Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
BLD2021-0412 CANOD
Applicant: PETR STEPANCHENKO Property Owner: P & T & STEPANCHE STEPANCHENKO Critical Area File #: CRA2021-0029 Permit Number: BLD2021-0412 Site Location: 17707 76TH AVE W Parcel Number: 00513600002000 Project Description: FENCE Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. There will be no alteration of a critical area. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.020, and/or 23.80.040. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. X Critical Area Report The project is within a critical area and/or critical area buffer and a report has been evaluated for Required. compliance with applicable criteria. X Favorable Critical Area The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is Decision exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. Conditions. Critical area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). X Notice on Title. Critical area notice on title recorded under AFN 202107020394. Reviewer Date July 16, 2021 Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity boased on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES May 20, 2021 Mr. Peter Stepanchenko e-mail: peter—step@comcast.net RE: Critical Areas Assessment Parcel 00513600002000, City of Edmonds Dear Mr. Stepanchenko, This document details the culmination of evaluation and assessment activities undertaken to complete a characterization of specifically defined "critical areas" (wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas) as an element of the assessment of potential adverse impacts associated with a recently constructed residential fences along portions of the northern and southern property boundaries immediately adjacent to a recent single-family homesite remodel activities. The project site (Parcel 00513600002000) was located at 17707 — 76th Avenue West within the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington (Figure 1). The evaluation, delineation, and characterization of specific critical areas is a vital element in the planning and evaluation of existing or proposed development actions. The goal of this approach is to ensure that selected actions do not result in adverse environmental impacts to these identified critical areas. The assessment and delineation of specific critical areas within and immediately adjacent to the project site followed the methods and procedures defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010); the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2008); the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-16-030); and the City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas — Chapters 23.40, 23.50, and 23.90. This document was designed to accommodate site planning and potential regulatory actions and is suitable for submittal to federal, state, and local authorities for potential wetland, drainage corridor, and critical habitats verification and permitting actions. This assessment did not include an assessment of potential steep slopes, septic suitability, flood zones, adverse erosion zones, or geotechnically hazardous critical areas. wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife — mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 253-845-5119 contact@habitattechnologies.net PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The project site was rectangular in shape, approximately 0.72-acres in total size, and located in a well urbanized area consisting of single-family homes on similarly sized and larger parcels. The project site was accessed from a public roadway — 76th Avenue West — that generally formed the western boundary of the project site. The project site was bound to the south, east, and north by existing single-family homesites. A recently re -modeled single-family homesite dominated the western and central portions of the project site. This existing homesite area exhibited a slight slope from east to west and included a driveway, a garage and shed, and existing landscaping. The eastern portion of the project site sloped moderately from the east to the west and was dominated by once well managed landscaping composed of a mixture of native and ornamental species. An excavated ditch was present between the toe of the eastern portion of the project site and the well managed homesite. This drainage ditch originated offsite to the south and generally conveyed seasonal surface water runoff offsite to the north. Directions to Project Site: From SR99 exit westerly onto 196th Street SW and continue westerly to 76th Avenue West. Turn north onto 76th Avenue West and continue generally northerly to the project site located as 17707 — 76th Avenue West. BACKGROUND INFORMATION NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapping completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 2). This mapping resource did not identify any wetlands or drainage corridors within or immediately adjacent to the project site. This mapping resource did identify a drainage corridor — Perrinville Creek — within the Southwest County Park offsite to the west of the project site. STATE OF WASHINGTON PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES The State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 3). This mapping resource did not identify any priority habitats or priority species within or immediately adjacent to the project site. . STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 4). This mapping resource did not identify any drainage corridors within or immediately adjacent to the project site. This mapping resource did identify Perrinville Creek offsite to the west within Southwest County Park. This mapping resource noted the presence of salmonid fish (genus Oncorhynchus) within this offsite stream. 2 21059 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Water Type Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 5). This mapping resource did not identify any drainage corridors within or immediately adjacent to the project site. This mapping resource did identify Perrinville Creek offsite to the west within Southwest County Park. This mapping resource defined this offsite stream as a Type F Water (fish bearing). CITY OF EDMONDS MAPPING The City of Edmonds Inventory Mapping was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 6). This mapping resource identified two, small wetlands within the western portion of the project site and erosion hazard areas (15% to 40% slopes) within the eastern portion of the project site. SOIL MAPPING The Soil Mapping Inventory completed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service was reviewed as a part of this assessment (Figure 7). This mapping resource identified the soil throughout the eastern portion of the project site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (3) — 13% to 30% slope. The soil throughout the western portion of the project site was identified as Alderwood-Urban land complex (5) — 2% to 8% slope. The Alderwood soil series is defined as moderately well, as formed in glacial till, and as potentially exhibiting inclusion of "hydric" soils. ONSITE ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFICATION The assessment the specific critical areas included potential wetlands, surface water drainage corridors, and fish and wildlife habitats which may be located within or immediately adjacent to the project site. This assessment did not include an assessment of potential steep slope, septic suitability, flood zones, or geotechnically hazardous critical areas. • Wetlands Wetlands are defined by the City of Edmonds as those areas, designated in accordance with the approved federal delineation manual and applicable regional supplements as set forth in WAC 173-22-035, that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the wetland designation 3 21059 criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas (23.50.010). Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 and US Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: The assemblage of macrophytes that occurs in areas where inundation or soil saturation is either permanent or of sufficient frequency and duration to influence plant occurrence. Hydrophytic vegetation is present when the plant community is dominated by species that require or can tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during the growing season. 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper parts. Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from recent periods of saturation or inundation. These processes result in distinctive characteristics that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods. 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or surface soil saturation, at least seasonally. Wetland hydrology indicators are used in combination with indicators of hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation to define the area. Wetland hydrology indications provide evidence that the site has a continuing wetland hydrology regime. Where hydrology has not been altered vegetation and soils provide strong evidence that wetland hydrology is present. • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The City of Edmonds defines "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas" to include (23.90.010): Streams. Within the city of Edmonds streams shall include those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. Streams shall be classified in accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (WAC 222-16-030) hereby adopted in its entirety by reference and summarized as follows: a. Type S: streams inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW; b. Type F: streams which contain fish habitat; c. Type Np: perennial nonfish habitat streams; and d. Type Ns: seasonal nonfish habitat streams. 4 21059 As of 2004, Edmonds fishbearing streams are known to include Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds Creek. Nonanadromous fishbearing streams are also present in whole or in part within the City of Edmonds which do not support anadromous fish populations and do not have the potential for anadromous fish occurrence because of barriers to fish passage or lack of suitable habitat. 2. Areas with which State or Federally Designated Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Have a Primary Association, or Offer Important Fish and Wildlife Habitat within the Urban Environment. a. Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Fisheries that are in danger of extinction or threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be consulted for current listing status. b. State -designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, that are in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. State - designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are periodically recorded in WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232-12- 011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The State Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the most current listing and should be consulted for current listing status. 3. State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species. Priority habitats and species are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. Priority habitats and species are identified by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4. Habitats and Species of Local Importance. Habitats and species of local importance are those identified by the city of Edmonds, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, due to their population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. 5 21059 5. Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas. These areas include all public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest, including shellfish protection districts established pursuant to Chapter 90.72 RCW. 6. Kelp and eelgrass beds and herring and smelt spawning areas. 7. Naturally Occurring Ponds Under 20 Acres. Naturally occurring ponds are those ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities, unless such artificial ponds were intentionally created for mitigation. 8. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-031 (or WAC 222-16-030, depending on classification used). STUDY METHODS Habitat Technologies completed a series of onsite assessments in April and May 2021. The onsite assessment was completed following the guidance provided within the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2010); the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014), the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-16-030), and City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas — Chapters 23.40, 23.50, and 23.90. FIELD OBSERVATION Onsite assessment activities encompassed the entire project site. The project site had been dominated by a single-family homesite for several decades. Recently, the existing single-family homesite has been re -modeled along with the associated landscaping and outbuildings. These recent activities do not appear to have encroached eastward beyond the previously managed drainage ditch generally at the toe of slope of the eastern portion of the project site. Soils As documented at representative sample plots within the western portion of the project site the soil exhibited a mixed gravelly loam texture and coloration somewhat typical of the Alderwood soil series. The majority of this western portion had been modified by 6 21059 prior land use actions, appeared to drain moderately well, did not exhibit prominent redoximorphic features, and was identified as non-hydric in character. Soil characteristics within the eastern portion of the project site exhibited little modification by prior land use actions and the majority of the area appeared seasonally saturated at or near the surface during the first part of the growing season. A typical soil profile exhibited a surface soil coloration of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) to black (10YR 2/1). In addition, many areas exhibited a high organic content within the surface soil. The subsoil varied from dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) to black (10YR 2/1) and exhibited prominent redoximorphic features (i.e. depleted matrix and redox concentrations). Oxidized root channels were also noted within this area. The soil ranged from silt loam, muck, to gravelly loam in texture. The soil within the majority of the eastern portion of the project site exhibited field indicators typical of hydric soil. A shallow topographic ridge was identified in the southeastern area of the eastern portion of the project site. This soil within this area exhibited a gravelly loam texture and coloration somewhat typical of the Alderwood soil series. This soil appeared to drain moderately well, did not exhibit prominent redoximorphic features, and was identified as non-hydric in character. HVdrologV Onsite hydrology appeared to be the result of seasonal stormwater runoff from onsite, seasonal stormwater runoff from adjacent properties, hillside seeps, and soils characteristics. The central and western portions of the project site were identified to drain moderately well to well, and did not exhibit field indicators typically associated with wetland hydrology. The eastern portion of the project site exhibited areas of shallow hillside seeps near the eastern project site boundary that created small drainages to the west and eventually entered an excavated drainage ditch at the toe of slope for the eastern portion of the project site. This drainage ditch originated offsite to the south/southeast and passed through the project site offsite to the north. As viewed from the project site boundaries this drainage ditch appeared managed and to extend offsite to the south and north. These offsite areas also appeared to include ornamental small ponds or small seasonally flooded pockets. Surface flow patterns appeared seasonal. Vegetation The project site exhibited two (2) primary plant communities. The first plant community was identified throughout the central and western portions of the project site and was dominated by a mixture of retained native trees, ornamental trees and shrubs, and managed lawn. This plant community was identified as non-hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands). 7 21059 The second primary plant community dominated the eastern portion of the project site more typically associated with saturated soil conditions. Observed species included red alder (Alnus rubra), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), crabapple (Pyrus fusca), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), hawthorne (Crataegus monogyna), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), vine maple (Acer circinatum), rose (Rosa spp.), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), buttercup (Ranunculus repens), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) slough sedge (Carex obnupta), reed mannagrass (Glyceria grandis), bluegrass (Poa spp.), and horsetail (Equisetum spp.). This plant community was identified as non-hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands). The topographic ridge within the southeastern area of the eastern portion of the project site was dominated by species more typically associated with upland conditions. Observed species included Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), holly (Ilex aquifolium), rose (Rosa spp.), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), vine maple (Acer circinatum), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), English ivy (Hedera helix), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), bluegrass (Poa spp.), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium), daisy (Bellis perennis), geranium (Geranium spp.), and buttercup (Ranunculus repens). This plant community also included a variety of ornamental species planting as a part of prior management actions, was identified as non-hydrophytic in character (i.e. typical of uplands) and appeared to continue offsite the east into adjacent homesite areas. Wildlife Wildlife species observed directly and indirectly during the onsite assessment, those species observed during prior assessments within the general project area, and those species that would reasonably use the habitats provided within and adjacent to the project site included red tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), common raven (Corvus corax), American crow (Corvus brachynchos), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), rufous -sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), dark eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), dark brown creeper (Certhia familiaris), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), Western screech owl (Otus kennicotti), black capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), chestnut backed chickadee (Parus rufescens), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodic), golden crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), red breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), green heron (Butorides virescens), black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasi), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum (Didelphis 8 21059 virginianus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), shrew (Sorex spp.), mole (Scapanus spp.), bats (Myotis spp.), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), Townsend chipmunk (Eutamias townsendi), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), Northern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). The onsite drainage ditch was not identified, and has not been documented, to provide habitats for fish species. Wildlife Movement Corridors: The project site was within an area of urban residential development. In addition, Southwest County Park was located to the west — west of 76t" Avenue West. As identified by onsite wildlife trails, small, medium, and large mammals appeared to be moving throughout the eastern portion of the project site. The project site is also within the general area of the migratory movement of passerine birds, raptors, and waterfowl. • State Priority Species Several species identified by the State of Washington as "Priority Species" were observed onsite or potentially may utilize the project site. Priority species require protective measures for their survival due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Game Species: "Game species" are regulated by the State of Washington through recreational hunting bag limits, harvest seasons, and harvest area restrictions. Observed or documented "game species" within and adjacent to the project site included black -tailed deer. State Candidate: State Candidate species are presently under review by the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. A single "State Candidate" species — pileated woodpecker - was identified to use the habitats provided within the project site. State Sensitive: State Sensitive species are native to Washington and is vulnerable to declining and is likely to become endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range without cooperative management or removal of threats. The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide direct critical habitats for State Sensitive. State Threatened: State Threatened species means any wildlife species native to the state of Washington that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide direct critical habitats for State Threatened species. 9 21059 State Endangered: State endangered species means any species native to the state of Washington that is seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state. The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide direct critical habitats for State Endangered species. • Federally Listed Species No federally listed endangered or threatened species were observed or have been documented to utilize the habitats provided by the project site. Bald eagle - a federally listed "species of concern" — has been documented to utilize the habitats generally associated with the shoreline of Puget Sound and the larger lakes within the general area of the project site. The project site was not observed and has not been documented to provide direct habitats for bald eagle, however, this species may occasionally overfly the project site. CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION Critical areas determination was based on the criteria outlined in the City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas — Chapters 23.40, 23.50, and 23.90. Based on these criteria, one area dominating the eastern portion of the project site was identified to meet the criteria for designation as "wetland." In addition, the excavated ditch along the toe of the slope within the eastern portion of the project site was identified as meeting the criteria for designation as a "fish and wildlife habitat conservation area" (Figure 8) Wetland A: Wetland A was identified as a "slope wetland" dominating the eastern portion of the project site. Wetland A was dominated by a mixed forest and a dense understory of shrubs. In addition, a number of ornamental species were also presently generally on hummocks within the wetland or along the wetland edge. Hydrology patterns within Wetland A appeared supported by a pattern of shallow hillslope seeps near the eastern boundary of the project site. This hydrology created small defined surface patterns that lead into the excavated ditch along the toe of slope. Wetland A was identified as meeting the criteria for designation as palustrine, forested, seasonally saturated, ditched, (PFOEd) (Cowardin 1979) within the project site. As viewed from the project site boundary and by using aerial photos this wetland area also appeared to extend offsite to the south, north, and northeast. Wetland A was rated in the spring of 2021 pursuant to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014) and identified to exhibit a total functions score of 16 points (4 habitat points) (Appendix B). Wetland A was identified as a City of Edmonds Category III Wetland. The standard buffer adjacent to this wetland (based on Category and habitat points) is 60 feet as measured perpendicular from the defined wetland boundary (Figure 8). 10 21059 Surface Water Drainage — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area: As noted above an excavated drainage ditch was present along the toe of slope within the eastern portion of the project site. This drainage appeared to originated within the parcels to the south, to continue through the project site, and then offsite to the north with a defined channel about the width of a small excavator bucket. Hydrology within this drainage is supported by seasonal rainfall runoff and a series of hillside seeps and appeared best defined as seasonal. This drainage was not identified and has not been documented to provide direct habitats for fish species. This surface water drainage appeared best defined as a City of Edmonds Type Ns Stream. While created in character, this surface water drainage was identified to convey naturally occurring water. This standard buffer for a City of Edmonds Type Ns Stream is 40 feet in width as measured from the defined ordinary high water mark (Figure 8). In addition, this surface water drainage would likely be considered a "water of the state" and potentially a "water of the U.S." and subject to both state and federal regulatory requirements. No other City of Edmonds "fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" were identified onsite. For example: the project site did not provide critical habitats for federally or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species; was not identified or documented to provide priority habitats or priority species; was not identified or documented to provide habitats or species of local importance; did not provide shellfish, kelp, or eelgrass areas; and did not include areas of naturally occurring ponds. SELECTED SITE ACTION Recent City of Edmonds permitted site development actions have focused on the remodeling of the existing single-family homesite and associated outbuildings and landscaping. As a follow-up to these actions a solid wood fence was placed along the northern and southern boundaries of the project site from the northwestern and southwestern corners easterly to the end of the recent homesite remodeling. However, the placement of these new fences was not incorporated into the remodeling permit. While both the northern and southern fence lines encroach into the standard buffers associated with the identified onsite Category III Wetland and Type Ns Water this encroachment does not extend beyond the area identified within the homesite remodel permit. These fence lines also appear to have been placed to follow prior perimeter fencing between the project site and the existing homesites within the parcels to the north and south. POTENTIAL IMPACTS As defined by onsite assessment and a review of historical aerial photos the new fence lines along the northern and southern project site boundaries do not appear to have 11 21059 adversely impacted the prior character of the fence line areas. These areas appeared to have been managed for several decades as a part of the onsite single-family homesite utilization of the project site. In addition, the placement of the new fence lines do not appear to have resulted in a significant removal of native vegetation or a significant increase in erosion. The new fence lines also do not appear to be adversely impacting the movement of wildlife through the project site and into adjacent areas. STANDARD OF CARE This document has been completed by Habitat Technologies for use by Mr. Peter Stepanchenko. Prior to extensive site planning, this document should be reviewed and the wetland and drainage corridor boundaries, wetland and drainage corridor classifications, wetland and aquatic resource ratings, and proposed protective buffers should be reviewed and verified by applicable permitting agency(s). Habitat Technologies has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished. No other warranties are expressed or implied. Habitat Technologies is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. 5(it/ . A;& �BryW. Peck Senior Wetland Biologist -Ihowz 1). Dewlilg Thomas D. Deming, SPWS Habitat Technologies 12 21059 FIGURES 13 21059 . City of Edmonds Figure 1 Site Vicinity r M, �Y4P 7 77� ONO 07 i. �.. r � f I 17527 � n .7y ex - 7630 12 1752 17521MMI 75 1% � Legend I I 7 7412 I 17623 IffPQ 9 a F ` 7237 I 17629 Aft7233 17707 n 7420 rya �7715 7414 731 7418 17727 1 j29 7525 7517 7505 7435 7427 AND. 1W 7A 06• � I o■ i 75 72d 7502 7432 7 7 I Q 7423 ❑ Rot G � 1"I4 174 � �4, 17gZA 0 ja A 1:3,031 � Notes 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 4,514 376.2 This ma Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for P B P PP B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web _Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere © City of Edmonds current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION NaU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tional Wetlands Inventor May 27, 2021 Wetlands M Estuarine and Marine Deepwater F-] Estuarine and Marine Wetland Figure 2 NWI Mapping This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland F-I Other Freshwater Pond ❑ Riverine National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper 5/27/2021 PHS Report llISn'"„aa FISH, Priority Habitats and Species on the Web WILDLIFE Report Date: 05/27/2021, Parcel ID: 00513600002000 The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department. DISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to variation caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old. ICI Figure 4 WDFW Salmonscape Mapping } r- < 4 1., alh St S4V 396R 17dth St I TMt) S b m 176 to St sw 1761hPrSVv ° T �b h ()� 3 6- D T s i 77th S[ si Iw 93 thweat L Co MY Park f 1 713t h PI SW O t39iT} St SW ?I: r - � h G rr+ iBOth St84V 1BOTh 4- :••Ja r� 1B1st PI SW 182rd I 182nd St SVV V. b 0o May 27, 2021 1:9,028 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi All SalmonScape Species 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 km Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NIPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NIL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, USGS/NHD, Dale Gombert (WDFW), WDFW Forest Practices Water Type Map Map Symbols Additional Information Legal Description /'1—/ New Stream Start and End k� Point of Surveyed S18 T27.ON R04.OE, S07 T27.ON R04.OE /`/ Proposed Water Type Reach S08 T27.ON R04.OE, S17 T27.ON R04.OE 0 Natural Fish Barrier Stream Removal � Manmade Barrier E,i -N Break between ® End of Fish or '1water types Last Fish Extreme care was used during the compilation of this map to ensure 0 0.1 ;goo : , its accuracy. However, due to changes in data and the need to Ewa xx . ...EOE....ME .. Miles I URAL RESOURCES rely on outside information, the Department of Natural Resources cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions, and therefore, there are no warranties that accompany this material. Date: 5/27/2021 Time: 12:17:41 PM City of Edmonds Figure 6 City of Edmonds Mapping 2 - I I Legend I � — Creeks I Seismic Hazard Areas Earth Subsidence and Landslide I I [] ■ 7 � r— L! Minimum Buffer Adjacent to Hat W Wetlands I MEW 9E L Wetlands Boundary Wetland Boundaries Not Complete) I � I 17629 7�2 7 7 = Wetland Known Extents I I R Flood I ® A I ■ ® AE E I 17707 � ® X ;D Landslide Hazard Area 40% ❑ Severe Erosion Hazard 15%-40% I I -1%77T5 77 ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas 15%-40% I I I � 17727 1%& 741 W Q ■ 1 = 7525 75T • 1: 1,516 Notes 0 126.30 252.6 Feet 2,257 188.1 This maPIs a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is far reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web _Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 47o 50' 19" N 470 50' 17" N Soil Map —Snohomish County Area, Washington N (Figure 7 Soils Map) 0 3 m Map Scale: 1:476 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. N Meters 0 5 10 ZO 30 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 G}DA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/27/2021 Page 1 of 3 470 50' 19" N 470 50' 17' N MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) 0 Area of Interest (AOI) Soils 0 Soil Map Unit Polygons rwr Soil Map Unit Lines 0 Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Vo Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit .14 Gravelly Spot 0 Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp + Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot 4 Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip oa Sodic Spot Soil Map —Snohomish County Area, Washington (Figure 7 Soils Map) MAP INFORMATION Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Other line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of .- Special Line Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Transportation Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: rwr Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator L Major Roads projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Background . Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Snohomish County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 22, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 2, 2018—Sep 25, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/27/2021 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map —Snohomish County Area, Washington Figure 7 Soils Map Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3 5 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.4 64.3% 35.7% Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.2 Totals for Area of Interest 0.6 100.0% usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/27/2021 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 1 i + Mks . > � � � ' '-? 'r_• '� I �'.. L ~ � ty. 'ire F :S T '{ S j y 5L. •:� ' JAW 2 + _ 1� _ 1 ■ � h ..li r- r 1. II - 4L-Z�vy 041 ti 4_ t r.= *; Boundary m ; , Wetland + rV •' Ns Stream 40 Feet Stream Buffer 61 Feet Wetla nd Buffer Lt _ `' •� a L _' ,c •s a, wo,�— Tijt Ry'' �r ', , .Ex ,rtGPS Bas map m pbox;;0'pen5treetMap 0 i . 0 REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND LIST Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, Lewis M. et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetlands Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. http://wetland-plands. Usace.army.mil/ Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. March 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), Environmental Laboratory ERDC/EL TR-08-13. US Climate Data, 2015 http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/tacoma/washington /u n ited-states/uswa0441 /0441 /2014/1 USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Plants Database, 2015 (for hydrophytic plan classification): http://plants.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. 2016 http://vewsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/newfeatures.2.3.htm. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Mapper, 2016 (for NWI wetland mapping): http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. 14 21059 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication Number 96-94. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Maps 2016 http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife SalmonScape Mapping System, 2016 (for fish presence): http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html Washington State Department of Natural Resources FPARS Mapping System, 2016 (for stream typing): http://fortess.wa.gov/dnr/appl/fpars/viewer.htm 15 21059 APPENDIX A — Wetland Rating Worksheets 16 21059 'r 1 . + y. F Ile t fSi � , �_ �r •. Ir ' `MI•�i' � r ,J L I •, '�' . ExpertGPS MN Figure Al 1 50 ft + y. ti ti r -� ; F • ti 'r .� r{ �;. ~r kF' c4 r� r L 4 sir ; r _ r- �' h.S T PY7d h a 1 ' Wetland A ;. i, Ditch- N 150 Feet Boundary o. ExpertGPS MN Figure A2 1 50 ftft o= o� z May 27, 2021 Figure A5 L to- o•a'dale ,�? Cou Park Q a P v 162 ft 160th St SW 44 t y1> - J o i a A� Meadowdale Flavfelds 168 th w� ................. dch �, Ra 1?'•��I I I s Southwest Southwest CountyPark County Park 1 � a 41 1841h St S1,v O Hutt 3 Park v i , Q L nndale 7` c 0: c� 188th St SWL yPark 188th,S1 S'' OL 'L E t _T - 0 L Sierra Q Park 192DJ St SW 1 Assessed Water/Sediment Water Category 5 - 303d Category 4C Category 4B Category 4A Category 2 Category 1 Sediment ® Category 5 - 303d ® Category 4C Category 4B Category 4A rig Category 2 ® Category 1 WQ Improvement Projects 4W Approved In Development Subbasins (12 digit HUCs) C7:, HUC boundary Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCQ Miles USGS, 0 0.25 0.5 1 FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri `i DEPARTMENT OF Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and iWECO LOGY State of Washington Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Rated by HGM Class used for ratin Date of site visit: Trained by Ecology?_ Yes No Date of training 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 Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 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 1 Wetland name or number 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 anotherfigure) 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 anotherfigure) 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 anotherfigure) 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 Frinee 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 anotherfigure) 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour 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-goto3 YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour 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 anytime 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-goto5 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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number 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 sometime 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 Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number 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 > % of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > % of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 11 Wetland name or number 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/$ 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=O 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: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number 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 maybe combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y, cc 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 % 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 ftz. Different patches of the some 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. CD (::::0:)45 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row ♦.. are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number 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 % 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) S 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 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number 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. govlconservation/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. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 PHOTOS 17 21059 r' f -s a �Yx t. ' Y ; 'p, � �a� 1��r F,,, g .fit a ` •xf VI 5/15/2021 " 1 . sir a rS'x� +' t'N',. . ��' '' •.'jam' �" ••�+ i a-` > •� 5/15/2021 -o --; 7 �. YJ1 •y. , a 1 • t f AL