The URL can be used to link to this page

REVIEWED PLN RESUB 4-BLD2023-0660+Wetland Report+11.30.2023_10.40.16_AM+3926105WETLAND REPORT RESUB Nov 30 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BLD2023-0660 Reviewed by , City of Edmonds ; Planning Division '--------------- Butisbauch Property Edmonds, Washington August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. Report To: Jeff Butisbauch 1159 7th Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Title: Wetland Report for the Butisbauch Property Edmonds, Washington Project Number: 2023-068-001 Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture Prepared by: RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 2111 N. Northgate Way Ste. 219 Seattle, Washington, 98133 (206) 525-8122 Date: August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 2111 N. Northgate Way Ste. 219 Seattle, WA 98133 206-525-8122 raedeke.com Project Manager: Project Personnel: Submitted by: Signature Kolten T. Kosters Printed Name November 20, 2023, 2023 Date Kolten Kosters, MS, PWS Wetland Scientist Will Russack BS, WPIT Wetland Biologist Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture 2111 N. Northgate Way Ste. 219 Seattle, WA 98133 206-525-8122 raedeke.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LISTOF FIGURES.......................................................................................................... IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ l 1.1 Purpose..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Location.....................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS...................................................................................................................2 2.1 Definitions and Methodologies..............................................................................2 2.2 Background Research............................................................................................3 2.3 Field Sampling Procedures....................................................................................3 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................5 3.1 Results of Background Investigation.....................................................................5 3.2 Results of Field Investigations...............................................................................6 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................8 4.1 Federal Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) ..................................8 4.2 Washington State...................................................................................................8 4.3 City of Edmonds....................................................................................................9 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT..............................................................................................10 7.0 LITERATURE CITED...............................................................................................12 FIGURES...........................................................................................................................15 APPENDIX A: Field Survey Data................................................................................. A-1 APPENDIX A: WDOE 2014 Wetland Rating................................................................B-1 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional and Vicinity Map....................................................................................15 2. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Map ..........................................16 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory..............................................17 4. City of Edmonds GIS Map....................................................................................18 5. Snohomish County PDS Map................................................................................19 6. NWIFC SWIFD Map.............................................................................................20 7. WDFW PHS Map.................................................................................................21 8. Existing Conditions Map.......................................................................................22 9. Proposed Site Plan.................................................................................................23 uv 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE Raedeke Associates, Inc. was retained by Mr. Jeff Butisbauch to identify and delineate wetlands, streams or fish and wildlife habitat on or in the vicinity of his property at 1159 - 7th Avenue South in the City of Edmonds, Washington. During our site investigation, we collected information on vegetation, soils, and hydrology sufficient to characterize the existing site conditions. This report presents the findings of our background information review and our July 27, 2023, site investigation. During our site investigation we identified and delineated one wetland (Wetland 1) located along the east edge of the project site. The wetland extends off -site onto the City of Edmonds 7th and Elm Park property. This report presents a summary of our findings regarding existing site conditions found the project site. This report follows the critical area reporting criteria as outlined in Edmonds City Code (2023a). 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Butisbauch Edmonds project site is an approximately 0.21-acre parcel located at 1159 7th Avenue South in the City of Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The project site is identified as Snohomish County Tax Parcel No. 00619400900601. This places the project site in a portion of Section 25, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M. Parcel maps retrieved online from Snohomish County PDS maps depict the property boundaries. The project site is bordered to the north by a single-family home and to the south and west by existing roadways. The City of Edmonds 7th and Elm Park borders the east edge of the project site. The project site is accessible from a private driveway located from 7th Avenue South. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 2 2.0 METHODS 2.1 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGIES Wetlands and streams are protected by federal law as well as by state and local regulations. Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States", including certain wetlands, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE 2021). The COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of a wetland and whether the wetland is under their jurisdiction. The COE wetland definition was used to determine if any portions of the project area could be classified as wetland. A wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986:41251). We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1994), as updated for this area by the regional supplement to the COE wetland delineation manual for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (COE 2010). The COE wetlands manual is required by state law (WAC 173-22-035, as revised) for all local jurisdictions. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as "macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List wetland indicator status (WIS) ratings were used to make this determination (COE 2020). The WIS ratings "reflect the range of estimated probabilities (expressed as a frequency of occurrence) of a species occurring in wetland versus non - wetland across the entire distribution of the species" (Reed 1988:8). Plants are rated, from highest to lowest probability of occurrence in wetlands, as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), and upland (UPL), respectively. In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when the majority of the dominant species are rated OBL, FACW, and FAC. A hydric soil is defined as "a soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part" (Federal Register 1995: 35681). The morphological characteristics of the soils in the study area were examined to determine whether any could be classified as hydric. According to the 1987 methodology, wetland hydrology could be present if the soils were saturated (sufficient to produce anaerobic conditions) within the majority of the rooting zone (usually the upper 12 inches) for at least 5% of the growing season, which in this Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 area is usually at least 2 weeks (COE 1991 a). It should be noted, however, that areas having saturation to the surface between 5% and 12% of the growing season may or may not be wetland (COE 1991b). Depending on soil type and drainage characteristics, saturation to the surface would occur if water tables were shallower than about 12 inches below the soil surface during this time. Positive indicators of wetland hydrology include direct observation of inundation or soil saturation, as well as indirect evidence such as driftlines, watermarks, surface encrustations, and drainage patterns (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Hydrology was further investigated by noting drainage patterns and surface water connections between wetlands and streams within and adjacent to the project area. The ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of streams and shorelines will be determined using definitions provided by the Washington State Shorelines Management Act of 1971: "that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation." (RCW 90.58.030(2)(c and WAC173-22-030(5). The OHWM will be delineated using procedures outlined in the Washington Department of Ecology (2016) Shoreline Administrators Manual. 2.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH Prior to conducting our site visit, we reviewed existing background maps and information for the project site from the U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS 2023) Web Soil Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS 2023) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), the City of Edmonds (2023b) Online GIS mapper, and the Snohomish County (2023) PDS map. We also reviewed the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2023), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NIFC 2023) Statewide Integrated Fish Distribution map, Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) databases to determine whether listed or other priority fish and wildlife or their habitats were present within the project site or its vicinity. In addition, we examined current and historical aerial photographs (Google Earth 2023) to assist in the definition of existing plant communities, drainage patterns, and land use. 2.3 FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES We conducted a site visit on July 27, 2023, to search for wetlands, streams, or fish and wildlife habitat that may be present on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. In addition, we also collected sufficient information to describe the general landscape conditions of the site. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology were examined in representative portions of the study area according to the procedures described in the Regional Supplement (COE 2010). Plant communities were inventoried, classified, and described during our field investigations. We estimated the percent coverage of each species. Plant identifications Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 0 were made according to standard taxonomic procedures described in Hitchcock and Cronquist (2018) with nomenclature as updated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List (COE, 2020). Wetland classification follows the USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1992). We determined the presence of a hydrophytic vegetation community using the procedure described in the Regional Supplement (COE 2010), which requires the use of the dominance test, unless positive indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are also present, in which case the prevalence index or the use of other indicators of a hydrophytic vegetation community as described in the Regional Supplement (COE 2010) may also be required. We excavated pits to at least 18 inches below the soil surface, where possible, to describe the soil and hydrologic conditions throughout the study area. We sampled soil at locations that corresponded with vegetation sampling areas and potential wetland areas. Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell Color 2009). We used the indicators described in the Regional Supplement (COE 2010) to determine the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. During our site investigations, we identified and delineated the off -site boundary of Wetland 1 immediately east of the Butisbauch property using pink and black striped plastic flagging tape. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 RESULTS OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION The USDA NRCS (2023) Web Soil Survey (Figure 2) identifies Everett very gravelly sandy loam and urban land soils in vicinity of the project site. Everett soils series are not a listed hydric soil (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service 1991, Federal Register 1995); however, they may contain minor components of listed hydric soils including: Seattle, Norma, and Shalcar soils. Soil series boundaries or mapping units are mapped from aerial photographs with limited field verification. Thus, the location and extent of boundaries between mapping units may not be accurate for a given parcel of land within the survey area. The USFWS (2023) NWI (Figure 3) does not depict any wetlands on the project site. The NWI mapper does depict one stream channel located on the 71h and Elm Park parcel approximately 125 feet northeast of the project site. Wetlands and streams shown on the NWI are general in terms of location and extent, as they are determined primarily from aerial photograph interpretation. Thus, the number and extent of existing wetlands located within the project area may differ from those marked on the NWI map. The City of Edmonds (2023b) GIS Map does not depict any wetlands or streams on the Butisbauch property (Figure 4). The Edmonds GIS map does depict a stream located approximately 150 feet northeast of the project site. The stream is identified as Shellabarger Creek. In addition, the City of Edmonds also depicts a stream channel to the south. This stream is identified as Willow Creek and is in a developed area. The Snohomish County (2023) PDS map depicts a stream in the same general location as the City of Edmonds GIS Map; the PDS map identifies this stream as a non -fish habitat, seasonal stream (Figure 5). In addition, the PDS map also depicts wetland habitat associated with the stream channel corridor that was previously inventoried by Snohomish County. The PDS map also identifies a stream located approximately 300 feet off -site to the south, in the same approximate location as that shown on the City of Edmonds map. The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC 2023) SWIFD map depicts an off - site stream (Shellabarger Creek) approximately 120 feet north of the project site (Figure 6). Shellabarger Creek is identified as a fish -accessible stream based on its gradient. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2023b) Priority Habitat and Species database does not identify any priority species on the project site or within 300 feet (Figure (7). Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 2 3.2 RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 3.2.1 Property Description We visited the project site on July 27, 2023, to document the existing site conditions. Most of the parcel is developed and contains a single-family home, access driveway, patio, shed, and landscaped lawn. Vegetation in the landscaped lawn consists of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FAC) and red fescue (Festuca rubra, FAC) (Sample Plot 1). Soils on the project site are not hydric and consisted of up to 12 inches of very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) sandy loam soils (Sample Plot 1). We did not observe any primary indicators of wetland hydrology such as surficial ponding or a shallow water table or soil saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile. We also did not observe any secondary indicators of wetland hydrology (e.g., water -stained leaves, algal mats, drift deposits, etc.) on the project site. 3.2.2 Wetlands During our site investigations, we identified one wetland (Wetland 1) located immediately off -site to the east of the study area on the City of Edmonds 7th and Elm Park property. The wetland appears to originate from a shallow groundwater seep and slopes to the north toward Shellabarger Creek (Figure 8). Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is located immediately east of the Butisbauch Edmonds project site (Figure 8). The wetland originates from a groundwater seep that is likely a headwater source to Shellabarger Creek. Vegetation in Wetland 1 is hydrophytic and consists of red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), salmon raspberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), redosier dogwood (Cornus alba, FACW), vine maple (Acer circinatum, FAC), common ladyfern (Athyrium filix femina, FAC), and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC) (Sample Plot 2). Soils in the wetland consist of up 18 inches of black (IOYR 2/1) loam soils. During our site investigation, we noted a strong hydrogen sulfide odor starting at a depth of approximately 6 inches within the soil profile. Soils in the wetland met hydric soil indicator A4 (Hydrogen Sulfide) which is typically associated with areas subject to long term saturation, such as in seep wetlands (Sample Plot 2). During our site investigation, we noted that soil was saturated to the surface with a water table starting at a depth of 2 inches. Hydrologic conditions in the wetland were found to meet indicators A2 (High Water Table) and A3 (Saturation) at the time of our July 27, 2023, investigation (sample Plot 2). Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 7 Classification and Determination Positive indicators for each of the three wetland parameters were present within Wetland 1 at the time of our site investigation. Therefore, the delineated area meets the necessary criteria for designation as a wetland according to the guidelines of the COE wetland delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement (COE 2010). Wetland 1 contains palustrine, scrub -shrub (PSS) and palustrine, forested (PFO) vegetation classes according to the USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1992). Wetland Rating We rated Wetland 1 using the 2014 WDOE Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby and Yahnke 2023), as required by City of Edmonds (2023b) code for determination of wetland buffer widths and mitigation ratios (see the attached completed wetland rating form, Appendix B). We determined that Wetland 1 consists of a slope hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class. Based on our analysis, Wetland 1 meets Category III criteria because it scored a total of 17 points (5 points for habitat function) on the attached rating form. 3.2.3 Shellabarger Creek During our site visit, we did not observe the main or any tributary channels to Shellabarger Creek on the project site. Based on the City of Edmonds (2023) GIS mapper, Shellabarger Creek is located approximately 125 feet northeast of the northeast corner of the Butisbauch property (See Figure 4). The NWIFC (2023) SWIFD map identifies Shellabarger Creek as a gradient passable fish bearing stream. The WDFW (2023) Salmonscape database also documents that coho salmon may utilize Shellabarger Creek. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Wetlands are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and other state and local policies and ordinances including the City of Edmonds (2023b) code. Regulatory considerations pertinent to wetlands identified within the study area are discussed below; however, this discussion should not be considered comprehensive. Additional information may be obtained from agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for, or interest in, the site. A brief review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations and City of Redmond policy, relative to wetlands, is presented below. 4.1 FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT (U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) discourages the discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands and streams, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of "Waters of the U.S." as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251), and thus, if it is under their jurisdiction. We should caution that the placement of fill within wetlands or other "Waters of the U.S." without authorization from the COE is not advised, as the COE makes the final determination regarding whether any permits would be required for any proposed alteration (COE 2021). Because the COE makes the final determination regarding permitting under their jurisdiction, a jurisdictional determination from the COE is generally recommended prior to any construction activities, if any modification of wetlands is proposed. A jurisdictional determination would also provide evaluation and confirmation of the wetland delineations by the COE. 4.2 WASHINGTON STATE 4.2.1 Federal Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, an activity involving a discharge in waters of the U.S. and authorized by the COE must also receive certification that the federally permitted activity complies with the federal Clean Water Act, state water quality laws, and any other appropriate state laws (such as the Water Resources Act and Hydraulic Code). In Washington State, the certifying agency is usually the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). In addition, if the COE-authorized permit is for actions within the 15 coastal counties, including King County, then the WDOE must confirm that the proposed action complies with the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 4.2.2 Non -Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands The WDOE also regulates activities within isolated wetlands under the state Water Pollution Control Act (90.48 RCW) in instances where a wetland is determined to be non jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water Act by the COE. The standards of review for issuance of a permit by the WDOE for activities within non-COE- jurisdictional wetlands are the same as those for Section 401 certifications. 4.2.3 Washington State Prior to construction or other work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any state waters, approval by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), through provisions of the State Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20.100- 140), is required. The WDFW-administered Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) is intended to protect fish life from damage by construction and other activities in all marine and fresh waters of the state. A maximum of 45 calendar days is specified in the agency rules for a decision by WDFW to grant or deny approval of a complete application (WDFW 2022a). 4.3 CITY OF EDMONDS City of Edmonds (2023b) Code regulates wetlands and streams as critical areas. Alterations of wetlands or streams and their buffers are generally prohibited, except as allowed under certain conditions. All direct wetland impacts must be mitigated through creation, restoration, or enhancement. The City of Edmonds has the final authority to determine ratings, buffers, and allowed uses of wetlands, their buffers, and other sensitive areas that are under their jurisdiction. During our site investigation, we identified one wetland located on the City of Edmonds 71h and Elm Park property located immediately east of the project site. City of Edmonds (2023b) code provides a range of buffers for wetlands based on the designation of the category and habitat function provided by the wetland. We rated the off -site Wetland 1 using the WDOE 2014, updated 2023, rating system as required by City of Edmonds (2023b) code. We found that Wetland 1 met the criteria of a Category III wetland because it scored a total of 17 points (5 points for habitat function) on the attached rating form (see Appendix B). The City of Edmonds (2023b) code requires a 80-feet-wide standard buffer for Category III wetlands that provide between 3 and 5 points of habitat function. This buffer can be reduced to 60-feet-wide if the mitigation measures outlined in City of Edmonds (2023) code section 23.50.040.1.f are met. The City of Edmonds (2023b) code requires a 100-feet-wide buffer for Type F streams that provide habitat for anadromous fish. Shellabarger Creek is located off -site approximately 125 feet northeast of the project site and would require a 100-feet-wide buffer. This buffer would not extend onto the project site. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 10 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT During our July 27, 2023, site investigation we identified Wetland 1 located immediately off -site to the east of the project site (Figure 8). Based on our analysis of the wetland using the WDOE 2014, updated 2023, rating system we determined that it meets the criteria of a Category III with a total score of 17 points (5 points for habitat function) and would be provided a 80-feet-wide standard buffer under City of Edmonds code. In addition, we noted that Shellabarger Creek, a Type F stream is located approximately 125 feet northeast of the project site. The standard buffer for a Type F anadromous stream in Edmond is 100-feet-wide and would not extend onto the project site. The project is not proposing any direct impacts to critical areas or their buffers. The project proposes to remodel of a portion of the existing single-family home that would expand the footprint by approximately 90 square feet to the east in the existing yard area. The existing home is approximately 80 feet west of the off -site wetland. The project plans to meet the mitigation measures outlined in City of Edmonds (2023) code Section 23.50.040. l .f which include directing lights away from the wetland, not adding any additional noise generating activities in the direction of the wetland, routing any new untreated runoff and/or stormwater away from the wetland, not creating any changes in water regime, not creating any new pet activities that may impact the wetland, and not creating any new dust generating activities. As such, it is not anticipated that the small expansion of the house would result in impacts to the buffer of Wetland 1 (See Figure 9). The onsite buffer is currently a non- conforming existing landscaped yard with paver stone patio and lawn. The non- conformance has been regularly maintained from the time of the construction of the home and is not proposed to change as part of the project. 6.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Jeff Butisbuach or his consultants. No other organization, person, or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Jeff Butisbuach. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 11 We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and prepared substantially in accordance with then -current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 12 7.0 LITERATURE CITED Cowardin, L., F. Golet, V. Carter, and E. LaRoe. 1992. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service Publ. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp. Edmonds, City of. 2023a. City of Edmonds GIS Viewer. Available at https://maps. edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=Edmonds_SSL.HTML. Accessed July 2023. Edmonds, City of. 2023b. Title 23 Natural Resources. Current through May 23, 2023. Available at https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds23 /Edmonds23.htm1 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Volume 59, No 133, July 13, 1994. Revised September 15, 1995. Google Earth. 2023. Image for 47°47'59.83"N 122022118.85W" in Snohomish County, WA. © 2023 Google. Accessed July 2023 Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. 2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Second Edition. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 926 pp. Hruby, T. & Yahnke, A. (2023). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Version 2). Publication #23-06-009. Washington Department of Ecology. Munsell Color. 2009. Munsell soil color charts. Munsell Color, Grand Rapids, MI. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 2023. Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution (SWIFD). hLtps:Hgeo.nwifc.org/swifd/. Accessed June 2023. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9). 89 pp. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 13 Snohomish County. 2023. PDS Map Portal, Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. htt2s:Hsnohomishcogptpya.gov/3752/PDS-Map-Portal. Accessed July 2023. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: western mountains, valleys, and coast region (Version 2.0). Wakeley, J.S., R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. May 2010. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. Available at: hl�2s://cwbiqpp.sec.usace.qM.mil/nwPI static/data/DOC/lists_2020/Re ig ons/pdf /reg WMVC_2020v1.pd£ Last accessed June 2022. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2021. Special Public Notice. Final Seattle District 2017 Nationwide Permit Regional Conditions for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. March 3, 2021. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2022. Special Public Notice. Regional Conditions for Seattle District — 2022 Nationwide Permits Final 41. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. February 14, 2022. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 14 U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2023. On-line Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov. Accessed June 2023. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States: In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online Mapper. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html. Accessed July 2023. Washington Department of Ecology. 2016. Determining the ordinary high water mark for Shoreline Management Act compliance in Washington State. WDOE Pub. # 16-06-029. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023a. Hydraulic Project Approval. http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensingLhp . Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023b. Priority Habitat and Species database. https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/. Accessed June 2023. Butisbauch Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report August 16, 2023 Revised November 20, 2023 FIGURES Lim ParK Elm St Elm St Elm St V A/ S D Elm PI cn Elm PI 00 a A Ali 00 s D m v Not to Scale D FIGURE 1 - Regional and Vicinity Map VV 1159 7th Avenue South, Edmonds, WA RAI PROJECT: 2023-068-001 PREPARED: 8/9/23 Oaedeke BY: WR Associates, 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite Image source: https://maps.google.com 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 •� Vw s . 6 r 17 -- - 19 A. • , .78 =�% . s M, Map Unit Symbol Jr- 'row.— 1. s � � 1 Project Site .1v Y Map Unit Name Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Urban land Qw-, A 1 I L FIGURE 2 - NRCS Web Soil Survey 1159 7th Avenue South, Edmonds, WA RAI PROJECT: 2023-068-001 PREPARED: 8/9/23 ltaedeke BY: WR -iates, Inc. 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite Image source: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 Vol �. pl- .Aim 406 6 I / db • - - i► 00 Wetlands FIGURE 3 - National Wetland Inventory ® Estuarine and Marine Deepwater . Lake 1159 7th Avenue South, Edmonds, WA ❑ Estuarine and Marine Wetland Other RAI PROJECT: 2023-068-001 Freshwater Emergent Wetland ❑ Riverine PREPARED: 8/9/23 lNedeke ® Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland BY: WR -iates, Inc. Freshwater Pond 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite Image source: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html# 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 It �'2 • 11 I v 1 _ Project Site low �f Legend FIGURE 4 - City of Edmonds GIS VV Creeks 1159 7th Avenue South, Edmonds, WA Wetlands RAI PROJECT: 2023-068-001 Wetlands Boundary PREPARED: 8/9/23 ltaedeke Wetland Boundaries Not C BY: WR -iates, Inc. Wetland Known Extents 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite Image source: https://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=Edmonds—SSL. HTML 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 '� ♦ � "'"'"�" itTIN A IL Project _- ,)Wig I y a NA FIGURE 5 - Snohomish County PDS Map �n 1159 7th Avenue South, Edmonds, WA RAI PROJECT: 2023-068-001 PREPARED: 8/9/23 7— Fleaedeke BY: WR A—ciates, Inc. Image source: https://gismaps.snoco.org/Htm15Viewer/Index.htmI?vi 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite ewer=pdsmapportal&layertheme=Critical%20Areas 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 FIR ST o ili ELM ST f' w T Le" Salmon and Steelhead (April 2023) Coho — Documented Presence — Documented Spawning — Documented Rearing — Presumed Presence (All Types) Gradient Accessible, Presence Potential Presence (All Types) Document Historic Presence (All Types) M+ Transported Presence !.j H+ Transported Spawning Q H+ Transported Rearing M _� -- Artificial Presence I_ -- Artificial Spawning -- I -- Artificial Rearing !n W Q F co J _ J J w t� a J� ELM PL W % Not to Scale ` FIGURE 6 - Statewide Integrated Fish Distribution Map Vv 1159 7th Avenue South, Edmonds, WA RAI PROJECT: 2023-068-001 PREPARED: 8/9/23 BY: WR , , , Image source: https://geo.nwifc.org/swifd/ 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 I „I I'11.D1.IFF. Priority Habitats and Species on the Web I Pq J �L_4j4A 0, A. �r ► - _�,� Project Site � I , ,� -- jam,. .• :,,s 40 r 1r w ' Ar .�._ _ 1 _��► dr.: - 'd I W-10 AMU. _..� �• _ 3 Alft d Buffer radius: 300 Feet boo r� IP r AO W .A 11 FIGURE 7 - Priority Habitat and Species Map IN% Legend. 1159 7th Avenue South, Edmonds, WA - - - - - 300 ft Radius RAI PROJECT: 2023-068-001 ❑PREPARED: 8/9/23 F eftedeke - Mapped Species or BY: WR 7— ciates. Inc. Habitat SOURCE INFORMATION: Washington Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat & 2111 N. Northgate Way, Suite Species Online Mapping tool - htt ://a s.wdfw.wa. ov/ hsontheweb/ 219 Seattle, Washington 98133 Date: 8-14-23 Note: Wetland based on aerial interpretation and has not been surveyed. For planning purposes Figure 8 - Existing Conditions Butisbauch Edmonds RAI Project #2023-068-001 MINIMUM BUFFER BETWEE WETLANDAREA AND PROF CONSTRUCTION AREA (60') "NOTE: ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO E COMPOSTAMENDED PER M19 SWMMWW BMPT5.13. INSTALLAND MAINTAIN ALL TESC MEASURES ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS, OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAILS, AND ALL OTHER MEASURES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTI WETLAND AREA FROM PROPOSED CO \ CONSTRUCTION AREA) \ END OF BIOLOGIST / INDICATED WETLAND AREA Ip• 1 I I , I F I 11 I SE REAR SET BACK I 1 I PROPERTY LINE 1 11 SIDE YARD 21P BACK I , 2�D' I I" FILTER FENCE REF CITY STAN I DETAIL ER-91))900 I I AREATO BE CCQQVERED BY ST(UW OR MULCH AF ER BACKFILL SIMPLE I BY PLASTIC I I "STORM WATER FOR ADDITION MAY G I TO SPLASH BLOCKS I I I I I I I \ / � I I I I EXISTING HOUSE / BUILT 1971 / TRI-LEVEL 1,814 SO FT IF I I I I I I / I I I I I I �B� I I I SET BACK I SET BACK 220' I I I I TOP OF UTILITY VAULT RP-220 SECOND FILTER SOCK ADDED FILTER Sg;;;DED 4 HOUSES DOM(AERIALVIEW)., SLOPE TO CATCH BASINS DOWNSTREAM FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE (REF CITY STANDARD DETAIL ER-902) MANHOLE MH 12-204A 7TH AVE S EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE BUILT 1971 462 SO FT I P I I I I I I BI EXISTING 224 DRIVEWAY I SIDE SEWER FROM SEWER MAIN TO HOUSE I ,---F4,ROPERTY HOUSE SEWER LINE WATER LINE MINIMUM BUFFER BETWEEN CRITICAL WETLAND AREA AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AREA (60') MECHANICAL UNIT CONSTRUCTION SITE ACCESS WAY BROU RESIDENCE 1159 7TH AVE S EDMONDS, WA 98020 FIGURE 9 Proposed Site Plan APPENDIX A Field Survey Data WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1159 7'h Ave S, Edmonds City/County: Edmonds Sampling Date:7-27-23 Applicant/Owner: Butisbauch State: WA Sampling Point: SP 1 Investigator(s): Kolten Kosters Section, Township, Range: S25.T27N.R3E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 1-3 Subregion (LRR): Northwest forest Lat: 47.799906 Long:-122.371505 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Sample plot on project site, east of home. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3m) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2m) 1, Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2 = 5, FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) UPL species x 5 = 1. Poa pratensis (kentuckv bluegrass) 60 Y FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Schedonorus arundinaceus (tall fescue) 20 Y FAC 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation g ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 8 ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 80 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % -Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 S.L 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators. HYDROLOGY Wetland 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) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1159 7'h Ave S, Edmonds City/County: Edmonds Sampling Date:7-27-23 Applicant/Owner: Butisbauch State: WA Sampling Point: SP 2 Investigator(s): Kolten Kosters Section, Township, Range: S25.T27N.R3E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 1-3 Subregion (LRR): Northwest forest Lat: 47.799906 Long:-122.371505 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Sample plot immediately east of study area, in offsite wetland VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3m) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra (red alder) 20 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3• Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 20 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2m) 1. Acer circinatum (vine maple) 30 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry) 20 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Cornus alba (red osier dogwood) 10 N FACW OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x 2 = 5, FAC species x 3 = 60 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 m) UPL species x 5 = 1. Athvrium cvclosorum (lady fern) 30 Y FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Eguisetum arvense (field horsetail) 5 N FAC 3 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation g ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0' 8 ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 35 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % -Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 2/1 loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ® Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ® High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 413) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ® Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 2 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Rated by K.Kosters, E.Pritchard Date of site visit: 6/9/2016 Trained by Ecology?✓ Yes No Date of training March 2014 HGM Class used for rating Slope 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 Google Earth, WDOE OVERALL WETLAN D CATEGORY I I I (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 6 6 5 17 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 Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to 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 Slone Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 1 Hydroperiods H 1.2 1 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 1 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 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 2 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 3 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 4 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. JI Eyo��ei 3YES - The wetland class is Flats and can beclassified 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. D4es the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ✓ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ✓ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. 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 i e e 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 1 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 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 3 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 4 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? 0 Other sources Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 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 0 303(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 0 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 2 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 2 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> 1/8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. 0 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 1 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 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? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 2 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 may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if. - The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the 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 canarygross, 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. O O C:) '-woomp- 1 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: Chick 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 2 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 6 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 0 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 0 = 0 °% 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 6 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 1 = 7 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 0 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) -2 <_ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2 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 crit ria 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/12ublications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservationlphs/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). Vf 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 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? —The dominant water regime is tidal, —Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetlan SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or Cat. II contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of We Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat. SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 �NotaSC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Val their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either ks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or muc <s, at are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND leart a 0% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No -�_erion NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute t measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. 1 SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover unde ? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? —The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured m Cat. Yes - Go to SC 5.17�EtawetlandinacoastagoonSC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, fultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see pecies on p. 100). Cat. II —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for ratin SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 w Legend Hydrology r�+.+,:�•" 150ft Polygon Wetland 1 (PFO 3+ ata-ri..i � `.�� ■rats..- �� N. r r Ilk A4 74 f6� * -;.40t V t � i�� .. � ti. y - � kr ._ }I . �� ,� .•. _'ten .. �' lC.2 •� .^ a ,,t�3 r 4`r v_ ., Note: Wetland based on aerial interpretation and has not been surveyed. For planning purposes only. Alk Picto r ry, King County, o a+rces Esri, Airbu. USGS, NGA, NA*SA; CGIAR, N son, NCEAS, AWL Dense uncut herbaceous > 1/2 area �Geol nr, EEYIvl{ , nterm Dense uncut rigid plants cover >90% area !rl�Gear yin 5 fc -- �- aturated Only 'v" • Wetland 1 - Figure 1 Butisbauch Edmonds RAI Project #2023-068-001 Note: Wetland based on aerial interpretation and has not been surveyed. For planning purposes on Wetland 1- Figure 2 RAI Project #2023-068-001 Butisbauch Edmonds Legend L O Wetland 1 (approx) Southwest' County Park - 303d Waters HUC10 Basin Jae Q Hydrology F C. N 3 Q �2 °' v > > > M >> s 01 Lynnw Y "t C 5 00 00 00 524 a0 m ¢ 96th St SW 00 00 Edmonds underwater Cedar alle Park 204th St SW 00 Edmonds Yost k 208th St SW tA v ¢ 212 St SW Richn Bea Note: Wetland based on aerial interpretation and has not been surveyed. For planning purposes only. � 3 m Pine t v rn� v 3 Q > J a v Y Q 220th St SW t m 220th St SW s 00 v W v w > > ¢ v Pa ¢ ¢> Y Reserve �n o Esperance 3: 3: Mountlake v > ¢ > T rrace L L 236th St oo ----——— — — — — —— '- w 104 514 ft z Echo Lake w > w o z z z N L > > ul > ¢ ¢ > a c 99 m O ^ < ai w 2 Q m U z On PP v L Shoreline NE 175th St Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Irnq,EMETI(,NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management4iEPA NIPS, USDAW o A r Wetland 1 - Figure 3 Butisbauch Edmonds RAI Project #2023-068-001 ti Possession Mukil Lynnwood Legend WRIA 8 (Sammamish) O Wetland 1 (approx) Tntercit; Layer TMDL Projects Approved In Development v Q Mill Creek Z v ryQ s' a i Both St SE o m too Edmonds >, ti O Esperan a Mountlake 0- Terrace r -t Madison Indian Shore ine nmore Bothell tervarion Lake ForestK� lianola r Park 531fC' Kingsc Nor P rk w �E z v Gr: wood Q m Phinney Ridge Kirkland University Fremont District ridge ind 0 1 2 4 Miles Note: Wetland based on aerial interpretation and has not been surveyed. For planning purposes only. Queen Anne Capitol Hill NE 8th St Bellevue Sam Seattle Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA Wetland 1- Figure 4 RAI Project #2023-068-001 Butisbauch Edmonds