mouth of Lund’s Gulch Creek causes flooding in the park during high flows
and sediment deposition at the upstream end of the culvert, restricts the establishment of a fully
functioning estuary, and restricts fish movements into and out of the stream. In addition to these
hydraulic and ecological impacts, the railroad crossing affects park user access to the beach and
public safety through the railroad right-of-way.
2.2.2 Natural Resources
The Project is located in the Cedar-Sammamish Basin Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (Ecology
2016). Hydrologic characteristics in the Project area are influenced by regional groundwater, direct
precipitation, surface water runoff, Lund’s Gulch Creek, and Puget Sound. Vegetation within the
Project area includes a variety of native, non-native, and ornamental trees, shrub, grass, and
herbaceous species associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitat. The marine environment
also includes patches of native eelgrass (Zostera marina). The stream, marine shoreline, and eight
wetlands have been delineated on the site, and groundwater monitoring indicates a high water table
with low salinity.
Biological Assessment 12 June 2018
Lund’s Gulch Creek
The park includes the lower reach of Lund’s Gulch Creek, which flows through the park for
approximately 4,000 feet at a relatively constant gentle grade (3%) until its confluence with
Puget Sound, near the existing culvert under the railroad berm. The creek is influenced by upland
flows, incoming sediment loads, and tidal inundation at the mouth of the creek.
Creek Delta and Marine Shoreline
The delta on the west side of the BNSF Railway berm is one of the larger ones found between Seattle
and Everett and offers some limited pocket estuary habitat. Current conditions do not allow for a
natural estuary to establish upstream of the railroad embankment, although the elevations and creek
size are sufficient to support one. Instead of supporting a wider creek delta and estuarine area, the
creek is narrowly constricted to flow through the concrete channel of the box culvert. This
constriction also affects the estuary conditions waterward of the culvert, as high current velocities at
the downstream end of the culvert caused by the creek constriction during high flows carves out a
straight channel to the west. The straight channel bypasses high-functioning sub-estuary habitat to
the north that dries out when the creek flows due west. A natural saltmarsh existed at the creek
mouth prior to the construction of the railroad and subsequent land uses. The existing railroad berm
and culvert opening, as well as past fill placement east of the railroad berm for upland uses, have
eliminated most of the natural transition between freshwater and saltwater pocket estuary habitat
beneficial for juvenile salmonids.
The culvert acts as a grade control for the creek and confines it to an artificially narrow corridor
under the railroad berm. An additional connected concrete channel extends for another 20 feet
upstream, further confining the creek within its narrow alignment. Past fill placement for a variety of
upland uses during the 20th century cover the majority of the Lund's Gulch Creek ravine bottom for
approximately 700 lf upstream of the railroad berm. The historical tidal marsh extended
approximately 300 lf upstream of the berm (Anchor QEA 2016). The current conditions do not allow
for a pocket estuary to establish upstream of the railroad embankment, although the creek was
historically capable of supporting one. These altered estuary conditions also degrade habitat for
salmon.
Riparian Stream Buffer
Approximately 210 feet of lower Lund’s Gulch Creek is confined by rock bank armoring, which
partially limits overhanging vegetation within the stream riparian buffer. Upstream of this lowermost
reach, the vegetated riparian buffer comprises upland and wetland habitat and includes mostly
native woody and emergent wetland species. The riparian buffer ranges in width from 5 feet at the
lowermost edge, between 15 and 50 feet within the central reach of the Project, and up to 70 feet at
the uppermost reach of the site. The tree species in the riparian stream buffer are dominated by
native deciduous species, the most populous being red alder (Alnus rubra), followed by big leaf
Biological Assessment 13 June 2018
maple (Acer macrophyllum) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). A smaller proportion of the
riparian buffer trees are non-native deciduous, and native and non-native conifers. An effort to plant
native conifers in this segment of the riparian stream occurred in the last 10 to 20 years, and these
trees are generally 10 to 15 feet tall, healthy, and currently functioning as an understory canopy
component. Upstream of the Project Area, the riparian buffer expands substantially and is dominated
by native second-growth deciduous and coniferous trees.
2.3 Project Description
The proposed Project is intended to address several interrelated issues associated with sediment
deposition at the current box culvert for Lund’s Gulch Creek under the railroad berm. The Project
area encompasses approximately 10 acres of lower Lund’s Gulch Creek, the lawn area, the access
road, and the tideland area. The Project would include replacement of the box culvert with a bridge,
restoration and enhancement of the stream and estuary, improvements to park facilities, and
repaving of the access road. Existing conditions at the site are depicted on Figures 3a through 3c.
The proposed Project site plan is shown on Figure 4 and described in the sections below, with
detailed Project elements depicted on Figures 5 through 8.
2.3.1 Railroad Bridge, Estuary, and Beach
The existing box culvert would be replaced with a five-span railroad bridge to address flooding and
maintenance issues associated with sediment deposition, improve habitat for salmon and other fish
and wildlife species, and improve public safety and ADA access. The proposed changes would
convert much of an existing lawn area to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat and provide
habitat improvements farther upstream in and along Lund’s Gulch Creek. A portion of the beach area
would be temporarily graded to support railroad bridge construction and final graded to support the
widened creek mouth at the railroad bridge, which would allow for continued development of
natural spit/barrier beach pocket estuary habitat. Specific Project actions in this area of the park are
summarized below.
Railroad Bridge
• Remove the undersized 6-foot-wide box culvert under the BNSF railroad
• Remove approximately 130 lf of the existing hard armored railroad embankment, along with
10 trees and shrub vegetation on the railroad embankment and within the 100-foot-wide
railroad right-of-way
• Construct a new five-span, 128-lf-long rail bridge
• Construct a new ADA-accessible pathway under the southern section of the bridge linking the
park and beach
• Replace existing railroad safety fencing with new chain link fencing that meets BNSF
safety requirements
Biological Assessment 14 June 2018
• Excavate the existing railroad embankment to create a 90-foot-wide channel to dissipate high
flood flows, allow for natural creek meandering over time, restore natural sediment transport
processes, and restore a functioning pocket estuary
Pocket Estuary
• Place fill material east of the existing railroad embankment to create a temporary work
platform for use during construction (fill material unsuitable for creek/estuary restoration
would be removed following construction)
• Remove existing restroom enclosure and developed park features in the proposed estuary
area, including picnic tables; concrete pads; lawn, ornamental, and invasive vegetation; and
approximately 40 native and non-native trees, then reuse removed trees as large woody
materials or snag features within riparian planting areas to support habitat enhancement
• Remove approximately 210 lf of rock bank armoring along the lowermost 300 feet of Lund’s
Gulch Creek
• Remove a portion of the loop asphalt path north of the proposed estuary to maximize estuary
riparian area restoration
• Excavate, grade, and contour the area east of the railroad embankment to create riparian and
pocket estuary habitat, including restored tidal marsh with a fringe of freshwater emergent
wetland to accommodate future sea level rise
• Create sufficient space and grades to allow Lund’s Gulch Creek to naturally meander and
deposit sediment in the restored estuary area on both sides of the railroad
Beach
• Place temporary fill material over a temporary geotextile on the beach west of the existing
railroad embankment to install a temporary work platform for use during construction (fill
material unsuitable for creek/estuary restoration would be removed following construction)
• Excavate, place sand, and grade beach to support the new park and habitat features, including
the widened creek mouth on the west side of the tracks, and to restore beach habitat,
including sandy substrates
• Revegetate beach backshore with supratidal native vegetation in regraded areas
2.3.2 Park Uplands
Upland improvements to park and recreation facilities would focus on areas east and south of the
restored pocket estuary at Lund’s Gulch Creek. The existing pedestrian bridge near the ranger
residence would remain in place, and other pedestrian, recreational, and habitat features would be
Biological Assessment 15 June 2018
improved to improve ADA access, provide a safer trail system, and reduce maintenance needs.
Specific Project actions in the park uplands are summarized below:
• Install new restroom enclosure, foot wash, and drinking fountain near the existing picnic
shelter, which would be updated but remain in place
• Convert existing sand volleyball court to lawn and construct improvements to lawn, drainage,
and stormwater treatment
• Enhance riparian and instream habitat including conifer planting and large woody
material placement
• Improve connectivity and habitat function of a previously constructed off-channel pond
• Realign existing pedestrian paths and construct ADA-compliant walkways
• Construct pedestrian connections, including a new pedestrian bridge across the restored
stream channel (downstream of the existing pedestrian bridge and upstream of the restored
estuary to replace the northern loop trail route affected by estuary restoration) and a
pedestrian connection from the picnic shelter to the new pedestrian bridge with a 40-foot
elevated path segment over an existing wetland area
• Create picnic viewpoints along the relocated loop path, providing visual access to the
restoration areas, and install new benches and four interpretive signs
• Regrade and repave the main paved pedestrian path on the south side of the lawn and
restored estuary to connect to the new beach path under the proposed railroad bridge
2.3.3 Road Access, Parking, and Drainage Improvements
The existing one-lane access road from 75th Place West to the lower park area—for ADA and
Park Ranger or service and emergency vehicle access only—would be improved to allow construction
equipment and material delivery and to ensure stability and ongoing ADA and Park Ranger access
after the Project is complete. Existing stormwater facilities would be improved to meet current
stormwater treatment standards. Specific Project actions related to the road, ADA parking, and
drainage improvements are summarized below:
• Regrade the lower portion of the limited-access road so the maximum longitudinal slope
would be reduced to 15%, and install new asphalt paving
• Resurface the remaining length of the limited-access road after construction
• Reconfigure, resurface, and restripe the existing ADA-compliant lower parking area, including
potential addition of one ADA parking stall, to provide parking that meets current
Snohomish County Code requirements and to ensure proper drainage
• Replace the paved swale along the existing roadway with a flexible liner and rock
(quarry spall) surfacing
• Stabilize the slope supporting the road on the downhill side with soil nails in selected areas, to
support anticipated construction traffic
Biological Assessment 16 June 2018
• Construct catch basins from the bottom of the road through the ADA parking area to collect,
control, and convey stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and construct a wet
biofiltration swale along the south side of the southern pedestrian path for stormwater
treatment; the treated swale flow would discharge to a catch basin and then be conveyed in a
storm drain under the path to a cobble-lined swale that would discharge to the restored
estuary
2.3.4 Construction Methods
To complete the work, the existing limited-access road into the park would be used for delivery of
construction equipment and materials and for removing excess excavated soils for the railroad
bridge replacement and estuary restoration. Rail access may be used for delivery of some equipment
and materials, pending additional discussions with BNSF and future contractor selection.
The general construction sequence is anticipated as follows:
1. Improve access road for construction
2. Deliver equipment and materials
3. Provide diversion for creek
4. Install temporary work pad adjacent to the railroad bridge
5. Replace culvert with railroad bridge
6. Remove temporary work pad
7. Excavate railroad berm under new bridge to proposed estuary subgrade, stockpile, and haul
8. Excavate area east and west of railroad berm for estuary, stockpile and haul
9. Install new pedestrian bridge
10. Conduct final material placement, park restoration and improvements, and planting at beach
area, estuary, and riparian buffer
11. Install permanent stormwater/drainage and other utility improvements
12. Finish access road repaving
Railroad Bridge, Estuary, and Beach Construction Methods
During the approved in-water work window, a temporary diversion would be created at the upstream
portion of Lund’s Gulch Creek. The diversion would involve the placement of multiple
36-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe culverts, along with sandbags to divert creek flow into the
pipe. The pipes would be routed to the beach area, where they would extend as far into the water as
practicable, and the discharge would be dispersed. This diversion would allow for stream work to be
conducted in the dry and minimize potential impacts to water quality.
With the stream diversion in place, the beach area adjacent to the railroad bridge would be
temporarily graded to accommodate the temporary work areas needed for railroad bridge
Biological Assessment 17 June 2018
construction. Streambed substrate would be removed and salvaged. Temporary work areas would be
established as follows:
• Temporary work pads consisting of quarry spalls capped with crushed surfacing base course
would likely be required on both the beach and lawn sides of the railroad tracks. These
temporary embankments would be approximately 30 feet wide along the length of the new
railroad bridge alignment, and a 50- by 50-foot section would be brought up to the rail
elevation south of the proposed bridge location on the beach side of the embankment.
• Laydown areas within a 30-foot boundary on both sides of the temporary embankments
would also be required for staging bridge components.
• A temporary staging and stockpile area on the lower lawn area where the estuary is proposed
would be needed during railroad bridge construction.
• A second temporary staging and stockpile area for equipment and material would also likely
be needed on the upper lawn (outside of existing wetlands) during estuary construction.
Railroad bridge construction would be sequenced to maintain live track conditions throughout
construction, and the bridge would be constructed one track at a time. All work associated with the
railroad bridge would be coordinated with BNSF. Temporary shoring would be installed between the
tracks to allow excavation during construction of the first half of the bridge. Temporary shoring may
be continuous sheetpile wall or driven H-piles with steel sheet lagging, depending on the
contractor’s preference. Approximately 40 steel H-pile bridge foundations would be driven during
BNSF work windows. No in-water pile driving is proposed for the Project; the pile driving would
occur in upland areas or during low tide above the water line. The remainder of the bridge would be
constructed using BNSF standard precast concrete components that meet applicable Federal
Railroad Administration, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, or
internal BNSF requirements.
Approximately 2,000 cubic yards (cy) of existing railroad embankment material (sand and rock of
varying size) would be removed using an excavator. The excavated embankment material is assumed
to require disposal at an approved off-site upland facility. The existing box culvert would be removed
using a rubber tire crane and excavator. Any concrete debris would be hauled off site and disposed
of at an approved upland site.
A rock curtain would be installed at the northern bridge abutment. A gravity block wall would be
installed and backfilled on the south end of the bridge instead of a rock curtain wall to support the
embankment and accommodate the pedestrian path proposed to go under the new railroad bridge.
Perforated pipe would be installed to drain water from the gravity block wall, and 245 feet of
chain-link fence would be installed along the perimeter of the BNSF right-of-way.
Biological Assessment 18 June 2018
Once the railroad bridge is constructed and the regulatory work window opens for the marine
environment, the new channel would be graded out into the estuary, and the beach area would be
regraded to support the widened creek mouth. The beach area would be restored with sand
substrate and revegetated with backshore and supratidal vegetation.
Grading of the new channel and estuary areas would occur during low tide cycles, using machinery.
Machinery would not be allowed to enter the water, to minimize disturbance to sediment in the
estuary and the potential for leaks or spills of hazardous materials. The estuary tidal marsh
restoration would include excavation of nearly 17,000 cy of material landward of the railroad
(excluding the berm removal for the railroad bridge). Excavation in the estuary area may require
materials sorting for disposal and management of groundwater near the surface depending on
conditions at the time of construction.
Estuary excavation would require removal of at least 40 trees. Material placement within the pocket
estuary would include gravel and cobble streambed substrate, sand and gravel fish mix substrate,
beach sand, and topsoil for wetland plants. All removed trees would be used as large woody
materials (approximately 19 uncut logs with rootwads and 34 cut logs of rootwads or tree tops) or
reinstalled as snag features (10 features) within riparian planting areas. Twelve of the largest woody
debris pieces would be placed within the pocket estuary, with an additional 15 pieces placed near
the bridge abutments; 22 medium-size pieces would be located within the existing stream channel,
and 4 within the restored pond. These large wood features would provide additional habitat
structure and complexity, providing pools and slow-water habitat that are supportive to juvenile
salmonids. Eight snag features would be installed north of the existing creek channel, and two would
be installed south of the creek; all snags would be located within riparian habitat areas as habitat for
cavity-nesting birds. The estuary and riparian areas would be revegetated with native vegetation.
Park Uplands Construction Methods
Upland Demolition
Upland demolition and removal of park features would occur from land and would include removal of
the restroom enclosure; site furnishings; volleyball court; lower creek bank armoring; select trees; and
lawn, ornamental, and invasive vegetation. Best management practices (BMPs) would be employed
during proposed demolition work to address potential erosion or hazardous material spills. All debris
from upland demolition would be collected and disposed of at an approved upland site.
Site Grading
Grading would be performed using typical equipment, including dump trucks, front-end loaders,
backhoes, and/or tracked excavators. Imported sand, habitat gravel, topsoil, or other substrate
materials would be brought to the site using dump trucks. Materials would be placed using either a
Biological Assessment 19 June 2018
backhoe or tracked excavator for rock and a tracked excavator or a front-end loader and bulldozer
for beach gravel. Materials would be placed in the dry.
Park Paths and Pedestrian Bridge
Park recreation paths would primarily consist of asphalt trails within the site, as shown in the figures
in Appendix A. Base and top course would be imported to build these features, and material would
be placed using a tracked excavator or a front-end loader and bulldozer. The recreation paths would
also include a pedestrian bridge and a 40-foot-long elevated path segment.
Construction of the pedestrian bridge would involve land-based equipment. Concrete footers would
be formed at the site. The pre-fabricated bridge would be delivered via truck and would be
assembled using a crane. The south end of the pedestrian bridge would connect to the elevated path
segment.
The elevated path segment would consist of a 6-foot-wide ADA-compliant trail with fiberglass
grating for the decking, elevated a minimum of 1.5 foot above the existing grade by a substructure
and foundation. Foundations and substructures would consist of diamond pier-supported
foundations with treated timber posts, cross beams, and joists. Substructure members (e.g., beams
and joists) would only be in contact with foundations, not the soil, water, or sediments. Diamond pier
foundations would consist of pre-cast concrete pier heads that secure clusters of four
steel-pipe-bearing pins. Light construction equipment and hand tools would be used to install the
elevated path segment.
Restroom Enclosure, Picnic Shelter Updates, and Site Furnishings
The restroom enclosure (Figure 15) would primarily consist of a concrete pad and footings, steel
columns, log beams, and laser cut steel panels for the surround. The roof would be standing seam
metal. To install the restroom enclosure, a concrete pad with board-formed concrete upstands would
be placed using a cement truck and hand tools. Steel columns would be installed into the concrete
upstands and the steel panels welded to them. Peeled log beams would be installed with bracket
hardware to the steel columns, with cedar rafters resting on the log beams. The standing seam metal
roof system will consist of plywood sheathing on the rafters, a weather resistive barrier, flashing as
needed, and the standing seam metal roofing panels. The portable restroom units would be installed
within the restroom enclosure and maintained by a portable restroom service.
The existing stone cladding at the base of the picnic shelter columns would be removed and
replaced with a laser cut steel surround, similar to the restroom enclosure, and a new concrete cap.
There would be no change to the existing structure of the picnic shelter, and the existing roof
sheathing would remain; only the roofing material would be replaced with new panels to match the
adjacent restroom enclosure.
Biological Assessment 20 June 2018
Site furnishings, including picnic tables and a foot wash and drinking fountain, would be
surface-mount installed based on manufacturers’ instructions on concrete pads in the locations
shown in the figures in Appendix A.
Planting and Habitat Restoration and Enhancement
Native plants would be placed in the riparian buffer and all areas of exposed soil based on the
planting plan (Figures 13 and 14). The existing freshwater pond feature in this area would be
enhanced by placing salvaged streambed cobbles to provide shallow water habitat, placing large
woody material for added structure, and planting the banks with riparian vegetation. Woody
plantings would include planting a riparian fringe around the pocket estuary, as well as enhancing
existing riparian areas with conifer interplanting along Lund’s Gulch Creek. Park restoration and
plantings would be timed to be initiated once all grading is complete. Temporary irrigation (2- to
5-year operation) would be installed to support new riparian planting areas.
Road Access, Parking, and Drainage Improvement Construction Methods
The limited access road would be improved by the contractor at the start of construction to establish
a minimum longitudinal slope of 15% to allow for equipment and materials access. Access road
downhill slope reinforcement would be provided where necessary by installing soil nails (spiral nail
reinforcement). The access road would be resurfaced with new asphalt paving near the end of Project
construction. Standard grading equipment would be used. Engineered fill and base course would be
imported to establish the road bed where grading changes would occur. The existing lower parking
area would be restriped to provide parking that meets current Snohomish County Code
requirements and to accommodate an additional ADA-compliant parking stall.
The paved swale along the existing roadway would be replaced with a rock-lined drainage swale
installed over a flexible impermeable liner. Catch-basin inlets and storm drains would be added at
the bottom of the roadway and in the ADA parking area, along with stormwater conveyance to a wet
biofiltration swale. The biofiltration swale would be installed along the toe of the slope adjacent to
the pathway near the picnic shelter and restroom enclosure, and stormwater pipe would be installed
from the biofiltration swale under the paved recreation path to a cobble-lined swale outletting in the
restored estuary at the mean higher high water (MHHW) line. Stormwater runoff from paved
pathways would sheet flow to adjacent landscaping for dispersal. Runoff from building roofs would
be discharged to existing roof drain systems or to adjacent landscaping for dispersal.
2.3.5 Project Timing
In-water construction work would be planned to accommodate work windows for fish species as
determined by the Corps, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), USFWS, and NMFS.
Work windows include July 1 to October 1 for anadromous fish species and March to July for sand
lance.
Biological Assessment 21 June 2018
2.4 Environmental Resources Impact and Mitigation Summary
A discussion of how the Project may affect ESA-listed species and their habitat is provided here,
focusing on key construction and design elements related to water resources and fisheries habitat. A
brief summary of the existing stream and wetlands in the Project Area is shown in Table 2-1; Figure 9
provides the location of these features.
Table 2-1 Existing Marine Water, Stream, and Wetland Characteristics
Resource Size (acres)
2014 State Rating (Ecology)
Habitat Rating Score (Ecology)
Local Rating Buffer Width (feet)1,2
Snohomish County City of Edmonds Snohomish County City of Edmonds
Puget Sound Marine Waters 150
Lund’s Gulch Creek Type F 150
Wetland A 0.13 III 7 III 75
Wetland B 0.21 II 7 II 75
Wetland C 0.03 II 7 II 75
Wetland D 0.10 III 7 III 165
Wetland E 0.05 III 7 III 75
Wetland F 0.08 IV 6 IV 40
Wetland G 0.22 III 7 III 75
Wetland H 0.05 II 7 II 75
Notes:
1. Buffer based on Low Intensity Land Use. Snohomish County, 2017. Snohomish County Code. Accessed October 12, 2017. Available from: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/snohomishcounty/. 2. City of Edmonds, 2017. City of Edmonds Code. Accessed October 12, 2017. Available from: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/.
Ecology: Washington State Department of Ecology
2.4.1 Fill and Excavation Within Surface Waters or Wetlands
Grading would be conducted to allow the construction of park features, including pedestrian access,
stormwater management, and recontouring the creek bed and shoreline in order to support the
estuary restoration and provide a natural shoreline transition area.
The majority of earthwork would involve grading and excavation to create estuarine and freshwater
wetlands. A small portion of the fill and grading would occur below the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) of Lund’s Gulch Creek or MHHW of Puget Sound (Table 2-2); this filling would occur in the
creek bed and near the shoreline for the purposes of aquatic habitat enhancement with approved
Biological Assessment 22 June 2018
materials (i.e., habitat gravels). All fill material would be clean and sourced from approved borrow
facilities.
One wetland on the site would have permanent, direct impacts from construction of the Project,
namely to install the diamond pier foundations for the elevated pedestrian path segment over
Wetland B. The extent of impacts to Wetland B of 8 sf is extremely small. Temporary impacts to
Wetland F are associated with the temporary work pad for railroad bridge construction.
Table 2-2 Summary of Fill and Excavation within Surface Water or Wetlands
Activity Waterbody Impact Location Duration of Impact
Material to be Placed in or Removed from Waterbody
(cubic yards)
Area of Waterbody Directly Affected (square feet)
Shoreline fill for work pads Puget Sound Beach below MHHW Temporary +4 102
Beach excavation for estuary restoration
Puget Sound
Estuary restoration west of railroad, following removal of work pads below MHHW
Permanent (enhancement) -85 2,868
Beach sand fill for restoration Puget Sound
Estuary restoration west of railroad, following removal of work pads below MHHW
Permanent (enhancement) +106 2,868
Culvert removal and excavation
Lund’s Gulch Creek
Existing channel below OHWM Permanent (enhancement) -10 482
Sand and gravel fill for channel creation
Lund’s Gulch Creek
Under railroad berm below OHWM
Permanent (enhancement) +18 482
Stream channel fill for work pads
Lund’s Gulch Creek
Existing channel below OHWM Temporary +135 1,016
Excavation for conversion to estuary1
Lund’s Gulch Creek Stream channel Permanent (enhancement) -390 3,286
Habitat material fill (gravel and large woody material)
Lund’s Gulch Creek Stream channel Permanent (enhancement) +122 3,286
Biological Assessment 23 June 2018
Activity Waterbody Impact Location Duration of Impact
Material to be Placed in or Removed from Waterbody
(cubic yards)
Area of Waterbody Directly Affected (square feet)
Fill for elevated path segment foundations Wetland B Diamond pier foundations (eight) Permanent +8 8
Fill Wetland F Work pad for railroad bridge construction Temporary +30 640
Notes:
1. A total of nearly 17,000 cubic yards of excavation will be required for estuary restoration. The table only reflects excavation below the ordinary high water mark of Lund’s Gulch Creek.
MHHW: mean higher high water OHWM: ordinary high water mark
2.4.2 Buffer Impacts to Surface Waters and Wetlands
Table 2-3 summarizes the impacts to marine, stream, and wetland buffers. All of the stream and
wetland buffers in the Project area would be impacted during or following the Project. As shown on
Figure 9, the buffer areas for these resources overlap considerably.
Table 2-3 Summary of Impacts to Buffers of Surface Waters and Wetlands
Resource Category Permanent Impact Area Temporary Impact Area
Marine buffer only 400 sf (0.01 acre) 7,700 sf (0.18 acre)
Stream buffer only 900 sf (0.02 acre) 3,700 sf (0.08 acre)
Stream and wetland buffer overlap 10,200 sf (0.23 acre) 11,300 sf (0.26 acre)
Wetland buffer only 1,100 sf (0.03 acre) 200 sf (0.005 acre)
Total 12,600 sf (0.29 acre) 22,900 sf (0.53 acre)
2.4.3 Change in Overwater Cover
Change in overwater cover will occur with replacing the existing railroad berm and stream culvert
with a 128-foot-long, five-span bridge and installation of a 40-foot-long pedestrian bridge over
Lund’s Gulch Creek. Table 2-4 summarizes the existing and proposed overwater cover over
Lund’s Gulch Creek.
Biological Assessment 24 June 2018
Table 2-4 Summary of Changes in Overwater Cover
Project Element
Overwater Cover (sf)
Removed New Net Change
Remove existing box culvert -530
Install new grated pedestrian bridge N/A +400
Totals -530 +400 -130
2.4.4 Upland Grading
Total upland (above OHWM and MHHW) excavation for the Project would remove approximately
17,100 cy of existing material from the site. Fill in upland areas for the project would place more than
4,200 cy of imported and salvaged materials. Table 2-5 summarizes the proposed upland grading,
excavation, and fill.
Table 2-5 Summary of Upland Grading Extents
Activity Total
Grading (square feet) 161,400
Excavation/removal (cubic yards) 17,100
Fill (cubic yards) 4,200
2.4.5 Changes in Impervious Surfaces
The site currently includes 50,900 sf of impervious surfaces, including paved walkways, concrete slabs
supporting the restroom enclosure and picnic shelter, the access road and parking area, and the
existing pedestrian bridge. The proposed Project would remove approximately 9,400 sf of impervious
surface and add approximately 4,600 sf of new impervious surface for a net reduction of 4,800 sf. The
new impervious surfaces include the railroad bridge, paved walkways on the south side of the creek,
minor widening of the access road east of the ADA parking area, and the concrete pad for the
relocated restroom enclosure.
2.4.6 Changes to Vegetation and Habitat Types
The Project seeks to protect native vegetation and existing mature trees to the extent possible. New
plantings will feature all native species. Much of the existing native vegetation and mature trees in
Biological Assessment 25 June 2018
the ravine area would be protected. Figures 13 and 14 provide information regarding vegetation
removal and alteration, in addition to the following summary of vegetation removal and alteration:
• Beach Shrub Vegetation: Removal of 7,500 sf of existing shrubs on the west side of the
railroad embankment would be addressed by planting new backshore native beach grass and
new riparian plantings on the beach north and south of the restored estuary channel.
• Conversion of Lawn Area to Creek and Estuary Habitat: Removal of 32,400 sf of lawn area and
installation of native vegetation, and a variety of wetland and riparian plant species would be
planted in the fringe areas of the restored estuary and stream.
• Conversion of Riparian Areas to Instream, Intertidal Wetland, and Freshwater Emergent
Wetland: Approximately 18,900 sf of riparian area will be converted to instream or wetland
habitat. The existing freshwater wetlands on the site would be preserved.
• Retention and Enhancement of Riparian Areas: All of the existing riparian area that is not
converted to instream or wetland habitat would remain and be enhanced with additional
native tree and shrub plantings, and approximately 11,300 sf of uplands (lawn, paths, and
paved areas) would be converted to riparian areas
• Tree Removal and Replacement: Removal of approximately 40 trees in the restored estuary
location and 10 trees in the railroad right-of-way would be offset by new 275 native tree
plantings, as well as native shrub plantings, in riparian areas along Lund’s Gulch Creek and the
restored pocket estuary. The removed trees would also be reused as large woody materials or
snag features within riparian planting areas to support habitat enhancement.
2.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
The overarching ecological goal of the Project is to restore the estuary of Lund’s Gulch Creek, which
will provide restoration of approximately 1.7 acre, including the following:
• Approximately 1.18 acre of tidal wetland habitat
• Approximately 0.28 acre of freshwater wetland habitat
• Approximately 0.23 acre of instream habitat
These restoration areas, as well as the planned additional beach substrate enhancement and
plantings of 0.46 acre and approximately 1.62 acres of riparian enhancement plantings, are depicted
on Figure 10.
2.5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The proposed Project would avoid permanent adverse impacts to marine and stream waters below
MHHW and OHWM, respectively. The Project is designed to avoid direct impacts to existing wetlands
as much as possible, and the only direct impact to wetlands would be a negligible amount
(0.0001 acre) of impact to Wetland B. The impact to Wetland B is due to an elevated pedestrian
walkway segment that would provide park visitors access to the northern side of the restored
Biological Assessment 26 June 2018
estuary. This ADA-accessible pedestrian path is a key component of the public access for the park.
Additional impacts to Wetland B would be avoided by using the following measures:
• Locate the pedestrian walkway in the narrowest portion of the wetland
• Elevate the walkway over the wetland to maintain wetland hydrology
• Use diamond pier foundations with smaller footprints to minimize wetland disturbance
Other impact minimization and avoidance measures for the Project include the following:
• Locate all estuary excavation at least 10 feet from existing wetland boundaries
• Reconfigure improvements to the ADA access road to avoid fill in Wetland D
• Minimize footprint of new walkways and relocated restroom enclosure for a net decrease in
impervious surface of 4,800 sf
• Locate footings for new pedestrian bridge above OHWM; provide grating on bridge surface
to minimize potential shading impacts
• Avoid permanent impacts to Wetland F by locating widening of the southern pedestrian path
to meet ADA requirements outside of the wetland
Measures to minimize impacts to surface water during construction include the following:
• Provide a temporary diversion of Lund’s Gulch Creek to allow in-stream work to be conducted
in the dry and minimize water quality impacts
• Install a sediment curtain at the discharge area for the temporary diversion to minimize water
quality impacts
• Construct improvements to the stormwater capture and treatment system
• Require the contractor to prepare and implement a Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan and a Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan to be used
for the duration of the Project
• Require the contractor to implement and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control
BMPs through construction until construction is complete and the site is vegetated
In addition, the following BMPs will be employed during construction:
• All work will be performed according to the requirements and conditions of the
Project permits
• In-water work will occur during the approved regulatory work window or an approved
extension of the work window
• Turbidity and other water quality parameters will be monitored to ensure construction
activities are in compliance with Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards in the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-201A)
Biological Assessment 27 June 2018
• The contractor will be required to develop and implement an SPCC Plan to be used for the
duration of the Project to safeguard against an unintentional release of fuel, lubricants, or
hydraulic fluid from construction equipment
• Excess or waste materials will not be disposed of or abandoned waterward of OHWM or
allowed to enter waters of the State
• No petroleum products; fresh cement, lime, or concrete; chemicals; or other toxic or
deleterious materials will be allowed to enter surface waters
• The contractor will be required to retrieve any floating debris generated during construction
using a skiff and a net; debris will be disposed of at an appropriate upland facility
• The contractor will be required to properly maintain construction equipment and vehicles to
prevent them from leaking fuel or lubricants; if there is evidence of leakage, the further use of
such equipment will be suspended until the deficiency has been satisfactorily corrected
2.5.2 Impacts Associated with Estuary Restoration—No Additional
Mitigation Necessary
The Project is designed to restore and enhance the existing waterbodies on site. This includes
removing the existing culvert and creating a bridge to allow Lund’s Gulch Creek to return to a more
natural meander; minimizing sediment buildup; improving connectivity of the creek channel, upland
water sources, and Puget Sound; restoring and enhancing riparian and in-stream habitat by planting
conifers and placing large woody material; restoring and creating estuary habitat; and providing
stormwater treatment on site.
Nearly all the potential permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands discussed in Section 2.4.1,
classified as “Enhancement” in Table 2-2 and depicted on Figure 10, are impacts caused by the
construction of the estuary restoration. Similarly, the increase in overwater cover from the
construction of the railroad bridge allows for the removal of an existing barrier to fish passage, and
provides renewed opportunities for fish migration and refuge. As such, the restoration design
provides the mitigation for these impacts and no additional mitigation is necessary. The single
exception is the potential impact to Wetland B, discussed in Section 2.5.3.
Some of the potential temporary impacts to surface waters and wetlands and their buffers, discussed
in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, respectively, are caused by necessary construction-related elements for
estuary restoration shown on Figure 16, including the stream diversion, work pads, and staging areas.
Temporary impacts of 0.002 acre to marine waters, 0.02 acre of stream waters, and 0.01 acre of
wetland waters will be addressed through restoration of tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, and
instream habitat at the location of the impact. For example, the temporary fill placed below OHWM
and MHHW for the work pads necessary for the railroad bridge construction will be removed during
construction of the estuary restoration. Similarly, the temporary fill placed in Wetland F of 0.01 acre
will be removed following construction and the wetland will be restored with additional plantings.
Biological Assessment 28 June 2018
Finally, temporary impacts of 0.28 acre to stream and wetland buffers from construction staging
areas located inside the restored estuary area will be addressed through the restored habitat created
by construction of the estuary.
2.5.3 Mitigation for Impacts Outside of Estuary Restoration
The potential permanent impact to Wetland B would occur from the installation of diamond pier
foundations for the elevated pedestrian walkway segment. The permanent impact of 8 sf is nearly
negligible but will be mitigated through creation and restoration of freshwater wetland habitat in the
estuary. Additional avoidance and minimization measures for impacts to Wetland B are discussed in
Section 2.5.1.
The potential permanent impacts to surface water and wetland buffers identified in Section 2.4.2 and
depicted on Figure 10, total 0.28 acre and are largely due to the installation of ADA-accessible
pedestrian walkways and overlooks. Permanent buffer impacts will also occur with minor widening of
the ADA access road, which will also be used for construction access and material hauling. The
permanent impacts to buffer areas will be mitigated through riparian plantings along Lund’s Gulch
Creek.
The potential temporary impacts in surface water and wetland buffers of 0.31 acre will be mitigated
through habitat restoration or enhancement at or near the location of the impact. All temporary
impacts would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Temporary impacts to buffers outside of the restored
estuary area from staging on the lawn area, and construction access for installation of the pedestrian
bridge will be addressed through riparian plantings along Lund’s Gulch Creek, upstream of the new
pedestrian bridge.
A summary of impacts and associated mitigation measures is shown in Table 2-6.
Biological Assessment 29 June 2018
Table 2-6 Impact and Mitigation Summary
Impact Type/Activity
Impact Amount (acre)
Required Mitigation Ratio1
Required Mitigation (acre)
Proposed Mitigation Methods Total
Construction of Restored Estuary
Riparian Enhancement Plantings
Permanent Impacts
Wetland B (diamond pier installation) 0.0001 3:1 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003
Stream and wetland buffers (pedestrian walkways and overlooks; access road widening)
0.28 3:1 0.84 0.84 0.84
Permanent Totals 0.29 0.86 0.86
Temporary Impacts
Stream and wetland buffers (construction staging and access outside of estuary area)
0.31 1:1 0.31 0.31 0.31
Temporary Totals 0.31 0.31
Note:
1. Per Snohomish County Code 30.62A.320
To ensure success of the mitigation, a 10-year monitoring and reporting program will be
implemented. Monitoring will include restored or enhanced wetland, stream, and buffer habitat
impacted by the Project construction. Installed vegetation communities will be monitored to assess
habitat function and, in the case of temporary wetland and wetland buffer impacts, performance of
enhancement efforts
Biological Assessment 30 June 2018
3 Environmental Baseline
3.1 Action Area
The Action Area is the area to be directly or indirectly affected by the federal action (50 CFR §402.02).
The Action Area is the defined geographic area potentially affected by the Project. For the purposes
of establishing baseline conditions from which to evaluate potential effects of the Project, the types
of activities to be performed and physical site conditions were examined and evaluated.
3.2 Action Area Description
The Project site is located on the east shoreline of Puget Sound. The site is a park, and the shoreline
and inland areas adjacent to the park are dominated by residential development. Landmasses
directly across Puget Sound include Whidbey Island about 2.2 miles to the northwest and Kitsap
County about 8.2 miles to the west.
The extent of the Action Area was determined based on both terrestrial and in-water components
and defined by the potential limits of in-air and in-water effects resulting from Project construction.
The Project element with the farthest-reaching potential to affect endangered or threatened species
is noise generated during construction, particularly by heavy equipment, which is a point-source
noise. Point-source noise is commonly measured in peak sound levels or the highest value of a
sound pressure over a stated time interval (Harris 1991).
Specifically, the Project element with the greatest potential to affect endangered or threatened
species is noise generated during impact pile driving. Impact pile driving refers to the method of
installing the 40 steel “H”-piles that would be installed as part of the Project. Vibratory pile driving is
not allowed by BNSF for construction near the railroad berm due to concerns about compromising
the stability of the berm.
In-water pile driving is not proposed as part of the Project. Pile driving would occur in upland areas
or during low tide above the water line. Therefore, no underwater sound pressure levels (SPLs)
associated with impact pile driving are anticipated and were not a factor in determining the Action
Area. Proposed in-water construction elements with the greatest potential to affect endangered or
threatened species include excavation and removal of marine and freshwater substrate material
below MHHW and OHWM, installation of habitat fill below MHHW and OHWM, and a temporary
stream diversion for Lund’s Gulch Creek. The proposed Project also includes several habitat
improvements for salmon and other wildlife species such as replacing the existing box culvert with a
bridge, converting existing lawn area to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat, and
improving habitat farther upstream in and along Lund’s Gulch Creek.
Biological Assessment 31 June 2018
As a result, the aquatic Action Area is limited to the footprint of proposed construction activity below
MHHW during low tide and the OHWM of Lund’s Gulch Creek. Because impact pile driving would
cause the greatest in-air noise levels, noise from impact pile driving was used to set the Action Area.
The terrestrial Action Area extends about 4,200 feet around the Project site associated with
Puget Sound and about 1,500 feet around the land-based area around the Project site. The
Action Area for the Project is shown on Figure 1b.
All construction effects except for pile driving will be temporary and spatially limited to the
immediate vicinity of the Project. Effects of pile driving will also be temporary, but they will extend to
the limits of the Action Area due to the noise levels associated with driving of 40 steel H-piles and
the associated distance that sound pressure waves will travel in-air.
3.2.1 In-Water Noise Considerations
As described above, no in-water pile driving is proposed as part of the Project. Pile driving would
occur in upland areas or during low tide above the water line. Therefore, no underwater SPLs
associated with impact pile driving are anticipated and were not a factor in determining the
Action Area.
3.2.2 In-Air Noise Considerations
The in-air, or terrestrial, portion of the Action Area is defined by the area affected by SPLs due to
impact pile driving of 40 steel H-piles from the source to a point where SPLs intersect a land mass or
where such levels attenuate to background levels. The estimated worst case terrestrial noise level for
the construction equipment proposed for the Project is impact driving of steel piles at
110 A-weighted decibels (dBA)1 at 33 feet from the source (WSDOT 2012).
Though the Project area is in a public park surrounded by a populated residential area that
experiences relatively regular automobile and truck traffic, residential development is separated from
the park by forested habitat and elevated topography that prevents noise from residential activity
from reaching the park. Recreational boat traffic in Puget Sound that creates significant noise levels
at the park would also be infrequent. However, regular train traffic does influence ambient noise
levels in the park. In general, ambient noise levels in the park consist of relatively quiet periods with
people talking, playing, and listening to music, broken up by the significant noise associated with
commercial and passenger train traffic. Daytime ambient noise levels in the area have not been
measured as part of this Project, but they likely have a range comparable to that of playgrounds and
parks (67 dBA), a freeway (70 dBA), a busy street (75 to 80 dBA), and a loud outboard motor
measured at 3 feet from the source (102 dBA); Awbrey and Bowles 1990). Existing ambient sound
1 While both underwater and in-air noise are measured in decibels (dB), the A-weighted rating is used for in-air noise because it relates to human interpretation of noise (shown as dBA) and corresponds with the same frequency range that humans hear.
Biological Assessment 32 June 2018
measurements recorded near the Puget Sound shoreline in the community of Mukilteo, Washington,
a more rural setting than the City of Edmonds, ranged from 64 dBA to 71.6 dBA (Anchor 2006).
Ambient noise levels associated with playgrounds and parks, approximately 67 dBA, were assumed
as typical noise levels for this analysis, with regular spikes of noise associated with train traffic.
Noise attenuates as the distance from the source of the noise increases. In areas of soft ground
cover, the standard reduction for point-source noise is 7.5 dBA for each doubling distance from the
source. In areas of hard ground cover, the standard reduction for point-source noise is 6 dBA for
each doubling distance from the source. The area surrounding the Project site is a combination of
soft ground cover to the north, east, and south associated with the surrounding topography of the
park, and hard ground cover to the west, Puget Sound. Using the accepted Practical Spreading Loss
model for in-air noise conditions (WSDOT 2012), in-air noise conditions were calculated for the
distances at which they were expected to attenuate to ambient conditions. Table 3-1 establishes the
distance from the Project at which noise from impact pile driving construction will attenuate to
background levels.
Table 3-1 Project Impact Pile Construction Noise Attenuation to Background Levels
Doubling Distance (feet) Hard-Site Noise (dBA) Soft-Site Noise (dBA)
33 110 110
66 104 102.5
132 98 s95
264 92 87.5
528 86 80
1,056 80 72.5
2,112 74 65
4,224 68 57.5
Note: dBA: A-weighted decibel
Noise levels generally attenuate to background levels between about 1,500 to 4,220 feet from the
Project site. Therefore, to be conservative, the limit of the terrestrial portion of the Action Area is set
at 4,200 feet from the outside edge of the Project site. The in-air portion of the Action Area will thus
extend at least this distance as a radius around the Project site associated with Puget Sound (hard-
site). In-air sound transmission will be highly inhibited by the topography to the north, south, and
east of the Project (soft-site), thereby confining noise on the land-based side of the site to a smaller
area, which cannot be determined without an on-site study or modeling exercise. However, an
estimate can be made based on the curved configuration of the hills and land masses that could be
Biological Assessment 33 June 2018
assumed to inhibit or greatly attenuate sound nearby (WSDOT 2012). Therefore, the in-air radius at
1,500 feet forms a reasonable boundary for the in-air portion of the Action Area that extends over
land. The in-air portion of the Action Area is shown on Figure 1b.
3.3 Physical Indicators
3.3.1 Marine
The Project area is located along the marine shoreline of Puget Sound, between the cities of
Edmonds to the south and Everett to the north. Land masses across Puget Sound from the site
includes Whidbey Island about 2.2 miles to the northwest and Kitsap County about 8.2 miles to the
west. The marine OHWM within the Project area was delineated during the sensitive areas
investigation, as described in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation Report (Anchor QEA 2017).
3.3.2 Freshwater
The Project is located in the Cedar-Sammamish Basin Water Resource Inventory Area 8
(Ecology 2017a). Stream and wetland features delineated within the Project area during the sensitive
areas investigation include the OHWM of Lund’s Gulch Creek and eight wetlands. A description of
sensitive areas within the Project area is presented in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Report (Anchor QEA 2017). Information on wetlands in the Project area is presented in Section 2.4.2
in Table 2-3.
3.3.3 Shoreline Conditions
The marine shoreline of Puget Sound forms the west boundary of the park. Railroad tracks are also
located on a berm along the Puget Sound shoreline, which is part of the BNSF Railway right-of-way
that lies within the park. The berm consists of armored riprap and angular rock. In the location of the
park, there is sandy beach habitat with woody debris and vegetation at the base of the railroad berm
inland of the OHWM. North and south of the park the OHWM appears to extend to the base of the
railroad berm, and residential development dominates land use at the top of the forested hillside.
The OHWM delineation within the Project area included a 1,440-foot reach of shoreline (Figure 2).
The marine OHWM within the Project area was delineated during the sensitive areas investigation, as
described in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation Report (Anchor QEA 2017).
3.3.4 Saltwater and Freshwater Mixing
Lund’s Gulch Creek flows through the Project area into Puget Sound. The estuarine habitat of
Puget Sound is identified on the National Wetlands Inventory map information (USFWS 2017b). Tidal
waters (MHHW) currently extend up to the western end of the existing box culvert, with extreme high
water extending approximately 70 feet east of the existing box culvert.
Biological Assessment 34 June 2018
3.3.5 Flows and Currents
The Project area is located adjacent to Puget Sound. Puget Sound experiences two tidal flushing
events per day. Flows for Lund’s Gulch Creek vary from 57 cubic feet per second (cfs) under a 2-year
peak flow event, to 135 cfs under a 100-year flow event.
3.3.6 Water Quality
Puget Sound offshore of the Project area is listed on the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) 303(d) List for a variety of parameters under Categories 1 and 2 waters. Lund’s Gulch Creek
is listed as a Category 5 water for bioassessment (Ecology 2017b).
3.4 Biological Indicators
No formal biological surveys of the Project area were performed for this BA. The information in the
following subsections is based on general observations during site visits, existing information such as
permits associated with the Project, and the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database
(WDFW 2017a).
3.4.1 Aquatic and Upland Vegetation
The Project area consists of walking trails; an ADA access road; picnic shelters; park maintenance
facilities; mowed grass areas; and upland, wetland, and riparian habitat. Vegetation within the Project
area includes a variety of native, non-native, and ornamental trees, shrubs, grass, and herbaceous
species. Wetlands, the riparian habitat of Lund’s Gulch Creek, and the steep, forested ravine in the
park are typically dominated by native plant species in natural conditions, unlike common park
settings that maintain managed landscaped conditions. The following subsections provide a general
description of vegetation within the Project area. Vegetation within the Project area is also described
in the Project documents prepared as part of the Project analysis, which are the Wetland, Stream,
and Marine Delineation Report (Anchor QEA 2017) and the Critical Areas Report (Anchor QEA 2018).
Mowed and Un-Mowed Grassland Areas
Mowed and un-mowed grassland areas are common in the park setting of the Project area. Plant
species within the grassland habitat include a variety of native and nonnative grasses and
herbaceous species that are common within Snohomish County, including Colonial bentgrass
(Agrostis capillaris), common velvet-grass (Holcus lanatus), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), red
fescue (Festuca rubra), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), English plantain
(Plantago lanceolata), red clover (Trifolium pratense), and white clover (Trifolium repens).
Shrubland
Shrub communities are dominated by native plant species with infrequent ornamental species. In
general, shrubs near the access road and walking trails are in a more landscaped, managed condition
Biological Assessment 35 June 2018
while farther from the access road and trail shrubs are in a more natural condition. Native shrub
species observed in the Project area include western azalea (Rhododendron macrophyllum), red
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus),
beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), low Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), vine maple
(Acer circinatum), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). Ornamental and
nonnative shrub species include English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus armeniacus), and holly (Ilex aquifolium). Non-native invasive plants are typically removed as
part of management of the park.
Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forest
Similar to the shrub communities, the mixed deciduous and coniferous forest habitat is dominated
by native plant species with infrequent ornamental species. Trees near the access road and walking
trails are in a more landscaped, managed condition while farther from the access road and trails
trees are in a more natural condition. Trees in the ravine and on the slopes are in undisturbed natural
forested conditions. Dominant native tree species observed within the Project area include big-leaf
maple (Acer macrophyllum), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), red alder (Alnus rubra), western
hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Nonnative and ornamental
species include Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) and cherry (Prunus sp.).
Wetlands
Eight wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) were delineated within the Project area. Wetland
habitats include palustrine forested and shrub wetlands and palustrine emergent wetland systems.
Six wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, E, G, and H) are located within the jurisdiction of Snohomish County,
and two wetlands are located within the jurisdictions of the City of Edmonds (Wetlands D and F).
Information on wetlands in the Project area is presented in Section 2.4.2 in Table 2-3. A description
of wetlands within the Project area is presented in the Wetland, Stream, and Marine Delineation
Report (Anchor QEA 2017). Wetlands within the Project area are shown on Figure 9.
Marine Vegetation
The marine shoreline in the Project area includes a mix of native and non-native vegetation at the
base of the railroad berm inland of the MHHW. Eelgrass habitat in the intertidal area offshore of the
Project area shoreline were mapped as part of the Project analysis (Confluence Environmental
Company 2017).
3.4.2 Fish
Salmonids
Salmonid species documented in the Puget Sound include Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), Chum salmon
Biological Assessment 36 June 2018
(Oncorhynchus keta), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch),
steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus malma) according to the
WDFW PHS and salmonscape websites (WDFW 2017a and 2017b).
The WDFW PHS website does not document any fish species presence in Lund’s Gulch Creek
(WDFW 2017a). The WDFW salmonscape website identifies the presence of coho salmon in the creek
(WDFW 2017b). The Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment Report prepared for the Project
identifies salmon use of the creek to include Chinook, coho, chum, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat
trout. (Confluence Environmental Company 2016).
Several species of salmonids utilize Lund’s Gulch Creek, including Chinook, coho, and chum salmon,
steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout. Salmon spawning ground surveys document coho and chum
salmon spawning each year. Salmon return data collected by community volunteers since 1997
indicate that in some years, more than 100 adult coho or chum would return to the creek; however,
most recently the numbers have been lower (Uusitalo 2015). The last time spawner surveys reported
more than 100 coho adults returned was 2001, as annual counts from 2002 to 2012 ranged between
2 and approximately 35. Chum adult numbers have been higher, with more than 100 chum adults
observed in 2007 while annual counts from 2008 to 2012 ranged between 10 and approximately 75.
Coho and chum spawning occurs in the lower portions of the creek and in years when higher
numbers of adults return the spawning occurs over a larger portion of the creek.
In addition to any fry produced by adult coho and chum salmon spawning in the creek, hatchery
origin fry have been released into the creek for many years (Uusitalo 2015). Approximately
10,000 chum fry (Chico Creek origin from Suquamish Tribe) and 1,000 coho fry (Wallace River origin
from WDFW) are released in the spring each year by a retired school teacher who has been releasing
fish in the creek since the 1980s (Uusitalo 2015).
Sea-run cutthroat trout also spawn and rear in the Lund’s Gulch Creek system. Pfeifer (1979)
documented sea-run cutthroat trout throughout Lund’s Gulch Creek, including headwater areas
outside of the park.
Only two separate observations of steelhead adults have been reported, and both were for only one
adult. Pfeifer (1979) referenced Don Hendricks' (WDFW) observation of a single steelhead adult in
Lund’s Gulch Creek, presumably in the late 1970s. More recently, Tom Murdoch, of the Adopt A
Stream Foundation, reported seeing one steelhead adult relatively high in the system
(Murdoch 2015).
Juvenile Chinook, coho, and chum salmon were documented in the lower 650 feet of the creek in a
study by Beamer et al. (2013). Because the creek does not provide habitat for Chinook spawning, the
presence of juvenile Chinook salmon indicates that the fish originated in other river systems, out-
Biological Assessment 37 June 2018
migrated to Puget Sound, and, during their movements and rearing along the marine nearshore,
moved back into the available freshwater habitat associated with Lund’s Gulch Creek.
Other fish species documented in the creek are starry flounder and sculpins (Pfeifer 1979, Adopt A
Stream Foundation 2013). Starry flounder are entering the lower creek from the Puget Sound
shoreline. Sculpin distributions in the creek are generally restricted to the lower reaches of Lund’s
Gulch Creek due to partial barriers inadvertently created by vertical drops downstream of log
structures installed for restoration (Lantz et al. 2014).
Prey and Forage Species
Larval, juvenile, and adult herring (Clupea harengus), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and Pacific
sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) are important forage fish for juvenile, sub-adult, and adult
salmonids (Healey 1982). The WDFW forage fish spawning map database identifies the shoreline of
the park to include sand lance spawning habitat (WDFW 2017c).
3.4.3 Wildlife
The WDFW PHS database (2017a) identifies the estuarine marine habitat of Puget Sound offshore of
the Project Area as Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), geoduck (Panopea generosa), and hard-shell
clam priority habitat.
The WDFW PHS database (2017a) identifies the forested habitat of the park as a biodiversity area
and corridor. Wildlife use of the park includes a variety of native birds, large and small mammals,
amphibians, and reptiles typical of a large park parcel of forested habitat within populated
communities in Snohomish County and western Washington.
Biological Assessment 38 June 2018
4 Species Occurrence, Effects Analysis, and Effects Determination
Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species that could occur in the Action Area during
construction include Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bull trout, and marbled
murrelets. As described in the Introduction (Section 1), three terrestrial species identified by USFWS
(2017a) as potentially occurring in the Action Area are not addressed in this BA due to the lack of
suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Action Area. These terrestrial species include two ESA-
listed species, streaked horn lark and yellow-billed cuckoo, and one species proposed for listings,
wolverine. Potential habitat for streaked horn larks, yellow-billed cuckoos, and wolverines is not
located within or within the vicinity of the Project area.
In addition, seven marine species identified by NMFS (2017) as potentially occurring in the Action
Area are not addressed in this BA due to the location of the Action Area, the species life history and
habitat requirements, and the lack of proposed marine in-water work associated with the Project. The
marine mammal and sea turtle species, humpback whale, killer whale, and leatherback sea turtle
occur in the deep-water habitat of Puget Sound and could occur offshore of the site but are very
unlikely to occur in the shallow marine environment adjacent to the site. The fish species bocaccio,
green sturgeon, Pacific eulachon, and yelloweye rockfish are associated with deep-water habitats of
Puget Sound and typically breed and forage near the ocean floor. Adults of these species are also
very unlikely in the shallow marine environment adjacent to the site. Juveniles of these species do
migrate in nearshore habitats and could occur in the offshore habitat of the site, but there are no
potential in-water impacts to disturb these species. The marine habitat adjacent to the site is within
designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Areas with water less than
20 feet deep are not designated as critical habitat for killer whale. Offshore habitat from the site with
water depths deeper than 20 feet meet the criteria for killer whale designated critical habitat. The
ESA-listed species that are not addressed in this BA and a summary of the effects determination of
the proposed Project on each species and habitat are presented in Table ES-2.
Potential effects related to the proposed Project that could affect fish, wildlife, and associated
habitats include temporary behavioral disturbance related to noise disturbance associated with pile
driving and construction activity, construction activities in marine and freshwater habitat below the
MHHW and OHWM, and the installation of overwater cover. However, the proposed activity is
localized and temporary. The Project will also result in long-term freshwater and marine aquatic
habitat improvements.
Biological Assessment 39 June 2018
4.1 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
4.1.1 Status
Puget Sound Chinook salmon are listed as threatened in Puget Sound.
4.1.2 Critical Habitat
Puget Sound evolutionary significant units (ESUs) of Chinook salmon critical habitat are designated
for areas containing the physical and biological habitat features, or primary constituent elements
(PCEs), essential for the conservation of the species or that require special management
considerations. PCEs include sites that are essential to supporting one or more life stages of the ESU
and that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the ESU. Table 4-1
summarizes the PCEs applicable to this Project and the potential Project effects on Chinook salmon
PCEs. The PCEs common to salmon in Table 4-1 are also applicable to steelhead critical habitat.
Table 4-1 Potential Project Effects on Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Primary Constituent Elements
Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Primary Constituent Element PCE Present Potential Project Effects
1. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged, and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks
Present Freshwater aquatic habitat restoration and improvements will include planting native vegetation in the creek buffer and placing woody debris in and along the creek. These measures will improve existing freshwater aquatic habitat conditions that support rearing, compared to existing conditions.
2. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival
Present Freshwater aquatic habitat restoration and improvements will include replacing the existing box culvert with a bridge and restoring habitat gravel in the creek. These measures will improve existing freshwater aquatic habitat and conditions that support migration for fish, compared to existing conditions.
Biological Assessment 40 June 2018
Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Primary Constituent Element PCE Present Potential Project Effects
3. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation
Present The proposed Project will not obstruct fish migration in the estuarine area.
Estuarine aquatic habitat restoration and improvements will include converting existing lawn to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat, removing confining logs parallel to the bank and approximately 210 linear feet of rock bank armoring along the lowermost 300 feet of Lund’s Gulch Creek, and widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for continued natural spit/barrier beach pocket estuary habitat development. These measures will improve habitat and conditions for fish, compared to existing conditions.
4. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels
Present The proposed Project will not obstruct fish migration in the nearshore area.
Marine aquatic habitat restoration and improvements will include converting existing lawn to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat and widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for continued natural spit/barrier beach pocket estuary habitat development. These measures will improve existing freshwater aquatic habitat and conditions for fish, compared to existing conditions.
5. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Present The proposed Project does not include activities in offshore marine areas.
No impacts to water quality will result from the Project as work below MHHW will occur in the dry during low tides.
Pile driving will occur in upland areas or during low tides above the water line.
Notes: MHHW: mean higher high water PCE: primary constituent element
The PCEs for Chinook salmon that are present within the Action Area, as discussed in Table 4-1,
include all six PCEs. As described in the Direct and Indirect Effects discussion Section 4.1.4, proposed
habitat improvements that will improve freshwater and marine aquatic habitat conditions over
existing conditions include converting existing lawn to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat,
widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for continued natural spit and barrier beach
pocket estuary habitat development, enhancing the creek and wetland buffers by planting native
vegetation, and placing woody debris in and along the creek.
Biological Assessment 41 June 2018
No significant long-term negative habitat effects to the above-mentioned PCEs will result from the
Project, and the Project will improve overall habitat for fish, compared to existing conditions.
4.1.3 Biology and Distribution
Puget Sound Chinook salmon exhibit two life history types: ocean-type and stream-type. The most
common life history in Puget Sound is ocean-type. Ocean-type Chinook can be more than
70 millimeters (mm) long when they reach estuaries in late spring. These fish are capable of moving
offshore very soon after migrating from the river. Chinook longer than 70 mm are captured along
estuarine and marine shorelines. Sampling has been conducted for juvenile Chinook in saltwater near
the mouths of the major rivers on the east side of Puget Sound (Tyler 1964; Tyler and Bevan 1964;
Stober and Salo 1973; Weitkamp and Schadt 1982; Congleton et al. 1982). Ocean-type Chinook were
captured near these river mouths from March through June in high numbers, with much smaller
catches occurring through the summer.
Puget Sound is a migratory corridor for adult Chinook salmon and provides habitat for out-migrating
juvenile Chinook salmon from rivers into Puget Sound before their eventual oceanic phase as adults.
Adults typically spawn in the mainstems and larger tributaries of Puget Sound. Spawning preferences
include clean gravel riffles with moderate water velocity and mainstem and lower reaches of
tributaries (WDF 1992). Adult spring-run Chinook salmon typically return to freshwater in April and
May and spawn in August and September. Adults migrate to the upper portions of their natal
streams and hold until they reach maturity. Summer-run Chinook salmon migrate to freshwater in
June and July and spawn in September. Summer- and fall-run Chinook salmon (the most common in
Puget Sound) begin freshwater migration in August and spawn from late September through January
(Myers et al. 1998).
Chinook salmon are documented in Puget Sound in the vicinity of the Action Area according to the
WDFW PHS and salmonscape websites (WDFW 2017a and 2017b). The WDFW PHS and salmonscape
websites do not document Chinook salmon presence in Lund’s Gulch Creek (WDFW 2017a and
2017b). The Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment Report prepared for the Project identifies
salmon use of the creek to include Chinook salmon (Confluence Environmental Company 2017).
Puget Sound Chinook salmon juveniles have been documented as using the lower 600 lf of the creek
for rearing (Beamer et al 2013). Because the creek does not provide habitat for Chinook spawning,
the presence of juvenile Chinook salmon indicates that the fish originated in other river systems, out-
migrated to Puget Sound, and, during their movements and rearing along the marine nearshore,
moved back into the available freshwater habitat associated with Lund’s Gulch Creek.
Biological Assessment 42 June 2018
4.1.4 Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct effects to Puget Sound Chinook salmon from the Project include noise associated
with pile driving and construction activity, construction activities in marine and freshwater habitat
below the MHHW and OHWM, and the installation of overwater cover.
No in-water pile driving is proposed, pile driving will occur in upland areas or during low tide above
the water line.
Construction activities include installation of a temporary diversion pipe to route water from the
creek to the beach during construction. This diversion will allow for stream work below the OHWM to
be conducted in the dry and minimize potential impacts to water quality. With the stream diversion
in place, streambed substrate will be removed, the existing box culvert will be demolished, and
grading of the new channel and wetland areas will occur. Grading below MHHW for the new channel
into the estuary will occur above the water line during low tides. These measures to limit in-water
work will avoid potential impacts to Puget Sound Chinook salmon such as increased turbidity and
suspended sediment.
Proposed habitat improvements that will improve freshwater and marine aquatic habitat conditions
over existing conditions include converting existing lawn to a restored pocket estuary and riparian
habitat, widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for continued natural spit/barrier
beach pocket estuary habitat development, enhancing the creek and wetland buffers by planting
native vegetation, and placing woody debris in and along the creek.
Short-term effects of the proposed Project construction activities on salmonids will be reduced
through timing restrictions imposed by resource agencies. In-water work and work in the dry below
MHHW and OHWM for the Project will occur during the work window for anadromous fish species,
between July 1 and October 1 for the protection of aquatic species such as Puget Sound Chinook
salmon.
4.1.5 Effects Determination
As described above, the potential impacts to Chinook salmon from the proposed Project include
temporary, short-term noise and disturbance from construction during freshwater and marine
restoration and habitat improvements, and installation of overwater cover. The Project will result in
long-term marine and freshwater aquatic habitat benefits compared to existing conditions by
creating additional pocket beach estuary habitat, improving freshwater creek habitat, establishing
additional native vegetation in creek and wetland buffers, and adding woody debris to the creek
system.
The activities described in this BA will not result in long-term, negative permanent impacts to Puget
Sound Chinook salmon populations.
Biological Assessment 43 June 2018
The potential for take is reduced by the following factors:
• All in-water work and work below MHHW and OHWM will be conducted during the approved
in-water work windows.
• Construction of the Project will not occur when juvenile and adult Chinook salmon are
abundant in nearshore areas.
• Conservation Measures will be employed, as described in Section 2.5, to minimize potential
impacts to listed salmonids.
• Pile driving will be performed in upland areas or during low tides above the water line
This Project may affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon because of the following:
• Construction activities will occur in marine and freshwater aquatic habitat below MHHW and
OHWM
• Construction activities include routing water from the creek to the beach through a temporary
diversion pipe.
This Project is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon because of the following:
• Pile driving will be performed in upland areas or during low tides above the water line
• Most construction activities in marine and freshwater aquatic habitat below MHHW and
OHWM will occur in the dry.
• The Project will result in long-term marine and freshwater aquatic habitat restoration benefits
compared to existing conditions
4.1.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination
This Project may affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon designated critical habitat because of the
following:
• Construction activities will occur in marine and freshwater aquatic habitat below MHHW and
OHWM
This Project is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon designated critical habitat
because of the following:
• The Project will result in long-term marine and freshwater aquatic habitat restoration benefits
compared to existing conditions
4.2 Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
4.2.1 Status
Puget Sound steelhead are listed as Threatened in Puget Sound.
Biological Assessment 44 June 2018
4.2.2 Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead was proposed in March 2016. The PCEs for Chinook
salmon present within the Action Area and the potential Project effects on PCEs described in
Section 4.1.2 and Table 4-1 are also applicable to steelhead critical habitat.
Proposed habitat improvements that will improve freshwater and marine aquatic habitat conditions
over existing conditions include converting existing lawn to a restored pocket estuary and riparian
habitat, widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for continued natural spit and
barrier beach pocket estuary habitat development, enhancing the creek and wetland buffers by
planting native vegetation, and placing woody debris in and along the creek.
No significant long-term negative habitat effects to the PCEs described in Table 4-1 will result from
the Project, and the Project will improve overall habitat for fish, compared to existing conditions.
4.2.3 Biology and Distribution
Steelhead have the most complex life history traits of any of the anadromous salmonids. Steelhead
may spend anywhere from 1 to 4 years in freshwater (typically 2 to 3 years) and migrate to saltwater
for another 1 to 6 years (typically 2 to 3 years). Puget Sound steelhead are most abundant in
Northern Puget Sound, and there are several rivers with summer and winter steelhead stocks.
Puget Sound steelhead exhibit two life history types (winter run and summer run) that are defined
based on the timing of adult returns to their natal spawning streams and by their degree of sexual
development at the time they enter freshwater (NMFS 2005). The Puget Sound DPS, including the
large Skagit and Snohomish River populations, is primarily composed of winter steelhead stocks, but
also includes several small stocks of summer steelhead occupying limited habitat. Winter run, or
ocean-maturing, steelhead enter freshwater between November and April at an advanced stage of
maturation and spawn shortly thereafter, usually from March through June. Summer run, or stream-
maturing, steelhead enter freshwater in a sexually immature condition, usually between May and
October. These summer run steelhead remain in freshwater for several months before reaching
maturity and spawning between January and April.
Unlike other species of Pacific salmonids, some steelhead do not die after spawning and are capable
of repeat spawning. Only a small percentage of steelhead (an average of 8% overall among West
Coast populations [Busby et al. 1996]) return to the spawning grounds for more than 1 year. Those
steelhead that survive after spawning (mostly females) will out-migrate to the marine environment.
These fish are capable of moving offshore in marine waters very soon after migrating from the river.
Repeat spawners may return after 1 or 2 more years at sea.
Generally, juvenile steelhead out-migrate from freshwater between mid-March and early June.
Juvenile steelhead enter marine waters at a much larger size and have a higher rate of survival than
Biological Assessment 45 June 2018
other salmonid species. The majority of steelhead smolts appear to migrate directly to the open
ocean and do not rear extensively in the estuarine or coastal environments (Burgner et al. 1992).
Steelhead are documented in Puget Sound in the vicinity of the Action Area according to the WDFW
PHS and salmonscape websites (WDFW 2017a and 2017b). The WDFW PHS and salmonscape
websites do not document steelhead presence in Lund’s Gulch Creek (WDFW 2017a and 2017b). The
Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment Report prepared for the Project identifies salmon use of
the creek to include steelhead (Confluence Environmental Company 2017).
Only two separate observations of steelhead adults have been reported in the creek, and both were
for only one adult. Pfeifer (1979) referenced Don Hendricks' (WDFW) observation of a single
steelhead adult in Lund’s Gulch Creek, presumably in the late 1970s. More recently, Tom Murdoch, of
the Adopt A Stream Foundation, reported seeing one steelhead adult relatively high in the system
(Murdoch 2015).
4.2.4 Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct and indirect effects to Puget Sound steelhead from the proposed Project are the
same as those to Puget Sound Chinook salmon (see Section 4.1.4).
4.2.5 Effects Determination
The activities described in this BA will not result in long-term, negative permanent impacts to Puget
Sound steelhead populations.
The potential for take is reduced by the following factors:
• All in-water work and work below MHHW and OHWM will be conducted during the approved
in-water work windows.
• Construction of the Project will not occur when juvenile and adult steelhead are abundant in
nearshore areas.
• Conservation Measures will be employed, as described in Section 2.5, to minimize potential
impacts to listed salmonids.
• Pile driving will be performed in upland areas or during low tides above the water line
This Project may affect Puget Sound steelhead because of the following:
• Construction activities will occur in marine and freshwater aquatic habitat below MHHW and
OHWM
• Construction activities include routing water from the creek to the beach through a temporary
diversion pipe.
Biological Assessment 46 June 2018
This Project is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead because of the following:
• Pile driving will be performed in upland areas or during low tides above the water line
• Most construction activities in marine and freshwater aquatic habitat below MHHW and
OHWM will occur in the dry.
• The Project will result in long-term marine and freshwater aquatic habitat restoration benefits
compared to existing conditions
4.2.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination
This Project may affect Puget Sound steelhead designated critical habitat because of the following:
• Construction activities will occur in marine and freshwater aquatic habitat below MHHW and
OHWM
This Project is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead designated critical habitat
because of the following:
• The Project will result in long-term marine and freshwater aquatic habitat restoration benefits
compared to existing conditions
4.3 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
4.3.1 Status
Bull trout are listed as threatened in Puget Sound.
4.3.2 Critical Habitat
As described previously for Puget Sound ESU of Chinook salmon, critical habitat for bull trout is
designated for areas containing the physical and biological habitat features, or PCEs, essential for the
conservation of the species or that require special management considerations. Table 4-2
summarizes the PCEs applicable to this Project and the potential Project effects on bull trout PCEs.
Biological Assessment 47 June 2018
Table 4-2 Potential Project Effects on Bull Trout Primary Constituent Elements
Bull Trout Primary Constituent Element PCE Present Potential Project Effects
1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia
Present Subsurface water connectivity in the Project area is unknown. Freshwater aquatic habitat restoration and improvements will include replacing the existing box culvert with a bridge, restoring habitat gravel in the creek, planting native vegetation in the creek buffer, and placing woody debris in and along the creek. These measures will improve existing freshwater aquatic habitat and conditions for fish, compared to existing conditions.
2. Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including, but not limited to, permanent, partial, intermittent or seasonal barriers
Present The proposed Project will not obstruct fish migration in the nearshore area.
No negative long-term effects to water quality will result from the Project.
Marine and freshwater aquatic habitat restoration and improvements will improve the migratory corridor by improving estuary and nearshore habitat conditions.
3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macro-invertebrates, and forage fish.
Present Marine and freshwater aquatic habitat restoration and improvements will include restoring habitat gravel in the creek and estuary, planting native vegetation in the creek buffer, and placing woody debris in and along the creek. These features will increase detritus inputs to the creek and marine habitat, which can provide a basis for macro-invertebrate and insect food webs.
4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.
Present Freshwater and marine aquatic habitat restoration and improvements, restoring pocket estuary and riparian habitat, widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge, restoring habitat gravel in the creek and estuary, planting native vegetation in the creek buffer, and placing woody debris in and along the creek will improve habitat conditions for fish, compared to existing conditions.
5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (Celsius; 36 to 59
°Fahrenheit), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life—history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence.
Present No negative long-term effects to water temperatures will result from the Project.
Freshwater aquatic habitat restoration and improvements will include planting native vegetation in the creek buffer.
These measures will improve existing freshwater aquatic habitat and conditions for fish, compared to existing conditions.
Biological Assessment 48 June 2018
Bull Trout Primary Constituent Element PCE Present Potential Project Effects
6. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (i.e., less than 12%) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 inches) in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of these conditions.
Present The proposed Project does not include activities in offshore marine areas.
No impacts to water quality will result from the Project as work below MHHW will occur in the dry during low tides.
Pile driving will occur in upland areas or during low tides above the water line.
Freshwater aquatic habitat restoration and improvements will include restoring habitat gravel in the creek and estuary.
7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historical and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph
Present The Project will not affect this PCE.
8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited
Present Most construction below MHHW and OHWM will occur in the dry.
No permanent impacts to water quality and quantity will result from the Project.
9. Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present
Present The Project will not affect this PCE.
Notes: MHHW: mean higher high water PCE: primary constituent element
The PCEs for bull trout that are present within the Action Area, as discussed in Table 4-2, include all
nine PCEs. As described in the direct and indirect effects discussion Section 4.1.4, proposed habitat
improvements that will improve freshwater and marine aquatic habitat conditions over existing
conditions include converting existing lawn to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat,
widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for continued natural spit/barrier beach
pocket estuary habitat development, enhancing the creek and wetland buffers by planting native
vegetation, and placing woody debris in and along the creek.
No significant long-term negative habitat effects to the above-mentioned PCEs will result from the
Project, and the Project will improve overall habitat for fish, compared to existing conditions.
Biological Assessment 49 June 2018
4.3.3 Biology and Distribution
Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. The anadromous type inhabits
upper tributary streams and lake and reservoir systems. Bull trout feed on terrestrial and aquatic
insects and, as they grow in size, their diets include whitefish, sculpins, and other trout. Bull trout
spawn from August through November, when they reach maturity (between 4 and 7 years) and when
temperatures begin to drop, in cold, clear streams. Bull trout can spawn repeatedly and can live for
more than 20 years. Adults and juveniles return to the marine environment between May and early
July. Resident forms of bull trout spend their entire lives in freshwater, while anadromous forms live
in tributary streams for 2 or 3 years before migrating to estuaries as smolts. Char species are
generally longer-lived than salmon; bull trout up to 12 years old have been identified in Washington
(Brown 1992).
Juvenile and sub-adult bull trout generally exit rivers and migrate downstream between mid-
February to early September, with peak migration periods between April and July. When juvenile bull
trout enter saltwater, their time of residence is variable (1 day to more than 4 months). Upon entry
into saltwater, juveniles may rear in tidal delta marshes or tributary channels, or they may pass
through into nearshore marine areas. Larger juveniles may migrate through the nearshore from the
natal river to adjacent river basins (Goetz et al. 2004).
Bull trout are documented in Puget Sound in the vicinity of the Action Area according to the
WDFW PHS and salmonscape websites (WDFW 2017a and 2017b). The WDFW PHS and salmonscape
websites do not document bull trout presence in Lund’s Gulch Creek (WDFW 2017a and 2017b).
4.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct and indirect effects to bull trout from the proposed Project are the same as those to
Puget Sound Chinook salmon (see Section 4.1.4).
4.3.5 Effects Determination
The activities described in this BA will not result in long-term, negative permanent impacts to bull
trout populations.
The potential for take is reduced by the following factors:
• All in-water work and work below MHHW and OHWM will be conducted during the approved
in-water work windows.
• Conservation Measures will be employed, as described in Section 2.5, to minimize potential
impacts to bull trout.
• Pile driving will be performed in upland areas or during low tides above the water line
Biological Assessment 50 June 2018
This Project may affect bull trout because of the following:
• Construction activities will occur in marine and freshwater aquatic habitat below MHHW and
OHWM
• Construction activities include routing water from the creek to the beach through a temporary
diversion pipe.
This Project is not likely to adversely affect bull trout because of the following:
• Pile driving will be performed in upland areas or during low tides above the water line
• Most construction activities in marine and freshwater aquatic habitat below MHHW and
OHWM will occur in the dry.
• The Project will result in long-term marine and freshwater aquatic habitat restoration benefits
compared to existing conditions
4.3.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination
This Project may affect bull trout designated critical habitat because of the following:
• Construction activities will occur in marine and freshwater aquatic habitat below MHHW and
OHWM
This Project is not likely to adversely affect bull trout designated critical habitat because of the
following:
• The Project will result in long-term marine and freshwater aquatic habitat restoration benefits
compared to existing conditions
4.4 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
4.4.1 Status
The marbled murrelet is listed as threatened.
4.4.2 Critical Habitat
Designated critical habitat includes old growth stands and other suitable nesting areas. No critical
habitat has been designated near the Action area (Federal Register 1996).
4.4.3 Biology and Distribution
Marbled murrelets are small seabirds that occur along the Pacific Coast, from the Bering Sea to
central California, with the largest population occurring in southeastern Alaska and northern British
Columbia. Marbled murrelets feed in the nearshore marine environment, usually from 350 to
2,000 feet off the shoreline. They forage year-round in waters generally less than 90 feet deep and
Biological Assessment 51 June 2018
are most frequently within 1,500 feet of protected shoreline waters. Marbled murrelets generally do
not occur in shallow waters less than 30 feet deep.
In the Pacific Northwest, marbled murrelets live near shore, feeding on fish, small crustaceans, and
invertebrates. Marbled murrelets prefer to forage near kelp beds and at stream mouths and feed on
a variety of prey, including sand lance, Pacific herring, and northern anchovy.
The nesting habits of the marbled murrelet are not well known. Nests have been located up to
33 miles inland from saltwater, and up to 47 miles inland from freshwater lakes (WDW 1991). The
nesting period is between April 1 and September 15, with peak activity occurring between July and
August, when adults are increasing foraging trips to feed their young. Old-growth or mature forest
stands appear to be crucial for breeding and foraging, and most nests are in conifers more than 150
years old, and in trees greater than 55 inches diameter at breast height. Most nests have been found
on large, flat conifer branches that are covered with thick moss (WDW 1991).
The Project is located in an urban environment that does not include suitable nesting habitat (USFWS
2012) for marbled murrelets. There are no marbled murrelet occupancy sites located near the Action
Area, and there is no appropriate nesting habitat near the Action Area. WDFW PHS maps indicate no
marbled murrelet observations or nest sites are documented within 20 miles of the Project site
(WDFW 2017a). According to USFWS critical habitat maps (USFWS 2017a), the nearest critical habitat
for marbled murrelet is more than 20 miles west of the Action Area. Marbled murrelets could forage
in Puget Sound within the Action Area.
4.4.4 Direct and Indirect Effects
The identified potential direct effect on marbled murrelets is disturbance from construction noise
and pile driving. Marbled murrelets could forage for prey in the large marine habitat of Puget Sound
within and in the vicinity of the Action Area. The Project will not impact critical habitat, nesting areas,
foraging area, or prey species of marbled murrelets. There are no identified indirect effects on
marbled murrelets as a result of this Project.
No in-water pile driving is proposed. The Washington State Department of Transportation and the
USFWS (WSDOT 2012) identify an in-air noise harassment/injury threshold at approximately 92 dBA
at nest sites. Noise generated from impact pile driving for the steel H-piles will attenuate below the
92 dBA threshold at about 260 feet over water and at about 200 feet over land. There are no
potential murrelet nesting sites within 20 miles of the Project area.
4.4.5 Effects Determination
This Project may affect marbled murrelets because of the following:
• Project elements include impact pile driving, which may cause murrelets to forage elsewhere.
Biological Assessment 52 June 2018
This Project is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets because of the following:
• Pile driving will be performed in upland areas or during low tides above the water line,
avoiding in-water noise impacts
• The Project will not disturb habitat for marbled murrelets.
4.4.6 Critical Habitat Effects Determination
This Project will have no effect on marbled murrelet designated habitat because of the following:
• The Action Area does not include old-growth stands or other suitable nesting areas
designated as marbled murrelet critical habitat.
Biological Assessment 53 June 2018
5 References
Adopt A Stream Foundation, 2013. Lund's Gulch Creek Rapid Assessment. Available at
http://www.streamkeeper.org/aasf/Lunds_Gulch_Creek.html.
Anchor (Anchor Environmental, LLC), 2006. Aquatic Plants and Animals Discipline Report: Mukilteo
Multimodal Ferry Terminal. Prepared for Washington State Ferries and Washington State
Department of Transportation.
Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2016. Feasibility Report: Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility
Study. Prepared for Snohomish County. June 2016.
Anchor QEA, 2017. Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project: Wetland, Stream, and
Marine Delineation. Prepared for Snohomish County. May 2017.
Anchor QEA, 2018. Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Project: Critical Areas Report. Prepared for
Snohomish County. March 2018.
Awbrey, F.T., and A.E. Bowles, 1990. The effect of aircraft noise and sonic boom on raptors: a
preliminary model and synthesis on the literature of disturbance. U.S. Air Force, Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio.
Beamer, E.M., W.T. Zackey, D. Marks, D. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R. Henderson. 2013. Juvenile Chinook
Salmon Rearing in Small Non-Natal Streams Draining into the Whidbey Basin. Skagit River
System Cooperative. December 3, 2013. Available at:
http://www.skagitcoop.org/documents/EB2752_Beamer%20et%20al_2013.pdf
Brown, L.G., 1992. Draft Management Guide for the Bull Trout Salvelinus Confluentus (Suckley) on the
National Forest. Washington Department of Wildlife, Wenatchee, Washington. 75 pp.
Burgner, R.L., J.T. Light, L. Margolis, T. Okazaki, A. Tautz, and S. Ito, 1992. Distribution and origins of
steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in offshore waters of the North Pacific Ocean.
International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin 51. 91 pp.
Confluence Environmental Company, 2016. Lund’s Gulch Creek Fish Habitat Assessment Report.
Prepared for Snohomish County. December 2016.
Confluence Environmental Company, 2017. Eelgrass Survey of Meadowdale Beach Park. Prepared for
Snohomish County. November 2017.
Biological Assessment 54 June 2018
Congleton, J.L., S.K. Davis, and S.R. Foley, 1982. Distribution, abundance and outmigration timing of
chum and Chinook salmon fry in the Skagit salt marsh. E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo, editors.
Pages 153-163. Salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium. School of Fisheries,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Bruce Dees (Bruce Dees & Associates), 1986. Master Plan Report: Meadowdale Beach County Park.
September 1986.
Dailer, Doug (Park Ranger, Snohomish County Parks and Recreation), 2015. Personal communication
with Peter Hummel (Anchor QEA) during site visit on March 5, 2015.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2016. Environmental Information: Watersheds;
Cedar-Sammamish Water Resource Inventory Area 8. Accessed November 11, 2016. Available
at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/wria/08.html.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2017a. Environmental Information; Watersheds;
WRIA 8 Cedar-Sammamish Basin. Cited: October 13, 2017. Available from:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/wria/08.html.
Federal Register, 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical
Habitat for Marbled Murrelet. 50 CFR Part 17. Vol. 61, No. 102, pp. 26255-26320.
Goetz, F.A., E. Jeanes, E. Beamer, G. Hart, C. Morello, M. Camby, C. Ebel, E. Conner, and H. Berge,
2004. Bull Trout in the Nearshore. Preliminary draft (June). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle, Washington. June 2004.
Harris, C.M., 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Healey, M.C., 1982. “Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system.” Pp. 315-341 in V.S.
Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY. 709 pp.
Lantz, D.W., H.B. Berge, and R.A. Tabor, 2014. Effects of Small Barriers on the Distribution of Sculpins
(Cottus spp.) in Puget Sound Lowland Streams. Poster presented at the 2014 Salish Sea
Ecosystem Conference in Seattle, Washington. Available at:
http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-andland/science/SalishSea-2014/04POSTER-
2014-04-30-Lantz-Berge-Tabor-Effects-of-small-barriers-ondistribution-of-sculpins.pdf.
Murdoch, Tom, 2015. Personal communication between Tom Murdoch, Executive Director of Adopt
A Stream Foundation, and Paul Schlenger, Confluence Environmental Company, on March 9,
2015.
Biological Assessment 55 June 2018
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand, F.W. Waknitz,
K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.W. Waples, 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1998. Essential Fish Habitat West Coast Groundfish
Appendix. NMFS, Seattle, Washington.
NMFS, 2005. Status review update for Puget Sound Steelhead. Prepared by the 2005 Puget Sound
Steelhead Biological Review Team, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries
Science Center. July 26, 2005. 112 pp.
NMFS, 2017. Endangered Species Act status reviews and listing information. Cited: October 13, 2017.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm
Pfeifer, R.L., 1979. A Survey of Lund’s Gulch Creek in Edmonds, Washington. Washington State Game
Department. February 1979.
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council), 1998a. The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.
PFMC, 1998b. Coastal Pelagics Fishery Management Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council,
Portland, Oregon.
PFMC, 1999. Appendix A. Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and
Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fishery Management Council,
Portland, Oregon.
Snohomish County, 2015. Snohomish County website. Accessed March 2015. Available at:
http://snohomishcountywa.gov/Facilities/Facility/Details/Meadowdale-Beach-Park-56.
Stober, Q.J., and E.O. Salo, 1973. Ecological Studies of the Proposed Kiket Island Nuclear Power Site.
Snohomish County P.U.D. and Seattle City Light. FRI-UW-7304.
Tyler, R.W., 1964. Distribution and migration of young salmon in Bellingham Bay, Washington. Univ.
Wash., Fish. Res. Inst. Circular No. 212.
Tyler, R.W., and D.E. Bevan. 1964. Migration of juvenile salmon in Bellingham Bay, Washington.
Research in Fisheries, 1963. Univ. Washington Coll. Fish. Ontrib. No. 166. P 44-45.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2017. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web
Soil Survey. Cited: October 13, 2017. Available from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app.
Biological Assessment 56 June 2018
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2012. Guidance for Identifying Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees in
Washington State. April 12, 2012. 5 pages.
USFWS, 2017a. Endangered Species Act status reviews and listing information. Cited: October 13,
2017. Available from: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
USFWS, 2017b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands Inventory Map
Information. Cited: October 13, 2017. Available from: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov.
Uusitalo, Duane, 2015. Personal communication with Mr. Uusitalo (retired school teacher who rears
and releases hatchery salmon) and Paul Schlenger (Confluence Environmental Company) on
March 9, 2015.
WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries), Habitat Management Division, 1992. Technical Report:
Salmon, Marine Fish, and Shellfish Resources and Associated Fisheries in Washington’s coastal
and Inland Marine Waters. March 1992.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2017a. Priority Habitats and Species Maps.
Cited: October 13, 2017. Available from: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/.
WDFW, 2017b. SalmonScape. Cited: October 13, 2017. Available from:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/.
WDFW, 2017c. WDFW forage fish spawning map database. Cited: October 23, 2017. Available from:
http://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html
WDW (Washington Department of Wildlife), 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington’s
Priority Species. Washington Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Management, Fish
Management, and Habitat Management Divisions. May 1991.
Weitkamp, D. E. and T.J. Schadt, 1982. Juvenile chum and Chinook salmon behavior at Terminal 91,
Seattle, Washington. Port of Seattle, Document No. 82-0415-013F.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), 2012. Biological Assessment Preparation
for Transportation Projects, Advanced Training Manual. Version 02-2011/02-2012. Available
from: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/BAguidance.htm#manual.
Appendix A
Figures
Puget Sound
Meadowdale BeachCounty Park
Lund's Gulch Creek
Railroad Right-of-Way (ROW)
City of Edmonds
Snohomish County
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:Project AreaLund's Gulch CreekPark BoundarySnohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:04 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-01\Figure1_VicinityMap.mxd
Figure 1Vicinity MapMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
)Project Site
KING COUNTY
SNOHOMISH COUNTYEdmonds
Lund's Gulch Creek
[0 1,000
Feet
NOTE(S):Action area extends 4,200 feetwaterward and 1,500 feet inland frompile driving areas.
LEGEND:
Action AreaProject AreaLund's Gulch CreekSnohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:05 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-01\Figure1b_ActionArea.mxd
Figure 1bAction AreaMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Picnic Shelter
Restroom Shelter
Upper Lawn Area
Tunnel/Culvert
BNSF Railroad
ADA/Service Vehicle Access Road
Pedestrian Bridge
EntranceGate
75th Place W
Beach Area
[0 300
Feet
LEGEND:Lund's Gulch CreekProject AreaSnohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:06 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-01\Figure2_ExistingFeatures.mxd
Figure 2Project Area and Existing Site FeaturesMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
10891112121
2 1210108892522 2324152013141
6
171819152
011
12
1314 1617181818
192
1
21
21
2222
2324151520121213131414
1
6 1617171
8
192122232424152
0
25131314161718181819
212223
241010101010101515202020201
5
2011
11
11
12
12
12
131
4
1
414
1616161616 17
1818181818 191919
21100' BNSF ROW
PICNIC SHELTER
VOLLEYBALL
COURT
ASPHALT
PATH
CONCRETE CULVERT, SLABS,
GRATING, AND CHANNEL MATERIALS
CONC. PAD, PICNIC
TABLE, GRILL
RESTROOMENCLOSURE,
FOUNDATION,
AND CONC. SLAB
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
ROCKERY
STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN(TYPE I)
CONIFER
DECIDUOUS
EDGE OF ASPHALT
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UNDERGROUND STORM LINE
UNDERGROUND SEWER GRAVITY LINE
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE
UNDERGROUND WATER LINE
UNDERGROUND POWER LINE
FENCING
CONC
P.A.
ABBREVIATIONS:
PLANTED AREA
CONCRETE
POWER VAULT
GRAVEL PATH
LOG DEBRIS
UNDERGROUND SEWER FORCEMAIN LINE
PICNIC TABLE
MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEVATION (+9')
WETLAND BOUNDARY
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM)
LEGEND:
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:34 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Existing.dwg Figure 3a
Figure 3a
Existing Conditions Plan (1 of 3)
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
25222324 2627283540
36 37 38 39
4142
5560653531
31
32
323232
33
3334
34
362
5 3035
2
1
21
21
2222
23242626 2627 28
2
9
31
32
3
3
3
4
36
20253021222324242426272829
313233
25 303
5
35
3540452223
24
2
6 2
7
2
8 2931323334343436373839 4142434446512025301818181818191919212223242627
2727
282
828
292929
31 32 33PICNIC SHELTER
VOLLEYBALL
COURT
RANGER
RESIDENCE
ASPHALTPARKING LOT
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
ROCKERY
STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN(TYPE I)
CONIFER
DECIDUOUS
EDGE OF ASPHALT
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UNDERGROUND STORM LINE
UNDERGROUND SEWER GRAVITY LINE
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE
UNDERGROUND WATER LINE
UNDERGROUND POWER LINE
FENCING
CONC
P.A.
ABBREVIATIONS:
PLANTED AREA
CONCRETE
POWER VAULT
GRAVEL PATH
LOG DEBRIS
UNDERGROUND SEWER FORCEMAIN LINE
PICNIC TABLE
MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEVATION (+9')
WETLAND BOUNDARY
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM)
LEGEND:
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Existing.dwg Figure 3b
Figure 3b
Existing Conditions Plan (2 of 3)
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
40
4
5
50
39
4142
43
4
4
4
6
47
48
4955606570758085909510010511011512012540455
0
37
38 39 4142434446
47
48
49
5
1
ASPHALTROAD
1151201
2
5
12
5
13
0
ACCESS GATE
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
ROCKERY
STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN(TYPE I)
CONIFER
DECIDUOUS
EDGE OF ASPHALT
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UNDERGROUND STORM LINE
UNDERGROUND SEWER GRAVITY LINE
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE
UNDERGROUND WATER LINE
UNDERGROUND POWER LINE
FENCING
CONC
P.A.
ABBREVIATIONS:
PLANTED AREA
CONCRETE
POWER VAULT
GRAVEL PATH
LOG DEBRIS
UNDERGROUND SEWER FORCEMAIN LINE
PICNIC TABLE
MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEVATION (+9')
WETLAND BOUNDARY
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM)
LEGEND:
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Existing.dwg Figure 3c
Figure 3c
Existing Conditions Plan (3 of 3)
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWFIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Figure 4 Proposed Project Site Plan Overview Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project Filepath: \\fuji\anchor\Projects\Snohomish County\Meadowdale Beach Park\Park and Habitat Design\Task 6 Env Review Permitting\Deliverables\Draft Figures\Figure4_Project Site Plan.docx
152
0
25131314161718181819
212223
2410891112121
2 1210108892522 2324152013141
6
171819152
011
12
1314 1617181818
192
1
21
21
2222
2324151520121213131414
1
6 1617171
8
1921222324241010101010
10151520202020888 99
9 1111121213131414161617171818191921211
5
20PUGET SOUND
PICNIC TABLE (TYP)
BENCH (TYP)
8' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
10' WIDEASPHALT PATH
40' PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
6' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
FOOTWASH AND
LANDSCAPE BOULDER
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
CONCRETE
SEATWALL
10' WIDE
ASPHALT PATH
CONCRETE PLINTH
SWALE
ROCK ARMOR AND RAILROAD BRIDGE
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Composite Site Plan.dwg Figure 5a
Figure 5a
Composite Site Plan (1 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
12" BEACH SAND
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
SNAG
ROCK ARMORING
STREAMBED AND SWALE COBBLES
CRUSHED ROCK PATH OR TRENCH
ASPHALT PATH/PAD
CONCRETE PATH/PAD
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
PICNIC TABLE
BENCH
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT PLANTING
RIPARIAN PLANTING
FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANTING
HIGH TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
LOW TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
BACKSHORE BEACH PLANTING
LAWN
ROCK-LINED SWALE
PROPOSED CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
EXISTING ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
10
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
25 303
5
35
3540452223
24
2
6 2
7
2
8 2931323334343436373839 41424344465125222324262728352
5 3035
2
1
21
21
2222
23242626 2627 28
2
9
31
32
3
3
3
4
36
20253021222324242426272829
3132332025 303540
36 37 38 39
4142
LUND'
S
G
U
L
C
H
C
R
E
E
K
PICNIC TABLE (TYP)
BENCH (TYP)
8' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
10' WIDEASPHALT PATH
40' PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
6' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
CONCRETE PLINTH
SWALE
RESTRIPE ADA PARKING STALLS
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Composite Site Plan.dwg Figure 5b
Figure 5b
Composite Site Plan (2 of 3)
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
12" BEACH SAND
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
SNAG
ROCK ARMORING
STREAMBED AND SWALE COBBLES
CRUSHED ROCK PATH OR TRENCH
ASPHALT PATH/PAD
CONCRETE PATH/PAD
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
PICNIC TABLE
BENCH
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT PLANTING
RIPARIAN PLANTING
FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANTING
HIGH TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
LOW TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
BACKSHORE BEACH PLANTING
LAWN
ROCK-LINED SWALE
PROPOSED CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
EXISTING ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
10
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
40455
0
37
38 39 4142434446
47
48
49
5
1
40
4
5
50
39
4142
43
4
4
4
6
47
48
49
ROAD RESURFACING, REGRADING AND STABILIZATION
ROAD RESURFACING,REGRADING AND
STABILIZATION
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:35 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Composite Site Plan.dwg Figure 5c
Figure 5c
Composite Site Plan (3 of 3)
HORIZONTAL DATUM:
Washington State Plane
North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWLEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
ASPHALT
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
PROPOSED CONTOUR10
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
10891112121
2 1210108891010101010
1015152020202015
20
25 25
25
1
4
1
6
17
1717
18
191919
21 22 23 2424 24
26
PUGET SOUND
TW=22.09'
FG/TW=24.17'
BRIDGE DECK
(TOP OF ARCH)
FG=24.75'ABUTMENT
WING WALLS
FFE=22.65'
BRIDGE DECK
FG=24.50'
FG/TW=23.37'FG=23.44'
FG=23.11'
FG/TW=23.03'
FG=10.50'11:14:115:115:14:14.54%2.8
0
%
4%
3.33%
4%4.89%2%5%15%
3:14:115%4:
1
4.54%2%4:11.5%3:14:13.
90%
10
9
12
13
14
17
18
2012
13
14
15
16
17
20
11
10
9
9 1011121314152121
22
15
2311
22251
9
16
262124
18 19
242322
TW=13.00'
BW=11.00'
TW=12.07'
BW=10.07'
PEDESTRIAN EDGE WALL
STORMWATER
TREATMENT
SWALE
SDSDSDSDSTORMWATER PIPE
SEE UTILITY PLAN
FFE=21.65'AA'N
N'HH'J
J'DD'GG'EE'I
I'
M
M'CC'FF'BB'BRIDGE DECK
FG=24.50'
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic.
Locations will be determined in final
construction documents.
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Grading.dwg Figure 6a
Figure 6a
Grading Plan (1 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING OHWM
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
AND DESIGNATION
10
11
A
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
3540
36 37 38 39
4142
5560653531
31
32
323232
33
3334
34
36
25 25
25 30
35404524 24
26 27 28 29 31 3131 32 33 34 3434363738394142434446 47
4849
LUND'
S
G
U
L
C
H
C
R
E
E
K
TW=22.09'
FG/TW=24.17'
BRIDGE DECK
(TOP OF ARCH)
FG=24.75'ABUTMENT
WING WALLS
FFE=22.65'
BRIDGE DECK
FG=24.50'
FG/TW=23.37'FG=23.44'
FG=23.11'
FG/TW=23.03'4.54%4.54%
4.17%3.33%4.89%7.8%
1%1.5%1.5%3.5%1.5%2%5%1%4.54%15.5%
2%
50454021
22
232225 2627
30242928
242322
STORMWATER
TREATMENT
SWALE
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSTORMWATER PIPESEE UTILITY PLAN
MATCH EX
G
R
A
D
E
S
UPSLOPE
O
F
T
H
I
S
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
FFE=21.65'
N'HH'J'KK'LL'FF'BRIDGE DECK
FG=24.50'
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:58 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Grading.dwg Figure 6b
Figure 6b
Grading Plan (2 of 3)
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING OHWM
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
AND DESIGNATION
10
11
A
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
40
4
5
50
39
4142
43
4
4
4
6
47
48
49556065707580859095100105110115120125354045
34
3434363738
39414243 44 46
47
4849
1%
7.
8
%
1%1.5%1.5%3.5%1%15.5%7.8%504540SDSDSD
MATCH EX GRADES
UPSLOPE OF THIS LOCATION
ROAD RESURFACING, REGRADING AND STABILIZATION
1151201
2
5
12
5
13
0
ROAD RESURFACING,
REGRADING AND
STABILIZATION
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Grading.dwg Figure 6c
Figure 6c
Grading Plan (3 of 3)
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWLEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING OHWM
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
AND DESIGNATION
10
11
A
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130130
A A'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 145
B B'
BEACH SAND
12"
BEACH SANDROCK
ARMORING
PROPOSED RAILROAD BRIDGE
PROPOSED
CONCRETE PATH
SHEETPILE WALL WITH CONCRETE CAP
SHEETPILE WALL WITH
CONCRETE CAP
STREAMBED
SUBSTRATE
80"
STREAMBED SUBSTRATE
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING BNSF GRADE
AT R.R. TRACKS
PED. EDGEWALL
EXISTING CULVERT
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7a
Figure 7a
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 136
C C'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 117
D D'
TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
PROPOSED
STREAMBED
3.5:1
4:1
STREAMBED
SUBSTRATE
STREAMBED
SUBSTRATE
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
12" TEMP CREEK BERM (TYP)PED. EDGEWALL
CONC PED
PATH
SHEETPILE WALL WITH CONCRETE CAP
12" TEMP CREEK BERM (TYP)
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7b
Figure 7b
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
10
20
30
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 129
E E'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 119
F F'
PROPOSED 40-FT SPAN
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
PROPOSED PINNED
FOUNDATION BOARDWALK
PROPOSED
STREAMBED
4:1
20.5:1 22:1
+24.75'
+24.50'CURB WALL
PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH PROPOSED
ASPHALT PATH
BRIDGE ABUTMENT BRIDGE ABUTMENT
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
CONCRETE PLINTH
STREAMBED SUBSTRATETYPE 1 TOPSOIL
+23.17'
LUND'S GULCH CREEK
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:36 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7c
Figure 7c
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
20
30
40
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85
H H'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100101
G G'
TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVER
ON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
PROPOSED RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
PROPOSED 6'
CRUSHED GRAVEL PATH
PROPOSED
ASPHALT PATH
PROPOSED 10'
ASPHALT PATH
4:1
WETLAND
2%
2%
WETLAND
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
2%
MOW STRIP
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7d
Figure 7d
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 107
I I'
PROPOSED RAILROAD BRIDGE
80"
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE CONC PED PATH
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7e
Figure 7e
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 115
J
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
115 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230230
J'
50:1
PROPOSED LOW MARSH PROPOSED HIGH MARSH
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
PROPOSED
ASPHALT PATH
4:1
4:1
PROPOSED HIGH MARSH
25:1
PROPOSED
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
PROPOSED RIPARIAN 2%
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWMATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEDRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7f
Figure 7f
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
20
30
40
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 92
K K'ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
10
20
30
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 56
L L'
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVER ON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
PROPOSED 6'
CRUSHED GRAVEL PATH PROPOSED 10' ASPHALT PATH
FRESHWATER POND
2%
WET
BIOSWALE
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
SALVAGED COBBLE
LARGE WOODY
DEBRIS
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
MOW STRIP
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7g
Figure 7g
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic. Locations
will be determined in final construction documents.
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
M
ELEVATION IN FEET (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET - NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
0
10
20
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
M'
PROPOSED RAILROAD BRIDGE
STREAMBED SUBSTRATEBEACH SAND
BEACH SAND MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWMATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEDRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7h
Figure 7h
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
PROPOSED
RAILROAD BRIDGE
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
PUGET SOUND PROPOSED STREAMBED PROFILE
12" STREAMBED SUBSTRATE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING STREAMBED PROFILE
LUND'S GULCH CREEK
Elevation in Feet (MLLW)HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
5x VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 520
N N'
4%
0.6%
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Sections.dwg Figure 7i
Figure 7i
Cross Sections
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
PUGET SOUND
PICNIC TABLE (TYP)
TOPSOIL TYPE 2
TOPSOIL TYPE 1
8' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
10' WIDE
ASPHALT PATH
40'
PEDESTRIANBRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT6' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
FOOTWASH AND LANDSCAPE BOULDER
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
PEDESTRIAN EDGE WALL
10' WIDE
ASPHALT PATH
BRIDGE ABUTMENT WINGWALLS
CONCRETE
PLINTH
BENCH (TYP)
SHEETPILE WALL
AND CONCRETE CAP
EXISTING PICNIC SHELTER
CURB WALL
10' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
ROCK ARMOR AND
RAILROAD BRIDGE
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State
Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic.
Locations will be determined in final
construction documents.
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Materials.dwg Figure 8a
Figure 8a
Construction Materials Plan (1 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVER
ON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
12" BEACH SAND/GRAVEL
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
ROCK ARMORING
STREAMBED AND SWALE COBBLES
CRUSHED ROCK PATH OR TRENCH
ASPHALT PATH/PAD
CONCRETE PATH/PAD
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
SWALE LOG EDGING
CHAIN LINK FENCE
PICNIC TABLE
BENCH
SNAGS
EXISTING OHWM
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
LUND'
S
G
U
L
C
H
C
R
E
E
K
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVERON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
PICNIC TABLE (TYP)
8' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
10' WIDE
ASPHALT PATH
40'
PEDESTRIANBRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT6' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
RESTROOM ENCLOSURE
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
BRIDGE ABUTMENT WINGWALLS
CONCRETE
PLINTH
BENCH (TYP)
EXISTING PICNIC SHELTER
CURB WALL
MOW STRIP
10' WIDE
CRUSHED ROCK PATH
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Materials.dwg Figure 8b
Figure 8b
Construction Materials Plan (2 of 3)
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
NOTE: Wood placements are schematic.
Locations will be determined in final
construction documents.
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 2 TOPSOIL
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL OVER
ON-SITE SALVAGED SANDY SOIL
12" BEACH SAND/GRAVEL
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
ROCK ARMORING
STREAMBED AND SWALE COBBLES
CRUSHED ROCK PATH OR TRENCH
ASPHALT PATH/PAD
CONCRETE PATH/PAD
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
ELEVATED PATH SEGMENT
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
SWALE LOG EDGING
CHAIN LINK FENCE
PICNIC TABLE
BENCH
SNAGS
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
ROAD RESURFACING, REGRADING AND STABILIZATION
ROAD RESURFACING,
REGRADING ANDSTABILIZATION
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Materials.dwg Figure 8c
Figure 8c
Construction Materials Plan (3 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
6" TYPE 1 TOPSOIL
ASPHALT
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWFIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
10891112121
2 1210108892522 2324152013141
6
171819152
011
12
1314 1617181818
192
1
21
21
2222
2324151520121213131414
1
6 1617171
8
192122232424152
0
25131314161718181819
212223
241010101010101515202020201
5
2011
11
11
12
12
12
131
4
1
414
1616161616 17
1818181818 191919
21PUGET SOUND
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet.
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Planting.dwg Figure 13a
Figure 13a
Planting Plan (1 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT PLANTING
RIPARIAN PLANTING
FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANTING
HIGH TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
LOW TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
BACKSHORE BEACH PLANTING
LAWN
PROPOSED CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
EXISTING MEAN HIGHER HIGH ELEV
BNSF RIGHT OF WAY
10
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
25222324 2627283540
36 37 38 39
4142
5560653531
31
32
323232
33
3334
34
362
5 3035
2
1
21
21
2222
23242626 2627 28
2
9
31
32
3
3
3
4
36
20253021222324242426272829
313233
25 303
5
35
3540452223
24
2
6 2
7
2
8 2931323334343436373839 4142434446512025301818181818191919212223242627
2727
282
828
292929
31 32 33LUND'
S
G
U
L
C
H
C
R
E
E
K
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Planting.dwg Figure 13b
Figure 13b
Planting Plan (2 of 3)
0 50
Feet
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet.
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT PLANTING
RIPARIAN PLANTING
FRESHWATER WETLAND PLANTING
HIGH TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
LOW TIDAL MARSH PLANTING
BACKSHORE BEACH PLANTING
LAWN
PROPOSED CONTOUR
TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING WETLAND TO BE PROTECTED
10
FIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
40
4
5
50
39
4142
43
4
4
4
6
47
48
4955606570758085909510010511011512012540455
0
37
38 39 4142434446
47
48
49
5
1
1151201
2
5
12
5
13
0
DRAFT
0 50
Feet
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Planting.dwg Figure 13c
Figure 13c
Planting Plan (3 of 3)
LEGEND:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROJECT BOUNDARY
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington
State Plane North, NAD83, U.S. Feet.
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEMATCHLINE - SEE BELOWFIGURE LOCATION KEY
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:37 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Planting.dwg Figure 14
Figure 14
Planting Schedule
PLANT SCHEDULE - ALL SPECIES ARE NATIVE TO PUGET SOUND REGION
SYMBOL COMMON NAME SPECIES NAME SIZE SPACING REMARKS
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT
TREES
Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis 5 gal.30' O.C.Evergreen
Western Red Cedar Thuja Plicata 5 gal.30' O.C. Deciduous
Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 5 gal.30' O.C.Evergreen, moist deep soil
RIPARIAN
TREES
Big-leaf Maple Acer macrophyllum 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Red Alder Alnus rubra 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Oregon Crabapple Malus fusca 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis 5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen
Shore Pine Pinus contorta var. "contorta"5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen, Full sun
Douglas-Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen, Full sun
Hooker Willow Salix hookeriana 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Scouler Willow Salix scouleriana 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen, moist deep soil
Western Red Cedar Thuja Plicata 5 gal.12' O.C.Evergreen
SHRUBS
Vine Mape Acer circinatum 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Saskatoon Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Redosier Dogwood Cornus sericea 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Beacked Hazelnut Corylus cornuta 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Tall Oregon Grape Mahonia aquifolium 2 gal.6' O.C.Evergreen
Indian Plum Oemleria cerasiformis 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Pacific Ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosa 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Common Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 2 gal.6' O.C.Deciduous
GROUNDCOVERS
Vanilla-leaf Achlys triphylla 1 gal.4' O.C. Deciduous
Wild Ginger Asarum caudatum 1 gal.4' O.C. Deciduous
Salal Gaultheria shallon 1 gal.4' O.C.Evergreen
Low Oregon Grape Mahonia nervosa 1 gal.4' O.C.Evergreen
Swordfern Polystichum munitum 1 gal.4' O.C.Evergreen
FRESHWATER WETLAND
TREES
Black Hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 5 gal.12' O.C. Deciduous
Hooker Willow Salix hookeriana livestake 3' O.C.Deciduous
Scouler Willow Salix scouleriana livestake 3' O.C. Deciduous
SHRUBS
Redosier Dogwood Cornus sericea 2 gal.6' O.C.Deciduous
Black Twinberry Lonicera involucrata 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 2 gal.6' O.C. Deciduous
EMERGENT
Slough Sedge Carex obnupta 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Darkthroat shooting star Dodecatheon pulchellum 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Skunk Cabbage Lysichiton americanus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Small fruited Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Hardstem Bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous, Full sun
American Three-square Scirpus americanus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Piggy-back plant Tolmiea menziesii 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
HIGH TIDAL MARSH
EMERGENT
Douglas Aster Aster subspicatus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Lyngby's Sedge Carex lyngbyei 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Puget Sound Gumweed Grindelia integrifolia 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Pacific Silverweed Potentilla anserina ssp. Pacifica 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
American Three-square Scirpus americanus 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Henderson's Checker-bloom Sidalcea hendersonii 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
LOW TIDAL MARSH
EMERGENT
Lyngby's Sedge Carex lyngbyei 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Pacific Silverweed Potentilla anserina ssp. Pacifica 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
BACKSHORE BEACH
EMERGENT
Coastal sand verbena Abronia latifolia 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Sea thrift Armeria maritima 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Coastal Strawberry Fragaria chiloensis 10-in plug 2' O.C.Evergreen
Puget Sound Gumweed Grindelia integrifolia 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
Dunegrass Leymus mollis 10-in plug 2' O.C.Deciduous
LAWN
ECO TURF See Specifications Seed
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
DRAFT
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:38 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Arch-Elevation.dwg Figure 15
Figure 15
Restroom Enclosure
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Lund's Gulch Creek
Puget Sound
Ranger Residence
ADA Access Road
¬A
¬G
¬H ¬E
¬C
¬D¬F
¬B
[0 200
Feet
LEGEND:Temporary Water DiversionTemporary Work PadsLaydown AreaTemporary Staging and Stockpile Area
OHWMOHWM BufferWetlandWetland Buffer
Project AreaMean Higher High Water (+9')Snohomish County / City of Edmonds Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/02/28, 1:35 PM | User: bsevertsenFilepath: Q:\Jobs\SnohomishCounty_0723\MeadowdaleBeachPark\Maps\2018-02\Figure16_Temp_elements_r1.mxd
Figure 16Construction ElementsMeadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
¬A
Publish Date: 2018/03/06 3:38 PM | User: tgriga
Filepath: K:\Projects\0723-Snohomish County\Meadowdale Park\Permits\0723-RP-Arch-Elevation.dwg Figure 17
DRAFT
Figure 17
Haul Route
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project
Project Area
Anticipated Haul Route for
Meadowdale Beach Park Project
SOURCE:
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation
Plan, June 2015.
Proposed Haul Route
Appendix B
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Biological Assessment B-1 June 2018
Snohomish County Parks and Recreation (Parks) is seeking regulatory approvals for the proposed
Meadowdale Beach Park and Estuary Restoration Project (Project), which proposes to address several
interrelated issues associated with sediment deposition at the current box culvert for Lund’s Gulch
Creek under the railroad berm at Meadowdale Beach County Park. The park is located at 5433 75th
Place W, Edmonds, Washington 98036, in Township 27 North, Range 4 East, Section 5.
There are public safety and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access issues involving the existing
railroad crossing and beach access. In addition, there is a need to improve habitat conditions for
salmon in the lower creek and delta. Maintenance and flooding are also ongoing issues associated
with the culvert. The Project would include replacement of the culvert with a bridge, restoration and
enhancement of the stream and estuary, and improvements to park facilities. The purpose of the
Project is to improve habitat conditions for salmon in the lower creek and creek delta, while
addressing public safety and beach access for park users. Citations for references in this Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) Consultation are found in Section 5 of this Biological Assessment (BA). The Project
Description is included in Section 2 of this BA.
Essential Fish Habitat Background
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the
1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), an EFH evaluation of impacts is necessary for activities that may
adversely affect EFH. EFH is defined by the MSFCMA in 50 CFR 600.905-930 as “those waters and
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”
This appendix was prepared as a resource document for concurrent consultation with National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for compliance with the MSFCMA. EFH consultations are required
for federally managed fishery species. The federally managed species with EFH in Puget Sound are
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds,
wetlands, other currently viable waterbodies, and most of the habitat historically accessible to
salmon in Washington (PFMC 1999).
Other anadromous salmonids, such as chum salmon and steelhead trout, are rarely captured in the
Pacific Fishery Management Council's ocean fisheries and are therefore not addressed with regard to
EFH. However, the EFH evaluation for Pacific salmon species considers similar habitat needs and uses
to those of additional anadromous salmonids.
EFH and life history stages for groundfish, pelagic, and salmonid species commonly found in Puget
Sound are listed in Table B-1.
Biological Assessment B-2 June 2018
Table B-1 Species of Fishes and Life-History Stages with Designated EFH in Puget Sound
Species Adult Spawning/ Mating Juvenile Larvae Eggs/ Parturition
Groundfish Species
Arrowtooth flounder X X X
Big skate X X X X
Black rockfish X X
Bocaccio ? X
Brown rockfish X ? ? X
Butter sole X X X
Cabezon X X X ? X
California skate X
Canary rockfish ? ? X
China rockfish X X
Copper rockfish X X ?
Curlfin sole X
Darkblotched rockfish X X
Dover sole X X X
English sole X X X X X
Flathead sole X X X
Greenstriped rockfish
Kelp greenling X X X X X
Lingcod X X
Pacific cod X X X X X
Pacific ocean perch X X
Pacific sanddab X X
Pacific whiting (Hake) X
Petrale sole X X
Quillback rockfish X X ?
Ratfish X
Redbanded rockfish X
Redstripe rockfish ?
Rex sole X ?
Rock sole X X X
Rosethorn rockfish X X
Rosy rockfish ?
Rougheye rockfish X ?
Sablefish X
Sand sole X X X
Biological Assessment B-3 June 2018
Species Adult Spawning/ Mating Juvenile Larvae Eggs/ Parturition
Sharpchin rockfish X ?
Shortspine thornyhead X X
Spiny dogfish X X X
Splitnose rockfish X X
Starry flounder X X X X X
Stripetail rockfish X
Tiger rockfish X X
Vermilion rockfish X ? X
Yelloweye rockfish X
Pacific Salmon Species
Chinook salmon X X
Coho salmon X X
Puget Sound pink salmon X X
Coastal Pelagic Species
Northern anchovy X X X X X
Pacific sardine X
Pacific mackerel X
Market squid X
Northern anchovy X X X X X
Notes:
1.Table from NMFS website
?: Uncertain, but attribute may apply to life stage
Analysis of Effects on EFH
The assessment of potential impacts from the proposed Project to the species’ EFH is based on
information in the Essential Fish Habitat West Coast Groundfish Appendix (NMFS 1998), the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PFMC 1998a), the Coastal Pelagics Fishery Management
Plan (PFMC 1998b), and in the Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse
Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (PFMC 1999).
The specific elements of the Project that could impact groundfish, pelagic, and salmonid species EFH,
their impact mechanisms, and the Conservation Measures that avoid and minimize impacts are
identified in Table B-2.
Biological Assessment B-4 June 2018
Table B-2 Affected EFH by Project Element and Proposed Conservation Measures
Project Element Affected EFH Impact Mechanism Applicable Conservation Measures
Temporary shoring may be continuous sheetpile wall or driven H-piles with steel sheet lagging, depending on the contractor’s preference.
Groundfish, pelagic, and salmonid EFH
No in-water pile driving is proposed; pile driving will occur in upland areas or during low tide above the water line.
There is potential for an unintentional release of fuel, lubricants, and hydraulic fluid from construction equipment that could lead to adverse impacts on water column EFH.
Timing restrictions specifying that in-water construction must occur when salmonids are absent or present in very low numbers.
Parks will obtain all applicable permits for the Project and adhere to all conditions of the permits.
The Project will comply with applicable Washington State water quality standards (WAC 173-201A).
The contractor will be responsible for the preparation of a Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan to be used for the duration of the Project.
Overwater cover Groundfish, pelagic, and salmonid EFH
Replacing the existing railroad berm and stream culvert with a bridge and installation of a pedestrian bridge over the creek will increase existing overwater cover.
The increase in overwater cover from the construction of the railroad bridge allows for the removal of an existing barrier to fish passage, and provides renewed opportunities for fish migration and refuge. Parks will obtain all applicable permits for the Project and adhere to all conditions of the permits.
In-water construction activities
Groundfish, pelagic, and salmonid EFH
There is a nominal chance that an unintentional release of fuel, lubricants, or hydraulic fluid from the construction equipment could lead to adverse impacts to salmonid EFH. Fish species are mobile, and would be expected to avoid areas where unsuitable conditions exist.
Construction activities include installation of a temporary stream diversion to route water from the creek to the beach during construction. This diversion will allow for stream work below the OHWM to be conducted in the dry and minimize potential impacts to water quality.
Grading below MHHW for the new channel into the estuary will occur above the water line during low tides. These measures to limit in-water work will avoid potential impacts to fish such as increased turbidity and suspended sediment.
Proposed habitat improvements
Groundfish, pelagic, and salmonid EFH
Proposed habitat improvements that will improve freshwater and marine aquatic habitat conditions over existing conditions include converting existing lawn to a restored pocket estuary and riparian habitat, widening the creek mouth at the railroad bridge to allow for continued natural spit/barrier beach pocket estuary habitat development, enhancing the creek and wetland buffers by planting native vegetation, and placing woody debris in and along the creek.
Biological Assessment B-5 June 2018
EFH Assessment
Pursuant to the MSFCMA and the SFA, an EFH evaluation has been completed and concludes that
the proposed action will not adversely affect EFH. Short-term effects are addressed through
Conservation Measures to reduce the potential for EFH impacts. There are no long-term adverse
impacts identified as a result of the proposed Project. Proposed habitat improvements will improve
freshwater and marine aquatic habitat conditions over existing conditions.
Groundfish EFH
Managed groundfish species found in waters of Puget Sound are shown in Table B-1. Potential
impacts from the proposed Project on groundfish habitat are shown in Table B-2. Groundfish are not
associated with the Puget Sound nearshore habitat associated with construction activities. Potential
Project effects on groundfish habitat will be minimal and discountable. No in-water pile driving is
proposed; pile driving will occur in upland areas or during low tide above the water line. Grading
below MHHW for the new channel into the estuary will occur above the water line during low tides.
These measures to limit in-water work will avoid potential impacts to fish such as increased turbidity
and suspended sediment. The availability of waters and substrate necessary to support the
contribution of these managed species to a healthy ecosystem will not be changed. Proposed habitat
improvements will improve freshwater and marine aquatic habitat conditions over existing
conditions. Conservation Measures such as complying with conditions of permits; timing restrictions;
and adhering to water quality standards will help avoid or minimize impacts to groundfish EFH.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed Project will not adversely affect groundfish EFH.
Coastal Pelagic EFH
Managed coastal pelagic species found in waters of Puget Sound are shown in Table B-1. Potential
impacts from the proposed Project on coastal pelagic habitat are shown in Table B-2. Coastal pelagic
fish use deeper water than the habitat of the Puget Sound shoreline near the Project site. Potential
Project effects on coastal pelagic habitat will be minimal and discountable. No in-water pile driving is
proposed; pile driving will occur in upland areas or during low tide above the water line. Grading
below MHHW for the new channel into the estuary will occur above the water line during low tides.
These measures to limit in-water work will avoid potential impacts to fish such as increased turbidity
and suspended sediment. The availability of waters and substrate necessary to support the
contribution of these managed species to a healthy ecosystem will not be changed. Proposed habitat
improvements will improve freshwater and marine aquatic habitat conditions over existing
conditions. Conservation Measures such as complying with conditions of the permits; timing
restrictions; and adhering to water quality standards will help avoid or minimize impacts to coastal
pelagic EFH. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed Project will not adversely affect coastal
pelagic EFH.
Biological Assessment B-6 June 2018
Salmonid EFH
Managed salmon species found in waters of Puget Sound are shown in Table B-1. The potential
impacts of the Project on salmonid habitat are shown in Table B-2. Potential Project effects on
salmon habitat will be minimal and discountable, as discussed in Section 4.1.4 of the BA. No in-water
pile driving is proposed; pile driving will occur in upland areas or during low tide above the water
line. Grading below MHHW for the new channel into the estuary will occur above the water line
during low tides. The stream diversion will allow for stream work below the OHWM to be conducted
in the dry and minimize potential impacts to water quality. These measures to limit in-water work will
avoid potential impacts to fish such as increased turbidity and suspended sediment. The availability
of waters and substrate necessary to support the contribution of these managed species to a healthy
ecosystem will not be changed. Proposed habitat improvements will improve freshwater and marine
aquatic habitat conditions over existing conditions. Conservation Measures such as complying with
conditions of the permits; timing restrictions; and adhering to water quality standards will help avoid
or minimize impacts to salmonid EFH. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed Project will not
adversely affect salmonid EFH.
Proposed Conservation and Minimization Measures
Project Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices to minimize Project impacts are
described in Section 2.5 of this BA.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects from the Project on freshwater and marine aquatic habitat will improve conditions
over existing conditions.
Conclusions and Determination of Effect
The activities described for this proposed Project will not result in long-term, permanent adverse
impacts to groundfish, pelagic, and salmonid EFH. The short-term and temporary impacts associated
with this proposed Project are insignificant and will be offset by Conservation Measures that will be
used during construction.
The long-term effects of the proposed Project will improve existing habitat conditions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this Project would not adversely affect groundfish, coastal pelagic, and
salmonid EFH.
Appendix E
Geotechnical Report: Erosion and
Landslide Hazardous Areas
400 NORTH 34TH STREET, SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103-8636 206-632-8020 FAX: 206-695-6777
www.shannonwilson.com 21-1-22288-040
March 30, 2018
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation 6705 Puget Park Drive Snohomish, WA 98296
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
RE: GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, MEADOWDALE BEACH PARK ESTUARY RESTORATION PROJECT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
This letter report presents our site observations, review of publicly available information, and
opinions regarding geologically hazardous areas as part of the proposed Meadowdale Beach Park
and Estuary Restoration Project in Snohomish County, Washington. The purpose for this letter
is to address Snohomish County Code (SCC) Critical Areas Regulations (Snohomish County
Planning and Development Services, 2017), Chapter 30.62B – Geologically Hazardous Areas
(GHA) and the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code (ECDC) Geologically
Hazardous Areas, Chapter 23.80 (Edmonds, 2018) as part of the project State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) checklist.
The scope of our work for this aspect of the project included the following:
Preparation of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) maps for field use and analysis.
Site reconnaissance on November 9, 2016.
Analysis of information and site classification to satisfy GHA requirements.
Preparation of this letter report.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
The project site is located on the north boundary of Edmonds, Washington, as shown in the
Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The southwestern portion of the site, including the access road and
much of the grassy park area, is within the Edmonds city limits. The park areas north and east of
those approximate boundaries are in unincorporated Snohomish County.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 2 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
The park is accessible via a gated road (Figure 2), which extends north from 75th Place West.
North of the park entrance gate, the road continues in a northern direction, paralleling Puget
Sound shoreline and a west-facing coastal bluff for about 400 feet before turning sharply to the
east and descending the north-facing slope of Lund’s Gulch. At the toe of this steep hillside is a
hairpin turn sharply to the west to a parking lot. The park ranger’s residence and a grass-covered
playfield with picnic shelters are located west of the parking lot. The western edge of the
playfield is bounded by an approximately 10-foot-high BNSF embankment.
Impervious surfaces at the site include the access road, asphalt-paved walking paths in the lower
park area, and associated paved surfaces (Figure 2). Buried utilities, such as fiber optics and
electrical power, are located on the inboard side of the entrance road, beneath the drainage ditch.
Based on review of existing LiDAR topography (Figures 3 and 4), SCC 30.91L.040, and ECDC
23.80.020, most of the slopes forming both the north and south flanks of Lund’s Gulch are
classified as Landslide Hazard Areas (LHA):
As defined in SCC 30.91L.040 because they have:
― Vertical height greater than 10 feet.
― Areas of historic and active landslides.
― Most of the slope areas are steeper than 33 percent.
― Slopes intersect geologic contacts between relatively permeable sediment
overlying relatively impermeable sediment.
― Slopes contain springs and groundwater seeps.
As defined in ECDC 23.80.020 because they have:
― Areas of ancient or historic failures.
― Coastal areas mapped as u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides) in the
Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas.
― Most of the slope areas are steeper than 40 percent with a vertical height of over
10 feet.
― Slopes intersect geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment
overlying a relatively impermeable sediment.
― Slopes contain springs or groundwater seepage.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 3 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
Additionally, the relatively flat valley bottom is classified as a LHA as defined in SCC
30.91L.040 because:
It is in a canyon and an active alluvial fan, susceptible to inundation by debris flows
or catastrophic flooding.
It is entirely encompassed within the boundaries defined as twice the valley wall
steep slope height measured from the toe of the slope.
The park and stream areas qualify as GHA as defined in both SCC 30.91L.040 and ECDC
23.80.020 because they have:
An area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion.
They are on an alluvial fan, presently potentially subject to inundation by debris flow
or deposition of stream-transported sediments.
Based on this site classification, Chapter 30.62B SCC and Chapter 23.04090 ECDC requires a
geotechnical report for any site development activity. This report describes site conditions and
features specific to the GHA report requirements. Design recommendations to address geologic
hazards are presented in the project geotechnical report.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed improvement details will be presented in the project SEPA checklist and are beyond
the scope of this report. In summary form, proposed improvements include:
Constructing a 130-foot-long, four-span railroad bridge to replace the existing
concrete culvert that serves as passage for Lund’s Gulch Creek through the BNSF embankment.
Site grading to widen the Lund’s Gulch Creek channel meander zone, restore the
former brackish wetland area, and restore the natural intertidal and delta reaches of
Lund’s Creek.
Constructing an Americans with Disabilities Act, width-compliant walking path beneath the proposed bridge for pedestrian access between the park and beach areas.
Constructing a pedestrian bridge across Lund’s Gulch Creek near the upper reach of
the proposed widened channel meander zone.
Constructing a new restroom enclosure near the picnic shelter.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 4 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
To construct the proposed bridge and site grading activities, it is anticipated that heavy
equipment and materials ingress and egress would be via the existing access road. Based on the
access road assessment provided during the project feasibility study (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.,
2016), we anticipate road improvements will be required to support construction traffic.
Anticipated improvements include road widening, particularly at the sharp curves, and
stabilization measures along the outside shoulder of the road where longitudinal pavement cracks
have been observed and low-strength, non-engineered fill is present.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Geologists generally agree that the Puget Sound area was subjected to six or more major glacial
events. Each glaciation deposited new sediment and partially eroded previous sediments.
During the intervening periods when glacial ice was not present, normal stream processes, wave
action, weathering, and landsliding eroded and reworked some of the glacially-derived sediment,
further complicating the geologic setting.
During the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation (most recent ice incursion) that covered the
central Puget Lowland, approximately 18,000 to 16,000 years before present (Porter and
Swanson, 1998), the glacial ice is estimated to have been about 3,000 feet thick in the project
area (Thorson, 1989). The weight of the glacial ice resulted in compaction of the glacial and
nonglacial soils beneath the ice. The glacial and nonglacial deposits are overlain by younger
(Holocene Epoch), relatively loose and soft, post-glacial soils that include peat, beach, colluvial,
and fill deposits.
Lund’s Gulch incises through glacial and nonglacial soils from uplands of greater than 300 feet
elevation to Puget Sound along a west-northwest trend in south Snohomish County (Figure 1,
Vicinity Map). Meadowdale Beach Park encompasses the lower part of Lund’s Gulch.
Lund’s Gulch was carved by glacial meltwater after Vashon ice retreated and the land was
uncovered (Applied Geotechnology, Inc., 1986). During the time of ice retreat, the steep slopes
along the sides of the meltwater channels (the gulch and Puget Sound) became destabilized. On
the creek side of the park, the slopes remain largely set in their position (Applied Geotechnology
Inc., 1986). On the Puget Sound side of the park, the shoreline slopes retreated many hundreds
of feet following deglaciation owing to upland instability, wave action, and soil erosion by
longshore drift.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 5 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
Lund’s Gulch Creek flows through an approximately 6-foot-wide by 9-foot-high by 55-foot-long
concrete box culvert through the BNSF embankment. A delta has formed in the intertidal zone
between the culvert outlet and Puget Sound shoreline. The stream outlets on the north side of the
delta as influenced by northward littoral drift.
Existing Geologic Information
According to geologic maps of the area (Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
2016; Minard, 1982; Smith, 1976), we have interpreted the stratigraphic layers along the park
entrance road as follows
(Hf) Fill – Materials placed in locations other than their original native locations.
The engineering properties of such deposits vary widely with soil density and composition. Slope stability will be negatively affected where loose fill soils are
present, and positively affected where dense fill soils are present. Older fills, such as
along the outside edge of the park entrance road, are commonly very loose to loose,
because they were not compacted during original construction. They were likely
excavated from the inboard side of the road prism and dumped on the outboard side. Permeability of these soils ranges from highly pervious to relatively impervious,
depending on their source and the amount of compaction during construction.
(Qls/Hc) Landslide Debris/Colluvium – Loose or soft landslide debris/colluvium
deposits cover nearly of the slopes, except for those that are too steep to maintain a colluvial cover. These deposits generally reflect the soils that are uphill from them. They may be relatively pervious, but within close proximity, the soil may have a low
permeability. Landslide debris and colluvium is generally loose to medium dense,
with density increasing with depth. Engineering properties of such deposits vary
widely with soil density and composition. On steep slopes, such soils are susceptible to failure, particularly at the contact with underlying undisturbed formations.
(Qvt) Vashon Till – Very dense, low permeability diamict that blankets much of
upland to the east of the project area, but does not outcrop near the proposed
improvements. Till is very dense, has a low permeability, and has high shear strength
properties because it is poorly sorted, contains 20 to 50 percent fine-grained particles and has been overridden by glacial ice. As a foundation material, it can support heavy loads. Slopes in this material generally exhibit stable behavior. Surface water
commonly ponds on top of this layer.
(Qva) Advance Outwash Sand – Very dense, glaciofluvial, advance outwash
consisting of sand and/or gravel with relatively few fine-grained particles. It has a relatively high permeability and can support heavy loads where it is undisturbed.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 6 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
This soil type generally exhibits high shear strength due to its density and granular
composition. Where exposed in slopes, it can exhibit both stable and unstable
behavior. In locations where it is underlain by lower permeability Transitional Beds, groundwater commonly perches on the finer-grained soil and forms seeps or springs where exposed. This seepage can cause slope instability.
(Qtb) Transitional Beds – Interbedded glacial and nonglacial fine sand, silt, and clay
in the exposed cut slopes along the southern end of the entrance road. The fine sand
and silt are dense to very dense and clay is commonly very stiff to hard. The silt and clay have a very low to low permeability, except where they have been fractured, and water is able to move in the cracks. The fine sand is commonly wet. Where
undisturbed, these soils support moderate loads. These soils typically exhibit
moderate to high shear strength values, and in slopes exhibit both stable and unstable
behavior. Along the park entrance road, fractured and jointed silt, clay, and fine sand are exposed and have a history of small failures.
(Qog) Olympia Gravel – Very dense, nonglacial, relatively pervious sand and gravel
deposit lying at and below the entrance road level. The gravel is very dense, where
undisturbed, exhibits high shear strength, and can support heavy loads. It is locally
cemented and can stand vertically for years. Where cemented and containing fine-grained particles in the matrix, it has a low permeability.
(Qw) Whidbey Formation – Very dense, nonglacial, fluvial, interbedded fine to
medium sand with fine gravel interbedded with silt and clay exposed in the vertical
bluff along the BNSF tracks to the west of the entrance road. No seepage was
observed. The exposure was blocky, and colluvium at the toe of the slope contained small soil blocks. Due to its compaction by ice and fine-grained particles in its
matrix, it exhibits high shear strength and low permeability at this site.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service map (Debose and Klungland, 1983) of soils
indicates three soil types within the park boundaries:
The lawn and parking areas, and other predominantly flat areas of the lower park are
underlain by Alderwood gravelly, sandy loam on 2 to 8 percent slopes. The erosion
potential for this soil type is classified as slight.
The southern end of the entrance road is underlain by Alderwood gravelly, sandy loam on 15 to 30 percent slopes. The erosion potential for this soil type is classified
as moderate.
The remainder of the entrance road and park areas that are on steep slopes are
underlain by Alderwood-Everett gravelly, sandy loam on 25 to 70 percent slopes. The erosion potential for this soil type is classified as high.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 7 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Geologic hazards at the site include erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and landslide hazards.
Erosion Hazard
Vegetation consists mainly of deciduous trees, namely red alder and big-leaf maple, with
moderate to thick undergrowth. Large-diameter conifers, such as Douglas fir, western hemlock,
and western red cedar, are scattered throughout the site.
Erosion will occur naturally and in response to construction. The site is well vegetated for the
most part; however, some of the cut slopes are bare, exposing soil to rain and entrainment. They
provide little sediment, except infrequently when the slope soils fail and fill the drainage ditch.
During construction, sediment will be created during excavation and filling, but Best
Management Practices will control sediment so it does not reach Lund’s Gulch Creek or Puget
Sound.
Landslide Hazard
Landslide Hazard – Natural Slopes
Landslides at the site are both deep-seated and shallow. No active or dormant deep-
seated landslides were identified on slopes along the entrance road or near the proposed
structures. Proposed structures are outside of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and
Landslide Hazard Area. Three moderately sized bowls are on the slope above the road on the
north-facing slope of the road corridor, as shown in Figure 2, but there are no signs of active or
recent deep-seated instability. These bowls are relict remains of past instability.
The colluvium-filled slopes above and below the entrance road are susceptible to shallow
instability. Figure 2 indicates locations at which scars of landslides and evidence of recent
instability were observed.
A very large bowl breaks the otherwise uniform, south-facing slope (north side of Lund’s
Gulch Creek) to the north of the proposed site improvements. Based on reconnaissance of the
lower part of the bowl, there is no seepage and no defined channel that carries water. Therefore,
this bowl is also considered to be relict.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 8 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
A near-vertical cliff of cemented sand and gravel with silt interbeds is about 20 to 30 feet
high for a length of about 110 feet along the BNSF. A large block of fallen soil at the toe of the
slope is indicative of the type of instability that could be expected from this bluff. However, due
to the slope orientation, such an event would not affect park facilities.
Landslide Hazard – Constructed Slopes
The southern 400 feet of the entrance road is located on a steep, west-facing slope and
northern 900 feet of the road is north-facing, as indicated in Figure 2. The asphalt-paved road
appears to have been constructed by cut-and-fill methods, with a paved drainage ditch on the
inboard side. A guard rail protects the outboard edge of the road. Linear cracks were observed
on the outside half of the road in several places, and repairs have been made at two locations
along the road, the result of road prism failures. The cut slopes in the southern 400 feet of the
entrance road were excavated to very steep inclinations, the result of which are periodic failures
of blocks of soil into the ditch or onto the pavement.
The slopes immediately downslope from the road are very steep (65 to 130 percent), and
downhill bowing of the guard rail in two locations indicates slow failure of those slopes along
the outboard edge of the road. Mounds of colluvium form a mostly continuous apron at the toe
of the north-facing slope.
Two walls have been constructed on the outboard side of the north-facing segment of the
entrance road at the locations indicated in Figure 2. The date of construction of the wooden
soldier pile wall is unknown. This wall is about 80 feet long and a maximum 12 feet high. No
as-built plans are available for this wall. The mechanically stabilized earth wall is about 10 feet
(maximum) high and 100 feet long. It was built in 2008 by the Snohomish County Public Works
Department to repair the failure of the outside shoulder of the road that crossed a steep, but
shallow ravine. Excavation for the repair extended to 23 feet below the inside edge of pavement,
and backfill consisted of quarry rock and geogrids. Presently, no distress was observed on the
road at this site and the face of the wall appeared to be in good condition.
Landslide Hazard – Setback and Buffer Requirements
As stated previously, the entire valley bottom is classified as a LHA as defined in SCC
30.91L.040. Based on this condition, proposed structures within the project area will, by
definition, fall within the LHA boundary, and no setback or buffer dimension will mitigate this
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 9 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
condition. Consequently, SCC 30.62B.340 allows development within LHA when:
There is no alternate location for the proposed structure.
The project geotechnical report demonstrates that the design will provide protection
commensurate to being located outside of the landslide area.
The design satisfies the provisions of SCC 30.62B.320, including:
― Utilizes best management practices.
― Prevent collection, concentration, or discharge of water within a landslide area.
― Minimize impervious surfaces and retain vegetation.
― Do not increase risk of property damage, death, or injury.
― Do not cause or increase erosion or landslide hazard risk.
― Do not increase surface water discharge, sedimentation, slope instability, erosion
or landslide potential to adjacent or downstream and down-drift properties beyond pre-development conditions.
― Do not adversely impact wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or
their buffers.
ECDC 23.80 contains several requirements for development within LHA, including:
ECDC 23.80.050 defines the special study and report requirements for development
within GHA, including a requirement for minimum setback recommendation for
avoiding landslide or erosion hazard, and other recommendations for site
development so that the frequency or magnitude of landsliding or erosion on or off the site is not altered.
ECDC 23.80.060 provides general development standards for GHA, including a
requirement that the development be designed so that the hazard to the project is
eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than the predevelopment conditions.
ECDC 23.80.070 provides development standards specific to erosion and landslide hazard areas, and specifies minimum buffer requirements, which include a requirement to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death or injury
resulting from landslides caused in whole or in part by activities within the buffer
area.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 10 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
Seismic Hazards
The Meadowdale Beach Park is located near a seismically active zone; the Southern Whidbey
Island Fault Zone. As shown in Figure 5, the park is about 1 mile south of the active fault zone,
and is about halfway between two other geophysical lineaments of unknown age. The potential
effects of an earthquake and faulting on the site included ground rupture, liquefaction, and
seismically induced landslides. Seismic liquefaction is the loss of soil strength caused by ground
shaking during an earthquake in areas with loose sand and silt and a high groundwater table. The
liquefaction susceptibility map of Snohomish County (Palmer and others, 2004) indicates the
project site has low to very low susceptibility. The alluvial and colluvial soils in the parking area
and the picnic area to the west may be liquefiable, but we have no site-specific soil density and
consistency data on which to evaluate their susceptibility. Strong shaking could also engender
landslides on the steep slopes along the south entrance road, particularly during the wet winter
season.
WATER WELLS
We searched the Washington State Department of Ecology well log database and found 68
records on file within the same township, range, section, and quarter-section as the project site.
Of the 68 records, 15 were listed as water wells, 15 were listed as resource protection wells, and
36 were listed as well abandonments. The 15 water wells were registered to Alderwood Water
District, and each water well log had a corresponding abandonment log. The location stated in
the well logs for the 15 water wells is the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District Water
Treatment Plant address, 6315 Picnic Point Road, Edmonds, Washington 98026. That address is
more than one mile from the project site. Based on available water well records, it appears there
are no water wells within the project site.
DRAINAGE
Drainage at the site is surface and subsurface. No surface channels were observed on, below, or
above the access road. A paved drainage ditch is located on the inboard side of the road. From
the high point at the curve about 400 feet north of the entrance gate, the ditch water flows south
and east. Most of the subsurface water in the park appears to be intercepted by the deep valley of
Lund’s Gulch, on the slopes to the north and south of the creek. The result of that seepage is a
plethora of small to very large landslides along the gulch sidewalls. On the slope facing
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 11 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
westward, above the BNSF tracks, no seeps were observed. Minor seepage was observed in the
locations indicated in Figure 2, in the project area. Two small seeps were observed on the uphill
side of the road on the north-facing slope: (1) behind an electrical service box at the bottom of
the slope where the road bends sharply to the west and (2) from a topographic bowl uphill from
the road, as indicated in Figure 2.
SUMMARY
The project area and entrance road are underlain by competent overconsolidated glacial soils,
alluvial deposits, and weak colluvial deposits. The latter are the result of past slope instability
and erosion on the steep slopes. Only two seeps were observed, both on the north-facing slope
of the road.
Three types of geologic hazard exist within the project area: erosion, landslides, and seismic.
Potential landslide hazards are both deep-seated and shallow, and may be natural or the result of
past disturbance of the natural conditions. The deep-seated landslides are relict, and very
unlikely to reactivate naturally or as the result of the proposed site improvements. There are
many instances of shallow landsliding:
1. The cut slope of the road is too steep to maintain a stable condition. This slope has failed many times in the past, and can be expected to fail in discrete small areas (on
the order of 5 to 100 cubic yards) in the future. The trees on this slope will also fall
of their own volition or along with a soil mass. The trees constitute a particular
danger to the walking and driving public. Sudden shallow landslides and tree falls
are likely, but not exclusively, to occur during the winter months.
2. The outside edge of the roadway is loose sidecast fill for perhaps as much as
80 percent of the road alignment length. Where there are signs of distress in the
pavement or the guard rail, measures need to be taken to remediate the road; however,
other sidecast fill areas are still susceptible to failure or settlement in the future. Such
failures could endanger drivers if failure of soils beneath the existing roadway occurred and a void developed suddenly, and was undetected.
3. The bluff along the BNSF tracks is exposed and vertical, and fails periodically in
blocks defined by joints in the glacially overridden soil. The soil comes to rest in the
railroad drainage ditch. Failures of this type will not affect the project area, and the
BNSF has posted no trespassing signs, making access off limits.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 12 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
To comply with SCC 30.62B.340, structures in LHA must be designed to provide protection
commensurate to being located outside of the LHA. This condition applies to the proposed
restroom enclosure. A retaining wall structure, located immediately south of the asphalt walking
path and between the proposed restroom enclosure and steep slope south of the structure, will be
included in the project design to provide protection from landslide runout. Recommendations for
the retaining wall structure will be included in the project geotechnical report.
To comply with ECDC 23.40.280 structures in LHA buffer zones must not cause landslides. In
our opinion, the proposed restroom enclosure will not cause landslides, and will not increase the
potential for landslides on the slope above the proposed structure.
The south entrance road stability improvements will increase slope stability within the footprint
of those features and will not, in our opinion, increase the risk of property damage, injury or
death. Nor will the improvements increase similar risks to neighboring properties.
Liquefaction is not likely along the access road because groundwater is low or non-existent.
However, in the parking lot and in the open field and picnic area to the west of the Ranger’s
house, the groundwater level is high and the soils may be very loose to medium dense, making
them susceptible to liquefaction and damage under seismic shaking. This hazard could
potentially heighten the risk for structures in this area, such as the proposed restroom enclosure
and pedestrian bridge across Lund’s Gulch Creek. Mitigative measures have been recommended
as appropriate in the project geotechnical report. In the parking lot, it may be more economical
in the long-term to repair damaged pavement due to liquefaction.
So as to maintain stability and prevent erosion along the entrance road, existing surface grades
should be maintained such that surface water and groundwater continue to flow toward ditches,
and ditches should be regularly cleared. Impervious surfaces will be minimized to the extent
possible and native vegetation will be retained. The exception to this is the cutting of leaning
trees along the entrance road that could fall with or without slope movement. Evaluation of the
trees could be provided by a professional forester.
Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
March 30, 2018
Page 13 of 14
21-1-22288-040-L4/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
CLOSURE
This letter report was prepared for the exclusive use of Snohomish County and their
representatives for their evaluation of the Geologically Hazardous Areas on and adjacent to the
proposed project. Our evaluation was performed solely to address the Geologically Hazardous
Areas on and adjacent to the proposed project, and should not be used for design or construction.
Explorations will be performed to support engineering recommendations for this project. Our
assessment of geologically hazardous areas for this letter report is based on:
The limitations of our approved scope, schedule, and budget.
Our understanding of the project and information provided by Snohomish County.
For any site located on or near a slope, there are slope instability risks that present and future
owners have to accept, including, but not limited to:
Natural factors: soil and groundwater conditions, steep topography, heavy rainfall
events, erosion, and vegetation conditions.
Human-related factors: water leaks, pipe breaks, improper drainage, lack of
maintenance of vegetation or drainage facilities, fill or debris placement, excavation,
and/or removal of trees/vegetation.
Similar circumstances or other unknown conditions may also affect slope stability. Our
evaluation and recommendations described herein are not a guarantee or warranty of future
stability.
21-1-22288-040-L4-Ref/wp/lkn 21-1-22288-040
REFERENCES
Applied Geotechnology, Inc., 1986, Geotechnical engineering study, Meadowdale Beach Park,
Snohomish County, Washington: Report prepared by Applied Geotechnology, Inc., Bellevue, Wash., 14,845.004, for Snohomish County Parks and Recreation, August 28.
Debose, Alfonso, and Klungland, M. W. 1983, Soil survey of Snohomish County,
Washington: Washington, D.C, U. S. Soil Conservation Service, 197 p., 65 maps.
Edmonds, Washington, 2018, Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code: Edmonds, Wash.,
March 30, available: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/, Accessed March, 2018.
Minard, J. P., 1982, Geologic map of the Mukilteo quadrangle, Washington: U.S. Geological
Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1438, scale 1:24,000.
Palmer, S. P.; Magsino, S. L.; Bilderback, E. L.; and others, 2004, Liquefaction susceptibility
map of Snohomish County, Washington, in Liquefaction susceptibility and site class maps for Washington State, by county: Washington State Department of Geology and
Earth Resources, Open File Report 2004-20, sheet 61, scale 1:150,000.
Porter, S. C., and Swanson, T. W., 1998, Radiocarbon age constraints on rates of advance and
retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet during the last glaciation:
Quaternary Research, v. 50, p. 205-213.
Smith, Mackey, 1976, Preliminary surficial geologic map of the Mukilteo and Everett
quadrangles, Snohomish County, Washington: Washington State Division of Geology
and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-20, scale 1:24,000.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), 2016, Meadowdale Beach Park feasibility study, preliminary
geotechnical assessment addendum, south Snohomish County, Washington: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., 21-1-22034-001, for Anchor QEA,
LLC, Seattle, Wash., February 3.
Snohomish County, Wash., Planning and Developments Services, 2017, Critical areas
regulations update: Available: http://snohomishcountywa.gov/2183/Critical-Areas-
Regulations-Update, accessed April, 2017.
Thorson, R. M., 1989, Glacio-isostatic response of the Puget Sound area, Washington:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 101, no. 9, p. 1163-1174.
Washington State Division of Geology and Earth Resources, 2016, Washington interactive
geologic map: Available: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geologyportal, accessed December,
2016.
Meadowdale Beach ParkEstuary Restoration ProjectSnohomish County, WA
VICINITY MAP
FIG. 1
March 2018 21-1-22288-040
Filename: T:\21-1\22303_Kayak\FIGURE-1_VM.mxd Date: 3/30/2018 brlCity of Edmonds
µ0 2
Miles
Project Location
!.
!.EEBNSF Railway
Entrance Road
Soldier Pile Wall
MSE Wall
Parking Lot
Ranger House
Relict
Relict
Gate
PUGET SOUND
ExposedBluff
Guard RailUnderminedand Displaced
Lunds Gulch Creek
ImperviousSurface
MP 21.8
MP 21.9
80
40
120
160
200
240
0
320µ
0 10050
Feet
Meadowdale Beach ParkEstuary Restoration ProjectSnohomish County, WA
SITE PLANOBSERVED
LANDSLIDE FEATURES
FIG. 2
March 2018 21-1-22288-040
Document Path: T:\21-1\22034_Meadowdale\AV_mxd\FIG-2_OLS.mxd
LEGEND
Landslide Scar
Impervious Surface
E Spring
LiDAR and Topographic Contours derivedfrom data provided by Puget SoundLiDAR Consortium.http://pugetsoundlidar.ess.washington.edu/
MeadowdalePark
75th Pl W56th Ave W68th Ave WN Meadowd
a
l
e
R
d72nd Ave W156th St SW
66th Ave W70th Ave W60th Ave W152nd St SW
160th St SW
76th Ave WAccess Rd
7
4
t
h
P
l
W
164th St SW
58th Pl W70
t
h
P
l
W 57th Pl W64th Ave W63rd Ave W162nd Pl SW
159th St SW
151st Pl SW
66th Pl W165th Pl SW
166th Pl SW 153rd Pl SW
158th St SW
164th Pl SW
161st Pl SW
154th Pl SW
Hillpointe Cir73rd Pl W157th Pl SW
Meadowdale Rd 62nd Pl W157th St SW
163rd Pl SW
158th Pl SW
62nd Ave W71st Pl W76th Pl W59th Pl W162nd St SW 56th Pl W160th Pl SW
65th Ave W163rd St SW163rd Pl SW
63rd Ave W72nd Ave W164th St SW 60th Ave W56t
h
A
v
156th St SW
157th Pl SW
60th Ave W58th
P
l
WAccess RdAccess Rd
164th Pl SW
153rd Pl SW
158th St SW
159th St SW
Access Rd 72nd Ave W160th St SW
165th Pl SW
164th St SW
164th Pl SW
Access Rd
161st Pl SW
Document Path: T:\21-1\22034_Meadowdale\AV_mxd\M2_SS.mxd
LEGEND
Washington Department ofNatural Resources
City of EdmondsHazardous SlopesLiDAR Slope Percent Rise
Meadowdale Beach ParkEstuary Restoration ProjectSnohomish County, WA
SITE PLAN
CITY OF EDMONDS LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
e W
AND MAPPED LANDSLIDES
FIG. 3
March 2018 21-1-22288-040
Edmonds City Limits
City of EdmondsLandslide Areas
Earth SubsidenceHazard Area
Earth SubsidenceLandslide Area
Earth SubsidenceMinimum Buffer toLandslide Hazard
Landslides
Over 40%
µ0 500250
Feet
SOURCES1. 'City of Edmonds Landslide Areas' provided by City Of Edmonds, GIS Webmap, available: http://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=html
2. 'Landslides' provided by Washington Department ofNatural Resources - Geologic Information Portalavailable: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/geologyportal
Meadowdale Beach ParkProject Location
MeadowdalePark
Project Area
75th Pl W56th Ave W68th Ave WN Meadowd
a
l
e
R
d72nd Ave W156th St SW
66th Ave W70th Ave W60th Ave W152nd St SW
160th St SW
76th Ave WAccess Rd
7
4
t
h
P
l
W
164th St SW
58th Pl W70
t
h
P
l
W 57th Pl W64th Ave W63rd Ave W162nd Pl SW
159th St SW
151st Pl SW
66th Pl W165th Pl SW
166th Pl SW 153rd Pl SW
158th St SW
164th Pl SW
161st Pl SW
154th Pl SW
Hillpointe Cir73rd Pl W157th Pl SW
Meadowdale Rd 62nd Pl W157th St SW
163rd Pl SW
158th Pl SW
62nd Ave W71st Pl W76th Pl W59th Pl W162nd St SW 56th Pl W160th Pl SW
65th Ave W163rd St SW163rd Pl SW
63rd Ave W72nd Ave W164th St SW 60th Ave W56t
h
A
v
e
W
156th St SW
157th Pl SW
60th Ave W58th
P
l
WAccess RdAccess Rd
164th Pl SW
153rd Pl SW
158th St SW
159th St SW
Access Rd 72nd Ave W160th St SW
165th Pl SW
164th St SW
164th Pl SW
Access Rd
161st Pl SW
Document Path: T:\21-1\22034_Meadowdale\AV_mxd\FIG-4_LS.mxd
LEGEND
City of EdmondsHazardous SlopesLiDAR Slope Percent Rise
Meadowdale Beach ParkEstuary Restoration ProjectSnohomish County, WA
SITE PLAN SNOHOMISH COUNTY
LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
FIG. 4
March 2018 21-1-22288-040
Edmonds City Limits
Over 33%
µ0 500250
Feet
SOURCES1. LiDAR provided by Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium; http://pugetsoundlidar.ess.washington.edu/
Meadowdale Beach ParkProject Location
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!.
Meadowdale Beach ParkEstuary Restoration ProjectSnohomish County, WA
SEISMIC FEATURES
FIG. 5
March 2018 21-1-22288-040
Filename: T:\21-1\22034_Meadowdale\AV_mxd\FIGURE-5_Seismic.mxd Date: 3/30/2018 brlProject Location
µ0 3.5
Miles
1. U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, 2018 Accessed: March, 2018 Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: Available: http://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html? id=db287853794f4555b8e93e42290e9716
LEGEND
Quarternary Faults
Earthquakes (20yr History)
!(2.0 to 2.9 Magnitude
!(3.0 to 3.9 Magnitude
!(3.9 to 4.9 Magnitude
§¨¦5
!(
Project Location
µ0 3,000
Feet
2014 USGS Hazard Faults
SOURCES:
2. Czajkowski, J. L. and Bowman, J. D., 2014, Faults and earthquakes in Washington State: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2014-05, 1 plate, scale 1:750,000.
Page 1 of 2 1/2018
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Dated:
Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-22288-040
Date: March 30, 2018 To: Snohomish County Parks & Recreation
Attn: Ms. Logan Daniels, PE
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORT
CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.
Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly
for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without
first conferring with the consultant.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS.
A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report
is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for
example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept
apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual
interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work
together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect.
Page 2 of 2 1/2018
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions.
Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable
recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design
professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues.
BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results,
and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or
other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for
you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared.
While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for
construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps
prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.
Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem,
consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify
where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely.
Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.
The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the
ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland