Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan.pdfPrepared for:
71102 101h Street SW
September 2010
Prepared by:
Perteet
2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900
Everett, WA 98201
DISCLAIMER
Perteet Inc. has prepared this report for use by the City of Edmonds Public Works Department.
The results and conclusions of this report represent the professional opinion of Perteet Inc. They
are based in part upon: (1) site reconnaissance and (2) examination of public domain information
concerning the project site.
Work performed conforms to accepted standards in the field of jurisdictional wetland
determination and delineation using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual • Western Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010), and the Washington State
Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). Mitigation concepts are based
on the regulations contained in the Edmonds City Code (Code Publishing Company 2010) and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Environmental Protection Agency Compensatory Mitigation
for Losses of Aquatic Resources (Federal Register 2008).
Final determination of jurisdictional wetland boundaries pertinent to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act is the responsibility of the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Various agencies of the State of Washington and local jurisdictions may require review of final
site development plans that could potentially affect zoning, buffer requirements, water quality,
and/or habitat functions of lands in question. Thus, the findings and conclusions contained in
this report should be reviewed by appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site
planning and/or construction activities.
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1
PROJECTLOCATION..................................................................................................................................1
PROJECTDESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................1
APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.................................................................................................... 3
METHODS...................................................................................................................................................... 3
REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION.......................................................................................................4
FIELD INVESTIGATION...............................................................................................................................4
RESULTS........................................................................................................................................................ 5
SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND DELINEATED WETLAND..............................................................................5
WETLANDA.............................................................................................................................................. 5
MITIGATION.................................................................................................................................................. 8
MITIGATION SEQUENCING...........................................................................................................................8
AVOIDANCEAND MINIMIZATION.............................................................................................................8
COMPENSATION....................................................................................................................................... 8
MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.........................................................................................................9
GOAL 1: DELINEATE AND DESIGNATE WETLAND AREA...........................................................................9
GOAL 2: PLANT COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT.....................................................................................10
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................13
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP OF THE SHELL VALLEY EMERGENCY ACCESS PROJECT AREA ................................................... 2
FIGURE 2: WETLAND A AND PROPOSED SHELL VALLEY EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD ...................................................... 7
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: RATIO OF PROJECT IMPACTSTO PROPOSED MITIGATION............................................................................9
TABLE 2: PLANT LIST FOR THE SHELL VALLEY EMERGENCY ACCESS MITIGATION AREA................................................12
Appendix A Mitigation Planting Plan
Appendix B Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
Appendix C Wetland Rating Forms
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page ii
TaffillreTI-Itik0
The City of Edmonds Department of Public Works (Edmonds) proposes to construct the Shell
Valley Emergency Access. Perteet Inc. has been retained by Edmonds as a consultant to design
and facilitate project permitting, including the preparation of this Critical Areas Report and
Wetland Mitigation Plan (report).
In accordance with section 23.50.010 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC), this report identifies and
describes wetland(s) found in the project area. Wetlands are those areas designated in
accordance with the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology
1997), and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual:
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010).
Information in this report is intended to facilitate project planning and ultimately to support
necessary local, state, and federal permit applications.
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is a single 1.3 acre municipal property (Snohomish Parcel ID 00373600500104)
located in the SW 1/4 of S 19 T27E R04N W.M. in the Shell Valley neighborhood of Edmonds,
Washington (Figure 1).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Improvement plans by the City of Edmonds call for constructing an emergency access roadway
across the eastern margin of the site. This new roadway segment will extend from Main Street
southward approximately 200 feet to join an existing roadway near Hidden Cove. The new
roadway section will consist of a 15 -foot -wide asphalt pavement with gravel shoulders on each
side. Due to the presence of a steep slope on one side and a wetland on the other, cut and fill
walls ranging up to about 3 feet tall are expected along parts of the alignment. Due to the site
constraints, the proposed alignment represents the only viable alternative to provide emergency
access to the Shell Valley neighborhood.
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 1
Figure I
Vicinity Map of the Shell Valley Emergency Access Project Area
Perti
eet
2
71
City of Edmonds - Public Works Department
Shell Valley Vicinity Map
September, 2010
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City ofEdmonds Page
19
2
527
Lake
2
71
City of Edmonds - Public Works Department
Shell Valley Vicinity Map
September, 2010
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City ofEdmonds Page
APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The Shell Valley Emergency Access project is subject to local, state, and federal regulations
pertaining to wetlands and aquatic enviromnents as well as mitigation of necessary impacts to
such areas. Federal regulations for wetlands and streams include Sections 404 and 401 of the
Clean Water Act (U.S. Code, Title 33, Section 1344 [33 USC 1344]). The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) regulates rivers, wetlands, streams, and ditches that are considered to be
waters of the United States. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
administers Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
In 2008, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new rules and
regulations regarding mitigation for losses of aquatic resources. The final rule (Federal Register/
Vol. 73/ No. 70, 2008) outlines how to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts
to federally regulated wetlands, streams, and other aquatic areas. Projects that require a Corps
permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and that will result in impacts to
aquatic resources, must incorporate these regulations into mitigation and monitoring plans.
The City of Edmonds regulates activities in wetlands via Chapter 23.50 of the Edmonds City
Code (ECC). Wetland designations and ratings, information regarding wetland and buffer
modifications, wetland study/report requirements, and mitigation requirements are outlined in
sections 23.40 and 23.50.
This report is based on review of existing literature and scientific data, queries of natural
resource -related GIS coverage (e.g., wetlands inventories and soil data), and field investigations
conducted on October 26, 2007 and again on September 16, 2010. This report summarizes the
results of this information to identify and describe wetlands and streams in the project area.
During our field investigations, we used the general methodology for routine wetland
delineations as described in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation
Manual (Ecology 1997), which is based on the U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010). This methodology
utilizes three parameters to make a wetland determination. These parameters include existing
vegetation types, existence of hydric or hydrologically modified soils, and general hydrologic
conditions.
Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973) and
the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to the list of plant species that occur
in wetlands for Region 9, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed 1988, 1993).
Wetland classes were determined based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's system of
wetland classification (Cowardin, et at., 1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater
than 50 percent of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or
wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland).
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 3
Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the following characteristics were
present:
• organic soils or soils with an organic surface layer,
• matrix cluoma just below the A -horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is less) of 1 or less in
umnottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or
• gleying immediately below the A -horizon.
Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns
drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, historic records, visual observation of saturated
soils, and visual observation of inundation.
An evaluation of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology was made along the interface of wetland
and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information and marked
with flagging and surveyed. Appendix A contains data forms prepared by Perteet for
representative locations in both the upland and wetland. These data forms document the
vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination.
REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION
Existing information reviewed prior to field investigations included:
• Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington (Debose and Klungland 1983)
• National Wetland Inventory (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)
These resources were used to identify vegetation patterns, topography, soils, wetlands, and other
natural resources potentially located within the project boundaries. There were no indications of
wetlands or other water resources found during that review.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Site visits were completed on October 26, 2007 and September 16, 2010 to delineate wetland
boundaries and observe overall site conditions. One wetland (Wetland A) was identified and
delineated on the project site. Wetland boundaries were marked using orange "Wetland
Boundary" flagging tape labeled Al — A4 (pink "Wetland Boundary" flagging from the October
2007 site visit is still present).
The wetland was delineated pursuant to state and federal methodologies and rated using the
Washington State Wetland Rating System fof• Westem Washington (Hruby 2004; revised 2006),
as required in section 23.50.010 of the ECC. As part of the Ecology rating system, vegetation is
described by community using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification
system (Cowardin et al. 1979). In addition, the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) system (Brinson 1993)
was also used to classify wetlands within the project area. The HGM method is based on three
primary factors: position in the landscape (geomorphic setting), water source (hydrology), and
movement of water through the wetland (hydrodynamics). No streams were observed on-site.
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 4
RESULTS
The following sections describe existing site conditions and critical areas identified within the
project area. The project area includes the project parcel and the portion of the City of Edmonds
ROW where project activities will occur.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND DELINEATED WETLAND
The project area is generally divided into two areas, a valley bottom and forested slopes. The
northern portion of the site is a grass dominated fill pad that appears to be a relic of Main Street
road construction. The remainder of the site is a narrow, flat bottomed valley found between two
steep forested slopes. The valley has two main vegetation communities: an alder forest and an
herbaceous dominated area. Both areas show evidence of recent disturbance, contain invasive
vegetation, and are in generally degraded conditions. A portion of the herbaceous community
contains areas of ponding and was identified as Wetland A on October 26, 2007 and again on
September 16, 2010.
WETLAND A
Wetland A is located in the southeastern corner of the project area. The wetland is
approximately 2,567 square feet (SF) in size and extends slightly beyond the subject property
boundaries (Figure 2).
Wetland A has been classified as a palustrine emergent (PEM) system using the USFWS
classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). Based on the hydrogeomorphic classification
system (Brinson 1993), Wetland A is a depressional wetland system. Wetland A received a
Category III rating under the Washington State rating system (Hruby 2004; revised 2006).
Category III wetlands within the City of Edmonds require a 50 -foot buffer (ECC
23.50.040(F)(1)).
The existing vegetative, wildlife, and hydrologic conditions of Wetland A are typical of a
disturbed wetland surrounded by urban development. Wetland A is a small low -quality wetland
dominated by creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) with habitat suitability for small mammal
and avian species adapted to urban environments. The wetland was likely formed in the past as a
result of a sanitary sewer main that was constructed through the site. This sanitary sewer main
exists below grade within Wetland A. The wetland is a closed depressional feature that retains
some surface water.
Wetland A has low plant diversity. Vegetation in this small wetland is dominated by an emergent
plant community, but forested and scrub -shrub species are present. Vegetation was determined
as hydric since it passed the Dominance Test (Indicator 2); dominant plant species that are OBL,
FACW, or FAC total 67%. The dominant plant species include creeping buttercup (Ramntculus
repens) and red alder (Amus cobra). Soils in this wetland are mapped as Alderwood-urban land
complex, which does not match the soils observed in the field. The observed soil is a sandy clay
loam with a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 from 0-7 inches with redoximorphic (redox)
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 5
concentrations of 10YR 3/6. Below 7 inches, the matrix color is 2.5Y 4/1 with redox depletions
of IOB 4/1. The soil was determined as hydric because it met Indicator F6: Redox Dark Surface.
The primary indicators of wetland hydrology at the data pit included soil saturation in the upper
5 inches (Indicator A3), a dry -season water table (Indicator C2), and the wetland's geomorphic
setting (Indicator D2). The surrounding slopes and urban development contribute surface flow to
the wetland and may contribute some groundwater influences.
It is likely Wetland A would not exist except for the construction of Main Street, which formed
the depression that impounds water. Because Wetland A is located at the bottom of a depression
between two hillsides, precipitation and groundwater collects there. Historically, the depression
was connected to a small gully to the north and Shell Valley to the south. Water likely did not
pond in the location of Wetland A prior to the past land disturbance; instead, it flowed through
the depression to Shell Creek. The depression is separated from both the gully (by construction
of Main Street) and Shell Valley (by development). The wetland is a closed depressional system
that has no observable outflow.
The wetland is likely separated from the watershed and downstream water bodies except in
extreme precipitation and events. A catch basin is located approximately two to four feet above
the wetland elevation approximately 60 feet to the north of the northern edge of the wetland.
The catch basin connects to the storm drain system on Main Street. There is no defined channel
or other evidence of wetland outflow to this feature.
There are three main habitats in the buffer of Wetland A. The first is to the west and is a
relatively intact suburban stand of second growth forest on the steep slopes. It consists of mature
Douglas fir, mature red alder and native shrubs. The second habitat is a heavily disturbed stand
of red alder to the east. It consists of young alder and blackberry. The third habitat is a
grass/blackberry covered debris pile and walking trail. This area, along with the emergent
dominated wetland, forms a disturbed "meadow" between the two stands of trees.
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 6
Figure 2
Wetland A and Proposed Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
Perteet
CITY OF EDMONDS - PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT
SHELL VALLEY EMERGENCY ACCESS
WETLAND A AND PROPOSED IMPACTS
SEPTEMBER, 2010
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access
City of Edmonds
September 2010
Page 7
Per ECC 23.50.040, activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be
permitted in Category III wetlands and associated buffers provided that compensatory mitigation
will achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. The Shell Valley Emergency Access
project will result in unavoidable impacts to the on-site Category III wetland. The proposed
mitigation plan will compensate for these impacts and replace functions and values lost as a
result of the project. This will result in no net loss of critical area functions and values.
Mitigation sequencing, replacement ratios, and goals and objectives are explained below.
MITIGATION SEQUENCING
The project follows mitigation sequencing pursuant to ECC 23.40.120. As part of the project
design process, efforts where made to first avoid, then minimize impacts to critical areas and
buffers where feasible. All unavoidable impacts to critical areas and buffers will be
compensated for by providing mitigation.
Avoidance and minimization:
Alternative locations for the project have been investigated and no other location is available to
provide secondary emergency access for public safety for residences on Shell Valley Road and
Pioneer Way. The proposed roadway has been located in the westernmost corner of Wetland A
in order to avoid and minimize wetland impacts as much as practicable based on site constraints
(e.g. steep slopes, mature buffer trees) and design considerations. Roadway and shoulder widths
have been reduced to the most minimal width that will allow access for the construction and
function of the project. The roadway will be constructed so as not to interrupt surface and
groundwater flow from adjacent hill sides.
The hydrologic regime of the wetland is not expected to change as a result of the proposed
project. The existing road will be designed with cross drains so any surface and groundwater
from the hills to the northeast will still reach the wetland. Soil and substrate conditions indicate
a history of fill and disturbance at this site which may contribute to surface water impoundment
and/or drainage patterns.
Compensation:
Wetland and buffer impacts will be mitigated onsite through plantings and protection.
Approximately 279 square feet of wetland and 3,279 square feet of wetland buffer will be
permanently impacted by the road and the road prism. Two large trees in the buffer will also be
removed [ 14" diameter at breast high (dbh) red alder (Abnis rubra), and one 14" dbh Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga inenziesii)]. Mitigation will consist of planting native shrubs and small trees
throughout the wetland and buffer; approximately 1,556 SF of wetland and 3,279 SF of buffer
will be enhanced (Table 1).
Protecting the wetland from disturbance will be achieved by identifying the wetland and buffer
with informational signs. A legal designation on the property title will protect critical areas on
the site in perpetuity. The plantings will add native shrubs and small trees to the buffer and
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 8
wetland to increase the structure and species diversity of vegetation within the wetland. Wildlife
responds to habitat conditions. Vegetative diversity and increased vertical stricture creates more
opportunity for the widest range of bird and animal species. The plantings will provide new habitat
for songbirds, insects, small mammals and will provide foraging and cover opportunities for
urban adapted species that are likely already present in the area.
MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The applicant is proposing to fill 279 square feet of Wetland A and 3,279 square feet of the 50
foot buffer to the north and west of Wetland A. As mitigation, the applicant will enhance the
remaining buffer and wetland east of the proposed access road and designate the area with a legal
protection status. This mitigation plan outlines the proposed project mitigation pursuant to ECC
23.50.
Assumptions
Wetland A = Category III (PEM)
• 279 SF (0.006 acre) wetland impact
• 3,279 SF (0.075 acre) buffer impact
Proposed Wetland and Buffer Enhancement
• 4,835 SF (0.11 acre) combined
Table 1
Ratio of Project Impacts to Proposed Mitigation
Wetland Area
Impact
Proposed Mitigation
Area
Buffer Area Impact
Proposed
Mitigation Area
279 SF
1,556 SF
3,279 SF
3,279 SF
Mitigation Ratio
Mitigation Ratio
Wetland
Mitigation
Buffer
Mitigation
1
5.5
1
1
GOAL 1: DELINEATE AND DESIGNATE WETLAND AREA
Obiective l: Provide Signs and Fencing to physically delineate and designate the Wetland Area: During
construction the outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be
disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field with a silt
fence to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. This fencing is subject to inspection
by the director prior to the commencement of pennitted activities. Temporary marking shall be
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 9
maintained throughout constriction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required,
are in place.
Permanent "Protected Wetland Area" signs shall be installed as shown on the Mitigation Planting
Plan (Appendix A) at 50 foot intervals along the periphery of the road prism and at the outer
edges of the wetland buffer per ECC 23.50.040 (G). The sign shall be worded as follows:
Protected Wetland Area
Do Not Disturb
Contact the City of Edmonds
Regarding Uses and Restrictions
These signs will be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another
nontreated material of equal durability. Signs will be posted (according to the planting plan) at an
interval of 50 feet, and will be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity.
A four (4) foot tall split rail fence shall be installed on the development edge of the road prism as
shown on the Mitigation Planting Plan (Appendix A). The fence will limit access into the
wetland and buffer.
Objective 2: Legally designate critical area tract: Designate the wetland and wetland buffer as a
critical areas tract. The critical areas tract is the area delineated on Figure 2. It will be designated
as a critical areas tract to protect critical areas and buffers. Critical areas tracts shall be
designated on the face of the plat or recorded drawing in a format approved by the director. The
designation shall include the following restrictions:
• An assurance that native vegetation will be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm
to property and the environment, including, but not limited to, controlling surface water
runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and
animal habitat; and
• The right of the director to enforce the terms of the restriction.
Performance standards: These objectives will have been met when:
1. Silt fence is installed prior to construction and removed after construction (per Figure 3).
2. The fence and permanent signs have been installed and inspected by city staff (per Figure 3).
3. Critical areas tracts shall be designated on the face of the plat or recorded drawing in a format
approved by the director.
GOAL 2: PLANT COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT
Obiective 2a: Wetland and Buffer Enhancement: Wetland A and the wetland buffer shall be enhanced
by increasing the density and diversity of woody vegetation. Between the proposed roadway and
the eastern property line, 540 trees and shrubs will be planted throughout 4,835 SF of wetland
and buffer. The plantings will increase plant density and plant diversity, thereby improving
hydrologic and habitat functions.
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 10
Native vegetation will include Pacific willow (Salix hicida), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), and
red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea). All plants shall be installed as per specifications shown on
the Planting Plan (Appendix A). No soil amendments are required in the wetland or buffer.
The road shoulder will be seeded with an erosion control grass seed mix.
Three, 4-5' tall Douglas fir trees (Pseudotsuga merrziesii) will be planted west of the road prism
in the upland buffer per the Planting Plan (Appendix A).
Objective 2b: Vegetation Monitoring: Monitoring of wetland and buffer vegetation shall last for
a period of five years from the date of installation.
Within two months of the first growing season after installation, a baseline monitoring
report shall be prepared for submittal to the City of Edmonds. It shall consist of
quantities and approximate locations of installed vegetation.
® In year one, two, and five monitoring shall describe the quantity, species, and plant health
(e.g. thriving, stressed, dead) of installed vegetation using standard City of Edmonds
monitoring procedures.
® All monitoring findings (year one, two, and five) and maintenance activities shall be
recorded in a monitoring report that shall be submitted to the city.
Objective 2c: Plant community enhancement maintenance: Over the life of the monitoring period
within the planting area, 80 percent of plant stock shall survive the first year or be replaced; in
year two, 60 percent of plant stock shall survive or be replaced; after five years, 60 percent of
plant stock shall survive or be replaced. Plants shall be replaced in-kind from the planting list
(Table 2) by size but not necessarily species (e.g. a willow may be replaced with red osier
dogwood). This will allow for substitution based on environmental conditions. Substitutions
shall be approved by the project wetland specialist or city planner. The City will take steps to
discourage illegal dumping, vandalism, or littering in the wetland and buffer. The City will
remove dumped material, repair vandalism, and remove litter if observed.
Performance Standards: These objectives will have been met when:
1) The wetland and buffer enhancement vegetation has been installed per the Planting Plan
(Figure 3) and inspected by the City of Edmonds.
2) Requirements found in "Objective 2b: Vegetation Monitoring" have been met.
3) Requirements found in "Objective 2c: Plant community enhancement maintenance" have been
met.
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 11
Table 2
Plant List for the Shall Valley Emergency Access Mitigation Area
Common
Scientific
Quantity
Size
General Location
Notes
Name
Name
Live stake
Pacific willow
Salix lucida
180East
3' long, 3/8" to
of Road
Through out
3' on -center
1" whip
Live stake
Sitka willow
Salix
sitchensis
180East
3' long, 3/8" to
of Road
Through out
3' on center
1" whip
Red -osier
Cornits
180
1 gal
East of Road
3' on center
dogwood
sericea
Through out
Pseudotsuga
4-5' bare root
Douglas Fir
3
or balled and
West of Road
Per plan
merrziesii
burlap
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 12
REFERENCES
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report
WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
August 1993.
Cooke, S., ed. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and
Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, WA.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Office of Biological Services, Fish
and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Debose, A. and M. W. Klungland. 1983. Soils Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication
996-94. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Edmonds City Code. 2010. Code Publishing Company. Accessed September 2010 from
organization website: It ://ww r mr sc _��r r/ cr/ �tl c � c /ti ilc tm q wl i1 6
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press. 730 pp.
Hiuby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised.
Ecology Publication 04-06-025. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington. August 2004; revised 2006.
Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Grand Rapids, MI.
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List ofPlant Species that Occxn- in Wetlands: Northwest (Region
9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88.
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: Nati077al List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:
Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88.
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1998. National List of Plafzt Species that OCc1,n" in Wetlands: Northwest (Region
9). USF&WS Update.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL
TR -10-3. Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. May 2010.
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 13
Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon (editors). 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine
Publishing, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. March 2006. Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State — Part l: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication # 06-06-011 a. Olympia, WA.
Washington StateDepartment of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. March 2006. Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State — Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication # 06-06-01 lb. Olympia, WA.
Critical Areas Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan: Shell Valley Emergency Access September 2010
City of Edmonds Page 14
APPENDIX A
Mitigation Planting Plan
APPENDIX A
Mitigation Planting Plan
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
GOWQO
z �z�xm
a°x iwrcz m�
m�W Pz'o
�!
z
Vp z zmasaH -
oaf ` 2a . z
zW a�G x Wiwi o
�i ��mmaw o
o H g dlzaw�o z ��o
3�w� iw� O�borcO�n z
womn
m J 3=0awFzmw
42F
w „z
Como
o pow a ��'< zw m=gym
O-�a0ozimp O N
rvg W!w ��_W-w�G �mm
Opq —VU
�58 o � �ow�
w= <zH-
N
ag x
��S. �s ww�
i=d p6ad��':O uzLL1w¢
w 0�
a
o
\
�
i
.VGmNU
�u
oCi¢ p
a m�
w
o ov
mmo.00m
�m
s$o v 0
GOWQO
z �z�xm
a°x iwrcz m�
m�W Pz'o
�!
z
Vp z zmasaH -
oaf ` 2a . z
zW a�G x Wiwi o
�i ��mmaw o
o H g dlzaw�o z ��o
3�w� iw� O�borcO�n z
womn
m J 3=0awFzmw
42F
w „z
Como
o pow a ��'< zw m=gym
O-�a0ozimp O N
rvg W!w ��_W-w�G �mm
Opq —VU
�58 o � �ow�
w= <zH-
N
ag x
��S. �s ww�
i=d p6ad��':O uzLL1w¢
w 0�
a
N om 4
-
�3 x8�
a� ohm �o�o
_w v¢xi rzv? -
z� 3oa w 33
�p vi 3Q w3N� i
=F RnJ o a w
a3G n� �mz�
ra� oZN 03 TO w0
lw,
w G a
No G3V �oGgw
z'm�z �`za.oa an. c
M -
CizW
_a 33
C3cz W
zz b- 6
m
6J
Fv o
of _
€�g2zJa
o
\
0
lo
z
Waw
a m�
w
o ov
N om 4
-
�3 x8�
a� ohm �o�o
_w v¢xi rzv? -
z� 3oa w 33
�p vi 3Q w3N� i
=F RnJ o a w
a3G n� �mz�
ra� oZN 03 TO w0
lw,
w G a
No G3V �oGgw
z'm�z �`za.oa an. c
M -
CizW
_a 33
C3cz W
zz b- 6
m
6J
Fv o
of _
€�g2zJa
\
\
N om 4
-
�3 x8�
a� ohm �o�o
_w v¢xi rzv? -
z� 3oa w 33
�p vi 3Q w3N� i
=F RnJ o a w
a3G n� �mz�
ra� oZN 03 TO w0
lw,
w G a
No G3V �oGgw
z'm�z �`za.oa an. c
M -
CizW
_a 33
C3cz W
zz b- 6
m
6J
Fv o
of _
€�g2zJa
APPENDIX B
Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Shell Valley Emergency Access City/County: Edmonds/King Sampling Date: 9/16/2010
oplicant/Owner: City of Edmonds State: WA Sampling Point: TP1
nvestigator(s): Jim Rothwell Section, Township, Range: S19 T27N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 4748'35.89" Long: -122'21'0.8" Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood urban land complex NWI classification: PEM
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 ❑
FAC
Remarks:
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') % Cover Species? Status
1. Alnus rubra 30% Yes FAC
2. Pseudotsuga menziesii 5% No
3. Thuia plicata 20% Yes FAC
4.
55% = Total Cover
1.0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30')
1. Prunus laurocerasus
2. Rubus spectabilis
3. Rubus laciniatus
4. Ilex aquifolium
5. Rubus aremeniacus
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1. Ranunculus repens
2. Poa palustris
3. Plantago major
4. Geum macrophyllum
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
12%
Yes
NI
2%
No
FAC
Trace
No
FACU
5%
No
FACU
10%
Yes
FACU
29%
= Total
Cover
80%
Yes
FACW
20%
Yes
FAC
Trace
No
FACU
Trace
No
FACW
100% = Total Cover
= Total Cover
ce Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
® Dominance Test is >50%
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.01
❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ® No ❑
SOIL
Sampling Point: TP -1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply)
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LocZ
Texture Remarks
0-7" 10YR 3/2 80%
10YR 3/6 20% C M
Sa. Cl. Lo.
7"-20" 2.5Y 4/1 95%
10B 4/1 5% D M
Sa. Cl. Lo
'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 (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
® Redox Dark Surface (F6)
3Indicators 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):
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ®
Type:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): 16"
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑
Remarks:
Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑
Depth (inches): Upper 5"
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 413)
4A, and 413)
® Saturation (A3)
❑ Salt Crust (611)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
® Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑ 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 (67)
❑ 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): 16"
Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑
Depth (inches): Upper 5"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Upper 5" of soil profile is saturated, then dry until 16". Saturation starts again at 16" depth.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Shell Valley Emergency Access City/County: Edmonds/King Sampling Date: 9/16/2010
�,pplicant/Owner: City of Edmonds State: WA Sampling Point: TP -2
.nvestigator(s): Jim Rothwell Section, Township, Range: S19 T27N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47 48' 35.89" Long: -122'21'0.8" Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood urban land complex NWI classification:
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 ®
Absolute
Remarks:
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 0)
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Alnus rubra
50%
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa
10%
No
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3. Acer macrophyllum
2%
No
FACU
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
62%
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B)
2.0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30')
1. Rubus armeniacus
25%
Yes
FACU
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2. Rubus laciniatus
5%
No
FACU
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.
OBL species x 1 =
4.
FACW species x 2 =
5.
FAC species 72 x 3 = 216
30%
= Total Cover
FACU species 52 x4 = 208
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
UPL species x 5 =
1. Convolvulus arvensis
65%
Yes
NI
Column Totals: 124 (A) 424 (B)
2. Polvstichum munitum
20%
No
FACU
3. Eouisetum arvense
10%
No
FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3_4
4. Athvrium filix-femina
2%
No
FAC
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5. Ranunculus repens
TR
No
FACW
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6. Hedera helix
10%
No
NI
❑ Dominance Test is >50%
7.
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.01
8.
❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9.
❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
10
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11
'Indicators
of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
107%
=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
Remarks
SOIL
Sampling Point: TP -2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply)
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc'
Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 2/2 100%
Clay loam
4-14 10YR 4/3 90%
10YR 4/6 10% C M Clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced
Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ 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):
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ®
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Unable to dig below 14".
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ®
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 (B9) (except MLRA
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
❑ High Water Table (A2)
1, 2, 4A, and 413)
4A, and 413)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Salt Crust (B11)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Geomorphic Position (132)
❑ 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 (B6)
❑ 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:
APPENDIX C
Wetland Rating Form
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Wetland name or number: A
WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON
Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users
Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats
Name of wetland (if known): Wetland A
Rated by: Jim Rothwell Trained by Ecology?
SEC: 19 TWNSHP:27N RNGE:04E
Date of site visit: 10/26/07
Yes No ❑ Date: 11/05, 4/07
Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes ❑vo M
Map of wetland unit: Figure 2 (see report) Estimated size: 2,567 SF
SUMMARY OF RATING
Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland:
I ❑ II ❑
Category I = Score >=70
Category II = Score 51-69
Category III = Score 30-50
Category IV = Score <30
III 0 IV ❑
Score for Water Quality Functions 18
Score for Hydrologic Functions 3
Score for Habitat Functions 9
TOTAL score for functions 30
Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
I ❑ II ❑ Does not Apply ❑
Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) III
Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated.
Wetland Type
Estuarine
❑
Natural Heritage Wetland
❑
Bog
❑
Mature Forest
❑
Old Growth Forest
❑
Coastal Lagoon
❑
Interdunal
❑
None of the above
❑
Continents:
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 1
Wetland Class
Depressional
121
Riverine
❑
Lake -fringe
❑
Slope
❑
Flats
❑
Freshwater Tidal
❑
Check if unit has
multiple HGM classes
present
❑
Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below?
If you answer YES to any of the questions below, you will need to protect the wetland according
to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland.
Check List for Wetlands That May Need Special Protection (in addition to the
Protection recommended for its category)
YES
NO
SPI.
Has the wetland unit been docurnented as a habitat for airy federally listed
El
❑�
Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)?
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
appropriate state or federal database.
SP2.
Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any state listed Threatened
E]
D
or Endangered animal species?
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized
as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form).
SP3.
Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFiV
E
or the state?
SP4.
Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its f nrctions? For
El
a
example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the
Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special
significance.
To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeornorphic Class of the
wetland being rated .
The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the
questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be
determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands.
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington
Classification of Vegetated Wetlands in Western Washington
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, indentify 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 (i.e., except during floods)?
0 NO - go to 2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe
If YES, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
❑ YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe ❑ NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)
If you• wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe, rise the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is
Saltwater Tidal Fringe, it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first
and second editions of the rating system are called Saltwater Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic
Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is
being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is being
kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and H estuarine wetlands have
changed (see p. xx).
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water
runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
❑� NO - go to 3 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria?
❑ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size;
❑ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 feet (2 m)?
F,_/1 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 veny 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.
NOTE: Surface water does notpond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 feet in diameter and less than: 1 foot
deep).
NO - go to 5 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Slope
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington
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 once every two years.
0 NO - go to 6 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Riverine
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time
of the year? 77fis means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the wetland.
❑ NO - go to 7 F/I 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 ground water 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 within your wetland. 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 being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% of
the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represent more than 90% of the total area.
MGM Classes Within a Delineated Welland Boundary
Class to Use in Rating
Slope + Riverine
Riverine
❑
Slope + Depressional
Depressional
❑
Slope + Lake -fringe
Lake -fringe
❑
Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary
Depressional
Depressional + Lake -fringe
Depressional
Saltwater Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland
Treat as ESTUARINE
wetlands with
special characteristics
El
If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM
classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating.
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington
D Depressional and Flats Wetlands
WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality.
D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38)
Points
D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland:
❑ Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Points = 3
❑✓ Unit has an internittently flowing, or highly constricted permanently flowing Points = 2
outlet.
❑ Unit has an uneonstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently Points =1
2
flOwitlg ).
Unit is a flat depression (Q. 7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permenent surface Points =1
❑ outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch. (If
ditch is not permanently flowing, treat unit as "intermittently flowing.")
Provide photo or drawing
igure
D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions):
0
❑ YES Points = 4
NO Points = 0
D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class):
21 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=95% of area. Points = 5
❑ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=1/2 of area. Points = 3
5
❑ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=1/10 of area. Points =1
❑ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area Points = 0
Map of Cowardin, vegetation classes
Figure _
D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation.
This is the area of the wetland that is porrded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime
daring the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the
average condition S out of 10 yews.
❑ Area seasonally ponded is >1/2 total area of wetland. Points = 4
2
0 Area seasonally ponded is >1/4 total area of wetland. Points = 2
❑ Area seasonally ponded is <1/4 total area of wetland. Points = 0
Map of hydroperiods
Figure''-
igure'Total
Totalfor D 1 Add the coints in the boxes above
9
D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44)
Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground water or surface water coming into the
wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes, or ground water downgradieut from
the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpolhrtants:
❑ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 feet.
Untreated stomnvater discharges to wetland.
❑ Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland.
❑ A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed
fields, roads, or clear-cut logging.
0 Residential, urban areas, golf courses are withnm 150 feet of wetland.
Multiplier
❑ Wetland is fed by ground water high in phosphorus or nitrogen.
2
❑ Other:
YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1
TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D 1. by D 2.
18
Add score to table on p. I
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington
D Depressional and Flais'Wedands
HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding/stream degradation.
D 3. Does wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding/erosion? (seep. 46) Points
D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland:
❑ Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). Points = 4
0 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently Points = 2
flowing outlet.
❑ Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with Points =1 2
permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is
a man-made ditch. (If ditch is not permanently flowing, treat unit at
"intermittently flowing.')
Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet Points = 0
El
(permanently flowing ).
D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods.
Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure
from the surface ofpermanent water or deepest part (if dry).
❑ Marks of ponding are 3 feet or more above the surface or bottom of outlet. Points = 7
❑ The wetland is a "headwater' wetland. Points = 5
1
❑ Marks of ponding between 2 feet to <3 feet from surface or bottom of outlet. Points = 5
❑ Marks are at least 0.5 feet to <2 feet from surface or bottom of outlet. Points = 3
❑Q Wetland is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the Points = 1
surface that trap water.
❑ Marks of ponding are less than 0.5 feet. Points = 0
D 3.3 Contribution of wetland to storage in the watershed.
Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing stn face water to the wetland to
the area of the wetland itself.
❑ The area of the basin is <10 times the area of the unit. Points = 5
0
❑ The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit. Points = 3
The area of the basin is >100 times the area of the unit. Points = 0
❑ Entire unit is in the Flats class (basin=wetland) Points = 5
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above
3
D 4. Does wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding/erosion? (seep. 49)
Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in
water velocity, helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or
excessive and/or erosive flows.
Answer NO if the water coning into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate,
tide gate, flap valve, reservoir, etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the
wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur.
Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply:
❑ Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems.
❑ Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems.
❑ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might othetwise flow
into a river or stream that has flooding problems.
Multiplier
1
❑ Other:
YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1
TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3. by D 4.
3
Add score to table on z 1
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat.
H 1. Does the ivetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species?
Points
H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72)
Check the t)pes of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin). Size threshold for
class is 114 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres.
❑ Aquatic bed
R1 Emergent plants
❑ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover)
❑� Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover)
If the unit has a forested class, check if.•
1
❑ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon
Add the nnnber of vegetation types that qualify. If you have:
4 structures or more Points = 4
3 structures Points = 2
2 structures Points =1
1 structure Points = 0
Map of Covardui classes
Figure
H 1.2 Hydroperiods (seep. 73)
Check the types of water reginnes (lrydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water reginne
has to cover more than 10% of the wetland if less than 2.5 acres in size or 114 acre to count
(see to t for descriptions of hydroperiods).
❑ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present Points = 3
❑ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present Points = 2
0 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present Points =1
1
El 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- ringe wetland = 2 points
❑ Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points
Map of hydroperiods
Figure
H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75)
Count the rnnnber of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 sq. ft. (different patches
of the same species can be connbined to neet the size threshold). You do not have to nave the
species. Do not include Eurasian Mil/oil, reed canmygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian
Thistle.
If you counted: >19 species Points = 2
5-19 species Points =1
1
List species below if you want to: <5 species Points = 0
Total for page 3
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington
H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (seep. 76)
Points .
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes
(described in H 1.1) or the classes and mwegetated areas (can inclade open water or• madflats)
is high, medium, low, or none.
CD (: 5) (:*) ( 0)
None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points
1
[riparian
braided
channels]
High = 3 points
NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water, the
rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes.
H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77)
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The nrnnber of checks is the ntumber
of points you put into the nest column.
❑ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4 inches in diameter and 6 feet
long).
❑ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom >4 inches) in the wetland.
❑ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 feet (2 m) and/or overhanging vegetation
extends at least 3.3 feet (1 in) over a stream (or ditch) in or contiguous with the
wetland, for at least 33 feet (10 m).
1
❑ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver/muskrat for denning
(>30° slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that
have not yet turned brown/gray).
At least 1/4 acre of thin-stenuned presistent vegetation or woody branches are present
❑ in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by
amphibians).
Q Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area hi each stratum of plants.
Note: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error.
H4. TOTAL Score -potential for providing habitat 5
Add the scores from HI.1, H1.2, X1.3, H1.4, Hl' . S E.
Continents:
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington
H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species?
Points
H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80)
Choose the description that best represents condition of b: ffer of wetland unit. The highest
scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of
"undisturbed. "
❑ 100 in (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or Points = 5
open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within undisturbed
part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no gra71ng' no
landscaping, no daily human use ).
❑ 100 in (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or Points = 4
open water >50% of circumference.
❑ 50 in (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or Points = 4
open water >95% circumference.
❑ 100 in (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or Points = 3
open water for >25% circumference.
❑ 50 in (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or Points = 3
open water for >50% circumference.
2
If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above:
❑ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 in (80 feet) of Points = 2
wetland >95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are
OK.
0 No paved areas or buildings within 50 in of wetland for >50% Points = 2
circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK.
❑ Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1
❑ Vegetated buffers are <2 in wide (6.6 feet) for more than 95% of the Points = 0
circumference (e.g., tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of
wetland).
❑ Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1
Aerial photo showing buffers
Figure
H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81)
H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (riparian or upland)
at least 150 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest, or native undisturbed prairie, that
connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size?
(Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, and paved roads are considered
breaks in the corridor. )
YES = 4 points (go to H2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2
H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or
upland) at least 50 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to
estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size OR a Lake -
0
fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above?
YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3
H 2.2.3 Is the wetland:
❑ within 5 miles (8 kni) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR
❑ within 3 miles of a large field or pasture > 40 acres in size OR
❑ within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres in size?
YES =1 point NO = 0 points
Total for page 2
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington
2.3 Near or Adjacent to Other Priority Habitats Listed by WDFW (seep. 82)
Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 feet (100 in) of the wetland unit? NOTE:
the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFiV definitions. Check
with your local DFIV biologist if there are any questions
❑ Aspen stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen >0.4 ha (1 acre).
❑ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to
various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.
152).
❑ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over
bedrock.
❑ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2
tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at
least 20 trees/lna (8/acre) >81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests)
Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadance, 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 25% (full descrptions in TVDFW PHS report
p. 158).
❑ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains
elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which imuhially influence each
other.
❑ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant connnunities that can either take
the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in JVDFW PHS report p.
161).
❑ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and
conditions that interact to provide fiunetional life hsitory requirements for instream fish
and wildlife resources.
❑ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal
Nearshore, Open Coastal Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of
habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in 1VDFW report pp. 167-169
and glossary in Appendix A).
❑ Caves: 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 7.6 in (25 ft) high and occuring below 5,000 ft.
❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock nubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 in (0.5 - 6.5
ft), 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 > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and
are > 2 in (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest
end, and > 6 in (20 ft) long.
If wetland has: 3+ priority habitats = 4 points 1 priority habitat =1 point
2 priority habitats = 3 points No habitats = 0 points
Note: all vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list.
Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 10
H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (seep. 84)
Potnts
Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits.
There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections Points = 5
between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands
❑ OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be
bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development).
The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are Points = 5
El
3 other Lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile.
2
❑ There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections Points = 3
between them are disturbed.
❑ The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance, and there are 3 Points = 3
other Lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile.
El There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile. Points = 2
❑ There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. Points = 0
H 2. TOTALScore -opportunity for providing' habitat
Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4
4
Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for HI and H2 and record the result on p. 1
9
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and choose the appropriate answers and
Category.
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Check the appropriate Category when the appropriate
criteria are rnet.
Category;
SC 1.0 Estuarine Wetlands (seep. 86)
Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
❑ The dominant water regime is tidal,
❑ Vegetated, and
❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt.
❑ YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO - not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve,
Natural Area Preserve, State Park, or Educational, Enviromnental, or Scientific Reserve
designated under WAC 332-30-151?
❑ YES = Category I ❑ NO = Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meeting at least two of the following three
conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation,
grazing, and has <10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina
spp. are the only species that cover >10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be
❑ given a dual rating (I/11). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the
relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not,
however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre.
❑ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest,
or ungrazed or unmowed grassland.
❑ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with
open water, or continguous freshwater wetlands.
❑ YES = Category I ❑ NO = Category II
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 12
SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87)
Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage
Category'
Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state
Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species.
SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage
wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact
WNHP/DNR.)
S/T/R information from Appendix D ❑ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site ❑
❑ YES - contact "IIP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 ❑� NO
SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state
Threatened or Endangered plant species?
❑ YES= Category I R1 NO - not a Heritage wetland
SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87)
Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in
bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer Yes, you will still
need to rate the wetland based on its function.
1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e., layers of organic soil), either peats or
mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See
Appendix B for a field key to identify organic oils.)
❑ YES - go to Q. 3 0 NO -go to Q. 2
2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or nnicks, that are <16 inches deep over
bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on
a lake or pond?
❑ YES - go to Q. 3 Q NO - not a bog for purpose of rating
3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants,
if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of
the vegetation (>30% of total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table
3)?
❑ YES - is a bog for purpose of rating ❑ NO -go to Q. 4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory
you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that
seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
"bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog.
4. Is the unit forested (>30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western redcedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white
pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on bog species plant list in
Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (>30% coverage of total
shrub/herbaceous cover)?
❑ YES - Category I ❑ NO - not a bog for purpose of rating
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 13
❑ ❑
SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90)
Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the
Category'
Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitat? If yore answer Yes, you will still
need to rate the wetland based on its finrctions.
Old-growth forests: (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/acre
(20/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh)
of 32 inches (81 cm) or more.
NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests.
200 -year-old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their
growth rates are often smaller. The DFW criterion is an "OR" so old-
growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter.
❑ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 - 200
years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); 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.
❑ YES = Category I El NO - not a forested wetland w/ special characteristics
SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91)
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wtland 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 hi which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or
❑ brackish (>.5 ppt) during most of the year in at leat a portion of the lagoon (needs to be
measured near the bottom ).
❑ YES = go to SC 5.1 M NO - not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following 3 conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation,
❑ grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive
species on p. 74).
❑ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest,
or ungrazed or umnowed grassland.
❑ The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4,350 square feet).
❑ YES = Category I ❑ NO = Category II
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 14
❑■
SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93)
Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland
Category
Ownership or WBUO)?
❑ YES - go to SC 6.1 Q NO - not an interdunal wetland for rating
If yore answer YES, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its fiuutions.
In practical terms, that means the following geographic areas:
• Long Beach Peninsula - lands west of SR 103
• Grayland-Westport - lands west of SR 105
• Ocean Shores-Copalis - lands west of SR 1115 and SR 109.
SC 6.1 Is wetland 1 acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 acre or larger?
❑ YES = Category II ❑ NO - go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2 Is the wetland unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1
and 1 acre?
❑ YES = Category III
Category= of wetland based on Special Characteristics
Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. I.
If you answered NO for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1.
Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 15