Critical Area and Mitigation Report reduced.pdfCritical Areas and Mitigation Report
Hoffman Property
Edmonds, Washington
May 4, 2009
Prepared for
Linda Hoffman
Edmonds, Washington
LANDAU
14 ASSOCIATES
130 2nd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 778-0907
SLIP
Critical Areas and Mitigation Report
Hoffman Property
Edmonds, Washington
May 4, 2009
Prepared for
Linda Hoffman
Edmonds, Washington
LANDAU
14 ASSOCIATES
130 2nd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 778-0907
z ,
E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1-1
1.1
PROJECT LOCATION
1-1
1.2
APPLICABLE CITY REGULATIONS
1-1
2.0
INVESTIGATION METHODS
2-1
2.1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW
2-1
2.2
SITE VISIT
2-1
2.3
WETLAND DELINEATION
2-1
2.4
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK DELINEATION
2-2
2.5
WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION, RATING, BUFFER WIDTH AND
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
2-2
3.0
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
3-1
3.1
SHELL CREEK AND BUFFER
3-1
3.2
ONSITE WETLAND AND BUFFER
3-1
3.2.1 Vegetation
3-2
3.2.2 Soils
3-2
3.2.3 Hydrology
3-2
3.2.4 Wetland Determination, Classification, Rating & Buffer Width
3-2
3.2.5 Upland Characterization
3-2
3.3
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
3-3
3.4
ECOLOGICAL RATIONALE FOR WETLAND AND RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT
3-3
3.4.1 Pre -Existing, Impacted, and Restored Riparian Buffer Functions
3-4
4.0
GOALS, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, SITE PROTECTION, MONITORING, AND
CONTINGENCY PLANS
4-1
4.1
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4-1
4.2
SITE PROTECTION
4-1
43
MONITORING PROGRAM
4-1
4.4
CONTIGENCY PLAN
4-1
4.5
FINANCIAL GUARANTEES
4-2
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 5-1
6.0 USE OF THIS REPORT 6-1
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
514109 11Edmdatalprojects111781FileRmVRlHoffmanCAR_rpt.doc LANDAu ASSOCIATES
i Ii
LIST OF FIGURES
FFi Title
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site and Critical Areas Overview
3 Site Plan, Critical Areas, Impacts, and Mitigation
4 Planting Plan and Detail
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title
1 Methods for Wetland Determination
2 Mitigation Goal, Objective, and Perfonnance Standards
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Title
A Site Photographs
B Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
C Wetland Rating Form
514109 k\Edmdatalprojects11178LFileRm\R\HoffmanCAR rpt.doc
iii
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman (applicant), as the property owners for Parcel No. 00397600001300,
located at 1021 Brookinere Drive in the City of Edmonds (City), Washington (subject property; Figure 1)
were issued a violation notice as a result of unpermitted tree topping, which is considered removal under
City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC; City of Edmonds 2009). The owners topped
multiple trees and intend to top two more, following issuance of a permit from the City. Per the violation
notice, the City requires preparation of a Critical Areas Report and a replacement tree planting plan, in
accordance with ECDC Section 23.40.220 b. i, ii, iii, and iv. Landau Associates was contracted to
conduct a critical areas site reconnaissance, analysis of impacts, and a mitigation (vegetation
enhancement planting) plan for wetland and stream buffers. Information presented in this report is based
on best available science and complies with the ECDC Title 23, Natural Resources.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The 0.28 -acre property is located in Township 27N, Range 3E, Section 23, Latitude/Longitude
47.8183°N, 122.3725°W. The subject property is located within the Shell -Hindley Creek Basin of the
Cedar-Sammamish Watershed, Watershed Resource Inventory Area 8, Puget Sound HUC 17110019. The
tree removal (topping) and mitigation project is located within the buffer of Shell Creek in an area zoned
single-family residence -- detached on 12,000 -square -foot (11) lots (RS -12) (City of Edmonds 2006).
1.2 APPLICABLE CITY REGULATIONS
Per ECDC Chapter 23.40.220 C. Allowed Activities, 7. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. b.:
The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or
posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that:
i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape
architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees;
ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a
qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard,
trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags;
iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer
unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy
vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; and
iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two
replacement trees for each tree removed (two to one) within one year in accordance with an
514/09 kNEdmdalalprojecls111781FiIoRmlR\HoffmanCAR_rpt.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it
can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially
damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the
site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a
minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball.
51410911Edmdatalprojects11i7BTileRm\R\HoftmanCAR_rpt.doc LANDAU As50CIATES
1-2
2.0 INVESTIGATION METHODS
Landau Associates biologists conducted a background review, a wetland and stream delineation,
and a determination of impacts, and developed a mitigation plan.
2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW
Landau Associates biologists reviewed information from readily available public domain
resources in order to gain a general understanding of potential critical area issues on and near the subject
property. These resources included: aerial photographs and parcel surveys (Google Earth; Snohomish
County website 2009); communication with the City Planning Department; and review of the Edmonds
Stream Inventory and Assessment (Pentec Environmental 2002), the City's critical areas inventory maps,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (USFWS 198I to
present), the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey (NRCS 1983) and Hydric Soils
List (MRCS 2009), and appropriate ECDC sections pertaining to wetlands, streams, and critical areas
(City of Edmonds 2009). Landau Associates also conducted interviews with the property owner and
reviewed information related to the project from two arborists.
2.2 SITE VISIT
Sacha Maxwell, a biologist from Landau Associates, conducted a site reconnaissance, wetland
delineation, and ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineation on April 23, 2009 in order to
characterize existing conditions and impacts from the tree topping. A professional survey was not
completed as part of the work; however, mapping of site features and critical areas was conducted by
taking hand-held measurements of onsite features and referencing to features visible on existing site
maps, parcel maps, and aerial photographs.
2.3 WETLAND DELINEATION
Landau Associates conducted the wetland investigation in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987), the USACE Regional Guidance
letter on the 1987 Manual (USACE 1994), the USACE Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.• Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2008)
and the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology's) Washington State Wetlands Identification
and Delineation. Manual (Ecology 1997).
i
514109 1\Edmdata\projects\11781FileRmlR\HoNmanCAR rpt.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
2-1
absence of wetlands that requires evaluating vegetation, soil, and hydrology (Table 1). Landau
Associates' biologist completed the field delineation using the routine onsite method, where data are
collected at locations representative of typical wetlands and/or uplands of the study area. Following this
I method, an area is determined to be wetland if all -of the following three criteria are met (also see
Table 1):
°i
• The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic
• Soils are hydric
• Wetland hydrology is present.
2.4 ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK DELINEATION
The OHWM was delineated according to methodology provided by Ecology (Olson and
Stockdale 2008). The methodology focuses on examining existing hydrologic data and observation of
field indicators including hydrology, soil and sediment, vegetation, and marks of scouring, etc.
2.5 WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION, RATING, BUFFER
WIDTH AND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
Any wetlands identified as part of this project were classified according to the USFWS Cowardin
classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the USACE hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification
system (Brinson 1993). Wetlands were rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System
for Western .Washington (Hruby 2004), which is accepted practice by the City. This system categorizes
wetlands based on their existing functions, including water quality, hydrology, and habitat, as well as the
wetland's rarity, sensitivity to disturbance, or irreplaceability. Streams were rated according to
Washington Department of Natural Resources typing system, which is accepted practice by the City.
Stream and wetland buffers were determined according to ECDC.
A functional assessment of the wetland/stream/buffer system was conducted using a modification
of the Wetland Functions Characterization Tool, for Linear Projects (WSDOT 2000) methodology, which
provides a rapid assessment for wetland functions. The appropriate sections of this methodology can also
be applied to riparian areas (streams and buffers). This methodology does not quantify functional
performance, but it does provide a qualitative evaluation of functions in a consistent manner through
evaluation of a number of qualifiers for each function by a biologist. The biologist uses this methodology
514109 11Edmdata4projectskll781FileRmlRlHoffmanGAR_rpt.doc LANDAU AssocIATES
2-2
i
to determine whether specific components are present, and then uses the tool to determine whether a
particular function is likely to be provided and to characterize the relative importance of each function.
A
514108 1\Edmdata1projectMl178TileRmV\HoHmanC-AR rpt.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
2-3
i
j
3.4 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The subject property is a moderately sloping (approximately 0 to 25 percent slopes), square
parcel located in a residential neighborhood. The MRCS soil survey identifies soils on the property as
Custer fine sandy loam (NRCS 1983). This soil is not considered hydric (NCRS 2009), but may include
inclusions of other soils types which are considered hydric. Almost the entire onsite area consists of
mowed lawn and/or landscaped ornamental shrubs and trees (see Appendix A). Critical areas, including
Shell Creek, and the onsite wetland and associated buffers are described below.
3.1 SHELL CREEK AND BUFFER
Shell Creek, a Type F, anadromous, fish -bearing stream, flows through the western portion of the
subject property (Figure 2). Per ECDC (23.90.040), Shell Creek requires a standard buffer of 100 feet
(ft), which encompasses all of the subject property and additional area offsite. Existing structures within
the onsite buffer include a residence, driveway, retaining wall, and footbridge (see Appendix A).
Within the subject property, Shell Creek is approximately 3 ft wide at the OHWM and contains
medium sub -rounded gravels that create small riffle habitat. The average water depth was approximately
4 inches at the time of the field investigation. No pools or other in -stream habitat is present. The stream
banks are unconfined, although there was no evidence (water marks, etc.) that overbank flooding occurs.
The stream banks consist of mowed lawn to the stream edge [with the exception of a small area located
south of the wetland, on the western stream bank, which is dominated by salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis,
FAC+)] .
Hindley Creek, a Type F, non-anadromous, fish -bearing stream, enters Shell Creek north of the
subject property (see Figure 2). This stream requires a 75 -ft critical area buffer, per ECDC (23.90.040),
which does not affect the subject property.
3.2 ONSITE WETLAND AND BUFFER
The onsite wetland is approximately 0.25 acre (Figure 3) and is not shown on the NWI map.
Data Plot (DP) 1 was recorded to characterize the vegetation, hydrology, and soils of the wetland, and
DP 2 was recorded to describe the adjacent upland area, as summarized below and presented in
j Appendix B.
514109 1\Edmdalalprojeo[.s\1178\FileRm\RIHofFinanCAR_rpl.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
3-1
3.2.1 VEGETATION
Vegetation in Wetland A is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation consisting of moss species,
creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW), and bentgrass species (Agrostis spp, FAC to FACW),
with canopy layer (assumed cover prior to topping) provided by black cottonwood trees (Populus
balsam{fera, FACW), of which only one is partially rooted in the wetland (see Figure 2).
3.2.2 SOILS
The soil within Wetland A is characterized as depleted matrix, which satisfies the hydric soils
criterion, and was very dark gray (2.5 Y 311) to depth.
3.2.3 HYDROLOGY
The soil was saturated to the surface within the soil pit and contained surface water (less than
0.5 inch deep) within the wetland.
3.2.4 WETLAND DETERMINATION, CLASSIFICATION, RATING & BUFFER WIDTH
All three mandatory wetland criteria are satisfied for the onsite wetland. Landau Associates
classified the onsite wetland as a palustrine emergent, seasonally saturated/slope wetland
(Cowardin/HGM classification) wetland. Using the Ecology wetland rating form, the wetland is
preliminarily (because the extent of the offsite area was not investigated) rated as a Category 4 wetland,
scoring highest for habitat functions (12 points), and equally low (4 points each) for both water quality
and hydrologic functions (refer to Appendix Q. Per the ECDC, Category 4 wetlands require a 35 -ft
standard buffer.
3.2.5 UPLAND CHARACTERIZATION
The upland area adjacent to the wetland is characterized by DP 2, and only satisfies one of the
three mandatory wetland criteria. Upland areas upslope from Wetland A likely contribute surface flow,
but no wetland hydrology indicators were observed.
Vegetation in the upland adjacent to Wetland A consists mostly of grass and other herbaceous
vegetation, including tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea, FAC—), as well as black cottonwood and
salmonberry.
514!09 11Edmdatalprojects51178TIleRmlR\HoftmanCAR_rpt.doc LANDAU AssocIATES
3-2
The soil of the uplands adjacent to the wetland were characterized as very dark brown (10 YR
212) from 0 to 7 inches below ground surface followed by brown (10 YR 316) to depth, which is not
considered a hydric soil.
3.3 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Twelve black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) trunks (many of which stemmed from the same
root system) were/are going to be topped on the subject property (see Figure 3 and photographs in
Appendix A). Based on a comparison of canopy cover, as shown on aerial photographs, with existing
conditions, and based on observations made during the site visit, the onsite portion of the stream buffer
contained approximately 80 percent canopy cover of mature deciduous trees (cottonwood) within an area
approximately 500 W in size (see Figure 3). This area provided partial shade, at least a half day's worth,
to the stream. Following topping, the same 500 -ft' area contains less than 10 percent canopy cover and
shading. Because remaining branches on the topped trees are growing (new leaf growth was observed
during the site visit), the remaining topped trees are expected to provide at least 20 percent canopy cover
in the future (see Appendix A).
The applicant will plant native shrub and understory (emergent) vegetation within the onsite
wetland, along the stream edge, as mitigation for the tree topping. The applicant proposes to mitigate
impacts by planting large shrubs and emergent species within a 500 -ft' area, as mitigation for partial loss
of canopy cover from a 500 ft'` area resulting from the tree topping (see Figure 3). Because large trees are
not being replaced, the applicant proposes to increase the ratio for trees lost to shrubs used as replacement
from 2:1 to 4:1, plus emergent species as listed in the tables on Figure 4. A list of native plant species
that will be installed along the stream edge, in order to improve riparian in -stream habitat and wetland
functions over existing conditions (see Figure 4).
3.4 ECOLOGICAL RATIONALE FOR WETLAND AND RIPARIAN
ENHANCEMENT
The proposed mitigation plan is based on best available science and site conditions, and complies
with the requirements of mitigation sequencing as outlined in the ECDC by "compensating for the impact
to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing,
enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments." It is not practical, due to site constraints,
for the mitigation to comply specifically with ECDC (23.40.220 C.7.b.iv.), which calls for replacement of
trees at a 2:1 ratio. This is because the existing (topped) trees are still standing in the impact area, and
planting additional large trees within the remaining areas would likely create future hazard conditions.
5/410911Edmdatalprojects111781FileRm\R\HoHmanCAR_rpt.doc LANDAu AsSOCiATES
3-3
Increased functional improvement of the wetland and riparian areas, as well as
the in -stream conditions, can be obtained by instead enhancing vegetation structure and diversity within
the wetland directly adjacent to the stream. The onsite wetland and the Shell Creek buffer present an
excellent location for vegetation enhancement because these areas are currently functioning at a low level,
.I in terms of providing quality habitat, shoreline and erosion control, and water quality functions. There is
ample opportunity to increase shoreline and stream functions, such as erosion control, water temperature
regulation (shading), and food web support (via riparian vegetation and detritus input) by enhancing the
species diversity, density, and structure of vegetation in this area. This portion of the stream contains
E suitable forage and migration habitat for fish species, but lacks refuge habitat. The onsite segment of
Shell Creek contains virtually no understory vegetation (except for sparse cover of lawn grasses) and
contains partial canopy cover. The topped trees contain new growth and are expected to provide a
reduced level of canopy cover in the future, relative to pre-existing conditions. The remaining trees still
provide bird habitat.
3.4.1 PRE-EXISTING, IMPACTED, AND RESTORED RIPARIAN BUFFER FUNCTIONS
Functions typically associated with wetlands and buffers include flood flow alteration, sediment
removal, nutrient and toxicant removal, general habitat for mammals and birds, and native plant richness,
because of their support and protection of in -stream and wetland habitat. The subject property has ample
opportunity to increase its functional value due to its proximity to Shell Creek, an anadromous fish -
bearing stream. The section of Shell Creek on the subject property is located in the lower portion of its
watershed. Conditions of the existing stream and riparian buffer within the subject property were
evaluated and are summarized below. Wetland/buffer/riparian habitat characteristics marked with an
asterisk (*) were impacted by the tree topping and those underlined will be improved by the proposed
mitigation.
Functions that are considered to be well provided by existing conditions include:
• Habitat for Birds
Physical Indicators: Canopy cover of deciduous* and coniferous trees is present, but the
site lacks habitat features such as downed logs, stumps or snags; native berr:producing
vegetation; vegetative species diversity is low; no understory vegetation.
Functions that are considered to be provided to a limited extent include:
• Sediment Removal
Physical Indicators: Small flat riparian/wetland area associated with water flow; however,
no woody vegetation to slow velocity and no sediment deposits within stream or wetland;
no signs of overbank flooding.
;I
514109 11Fd mdatalproje cts111781Fi I e Rm1R\Hoffma n CAH_rpt. doc
3-4
f
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
3
• General Fish Habitat
- Physical Indicators: Anadromous fish habitat; moderate canopy cover* for stream
temperature regulation; low degree of habitat complexity (presence of gravel substrate
present, no large woody debris, minimal riffles, no pools, low organic matter input).
Production of Organic Matter and its Export
- Physical Indicators: Limited deciduous tree cover* present, but lack of understory
vegetation; wetland habitat along riparian edge is snowed.
• General Habitat Suitability
- Physical Indicators: Connections for anadromous and resident fish; buffer consists
primarily of landscaped area; stream, wetland, and upland presence providing diversity in
habitat; riparian corridor suitable for wildlife, but overall suitability is limiting due to
residential setting.
• Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates
-- Physical Indicators: Stream contains gravel, which is suitable substrate; however, there is
low detritus input.
• Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals
- Physical Indicators: Stream is permanently flowing; no steep banks present; area is in
proximity to residential structures and roads; within urban area; lack of vegetated buffers
due to existing development; high use of the area by residents for recreation.
• Nutrient and Toxicant Removal
- Physical Indicators: Slope wetland area; low organic matter accumulation*; seasonally
saturated areas.
• Flood Flow Alteration
- Physical Indicators: Slope wetland does not provide much water storage function;
wetland and buffer lacks dense woody vegetation and organic duff soil layer that can
absorb precipitation and runoff and help desynchronize peak flows downstream;
moderate topography, an unrestricted outlet/stream, and potential for overbank flooding
are present.
• Erosion Control and Shoreline Management
• Physical Indicators: See Flood Flow Alteration above.
Functions that are not likely provided include:
• Habitat for Amphibians
- Physical Indicators: Lack of suitable spawning habitat and fish -bearing stream.
I
514109 11Edmdata4projects11178TileRmlR\HoBmanCAR rpt.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
3-5
r -a
• Educational or Scientific Value
- Physical Indicators: Subject property is privately owned.
514109 L1Edmdatalprojects11178T=teRm\R\Hoffma7iCAR_rpt.doc LAHDAuASSOCIATES
j 3-6
t
3
4.0 GOALS, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, SITE PROTECTION,
MONITORING, AND CONTINGENCY PLANS
In accordance with ECDC 23.40.130 (mitigation plan requirements), this section presents the
mitigation goal, objective, and performance standards, and site protection, monitoring, contingency plans,
and financial assurance plans.
4.1 GOAL, OBJECTIVE, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The project has one main goal, one main objective, and five performance standards, as listed in
Table 2.
4.2 SITE PROTECTION
Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with the mitigation construction will be used to
avoid or reduce adverse impacts to sensitive areas during the mitigation work. No earthwork will occur.
Work will be conducted during the summer, when the wetland area is seasonally dry. All tree topping
and planting work will be conducted using hand-held equipment. The mitigation area will be maintained
by the applicant, including hand -weeding of invasive and non-native species, and protection of newly
installed plants. The applicant will install a sign stating "native growth protection area; contact City of
Edmonds for more information," or similar.
4.3 MONITORING PROGRAM
In accordance with ECDC 23.40.130 (mitigation plan requirements), the applicant will monitor
the mitigation and provide yearly status reports directly to the City planning division, for a period of three
years. The applicant will document percent survival of installed woody plants and provide a general
narrative on plant health and percent cover of native species in comparison with performance standards.
The results will be presented in a mitigation status update letter documenting installation, maintenance,
and success of the project, along with supporting photographs.
4.4 CONTIGENCY PLAN
If the mitigation area is not meeting performance standards, the applicant will contact a
professional biologist for adaptive management recommendations, which may include installing
additional plants, substituting different species, or providing additional weed control. The recommended
plan will be included in the mitigation status update, along with a record of its implementation.
i
514109 11Edmdatalprojects111781FileRmlR\HcffmanCAR rpt.doc LANDAU AssoclATEs
4-1
I
4.5 FINANCIAL GUARANTEES
The applicant will post a bond as a financial guarantee for the project, in the amount that the
project will cost to install and monitor (cost to be provided by the applicant).
t
'i
I
514109 11Edmdalalprojects111781FileRmlRNHoHmanCAR_rpt.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
4-2
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The completed/proposed tree topping project is necessary due to a determination by an arborist
that the trees are hazardous to existing structures and public safety. One tree is located within the
wetland, and the others are located within the wetland/stream buffer. Mitigation for impacts caused by
the partial removal of the trees will be provided by enhancing functions of the onsite wetland and riparian
areas above and beyond existing conditions (conditions prior to topping). The proposed mitigation plan is
based on best available science and site conditions, and complies with the requirements of mitigation
sequencing as outlined in the ECDC by "compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded
areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments."
5/4109 11Edmdatalproject511178TileRmlR\HDBmanCAR rpt.doc
5-1
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
6.0 USE OF THIS REPORT
The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the City of Edmonds
Community Development Code and the USACE and Ecology wetland delineation methodology, and on
our interpretation of the vegetative, soil, and hydrology conditions observed during the site
reconnaissance. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the findings presented in this
report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted sensitive area investigation principles and
practices in this locality at the time the report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express
or implied.
This report was prepared for the use of Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman and applicable regulatory agencies.
No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this
document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information,
conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project,
without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk.
Wetland areas delineated by Landau Associates are considered preliminary until the USACE
and/or local jurisdictional agencies validate the wetland boundaries. Because wetlands are dynamic
communities, wetland boundaries may change over time. The agencies typically recognize wetland
delineations for a period of five years following an approved jurisdictional determination. In addition,
changes in government code, regulations, and/or laws may occur.
This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Sacha Maxwell
Project Environmental Scientist
SMISJQ/rwt
514169 11Edmdatslprojects111781FileRm\RlHoffmanCAR_rpt.doc LANDAu ASSOCIATES
6-1
7.0 REFERENCES
Brinson, M. 1993. Final Report: A Hydrogeomoiphic Classi facation , for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. East Carolina University, Biology Department. Greenville,
North Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No.
96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington. March,
Edmonds, City of. 2009. City of Edmonds, Washington Municipal Code. Current Ordinance 3722,
passed January 6, 2009. Available at
http://srch.mrsc.oriz:8080/code/teMlate.htm: j ses sionid=5 83F 1 F95396804CF6B23C4D97A1146A2?view
=main. Accessed on May 2, 2009.
Edmonds, City of. 2006. Current Edmonds Zoning Map. Available at hap://www.ci.ednionds.wa.us/
Cit Doartments/PlanningDept/Zoning Map 2006 01-1212.pdf, Accessed on April 10, 2009.
Greytag Macbeth. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York.
NRCS. 2009. Hydric Soils List. Available at http://www.wa.nres.usda.gov/technical/soils/hydric lists/
hydsoil-wa-661.pdf. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed on April 20, 2009.
Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised.
Publication No. 04-06-025. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington,
NRCS. 1983. Soil Survey Report of Snohomish County Area, Washington. Available at
htip://www.or.nrcs.usda.ggv/pnw, soil/wa_Morts.html. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Accessed on April 20, 2009.
Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in
Washington State. Draft. Publication No. 08-06-001. Washington State Department of Ecology. April.
Available at: htip://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0806001.html
Pentec Environmental. 2002. Edmonds Stream Inventory and Assessment. Prepared for the City of
Edmonds.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1993. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest. (Region 9).
Available at http://www.fws.gov/nwilbha/list88.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol, Rep. 88
(269). Washington, D.C.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary.
Available at http://www.fws.gov/nwifbha/list88.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sound Native Plants. 2005. Nursery Inventory. Available online at hU://www.soundnativgplants.com/
catalogtrees.htrn. Olympia, Washington. Accessed on April 20, 2009.
514109 115dmdatalprojectsli 1781F!IeRm\RlHoffmanCAR_rpt.doc LANDAU Assoc IATES
7-1
USAGE. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual;
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report ERDC/EL TR -08-13. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg,
Mississippi. April.
USAGE. 1994. Washington Regional Guidance on the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch. May 23.
USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87=1. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. March.
USFWS. 1981 to present. National Wetlands Inventory Map for Snohomish, Washington. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg, Florida.
WSDOT. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (previously known as
Wetland Functions Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) Tool). http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/
biology/doe/bpjtool.pdf. Accessed on April 20, 2009.
514109 11Edmdatalproje c1.s111781Fi I eRm1RIH off ma n CAR_rpt.d o c
F&A
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
J76
7a6b1
79t El
JP
1f�ifiY�,,a,r�
x�00/ Il cy.�arr 1u�41?,
ttl1s�l �
d%r
13 1
TR
9 18l 1f
185th
,. �'N1Pa r&rte. 1?1i(rth ri, rI rr", tiPFar�i
55 ' N r.. rF ,R ✓ dam, �.
tli !" f
�G f 1 i Ppw e g 81111 1h-111
c
lea
o /1. cs "1H�Ih
ry,�yCB 1R4 NBd e 1t
U
w ✓ z 19 1"
Cher
d ✓ 4 "A P1rroCi .-, s c h r 'l92giI
e`a 1 1�
1 I
A t s
_.' 194t'1
It
94,01 1 4ti;
/a O 4,01 k
Project
6t
Location P6 5524
i1si 1, -
� �" .. Vrrt��nln11 Y it 'F z'w....... �, y",
Cwrn 01 , I° 140 .,..1 .:f ,100l�lt /^tlti's1( 20,
Ca n''F,'attm4
i1.bI, �lra�drYYtl,. aI�(arr �{V
�,�aGaait F11-11,
lnl,JLnr
trn Fn204
YP�� 2(L�1?27.iCr(It i
7.7 9ac
a .Y.,
."
I.
cro2t :.2 7 h
e�x„ j if �Y.., SI 1� 9g r r qu rc ,may 4 a, w�, V 1;
��ti' 1 I cr'noiYrl c 217,447 .;41Prv,h
a
j674r�
/P^`a�d N ., el.�trf%l f5Pi�r�,; Yl✓nri,iV.la�.y.c��y.klryt<rfvYdY' t��,,plU;W,.kwY�I1a>tiY'wratl.rd%/✓i«mo/mli r �1r1/m /�° u .tnn�'r a'•!3 �
2UHroi P )rir9runo�GAhh
E 5 `,„,,,.
J4h "0”
dlu
21
.AY(t c
If dY
—flock nainut
1r,
pru
k cif%„ 114Mr4ilr<k �.r,d„�1Fj� 110it,499'saa"rrIurYc d„.UsT.n�..2�,11 ✓Pll v,,,,,,P ._,��.�.r 1'
1f7.P� 1th7l�21iu4P 1= F . ' I 15&
2151t �215tY
J1SFY%
.dCd,W/1, "IMUMi vide✓i/va0 1`6th
1
�..
.r / n
,. es na Ir rr�C YStbd
Ei ih,
'Y (l}G7CY
Y t,'.,,., /l 'tvP_1vr lrepSiraru�r22091111-11-011.2 T 1
WY � ��b rr � �. � t1x
�� .� �- ,a 0rlr ra/rrii�eau/
?" ,/.I�a 7l1 R 4 ...� k c"y ld,p ✓� c ,,,,,,ri ZIc✓ .
-Iv
augs9raYYp
wa
1tc�mrh % r 4.
F !
6 �+d�P91d �4tN11 „ .;� . .� 24th
0
G2205 h '" ✓ L, I^ A µ .fin? T 1 '+J .}.^".�F Y.9 / I,a .
o -
ake Terra(
?) r6Y 704 ` Ew u i �
6r v r.. ., r lr.. ?�Btlr i 121791v
f/xj' 7P8 rp
1�1b� 7 A �Y 2TFi
„hlQ4PY...,�
r!
p -
ol,rri.�.az- euaTd� a,a
,w6dlusr.,.�.
P
n
34rtl,
cx
M
N
^�t
0 0.5 1
Edmonds
�-- L4Cdlan ::'Srd,lllr "rtrc arae
Ia,,r; yw
Files
Wk's "M MO'TON
0
a
as
r—
�r
Data Source: ESRI 2006
a
� 7FIure
Hoffman Property Vi�Ci�i'It t�I�
LANDAU Edmonds, Washington p
Hindley Creek (Approx.)
Hindley Greek
Standard 75 ft Buffter
(Approx.)
Wetland (Approx. -
may continue to north)
Property Boundary
50 A Standard Wetland
Buffer
100 ft Standard
Stream Buffer Boundary
Shell Creek (continues
to north and south)
Uotes Scale in Fe—et
o1
—*—Z--�
H
LL
U)
MEMEM"
no=
cn
'0
CL
CD
C
0)
Co
0
F—
a
CL
E
C
cE
0
0
a) F—
m
Q)
E
w
2
�Q
" —
.-
r— 0cc
m
riacm
CLO
0
CL
ik
0
0
0
No'
c0
m
CO
LL
0 0
o
CO (D ,
cr an,
m an
CL
C
w
Co
cCS
CCS
CCs
0 CL
= 0.
co
m 2
2
w 0 CL
CL
i6
C)
0 0
0 t�
C,
ID
AD
M
mw
I
'D
un
c
0
0
CD
LLJ
> luj
rb
0
.:3 �e
>
m
co
>
C)"a
C:
0
a)
01141
0 C
Li
>
(n
0
>
CL
io
UJ
0
Lon
m C.7 DC7
I'p
M
mw
I
z
ai 0
2 0-
2
CL
CL
a)
E E
0'4-
0 0 0
E
to LU
U)
>1
m
5
I
0
0
cz
a)
CM
d)
CL
m
a)
(D
(n
0
>
CL
io
>
0
Lon
m C.7 DC7
I'p
C:
,
C'i
E
—D
0— 0— c
m lu
c
M M
. I
C.
z
'a
a
0
En
CL
(D
W
0)
.2
0
0
0
tm
-r-
'01
2
m
2
m
2
u
a
V)
co cy)
0)
0)
2 11>
N
2
2
Al
(n w 0
w w I m
U)
IiF
E
-a
m
m
Z
0
0
3t ztu
C. -\d
E
2
m
'E
E
0
(D 0
= E
-0
c
n _0 0
i- E
E
90
-�5
o
E
-0
0 w
- 9
Is_
Co 0
a)
E
a), 3:
V)
m :te
F- CO U)
m
a.
o
o
5 -2
I- m
E
z
lu
vy
419
(6
03
to
Z3
Q)
(3
cnyyZ3
L.
��
Lo
CL
'A
U
41)
(n
CSD
C),
Z3
ZI to
Z3
C/)
COO
-:Z3,
z
ai 0
2 0-
2
CL
CL
a)
E E
0'4-
0 0 0
E
to LU
U)
>1
m
5
I
0
2-0
0-2
> o
a)
2e
0 0"
0
Lon
m C.7 DC7
I'p
,
C'i
i
TABLE 1
METHODS FOR WETLAND DETERMINATION
HOFFMAN PROPERTY
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Page 1 of 1
Parameter Definition Field Indicators Field Assessment
Wetland vegetation is adapted to
l d
More than 50/0 of the dominant
1. Dominance: The dominant plants and
saturated soil conditions. The U -S. Fish
plants totaled from all vegetation
their wetland indicator status are evaluated
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) assigned
strata are hyrdrophytic, i.e. those
quantitatively within data plots and visually
a wetland indicator to each plant
species with indicators of OBL,
throughout the study area. If the test for
species that denotes its frequency of
FACW, or FAC (regardless of
dominance fails, and indicators of wetland
occurrence within wetlands.
modifier), or;
soils and hydrology are present, the
These are:
a plant community has a visually
Prevalence Index is calculated.
• Obligate (OBL) wetland plants
estimated cover percentage of
-.__-.-.-l- ---- —._.____.-.-_-_-- __._. -.t._-.-_.--.-_-.___.__
occur almost always in wetlands
y
Ol3L and FACW species that
P
_ ___.
2. Prevalence Index: A weighted average
under natural conditions (more
exceeds the coverage of FACU
of the percent cover of each indicator status
than 99 percent of the time).
and UPL species. If dominance
is calculated (see data sheets in appendix).
Facultative wetland (FACW) plants
is not met, the Prevalence Index
An index of 3 or less is considered meeting
usually occur in wetlands (67 to 99
is calculated, or consideration is
the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. If the
percent of the time) but are
given to morphological
Prevalence Index is not met, the
Wetland
occasionally found in nonwetlands.
adaptations andlor non-vascular
consideration is given to morphological
Vegetation
(a) • Facultative (FAC) plants are
plants observed,
adaptations and/or non-vascular plants.
Notes:
(a) Categories were originally developed and defined by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory and were modified by the National Plant
List Panel. (b) Per USACE 1987, 2008; NRCS 2006. (c) Per USACE 1987, 2008.
(d) Modifiers:
+ Frequency toward the higher end of the category (more frequently found in wetlands).
Frequency toward the lower end of the category.
" Tentative assignment based on limited information from which to determine the indicator status.
51410915Edmdatalprojecls111781FileRmlRlHoffman_tbl.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
equally likely to occur in wet an s
or nonwetlands (34 to 66 percent
or
.-
--.- -- ----------------- -------
3. Morphological Adaptations/Non-vascular
of the time).
Plants: Some plants develop recognizable
• Facultative upland (FACU) plants
morphological adaptations when occurring
usually occur in nonwetlands, but
in wetland areas. These features must be
are occasionally found in wetlands
o
observed on >50% of the individuals of a
(1 to 33 percent of the time).
FACU species living in an area where
• Obligate upland (UPL) plans
indicators of hydric soils and wetland
almost always occur in uplands
hydrology are present. Wetland non -
vascular plants can include bryophytes
(more than 99 percent of the time)
(mosses, liverworts, hormworts). The cover
(d)-
of wetland bryophytes must be >50% of the
total bryophyte cover in a plot in coastal
Washington forested wetlands_ ,-_.-_-.
---.-.-.--..
...... ......... ........ __.-.._............. _.._W.-..--.-.---.---------- _.-.. _. _ _._..-.................. -......
Soils are classified as hydric, or they
-- - - --_.-._..__m...._.......-...-......._._..------
Hydric soils have an identifiable
A shovel is used to dig holes at least 20
possess characteristics that are
color pattern, which occurs if the
inches below ground surface (BGS) at
associated with reducing soil
soil is saturated, flooded, or
multiple locations in the study area. Direct
conditions. A hydric soil is formed
ponded for a long period of time.
observation of the soil is made at multiple
under conditions of saturation, flooding,
Faint or washed-out colors
locations in both wetlands and uplands, as
or ponding long enough during the
typically form in the soil, and
applicable. Soil organic content is
growing season to develop anaerobic
mottles of bright color, such as
determined visually and texturally, and soil
Wetland
conditions in the upper part of the soil.
rust (known as redoxymorphic
color is determined using the Munsell soil
Soils (b)
features), form. Accumulations of
color chart (Greytag Macbeth 1994). Depth
organic matter at the surface, a
to water saturation and/or inundation is also
sulfur odor, and organic matter
observed (see Wetland Hydrology). The
stains may also be present.
characteristics observed are compared to
the hydric soil indicators for "all soils,"
"sandy soils," and "loamy clayey soils," as
described in the USACE Interim Regional
Supplement (USACE 2008).
..................... -......
-------.--..--------- ----- ------------ —..... ................... .......... -. _.
The area is inundated either
_ - ---- - — _-._. -.. - . _. _
Primary indicators include surface
--- ------ ....-.-.-.-_.-.--...- ....... ------ ....--...--..-.-
During investigation of soils, soil pits are
permanently or periodically at mean
inundation (standing water),
allowed to stand up to 20 minutes in order
water depths less than or equal to 6.6
saturated soils, watermarks, drift
to allow percolation of any groundwater into
ft, or
lines, sediment deposits, and
the pit to determine groundwater level in
The soil Is inundated or saturated to the
drainage patterns. Secondary
the soil profile. Additional digging may
Wetland
surface for at least 14 consecutive days
indicators of hydrology include
occur to 24" BGS during the dry season to
Hydrology
during the growing season (the time
water -stained leaves, oxidized
investigate groundwater levels. In
(c)
during which two or more non-
root channels, or local soil survey
addition, the extent of soil saturation and
evergreen vascular plant species
data for identified soils. In the
presence/absence of oxidation are
growing in a wetland or surrounding
absence of any primary
determined in the soils removed as part of
area exhibit biological activity, such as
indicators, at least two secondary
the soils investigation (see Wetland Soils),
new growth, or as determined by soil
indicators are required to meet
Other indicators of wetland hydrology are
temperature).
the wetland hydrology criterion.
observed at ground surface.
Notes:
(a) Categories were originally developed and defined by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory and were modified by the National Plant
List Panel. (b) Per USACE 1987, 2008; NRCS 2006. (c) Per USACE 1987, 2008.
(d) Modifiers:
+ Frequency toward the higher end of the category (more frequently found in wetlands).
Frequency toward the lower end of the category.
" Tentative assignment based on limited information from which to determine the indicator status.
51410915Edmdatalprojecls111781FileRmlRlHoffman_tbl.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES
1
w
cl
a
in
Z
F
LU
0
Z
a
Z
O
LL
0 0
JU LU Z
a a =
O
J Z d a
m a z
a Lu a Sn
P U. Z
Lu O
m❑
O LU
O
C7
z
O
F-.
F
1
CCD
O
Q]
N
OY -0 > U
'2
p ro
U1
U
NO
.�-
C 0 N
o 5
l6 N
o i
r
E
o N N
°3
a1
00
ID N N
7 ro « C
(9
co
0 0
o
O
-
L Q
01 a`�
L
Qt
S
)
LUO y 1!") d
~ ro
41
41 Q N
O_ } R
O
C
Q1
ID
�
m
R d
N
_V
M .3 U—
U
o ��
a
C
C
...
U L Op
_n
.�
�°
01 N C
CD
cj
N
,U C m R
N7 41
C
O
> m L 0
C
R G
C
'�
tm
y O p O C
i C •N
.m
07
U
"` U m
N
C w
c
O1 C N N
ro
CD CC N
N
E
Q N
ro c= > O
Q7
O 41 U C
G U N
E
_
n
p
CC
"+
N
O CO m
m
CO
C N d
.. N
C
R
E Y
ro N
> M N L
E
al U
N
> O N= 7
O
01 41
7( CL CM N N)0
o 0_
L
T
N
w m
O
N m
C U1 C L
N N O i
O
U C
U7
% c
a)
m U a N
(D 0 o
c a
B E
c v
�_
a >,
N
o
N
C
a m as m
a� E
ID
'U 41
?
f
Ll
11,
Topped trees from porch. Onsite wetland facing north from southwestern corner.
Onsite wetland and mitigation area from porch (1).
Onsite wetland and mitigation area from porch (2).
New leaf growth on topped trees.
Shell Creek and riparian area, facing upstream
from footbridge,
US I Hoffman Property Site Photographs Figure
LANDAU
[A AssociAT Edmonds, Washington I I A-1
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Hoffman City/County: Edmonds, F' 'lomish Sampling Date: 4123!09
Applicant/Owner: Hoffman State: WA Sampling Point: 1
Investigator(s): Sacha Maxwell SectionlTownship/Range: 23127N/3E
Landform: Slope (river) Local Relief (concave, convex, none): slope (none) Slope% 1%
Subregion(LRR): Northwest Forests and Coast (LRR A) Lat: 47°49'5.78"N Loni 122°22'20.93"W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: Not mapped
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (Explain in Remarks)
Are vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are circumstances "Normal"?
Are vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (Explain in remarks if needed) Yes X No
SUMMARY OF FINDINUS- AttaCrl site map wan sampling point locations, transects, ana Important rigures
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Yes X No
Remarks: The canopy cover for the area consists of black cottonwood trees, most of which were recently topped. For purposes of the delineation, we
assumed percent cover of pre-existing (pre -topping) conditions. Sampling point satisfies all three mandatory wetland criterion. The sampling
point is classified as a slope PEM wetland.
VFr:FTATIt)N - Lica criantifir nnmac of niants_
Landau Associates, Inc. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum
%Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
(Plot Size 3m )
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1 Populus balsamifera
60
Yes
FAC
2
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata:
4
60 Total
Percent of Dominant Species
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(Plot Size 3m )
1
Prevalence Index Worksheet:
2
3
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
4
OBL Species x 1
5
FACW Species _x2=
Total
FAC Species 70 x 3 = 210
Herb Stratum
FACU Species x4=
(Plot Size 1 m )
UPL Species -x5=
1 moss - (l=urhynchium spp)?
70
Yes
Column Totals: 70 (A) 210 (B)
2 Trifolium repens L.
15
No
FAC`
3 Hypochaeris radicata L.
5
No
FACU'
Prevalence Index= B/A 3.0
4 Agrostis spp
10
No
FAC
Hydrophytie Vegetation Indicators:
5
6
X Dominance Test is >50%
7
X Prevalence Index is <3.01
8
Morphological Adaptations'
9
(Provide supporting data in Remarks)
10
X Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
100 Total
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Woody Vine Stratum
(Plot Size na )
I
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
ydrophytic Vegetation Present?
2
Total
I
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Yes X No
Remarks: Cottonwoods rooted outside of wetland boundary (based on soils) and upslope (approx. 4 to 10 ft elevation diff).
Landau Associates, Inc. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Sar" `ing Point:
BOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
1
(Inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) %e Type
Loci Texture Remarks
4-12+ 2.55 Y 311 w 100
none _n rir
mri silty fine sand many med-fine roots
I Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRR's, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_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 MLRA1)
-other (Explain in Remarks)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Gleyed Matrix (F2)
-Sediment
Drift Deposits (133) -Oxidized
- Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_Loamy
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
s Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
-Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
+Sandy
.-Shallow Aquitard (D3)
disturbed or problematic.
Mucky Mineral (S1)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Inundation Visible on
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (Fe)
Aerial Imagery (67) �mmOther
Restrictive Layer (if present):
ry� Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
_ _Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Hydric Soil Present?
Type: na
�
Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth:
X Depth (inches)
Yes X No
Remarks: Sampling point satisfies hydric soils criterion
Uvr%onr nr_v
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
X_Surface Water (Al)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
-Water-Stained Leaves (139)
mm
X High Water Table (A2)
(except M LRA 1, 2, 4A and 4B)
(M LRA 1, 2, 4A and 413)
m XSaturation (A3)
Crust (B11)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
„Salt
Marks (131) �,.. �wyAquatic
Invertebrates (1313)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
-Water
Deposits (B2) -Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (C1)
Saturation Visible on Aerial
-Sediment
Drift Deposits (133) -Oxidized
Rhizospheres along
Imagery (C9)
r
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Living Roots (C3)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) -Presence
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
.-Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Surface Soil Cracks (136) r„
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (06)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
�T
Inundation Visible on
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Aerial Imagery (67) �mmOther
(Explain in Remarks)
ry� Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
_ _Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches)
_ _
Water Table Present? Yes X yNo
m. Depth (inches) 4 inches
Yes �X No
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches) surface
(Includes Capillary Fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Stream adjacent, similar elevation.
Remarks: Surface water (less than 11") present ift from TP. Sampling point satisfies hydrology criterion.
Landau Associates, Inc. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
ProiecVSite: Hoffman City/County: Edmon,4. : Snohomish Sampling Date: 4123/09
Applicant/Owner: Hoffman % State: WA Sampling Point: 2
Investigator(s): Sacha Maxwell Section/Township/Range: 23/271\1/3E
Landform: Slope (river) Local Relief (concave, convex, none): slope (none) Slope% 1-25%
{ Subreglon(LRR): Northwest Forests and Coast (LRR A) Lat: 47°49'5.78"N Lon! 122°22'20.93"W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NW I Classification: Not mapped
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (Explain in Remarks)
Are vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are circumstances "Normal"?
Are vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (Explain in.remarks if needed) Yes X No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attacn site map with sampling point locations, transects, ana important tigures
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the sampled area within a wetland?
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Yes No X
Remarks: The canopy cover for the area consists of black cottonwood trees, most of which were recently topped. For purposes of the delineation, we
assumed percent cover of pre-existing (pre -topping) conditions. Sampling point satisfies one of the three mandatory wetland criterion. The
sampling point is classified as upland.
VFr:FTATlnKI - llco cniontifin namoc of nlantc_
r
Landau Associates, Inc. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Absolute
dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum
°/ Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
(Plot Size 3m )
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
1 Populus balsamifera
75
Yes
FAC
2
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata:
4
75 Total
Percent of Dominant Species
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
That are OBL, FACW, or FAG:
(Plot Size 3m )
1
Prevalence Index Worksheet:
2
3
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
4
OBL Species x 1 =
5
FACW Species _x2=
Total
FAC Species 145 x3= 435
Herb Stratum
FACU Species 8 -.x4= 32
(Plot Size 1 m }
UPL Species X5=
1 moss - (Eurhynchium spp)?
2
No
Column Totals: 153 (A) 467 (B)
2 Agrosfis spp
70
Yes
FAC
3 Taraxacum officinals
8
No
FACU
Prevalence Index= B/A 3.1
4 Schedonorus phoenix
15
No
FAC -
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5 Nypochaeris radicata L. 8 No FACU'
6
X Dominance Test is >601/o
7
X Prevalence Index is <3.01
8
Morphological Adaptations'
9
(Provide supporting data in Remarks)
10
Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
103 Total
Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetation' (Explain)
Woody Vine Stratum
(Plot Size na }
1
Indicators of hydric soil and welland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
2
Total
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Yes X No
Remarks: Cottonwoods rooted outside of wetland boundary (based on soils) and upslope (approx. 4 to 10 ft elevation diff). Sampling point satisfies
hydrophytic vegetation criterion.
r
Landau Associates, Inc. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
SOIL
- -�npuny ruins c
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
-
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
High Water Table (A2)
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type I Lwl
Texture Remarks
1
0-7 10 YR 212 100
none
silty sand
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
7-12+ 10 YR 316 100
none
SAA
Drift Deposits (133)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. z Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRR's, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils9:
Iron Deposits (135)
Histosol (Al)
Sandy Redox (S5)
2 cm Muck (A10)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (06)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Stripped .Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRAt)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Field Observations:
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
g Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
and wetland hydrology must be
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches) (to 14)
present, unless disturbed or
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soil Present?
Type: na
Depth:
Yes No X
Remarks: Hole on slope (depths are
HYDROLOGY
point does not satisfy hydric soils criterion.
Wetiand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (Al)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
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 (1311)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (131)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation Visible on Aerial
Drift Deposits (133)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along
Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Living Roots (C3)
- Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Surface Sol] Cracks (136)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (06)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Aerial Imagery (137)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches)
Yes No X
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches) (to 14)
(Includes Capillary Fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Sampling point does not satisfy hydrology criterion. Soil moist, but not saturated, to 12+ inches BGS.
Landau Associates, Inc. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
,.I
WETLA'RATING FORM —WESTERN WASNGTON
Version 2 — Ur —ited July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducx _,. ty among users
Name of wetland (if known): "Onsite Wetland" Date of site visit: April 28. 2009
Rated by: SM Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training:
SEC: TWNSHP: RNGE: Is SITIR in Appendix D? No
Map of wetland unit: Figures_2 and 3 Estimated size Approx. 0.25 -acre
SUMMARY OF RATING
Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: IV X
Score for Water Quality Functions
Score for Hydrologic Functions
Score for Habitat Functions
TOTAL Score for Functions
Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I_ II Does not apply_A
Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above")
Summary of basic information about the wetland unit.
I Riverine I I
X
Flats I I
Freshwater Tidal
Check if unit has multiple
HGM classes present
4
4
12.
20
O
Dnec the wetland heinp rated meet anv of the criteria below? If you answer YES to anv of the questions below You will
need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regardin the s eclat characteristics touncl in ttne weuana.
SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed
X, but stream
Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)?
contains, flows
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
through wetland
appropriate state or federal database.
SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or
PHS not obtained
Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented"
PHS not obtained
means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State
listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p.
19 of data form).
SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for
the state?
SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For
No
example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the
Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special
significance.
Page 1 of 5
S 1 Does the wetland have the notential to improve water quality?
S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit:
• Slope is 1% or less (a]% slope has a ]ft. vertical drop in elevation for every 100ft horizontal distance) ......... points = 3
...... ........... ..... ....... ................. ......
• Slope is 1% - 2% ..................................... ... ......... ...... ......... ..............points = 2
2
• Slope is 2% - 5%..................................................................................................................points = 1
= 0
• Slope is greater than 5%....................................................................................................... points
S1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay, organic (Use MRCS definitions).
0
YES = 3 points NO = 0 points
S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points
Figure ,
appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in. the wetland. Dense vegetation means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants
are higher than 6 inches.
• Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area...........................................points = 6
0
•Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 112 of area................................................................points = 3
• Dense, woody, vegetation > 112 of area................................................................................points = 2
• Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 114 of area................................................................points = 1
• Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation.........................................................points = 0
Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 12
_
(see p. 67)
S 2
Does the wetland have the opUortunity to improve water quality?
Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into
the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient
from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit
may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity.
Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft
Multiplier
Untreated stormwatei discharges to wetland
_
Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland
X Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft. upslope of wetland
Other
YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1
♦
TOTAL — Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 bl S2; then add score to table on p. 14
Does the wetland have the pontial to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S73S 3 te
S3.1 Characteristics of vegetation 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 > 1/8in), or dense enough to remain erect during surface flows).
0
• Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland ...............................points = 6
• Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 112 area of wetland.............................................................points = 3
• .Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 114 area.............................................................................points = 1
. More than 114 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled, or vegetation is not rigid ............................. points = 0
S3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows.
The slope has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area.
2
YES = 2 points NO = 0 points
Add the Dints in the boxes above
2
S 4
Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 70)
Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect
downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note
which of the following conditions apply.
X Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Multiplier
Other
(Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on
the downstream side of a dam) 2
YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1
TOTAL — Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S3 by S4; then add score to table on p. I 4
Comments:
Page 2 of 5
�, � G%: ✓.?' "� r /s: A rfT �� J�Si :d�� �� �„ �Ly ,"f _>.,;.
A
t;g
Page 3 of 5
H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species?
H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72):
Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) —,Size threshold for each class is
Figure
1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres.
Aquatic Red
X Emergent plants
Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)
0
Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover)
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.
Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes
4 structures or more .......points = 4 3 structures ...................points = 2
2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure..................... points = 0
H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73):
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to
cover more than 10% of the wetland or 114 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3
X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present ..... points = 2.
Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present .................. points = 1
Saturated only 1 type present .................... points = 0
X 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 Map of hydroperiods
Figure
1
H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75):
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 fe (different patches of the same
species can be combined to meet the size threshold)
You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple
loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species .......................points = 2
5 — 19 species .................... points = 1
List species below if you want to: < 5 species .........................points = 0
0
H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76):
Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin
vegetation (described in 111.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is
high, medium, low, or none.
r A
J ; A
Note: If you have 4 or more classes
or 3 vegetation classes and
open water, the rating is
Figure
=;
None— 0 points. Low= ] �p3yJ
qnt oderaYe.= 2 paint
always "high".
1
Use map of Cowardin classes.
[riparian braided charnels]
H.i .. _. 3 points
H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77):
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points
you put into the next column.
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long)
Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland
_ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least
3.3 ft. (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m)
_ 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
1
not yet turned grey/brown)
At least 114 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that
are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians)
X Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants
NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error.
H 1 TOTAL Score — potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above
3
Page 3 of 5
H 2
Does the wetland have the oppi )n1tj to provide habitat for many species? ,
H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80):
Figure
Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring
criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed".
100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
1
> 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer
(relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) ............. points = 5
100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
> 50% circumference.........................................:.......................................................... points = 4
50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
> 95% circumference.................................................................................................... points = 4
100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
> 25% circumference.................................................................................................... points = 3
50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water
for > 50% circumference............................................................................................... points = 3
If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above:
No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland >
95% circumference. Light to moderate grazingor lawns are OK .................................. points = 2
_ No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference.
Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK................................................................... points = 2
Heavygrazing in buffer.................................................................................................points = 1
Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference
(e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0
X Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above............................................................... points = 1
Arial photo showing buffers
H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 8I )
H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian
or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native
undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at
least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads,
are considered breaks in the corridor).
YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2
H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian.
1
or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to
estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -
fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above?
YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO=go toH2.2.3
H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland:
• Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR
• Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point
• Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres? NO = 0 points
Comments:
Page 4 of 5
Comments:
Page 5 of 5
H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other ' ")rity habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82): ~ `'
Which of the following prio,rty habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetlail,;- NOTE: the connections do
not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if
there are any questions.
X Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres)
Cliffs: Greater than 7.6m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft.
Old-growth 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 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 8 1c
(32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age.
Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53cm (21 in) 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.
_ Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where greases
and/or (orbs form the natural climax plant community.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 — 2.0m (0.5 — 6.5 ft),
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May
be associated with cliffs.
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages.
Oregon white Oak: Woodlands stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy
4
coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%.
X Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and
uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting
other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an
isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban
development.
T Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi -enclosed
by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean
water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be
periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy
coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward
to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5 ppt. during the period of average annual low flow.
Includes both estuaries and lagoons.
X Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and
may also iuclude the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs,
suags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are importaut to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and
that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., saud/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion
control).
If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats . = 4 points If wetland has i priority habit ... = 1 point
If wetland has 2 priority habitats .............. = 3 points No habitats ............................... = 0 points
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list.
(Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4).
H 2.4 Wetland Landscape: Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84)
• There are at least 3 other wetlands within 112 mile, and the connections between them are
relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating,
but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development ......... points = 5
• The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe
wetlands within 1/2 mile.....................................................................................................points = 5
• There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are
3
disturbed............................................................................................................................. points = 3
• The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands
within1/2 mile ..................... :...... .... .... .----- ......................................................................... points = 3
• There is at least 1 wetland within 112 mile........................................................................... points = 2
• There are no wetlands within 112 mile................................................................................. points = 0
H 2 TOTAL Score — opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4
F 3
TOTAL for H 1 from page 8
9
♦
Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result =p.1'
12 _ J
Comments:
Page 5 of 5