22-105973-Wetland Report-01-12-23
WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN
CREEKWOOD PLAT
DECEMBER 2022
WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
ASSESSMENT AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN
CREEKWOOD PLAT
DECEMBER 16, 2022
PROJECT LOCATION
WEST ADJACENT TO: 31119 21ST AVENUE SOUTHWEST
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023
PREPARED FOR
AMALANI LLC
415 1ST AVENUE NORTH, UNIT 9998
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109
PREPARED BY
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC
2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335
(253) 514-8952
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat i Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Executive Summary
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Amalani, LLC (Applicant) with a Wetland and
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the proposed residential development of a 19.86 -acre site
located west adjacent to 31119 21st Avenue Southwest in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The
subject property consists of one parcel situated in the Northeast ¼ of Section 12, Township 21 North,
Range 3 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Number 1221039037).
SVC previously investigated the subject property for the presence of potentially regulated wetlands,
waterbodies, and fish and wildlife habitat in the fall and winter of 2013 and winter of 2014, with follow
up investigations completed in spring 2017. The results of these assessments are documented in the
revised Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment – Creekwood Plat prepared in October 2020 (SVC,
2020). Due to the time that has elapsed since the initial site investigations, an additional site visit was
conducted in August 2022 to reconfirm the findings of the previous study. Using current
methodology, SVC identified three wetlands (Wetlands B, D, E/F) and four streams (Drainages W,
X, and Y and Stream Z) on the subject property and two wetlands (Wetland A and G) offsite within
225 feet of the subject property. Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G are classified as Category IV wetlands
and subject to standard 50-foot buffers per FRWC 19.145.420(2) Table 1. Drainages W, X, and
portions of Drainage Y north of flag Y-9 are classified as Type Np (non-fish bearing, perennial)
streams and subject to standard 50-foot buffers per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(b). Portions of Drainage Y
south of flag Y-9 and Stream Z are classified as Type F (fish-bearing) streams and subject to standard
100-foot buffers per FWRC 19.145.270(a).
The Applicant proposes residential development of the subject property with a 20-lot residential plat
and associated infrastructure including internal site access and parking, utilities, and stormwater
infrastructure. The proposed project has been carefully designed to avoid impacts to the identified
critical areas and associated buffers to the greatest extent feasible, and direct impacts, in-water work,
and impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z are
avoided entirely. However, due to the need to provide site access in compliance with the City of
Federal Way’s street design standards, steep slopes which limit the developable areas onsite, the need
to maintain site drainage patterns, and the location of Drainage Y near the northern boundary of the
subject property, complete avoidance is not feasible. The proposed project requires necessary
unavoidable impacts to 6,115 square feet of the buffer of Drainage Y to provide an access road across
the northern boundary of the subject property that complies with the City of Federal Way’s street
design standards and to provide a stormwater connection that maintains existing site drainage patterns
following development of the subject property.
The proposed work will result in 148 square feet of permanent intrusion to the Drainage Y buffer due
to the construction of a sidewalk and associated retaining wall. Non-compensatory buffer restoration
and enhancement actions are proposed to offset intrusion to the buffer of Drainage Y. The 5,967
square feet of temporary intrusion due to grading within the Drainage Y buffer will be fully restored
by stabilizing the ravine where Drainage Y is located. Stabilization measures will include filling and
grading the ravine with a stabler slope and planting an erosion control mix to further stabilize soils
and prevent future erosion. The remaining 59,167 square feet of buffer associated with Drainage Y
will be enhanced by removing degradations including non-native invasive species, trash, and debris,
and planting the understory with a suite of native shrubs and groundcover which will improve stability
of the ravine where Drainage Y is located, and improve habitat in/adjacent to Drainage Y. In addition,
the onsite buffers of the remaining critical areas (Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X,
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat ii Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
and Stream Z) will be enhanced by removing trash and debris from the buffers. These actions are
anticipated to provide a net lift in ecological functions associated with Drainage Y and the remaining
critical areas identified on the subject property. Further details are provided in the buffer
Enhancement Plan in Chapter 7.
The table below identifies the onsite, existing critical areas and summarizes the potential regulatory
status by local, state, and federal agencies.
Wetland Name Size
Onsite Category1
Regulated
Under FWRC
19.145
Regulated
Under RCW
90.48
Regulated
Under Clean
Water Act
Wetland A N/A - Offsite IV Yes Yes Assumed
Wetland B 8,251 square feet IV Yes Yes Assumed
Wetland D 644 square feet IV Yes Yes Assumed
Wetland E/F 9,351 square feet IV Yes Yes Assumed
Wetland G N/A - Offsite IV Yes Yes Assumed
Drainage W 184 linear feet Np Yes Yes Assumed
Drainage X 117 linear feet Np Yes Yes Assumed
Drainage Y 421 linear feet Np/F Yes Yes Assumed
Stream Z 987 linear feet F Yes Yes Assumed
Note:
1. Current Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) wetland rating system (Hruby, 2014) per FWRC 19.145.410(1) and
DNR stream classification system (WAC 222-16-030) per FWRC 19.145.260(2).
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat ii Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 2. Proposed Project ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Abbreviated Project Description .......................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 3. Methods and Project History ................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 4. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 6
4.1 Landscape Setting ................................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Critical Area Inventories ........................................................................................................................ 7
4.4 Prior Critical Areas Studies .................................................................................................................... 8
4.5 Precipitation ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Chapter 5. Results ........................................................................................................................................ 10
5.1 Upland Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 10
5.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................. 10
5.3 Waterbodies ........................................................................................................................................... 14
5.4 Non-Regulated Seep (Seep C) ............................................................................................................. 18
5.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment ............................................................................................... 19
Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations ................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Local Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 21
6.2 State and Federal Considerations ....................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 7. Buffer Enhancement Plan .................................................................................................... 27
7.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................. 27
7.2 Description of Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 27
7.3 Buffer Enhancement Plan ................................................................................................................... 27
7.4 Approach and Best Management Practices ....................................................................................... 29
7.5 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ............................................................................... 29
7.7 Maintenance & Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................ 32
7.8 Reporting ................................................................................................................................................ 33
7.9 Contingency Plan .................................................................................................................................. 33
7.10 Critical Areas Protection .................................................................................................................... 34
Chapter 8. Closure ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 9. References ................................................................................................................................. 36
Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map. ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Aerial Image of the Subject Property. ........................................................................................... 6
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat iii Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Tables
Table 1. Precipitation Summary1 .................................................................................................................... 9
Table 2. Wetland Summary ........................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3. Wetland B Summary ....................................................................................................................... 11
Table 4. Wetland D Summary ....................................................................................................................... 12
Table 5. Wetland E/F Summary .................................................................................................................. 13
Table 6. Drainage W Summary ..................................................................................................................... 16
Table 7. Drainage X Summary ...................................................................................................................... 17
Table 8. Drainage Y Summary ...................................................................................................................... 17
Table 9. Stream Z Summary .......................................................................................................................... 18
Appendices
Appendix A –– Methods and Tools
Appendix B –– Background Information
Appendix C –– Existing Condition and Buffer Enhancement Plans
Appendix D –– Data Forms
Appendix E –– Wetland Rating Forms
Appendix F –– Wetland Rating Figures
Appendix G –– Site Photos
Appendix H –– Qualifications
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 1 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Chapter 1. Introduction
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Amalani, LLC (Applicant) with a Wetland and
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the proposed residential development of a 19.86 -acre site
located west adjacent to 31119 21st Avenue Southwest in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The
subject property consists of one parcel situated in the Northeast ¼ of Section 12, Township 21 North,
Range 3 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Number 1221039037).
The purpose of this wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment is to identify the presence of
potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, and other fish and wildlife habitat on or near the subject
site, assess potential impacts to critical areas from the proposed project, and provide recommendations
for compensatory mitigation actions to offset unavoidable impacts to critical areas in the project area.
This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding:
• Site description, project description, and area of assessment;
• Background research and identification of potentially regulated critical areas within the vicinity
of the proposed project;
• Identification and assessment of potentially regulated wetlands and other aquatic features;
• Identification and assessment of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat;
• Existing site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers;
• Site plan detailing the proposed development;
• Documentation of wetland and fish and wildlife habitat impact avoidance and minimization
measures;
• Description of impacts and a Buffer Enhancement Plan; and
• Supplemental information necessary for local regulatory review.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 2 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Chapter 2. Proposed Project
2.1 Project Location
The subject property consists of a 19.86-acre site located west adjacent to 31119 21st Avenue
Southwest in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The subject property consists of one parcel
situated in the Northeast ¼ of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, W.M. (King County
Tax Parcel Number 1221039037).
To access the subject property from Interstate 5 North in the Federal Way area, take Exit 143 for
South 320th Street toward Federal Way and turn left onto South 320th Street. After 1.8 miles, turn
right onto 1st Avenue South. Continue for 0.5 mile and turn left onto Southwest 312th Street. After
0.8 mile, continue straight to stay on Southwest 312th Street. Proceed for 0.3 mile and continue straight
onto 21st Place Southwest. After 0.4 mile, turn left onto Southwest 307th Street. Continue for 331
feet and turn left onto 22nd Avenue Southwest. 22nd Avenue Southwest terminates after 0.2 mile at
the northern entrance of the subject property.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map.
Subject Property
Location
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 3 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
2.2 Abbreviated Project Description
The Applicant proposes residential development of the subject property with a 20-lot residential plat,
internal access road and parking, utilities, stormwater infrastructure, and associated infrastructure. The
proposed project avoids direct impacts to the identified critical areas (Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G,
Drainages W, X, and Y, and Stream Z). However, in order to comply with the City of Federal Way’s
street design standards, the project requires an access road extending from 21st Way Southwest across
the northern portion of the subject property. Due to the proximity of Drainage Y to the northern
boundary of the subject property, the proposed access road requires necessary and unavoidable
intrusion into the buffer of Drainage Y. A combination of buffer enhancement within the remaining
portions of the buffer of Drainage Y and voluntary enhancement of the remaining critical area buffers
is proposed to offset this intrusion and provide a net lift in ecological functions onsite. Further details
are provided in Chapter 7 of this report. A site plan illustrating the identified critical areas and
associated buffers, buffer impacts, and buffer restoration actions is included in Appendix C.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 4 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Chapter 3. Methods and Project History
SVC investigated, assessed, and confirmed prior delineations of potentially-regulated wetlands,
streams, drainages, and other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in the summer of 2022. All
determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data
from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, National Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) soil survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI),
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water typing system, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape
mapping tools, Federal Way and King County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, and
various orthophotographic resources. Appendix A contains further details for the methods and tools
used to prepare this report.
SVC investigated and delineated this site in December 2013 and August 2014. During this
investigation wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) as modified by the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and
Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Additionally, stream boundaries were determined using
Ecology’s method as detailed in determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington
State (Olson, 2008); definitions provided in RCW 77.55.011 (11) and WAC 220.110.020 (69); and
USACE’s Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (USACE 2005).
The wetland and stream boundaries were preliminarily verified in the field with the City and ESA in
2014 (ESA, 2017). Ongoing work for this project continued through 2021, when a revised Wetland
and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment (SVC, 2020) was submitted to the city. However, the wetland
and OHW determinations documented in SVC’s 2020 report did not receive final approval by the city.
Following submittal of the revised report, the project was paused and prior permits and approvals
have since expired.
In an effort to alleviate redundant costs for the Applicant and keep this project financially feasible,
SVC has limited this assessment and re-delineation of the site to areas that are anticipated to project
buffers that may affect development and/or in areas where wetland conditions appear to have
changed. These areas include Drainage Y and the northern portions of Wetland B. Minor wetland
boundary adjustments were made; however, SVC did not observe any entirely new wetland areas or
waterbodies features.
Wetland boundaries were confirmed or determined using the routine approach described in the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987)
and modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010)
and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS, 2018). Orange surveyor’s flagging was
labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation in areas considered for development as
well as where the wetland boundaries appear to have changed from the prior delineation (namely the
northern boundary of Wetland B). Where SVC agreed with the previously delineated wetland
boundaries and no changes were required, no flags were hung to mark the onsite wetland boundaries.
Select wetland plots (DP-6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) were revisited to confirm wetland boundaries
or upland conditions. Pink surveyor’s flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath
or vegetation at these locations and data was confirmed and updated to reflect current site conditions
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 5 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
during the summer 2022 site investigation. Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals
inside and outside of the wetland boundaries to further confirm the delineations.
Wetlands were classified using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin,
1979; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) classification systems. Following classification and
assessment, the wetland was rated and categorized using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for
Western Washington—Washington Department of Ecology, 2014, Publication No. 04-06-029, per Federal Way
Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.420(1).
Ordinary high water (OHW) mark determinations were confirmed using WSDOE’s method as
detailed in Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington
State (Anderson et al., 2016) and the definitions established in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
90.58.030(2)(b) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-22-030(11). To mark the centerline
or banks of potentially regulated streams and drainage features, blue surveyor’s flagging was alpha-
numerically labeled and tied to vegetation in areas considered for development (Drainage Y). Where
SVC agreed with the previously delineated OHW boundaries and no changes were required, no flags
were hung to mark the onsite wetland boundaries. Streams and surface water features were classified
using the DNR water typing system as outlined in WAC 222-16-030 and the guidelines established in
FWRC 19.145.260(2).
The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visits by qualified fish
and wildlife biologists. The experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and
walking survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or
signs of fish and wildlife activity.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 6 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Chapter 4. Existing Conditions
4.1 Landscape Setting
The 19.86-acre subject property is located in a residential setting in the City of Federal Way,
Washington (Figure 2). The subject property consists predominantly of undeveloped forest; however,
an existing compacted gravel trail and other small concrete and metal drainage infrastructure were
observed onsite. The subject property abuts a mix of residential development and undeveloped forest
to the north, south, and west, and a self-storage facility to the east. Topography onsite generally slopes
down from the north to the south, with elevations ranging from approximately 280 feet above mean
sea level (amsl) on the northeast corner of the site to approximately 135 feet amsl on the southwest
corner of the site. A King County Contours Map is provided in Appendix B1. The subject property
is located in the Puyallup/White watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area 10).
Figure 2. Aerial Image of the Subject Property.
4.2 Soils
The NRCS Soil Survey of King County, Washington identifies three soil series on the subject property:
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (AgB), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to
30 percent slopes (AgD), and Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF). A soil map is provided
in Appendix B2. Below is a detailed description of the soil profiles.
Subject Property
Location
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 7 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (AgB)
According to the survey, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes is a moderately well-
drained soil that is nearly level and undulating. This soil is similar to Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,
6 to 15 percent slopes, but its surface layer may be 2 to 3 inches thicker in places. In a typical profile,
Alderwood soils have a surface layer of very dark brown gravelly sandy loam to a depth of
approximately 2 inches. The subsoil to a depth of 27 inches ranges from dark brown to grayish brown
gravelly sandy loam. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches consists of a grayish brown weakly to
strongly consolidated till. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes is listed as non-hydric
on the King County Hydric Soils List, but as much as 10 percent of mapped areas may contain
inclusions of hydric McKenna, Shalcar, and Norma soils (NRCS, n.d).
Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD)
According to the survey, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes are elongated and
range from 7 to 250 acres in size. In a typical profile, Alderwood soils have a surface layer of very
dark brown gravelly sandy loam to a depth of approximately 2 inches. The subsoil to a depth of 27
inches ranges from dark brown to grayish brown gravelly sandy loam. The substratum to a depth of
60 inches consists of a grayish brown weakly to strongly consolidated till. This soil is similar to other
soils in the Alderwood series, but the depth to substratum varies within short distances and is
commonly observed at a depth of 40 inches. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
is listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List, but as much as 5 percent of mapped
areas may contain inclusions of hydric Shalcar and Norma soils (NRCS, n.d).
Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF)
According to the survey, Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep are moderately well drained and
derived from basal till with some volcanic ash in moraines and till plains with 25 to 70 percent slopes.
The series consists of approximately 50 percent of Alderwood and 25 percent of Kitsap soils with
distribution varying greatly within short distances. The typical profile of Alderwood soils consists of
very dark brown, dark-brown, and grayish brown gravelly ashy sandy loam in the upper 7 inches of
the soil profile and grayish-brown very gravelly sandy loam in the substratum to a depth of 50 inches.
The typical profile of Kitsap soils consists of very dark brown and dark yellowish-brown ashy silt loam
in the upper 24 inches and stratified olive-gray silt to silty clay loam in the substratum to a depth of
60 inches. Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep is listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric
Soils List (NRCS, n.d).
4.3 Critical Area Inventories
The Federal Way Critical Areas Map (Appendix B3), King County Sensitive Areas Map (Appendix
B4), USFWS NWI Map (Appendix B5), and WDFW PHS Map (Appendix B6) do not identify any
potentially-regulated wetlands on or within 225 feet of the subject property; however, Federal Way
identifies a majority of the subject property within an erosion landslide area, and WDFW identifies
the subject property and areas extending southeast, southwest, and northwest within a biodiversity
corridor. The Federal Way Critical Areas Map, King County Sensitive Areas Map, USFWS NWI Map,
and DNR Stream Typing Map (Appendix B7) identify one potential stream that appears to originate
southeast of the subject property and travels east to west across the southern boundary of the site
before continuing northwest offsite. An additional potential stream is also identified offsite to the
southwest. DNR identifies both of the streams as fish-bearing (Type F) waters, and the WDFW
SalmonScape map (Appendix B8) identifies the streams as gradient accessible for coho, Chinook,
chum, and pink salmon and steelhead trout. No other potential wetlands, streams, or priority habitats
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 8 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
or species are documented on or within 225 feet of the subject property.
4.4 Prior Critical Areas Studies
SVC previously investigated, assessed, and delineated potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, and
other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on and within 200 feet of the subject property in
December of 2013, with consecutive follow-up visits in the summer of 2014. Identified critical areas
were reevaluated in the spring of 2017 using current delineation and assessment methods. The results
of these assessments are documented in the revised Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
Report – Creekwood Plat (SVC, 2020). Wetlands were delineated using the routine approach described
in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987)
and modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010), and
rated and categorized using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby,
2014). Ordinary high water determinations were made using WSDOE’s method detailed in Determining
the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al,
2016) and classified using the DNR water typing system described in WAC 222-16.
The 2020 report identified and documented three wetlands (Wetlands B and D, and Wetlands E and
F, which were ultimately combined into Wetland E/F), three drainages (Drainage W, X, and Y), one
stream (Stream Z), and one non-regulated seep (Seep C) on the subject property. In addition, two
wetlands (Wetlands A and G) were identified offsite within 225 feet of the subject property. Wetlands
A, B, D, E/F, and G were classified as Category IV slope wetlands using current methodology. Stream
Z was classified as a Type F (fish-bearing) stream. Drainage Y was classified as a Type F water near
its confluence with Stream Z, and as a Type Ns (non-fish bearing, seasonal) water on the northern
portion of the subject property where the drainage narrows and traverses steeper gradients. Drainages
W and X were identified as Type Ns (non-fish bearing, seasonal) waters.
The Creekwood Plat project previously received a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
(MDNS) from the City of Federal Way (File No. 14-100958-00-SE) and went through several rounds
of review and comments from the City, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and
Muckleshoot Tribe. However, the wetland and OHW determinations documented in SVC’s 2020
report did not receive final approval by the city. Following submittal of the revised report, the project
was paused and prior permits and approvals have since expired.
4.5 Precipitation
Precipitation data was acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
station at the Seattle Tacoma International Airport in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation
during and preceding the investigations. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 9 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Table 1. Precipitation Summary1
Date Day
Of
Day
Before
1 Week
Prior
2 Weeks
Prior 30 Days Prior Year to Date
(Observed/Normal)2
Percent of
Normal3
8/30/2022 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05/0.95 25.13/21.75 5/116
Notes:
1. Precipitation levels provided in inches. Data obtained from NOAA (http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=pqr)
for Sea-Tac International Airport.
2. Year-to-date precipitation is for the 2022 calendar year from January 1st to the site visit date..
3. Percent of normal is shown for the year to date.
Precipitation levels during the during the August 2022 site visit were within the statistical normal range
(70 to 130 percent of normal) for the 2022 calendar year (116 percent of normal) and lower than the
statistical normal range for the prior 30 days (5 percent of normal). Given that the month of August
is typically one of the driest times of year in the Pacific Northwest region, this precipitation data
suggests that hydrologic conditions encountered during the time of the site investigations were
relatively normal for the time of year.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 10 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Chapter 5. Results
SVC confirmed the presence and boundaries of the following potentially regulated critical areas onsite:
three wetlands (Wetlands B, D, and E/F), three drainages (Drainages W, X, and Y), and one stream
(Stream Z). In addition, one non-regulated seep (Seep C) was identified on the subject property, and
two wetlands (Wetlands A and G) were identified offsite within 225 feet of the subject property. No
other potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, or other fish and wildlife habitat were identified
within 225 feet of the subject property during the site investigations.
5.1 Upland Vegetation
Upland vegetation on the subject property consists of undeveloped forested areas dominated by a
canopy of bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii), with an understory of vine maple (Acer circinatum), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum),
salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
repens). Non-native invasive Himalyan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and English ivy (Hedera helix) were
also observed.
5.2 Wetlands
Three wetlands (Wetlands B, D, and E/F) were identified on the subject property. In addition, two
wetlands were identified offsite, one to the south of the southwest corner of the subject property
(Wetland A), and one to the north of the northwest corner of the subject property (Wetland G). In
general, SVC agrees with the prior wetland delineations; however, the boundary of Wetland B has
been modified based on current site conditions. The identified wetlands contained indicators of hydric
soils (presumed for offsite wetlands), wetland hydrology, and a predominance of hydrophytic
vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. Wetland data forms are provided
in Appendix D, wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix E, and wetland rating maps are
provided in Appendix F. Table 2 summarizes the wetlands identified during the site investigations.
Table 2. Wetland Summary
Wetland Cowardin1 HGM Federal Way2 Wetland Size Onsite
(Sq. Feet)
A PEMB Slope IV N/A - Offsite
B PSSB Slope IV 8,251
D PSSB Slope IV 644
E/F PSS/EMAB Slope IV 9,351
G PFOB Slope IV N/A - Offsite
Notes:
1. Cowardin et al. (1979); Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013); class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested, PSS =
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, PEM = Palustrine Emergent. Modifiers for Water Regime: A = Temporarily Flooded, B = Seasonally
Saturated.
2. FWRC 19.145.420(1) wetland rating categories.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 11 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Wetland B
Wetland B is approximately 8,251 square feet (0.19 acre) in size and is located centrally on the southern
portion of the subject property, adjacent to Stream Z. The northern boundary of Wetland B was re-
delineated during the August 2022 site investigation due to changes in site conditions following the
initial delineation efforts, resulting in a slight increase in the overall wetland size. Hydrology for
Wetland B is provided by surface runoff from adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, and a seasonally
high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, stinging nettle (Urtica
dioica), fringed willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum), and youth-on-age (Tolmiea menziesii). Wetland B is a
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PSSB). Per FWRC 19.145.420(1), Wetland B
is a Category IV slope wetland. Table 3 summarizes Wetland B.
Table 3. Wetland B Summary
WETLAND B – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way
WSDOE Rating
(Hruby, 2014) IV
Wetland Size (onsite) 8,251 square feet
Cowardin
Classification PEMB
HGM Classification Slope
Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-6
Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-5
Wetland Functions Summary
Water Quality
(Scores 4 out of
9 Points)
• Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to
moderate slope (>2-5 percent) of the unit and less than 50 percent cover of dense,
uncut herbaceous plants.
• Moderate landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due other source of
pollutants to wetland.
• Low societal value for water quality functions due to lack of degraded waters
upgradient of the wetland and lack of water quality issues in the sub-basin.
Hydrologic
(Scores 4 out of
9 points)
• Low site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due to the lack of dense, uncut
rigid plants in greater than 90 percent of the wetland.
• Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to lack of land uses that
generates excess runoff upslope of the wetland.
• Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to surface flooding within a
downgradient sub-basin
Habitat
(Scores 5 out of
9 Points)
• Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the has low habitat
interspersion and species richness.
• Low landscape potential to support habitat use due to the surrounding residential
development.
• High societal value for habitat functions due to the presence of 3 nearby WDFW
Priority Habitats (Instream, Riparian, and Biodiversity Areas and Corridors)
Buffer
Condition
The buffer is partially degraded due to the presence of a maintained, mowed utility
easement.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 12 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Wetland D
Wetland D is approximately 644 square feet (0.01 acre) in size and is located east of Drainage Y on
the east-central portion of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland D is provided by surface
runoff from adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland
vegetation is dominated by mannagrass, creeping buttercup, horsetail, and ladyfern (Athyrium
cyclosorum). Wetland D is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PSSB). Per FWRC
19.145.420(1), Wetland D is a Category IV slope wetland. Table 4 summarizes Wetland D.
Table 4. Wetland D Summary
WETLAND D – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way
WSDOE Rating
(Hruby, 2014) IV
Wetland Size (onsite) 644 square feet
Cowardin
Classification PSSB
HGM Classification Slope
Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-11
Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-12
Wetland Functions Summary
Water Quality
(Scores 3 out of
9 Points)
• Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to steep
slope (>5 percent) of the unit and less than 50 percent cover of dense, uncut woody
or herbaceous plants.
• Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to lack of pollutant
sources upslope of the wetland.
• Low societal value for water quality functions due to lack of degraded waters
upgradient of the wetland and lack of water quality issues in the sub-basin.
Hydrologic
(Scores 4 out of
9 points)
• Low site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due to the lack of dense, uncut
rigid plants in greater than 90 percent of the wetland.
• Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to lack of land uses that
generates excess runoff upslope of the wetland.
• Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to surface flooding within a
downgradient sub-basin
Habitat
(Scores 5 out of
9 Points)
• Low site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat as the wetland has low
habitat interspersion and species richness.
• Low landscape potential to support habitat use due to the surrounding residential
development.
• High societal value for habitat functions due to the presence of 3 nearby WDFW
Priority Habitats (Instream, Riparian, and Biodiversity Areas and Corridors)
Buffer
Condition
The buffer is partially disturbed due to the presence of a culvert and a compacted gravel
road.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 13 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Wetland E/F
Wetland E/F is approximately 9,351 square feet (0.21 acre) in size and is located adjacent to Drainage
X on the eastern portion of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland E/F is provided by surface
runoff from adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland
vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, vine maple, ladyfern, stinging nettle, and skunk cabbage
(Lysichitum americanus). Wetland E/F is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/Emergent, Temporarily Flooded,
Seasonally Saturated wetland (PSS/EMAB). Per FWRC 19.145.420(1), Wetland E/F is a Category IV
slope wetland. Table 5 summarizes Wetland E/F.
Table 5. Wetland E/F Summary
WETLAND E/F – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way
WSDOE Rating
(Hruby, 2014) IV
Wetland Size (onsite) 9,351 square feet
Cowardin
Classification PSS/EMAB
HGM Classification Slope
Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-13, DP-15
Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-14, DP-16
Wetland Functions Summary
Water Quality
(Scores 3 out of
9 Points)
• Low site potential to trap sediments and pollutants and remove nitrogen due to steep
slope (>5 percent) of the unit and less than 50 percent cover of dense, uncut
herbaceous plants.
• Low landscape potential to receive sediment and pollutants due to lack of pollutant
sources upslope of the wetland.
• Low societal value for water quality functions due to lack of degraded waters
upgradient of the wetland and lack of water quality issues in the sub-basin.
Hydrologic
(Scores 5 out of
9 points)
• Moderate site potential to reduce flooding and erosion due to the presence of dense,
uncut rigid plants in greater than 90 percent of the wetland.
• Low landscape potential to provide flood protection due to limited pollutant sources
upslope of the wetland.
• Moderate societal value for hydrologic functions due to surface flooding within a
downgradient sub-basin
Habitat
(Scores 6 out of
9 Points)
• Moderate site potential to provide diverse and complex habitat due to the presence
of multiple plant structures and hydroperiods and large, downed woody debris within
the wetland.
• Low landscape potential to support habitat use due to the surrounding residential
development.
• High societal value for habitat functions due to the presence of 3 nearby WDFW
Priority Habitats (Instream, Riparian, and Biodiversity Areas and Corridors)
Buffer
Condition
The buffer is partially degraded due to the presence of non-native invasive English Ivy
and trash and debris.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 14 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Wetland A (offsite)
Wetland A is a small (<100 square foot) wetland and is located offsite, to the south of the southwest
corner of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by surface sheet flow from
adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, a seasonal high groundwater table, southwesterly runoff from
nearby Highway 509/Southwest Dash Point Road, and Stream Z. Wetland vegetation is dominated
by mannagrass (Glyceria sp.), creeping buttercup, and horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Wetland A is a
Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PEMB). Per FWRC 19.145.420(1), Wetland A is
a Category IV slope wetland.
Wetland G (offsite)
Wetland G is approximately 10,558 square feet (0.24 acre) in size and is located offsite to the north of
the northwest corner of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland G is provided by surface runoff
from adjacent uplands, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland
vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, ladyfern, skunk cabbage, and slough sedge (Carex obnupta).
Wetland G is a Palustrine Forested, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PFOB). Per FWRC 19.145.420(1),
Wetland G is a Category IV slope wetland.
5.3 Waterbodies
Site investigation and research identified three drainages (Drainages W, X, and Y) and one stream
(Stream Z) on the subject property. All three drainages are tributaries to Stream Z, and Stream Z is a
tributary to Lakota Creek. A summary of the identified drainages and stream is provided below.
Drainage W
Drainage W originates from two seeps near the eastern edge of the parcel and drains south down a
hillslope with an approximately 25 percent gradient, passing through a 12-inch culvert before
discharging to Stream Z. The seeps that form Drainage W lack a defined bed or bank, but as they
converge, flows become more channelized and form a defined channel approximately 1 to 2 feet wide
on average. Due to the narrow width of the drainage channel, Drainage W was flagged at the center
line; however, the mapped extent of Drainage W was increased to incorporate and protect existing
seeps. Upgradient portions of Drainage W were observed to be degraded due to the presence of trash
and debris. The lower reach of Drainage W is bisected by a utility easement crossing.
Drainage W is not identified as a typed stream by the City of Federal Way, King County, WDFW, or
DNR. As the drainage flows down a steep gradient (25 percent), it does not meet the criteria of a
Type F stream per WAC 222-16-030. Drainage W was previously identified by SVC as a Type Ns
(non-fish bearing, seasonal) stream; however, flowing water was observed in the channel during the
August 2022 site investigation. As such, Drainage W appears to meet the definition of a Type Np
(non-fish bearing, perennial) stream per FWRC 19.145.260(2)(b). Table 6 summarizes Drainage W.
Drainage X
Drainage X originates from two seeps in Wetland E/F on the eastern portion of the subject property
and drains south down a steep slope with a 24 percent gradient, passing through a 12-inch culvert
before discharging to Stream Z. The seeps converge just south of Wetland E/F, forming a defined
channel approximately 1 foot wide on average. Due to the narrow width, Drainage X was flagged at
the center line predominantly within the extent of Wetland E/F. Areas where Drainage X flows
through uplands were observed to be heavily degraded due to the presence of non-native invasive
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 15 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
English ivy and trash and debris. The lower reach of the Drainage X is bisected by a utility easement
crossing.
Drainage X is not identified as a typed water by the City of Federal Way, King County, WDFW, or
DNR. As the drainage flows down a steep gradient (24 percent) and is less than 2 feet wide on average,
it does not meet the criteria of a Type F stream per WAC 222-16-030. Drainage X was previously
identified by SVC as a Type Ns (non-fish bearing, seasonal) stream; however, flowing water was
observed in the channel during the August 2022 site investigation. As such, Drainage X appears to
meet the definition of a Type Np (non-fish bearing, perennial) stream per FWRC 19.145.260(2)(b).
Table 7 summarizes Drainage X.
Drainage Y
Drainage Y originates from a hillside seep near the north-central boundary of the subject property and
flows south, passing through two 24-inch culverts before discharging to Stream Z. SVC previously
discussed flagging Drainage Y further north on the subject property with WDFW; however, during
the August 2022 site investigation SVC determined that regulated portions of the drainage start further
south and re-delineated the stream. This re-delineation was based on the observation that areas north
of Y-1 lack a defined channel and as such do not meet the definition of a regulated stream per WAC
222-16-030. Photos of site conditions north and south of OHWM flag Y-1 are provided in Appendix
G.
On the northern portion of the subject property, north of flag Y-9, Drainage Y has a narrow, defined
channel approximately 1 foot wide on average and flows through a hillslope with a gradient of 13
percent. Channel substrate consists predominantly of silt. As the drainage flows south, the gradient
begins to flatten, and the drainage channel widens to approximately 2 to 4 feet on average. Substrate
transitions to silt and sorted pebbles and cobble. Trash and debris were observed in patches along
the channel of Drainage Y, and the seep where Drainage Y originates was particularly inundated with
trash, including an abundance of tires. The lower reach of Drainage Y is bisected by a utility easement
crossing.
Drainage Y is not identified as a typed stream by the City of Federal Way, King County, WDFW, or
DNR. An analysis of historic data demonstrated that a stormwater outfall associated with the adjacent
plat to the north was discharging onto the subject property in an area with previously mapped flat
slopes (Associated Earth Sciences, 2017; GeoResources 2019, and 2020). As the outfall was not
created with proper erosion prevention standards, catastrophic erosion rates created a deep ravine in
which Drainage Y is now located. After the ravine was created, the City of Federal Way
decommissioned the original storm drain pipe and installed a new underground storm drain pipe just
west of Drainage Y within the drainage setback associated with Drainage Y. The current stormwater
outfall now discharges directly to Stream Z. However, following the rerouting of stormwater, the
eroded ravine was not repaired. Prior erosion within the ravine was severe and intercepted the
groundwater table, maintaining hydrology of the channel after the City’s stormwater outfall was
relocated. As portions of Drainage Y north of flag Y-9 are less than 2 feet wide on average, the upper
reach does not meet the criteria of a Type F stream per WAC 222-16-030. As such, Drainage Y north
of flag Y-9 meets the definition of a Type Np (non-fish bearing, perennial) stream per FWRC
19.145.260(2)(b). The reach of Drainage Y south of flag Y-9 is greater than 2 feet wide on average
and meets the criteria of Type F stream per FWRC 19.45.260(2)(a). Table 8 summarizes Drainage X.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 16 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Stream Z
One stream (Stream Z) was identified along the southern boundary of the subject property. As no
future development activities are proposed south of Stream Z, only the northern OHW boundary was
flagged. Stream Z originates offsite to the east and flows west, crossing the southeast corner of the
subject property and continuing west along the southern boundary of the site. Onsite, Stream Z turns
south near the central portion of the subject property and continues south/west offsite where it
eventually joins Lakota Creek. Stream Z has a defined bed and bank approximately 2 to 4 feet wide
on average and stream substrate consists predominantly of silt with areas of sorted pebbles and cobble
throughout. Portions of Stream Z onsite had indicators of stream restoration, such as anchoring and
large woody debris. Other portions of the stream were degraded due to the presence of trash and
debris and showed evidence of eutrophication and bacterial blooms. All three of the identified
drainages onsite (Drainages W, X, and Y) drain to Stream Z.
DNR identifies Stream Z as a Type F (fish-bearing) stream, and WDFW identifies Stream Z as gradient
accessible for chum, coho, Chinook, and pink salmon and steelhead trout. As Stream Z has a defined
bed and bank approximately 2 feet wide on average, it meets the definition of a Type F stream per
FWRC 19.145.260(2). A summary of Stream Z is provided in Table 9 below.
Table 6. Drainage W Summary
DRAINAGE W INFORMATION SUMMARY
Feature Name Drainage W
WRIA 10 – Puyallup/White
Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way
City of Federal Way
Classification Type Np
City of Federal Way
Buffer 50 feet
Waterbody Length (feet) 184 linear feet
Documented Fish
Presence None
Location of Feature Near the eastern boundary of the subject property.
Connectivity (where stormwater drainage
feature flows from/to)
Originates from two seeps on the eastern portion of the
subject property and flows south, passing through a culvert
before discharging to Stream Z.
Documented Fish Species N/A
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 17 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Table 7. Drainage X Summary
DRAINAGE X INFORMATION SUMMARY
Feature Name Drainage X
WRIA 10 – Puyallup/White
Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way
City of Federal Way
Classification Type Np
City of Federal Way Buffer 50 feet
Waterbody Length (feet) 117 linear feet
Documented Fish Presence None
Location of Feature Eastern portion of property, west of Drainage W.
Connectivity (where stormwater drainage
feature flows from/to)
Originates from two seeps within Wetland E/F and flows south,
passing through a culvert before discharging to Stream Z.
Documented Fish Species N/A
Table 8. Drainage Y Summary
DRAINAGE Y INFORMATION SUMMARY
Feature Name Drainage Y
WRIA 10 – Puyallup/White
Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way
City of Federal Way
Classification Type Np/Type F
City of Federal Way
Buffer 50 feet/100 feet
Waterbody Length 421 linear feet
Documented Fish
Presence None
Location of Feature Drainage Y bisects the property from north to south on the east-
central portion of the subject property.
Connectivity (where stormwater drainage
feature flows from/to)
Originates on-site at the toe of a steep slope near the north
central portion of the subject property and flows south through
two culverts before discharging to Stream Z
Documented Fish Species N/A
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 18 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Table 9. Stream Z Summary
STREAM Z INFORMATION SUMMARY
Feature Name Stream Z
WRIA 10 – Puyallup/White
Local Jurisdiction City of Federal Way
DNR Stream Type Type F
City of Federal Way
Classification Type F
City of Federal Way Buffer
Width 100 feet
Waterbody Length 987 linear feet (onsite)
Documented Fish
P Yes
Location of Feature Stream Z is located on the southern boundary of the subject
property, flowing from east to west.
Connectivity (where stormwater drainage
feature flows from/to)
Stream Z originates offsite to the east and flows west, crossing
the southeast corner of the subject property and continuing west
along the southern boundary of the site. Onsite, Stream Z turns
south near the central portion of the subject property and
continues south/west offsite where it eventually joins Lakota
Creek.
Modeled Fish Species Winter steelhead trout, pink salmon, coho salmon, fall chum
salmon and fall chinook salmon downstream.
Riparian/Buffer Condition
The buffer of Stream Z is partially degraded by residential
developments to the south, but otherwise consists of relatively
intact forest.
5.4 Non-Regulated Seep (Seep C)
One non-regulated seep (Seep C) was identified on the east-central portion of the subject property,
west of Drainage Y. The seep is situated over a stormwater line constructed by the City of Federal
Way. Two data plots (DP-9 and D-10) were collected to document conditions within Seep C.
Vegetation within Seep C generally met hydrophytic vegetation criteria due to a dominance of
facultative and facultative wetland species including salmonberry, tall mannagrass (Glyceria elata), giant
horsetail, bentgrass (Agrostis spp.), and ladyfern. However, hydric soil criteria were not observed during
the initial site investigations in 2013 and 2014, or the follow-up investigations in 2017, 2019, and 2022.
Soils at both DP-9 and DP-10 failed to meet hydric soil criteria due to a lack of redoximorphic features.
No primary or secondary indicators of hydrology were observed at DP-9. Saturation was observed
the surface at DP-10 during the site investigations, however, soils from 2 inches below ground surface
and lower were dry, indicating that the saturation observed is not associated with a groundwater table
and therefore does not meet wetland hydrology indicator A3 (Saturation to the Surface), which
requires a groundwater table to be present immediately below the saturation except in cases of
restrictive layers, which were not observed at this location. Given the steep topography of the site
combined with the various groundwater or stormwater discharges known to occur onsite, it is likely
that the observed surface saturation was due to groundwater discharging further upgradient. This
lateral “flow through” movement of water would be aerated and oxygenated. Such conditions typically
preclude reduced, anaerobic conditions and subsequently do not allow hydric soils to form. Therefore,
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 19 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
while the seep may exhibit hydrophytic vegetation and occasionally wetland hydrology, it does not
support hydric soils. As such, the seep is not a regulated wetland.
5.5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
According to the USFWS IPaC mapping database, marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus),
yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and Taylor’s checkerspot
(Euphydryas editha taylori) have the potential to occur on or within 225 feet of the subject property.
Marbled murrelet that occur in the state of Washington are year-round residents on coastal waters and
primarily feed in waters within 500 feet of the shore out to 1.2 miles from shore at depths of less than
100 feet; preferred pray is includes small fish and crustaceans although nestlings may feed on larger
fish (WDFW, 1991). Nests and roosts are found in mature and old growth forests of western
Washington. Nest trees are typically greater than thirty-two inches diameter at breast height, with
nesting preferences on large flat conifer branches, often covered in moss (WDFW, 1991). Marbled
murrelets have been observed in the largest numbers near the coastal waters surrounding the Olympic
Peninsula and are more sparsely distributed elsewhere in this region. The subject property is not
suitable for marbled murrelet habitat because it is over 3,000 feet away from the shoreline of the Puget
Sound. In addition, while large conifers are present onsite, the forested areas within 225 feet of the
subject property are not considered mature or old-growth and are fragmented by surrounding
commercial and residential developments.
Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat consists of low to mid-level riparian forests dominated by cottonwoods
and willows. Additional riparian species may include ash, walnut, mesquite, and tamarisk. Breeding
cuckoos prefer larger and wider patches of riparian habitat. Habitat assessments of yellow-billed
cuckoo from California indicate that suitable habitat is approximately 100 to 198 acres and wider than
200 meters; marginal habitat is approximately 20 to 100 acres and 100 to 200 meters wide; and
unsuitable habitat is smaller than approximately 37 acres and less than 100 meters wide (Wiles &
Kalasz, 2017). Twenty sightings have been confirmed in Washington between the 1950s and 2017;
none of these sightings were breeding birds. Further, sixteen of these twenty sightings were east of
the Cascades, and the sighted birds were likely vagrants or migrants (Wiles & Kalasz, 2017). The
subject property is connected to a forested corridor that meets the size requirements to provide
suitable habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo; however, the vegetation on and within 225 feet of the subject
property is dominated by Douglas-fir, western red cedar, and bigleaf maple and species that provide
suitable riparian habitat. In addition, yellow-billed cuckoo are unlikely to be present on or near the
subject property due to the lack of sightings in Washington.
Bull trout have the most specific habitat requirements of salmonids. They require cold water
temperatures, clean stream substrates for spawning and rearing, complex habitats including streams
with riffles and deep pools, undercut banks and large logs, and they also rely on river, lake, and ocean
habitats that connect to headwater streams for annual spawning and feeding migrations (Shellberg,
2002). In Washington, bull trout are typically found in major tributaries from the Cascades that flow
into the Puget Sound as well as major tributaries for the Olympic Mountains that flow into the Hood
Canal, Straight of Juan de Fuca, and the Pacific Ocean (USFWS, 2015). Stream Z consists
predominantly of silt substrates and lacks the habitat complexity to support bull trout populations. In
addition, bacterial and algal blooms and trash and debris were observed in portions of Stream Z
indicating that stream temperatures and pollutant levels likely exceed the requirements for bull trout.
As such, Bull trout are not likely present on or within 225 feet of the subject property.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 20 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Taylor’s checkerspot are primarily found in open prairie and grass/woodland habitats (Potter, 2016).
In Washington, there are seven populations remaining that are primarily found on coastal bluffs and
estuarine grasslands along in Strait of Juan de Fuca and in post-glacial gravelly outwash prairies in
Thurston, Mason, Pierce, and Lewis Counties. Females lays eggs in April and May, depositing up to
1,200 eggs on the undersides of host plants, which can include members of the figwort or snapdragon
family, harsh paintbrush, marsh speedwell, American brooklime, native seashore plantain, goose
tongue as well as golden paintbrush and non-native species such as ribwort plantain and thyme-leaved
speedwell (USFWS, 2013). No open prairie or grass/woodland habitats are present on or within 225
feet of the subject property, and none of the host plants suitable for egg laying were identified on or
near the subject property. As such, Taylor’s checkerspot are not likely present on or near the subject
property.
WDFW does not identify documented salmonid presence on or within 225 feet of the subject
property, but does identify Stream Z as gradient accessible for coho, Chinook, chum, and pink salmon
and steelhead trout. Stream Z may provide suitable habitat for these species. In addition, WDFW
identifies the subject property and areas extending offsite to the southeast, southwest, and northwest
as a biodiversity corridor. Due to the presence of a relatively intact native forest community onsite
and extending offsite to the north/west, this area likely serves as a migration corridor and offers
suitable nesting and foraging areas for common urban wildlife species.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 21 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations
SVC confirmed the presence and boundaries of the following critical areas onsite: three wetlands
(Wetland B, D, and E/F), three drainages (Drainages W, X, and Y), and one stream (Stream Z) In
addition, one non-regulated seep (Seep C) was identified on the subject property, and two wetlands
(Wetlands A and G) were identified offsite within 225 feet of the subject property. No other potentially
regulated wetlands, waterbodies, or other fish and wildlife habitat were identified within 225 feet of
the subject property during the site investigations.
6.1 Local Considerations
6.1.1 Buffer Standards
FWRC 19.145.410(1) has adopted the current wetland rating system for western Washington (Hruby,
2014). Category IV wetlands generally provide low levels of function and are typically more disturbed,
smaller, and/or more isolated in the landscape than Category I, II, or III wetlands. Category IV
wetlands score less than 16 overall points. Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G are classified as Category
IV wetlands and subject to standard 50-foot buffers per FWRC 19.145.420(2) Table 1.
Drainages W, X, and Drainage Y north of flag Y-9 are classified as Type Np streams and subject to
standard 50-foot buffers per FWRC 19.145.270(1)(b). Stream Z and portions of Drainage Y south of
flag Y-9 are classified as Type F streams and subject to standard 100-foot buffers per FWRC
19.145.270(1)(a).
An additional 5-foot structure setback is required from the edge of all critical area buffers per FWRC
19.145.160.
6.1.2 Stream Buffer Intrusion
The proposed project requires intrusion into the buffer of Drainage Y to provide access from 21st
Way Southwest to the northeast and northwest portions of the subject property and to provide a
stormwater connection to the existing storm pipe adjacent to Drainage Y for the proposed
development. The location of the proposed access road is necessary to meet the City of Federal Way’s
street design standards. The location of the proposed storm pipe connection is necessary due to the
existing slope of the subject property and need to maintain existing site drainage patterns. The
proposed necessary development actions will result in minor (148 square feet) of permanent intrusion
due to the sidewalk and retaining wall, however the remainder of the buffer intrusion will be temporary
in nature and will be restored and planted. Per FWRC 19.245.330(3), the City may approve stream
buffer intrusion based on the following criteria:
a. It will not adversely affect water quality.
The proposed access road and stormwater connection are not anticipated to adversely affect
water quality. Construction of the proposed access road and stormwater connection will
require 6,115 square feet of intrusion to the buffer of Drainage Y. The existing buffer is
degraded due to ongoing erosion issues associated with the ravine where Drainage Y is located,
and the presence of trash, debris, and non-native invasive species and a sparse understory. In
order to offset impacts to the drainage, the northern end of the ravine will be filled and graded
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 22 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
to replicate site conditions prior to erosion of the ravine. The impacts to the buffer of Drainage
Y will be restored by seeding the fill slope with an erosion control mix. The remaining buffer
will be enhanced by removing degradations (trash, debris, and non-native invasive species) and
planting native shrubs and groundcover. Overall, these actions will prevent excess sediment
loads from entering Drainage Y, reduce turbidity associated with excess sediment, remove
sources of pollutants from the buffer, and provide a dense suite of native shrubs and
groundcover in the understory which will improve filtration for surface runoff entering
Drainage Y, resulting in a net lift in water quality for surface runoff entering Drainage Y.
b. It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or buffer area.
The proposed access road and stormwater connection will not adversely affect the existing
quality of wildlife habitat within Drainage Y or the associated buffer. Buffer enhancement
actions will remove degradations (non-native invasive species, trash, and debris) and improve
habitat within the buffer by planting a suite of native understory plantings. The establishment
of a native plant community in the understory will improve habitat by providing increased
cover and shading along the banks of the drainage and providing potential food sources and
cover for native wildlife. As such, the stormwater connection will not adversely affect existing
wildlife habitat within Drainage Y or the associated buffer.
c. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities.
The proposed access road and stormwater connection will not adversely affect the existing
drainage or stormwater retention capabilities associated with the buffer of Drainage Y. The
existing buffer has little potential to retain stormwater due to the steep slope. As part of the
construction of the proposed access road, the buffer will be filled and graded to make the
ravine more gradual and stable. These actions, combined with the addition of native plantings
within the buffer, will improve drainage and stormwater retention capabilities by slowing
surface runoff entering Drainage Y and preventing further erosion, and therefore
sedimentation of Drainage Y and downgradient waters.
d. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards
The proposed access road and stormwater connection will not lead to unstable earth
conditions or create erosion hazards. As mentioned above, as part of the access road
construction, 6,115 square feet of the ravine north of where Drainage Y is situated will be
graded, filled, and seeded with an erosion control mix to improve slope stability and prevent
future erosion hazards. In addition, the remaining buffer areas will be planted with a suite of
native shrubs and groundcover, which will provide increased root structure to improve slope
stability. Overall, the proposed project is anticipated to improve earth conditions and alleviate
existing erosion hazards.
e. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the City as
a whole
The proposed project will not be materially detrimental to other properties in the vicinity of
the subject property or the City. As mentioned above, the proposed project will improve
stability of the ravine where Drainage Y is located. The stability of the ravine has been an
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 23 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
ongoing issue of concern for adjacent property owners and the City (Associated Earth
Sciences, 2017; GeoResources 2019, and 2020).
f. It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property.
The proposed access road is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property as
it is necessary to access the developable upland areas on the northwest portion of the site. In
addition, stormwater facilities are necessary to offset increases in impervious surfaces
associated with the proposed development. The location of the proposed stormwater
connection due to the existing slope of the subject property and the need to maintain existing
site drainage patterns.
Additionally, the proposed intrusion into the stream buffer will utilize proper best management
practices (BMPs) and installation of appropriate temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC)
measures, and clearing and grading will adhere to the requirements detailed in FWRC 19.145.340
which include:
1. Grading is allowed only during the dry season (May 1st to October 1st). The director may
extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis, determined on actual weather
conditions.
2. The soil duff layer shall remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. Where
feasible, any soil disturbed shall be redistributed to other areas of the project area.
3. The moisture-holding capacity of the topsoil layer shall be maintained by minimizing soil
compaction or reestablishing natural soil structure and infiltrative capacity on all areas of
the project area not covered by impervious surfaces.
4. Erosion and sediment control that meets requirements of FWRC Title 16.
5. All fill material used must be nondissolving and nondecomposing. The fill material must
not contain organic or inorganic material that would be detrimental to water quality or the
existing habitat.
6. The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject property only if part of an
approved development on the subject property.
7. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after clearing and grading activities with
native vegetation normally associated with the stream or buffer area.
6.1.3 Mitigation Sequencing
Per FWRC 19.145.130, Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined
with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When alteration to a critical area is
propped, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following order of
preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
The proposed project has been carefully designed to avoid critical area and buffer impacts to
the greatest extent feasible by avoiding direct impacts and in-water work, and avoiding impacts
to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z. However,
due to the need to provide access across the northern boundary of the subject property to
meet City of Federal Way street design standards, the presence of steep slopes that limit the
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 24 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
developable areas onsite, the need to maintain existing site drainage patterns, and the location
of Drainage Y near the northern boundary of the subject property, complete avoidance is not
feasible. The proposed project requires intrusion into the buffer of Drainage Y to provide an
access road from 21st Way Southwest across the northern portion of the subject property in
order to meet the City of Federal Way’s street design standards and access the developable
upland areas on the northwest portion of the subject property and in order to provide a
stormwater connection that disperses flow down-gradient and maintains existing site drainage
patterns.
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using
appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or
reduce impacts.
As mentioned above, the proposed impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y are unavoidable and
necessary to achieve the goals of the proposed project, comply with the City’s street design
standards, and provide a stormwater connection that maintains existing site drainage patterns.
The proposed project will incorporate all appropriate BMPs and TESC measures for the
duration of the project to minimize any construction impacts to Drainage Y and the other
critical areas identified onsite. In addition, the proposed access road design and buffer
enhancement measures will improve the stability of the ravine where Drainage Y is located,
reducing excess sediment load and turbidity caused by excess erosion and scour of the ravine.
3. Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the
conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project.
Non-compensatory mitigation to help offset impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y will be
provided through a combination of stream buffer restoration for the temporarily impacted
portion of the Drainage Y buffer, and voluntary enhancement actions for the remainder of
the Drainage Y buffer. In general, trash and debris will be removed from critical area buffers
throughout the site to improve habitat and water quality for surface runoff entering the critical
areas. The buffer of Drainage Y will be further enhanced through a combination of
construction techniques that will improve stability of the ravine where Drainage Y is located,
and the removal of non-native invasive plants and native understory plantings. Construction
techniques to improve ravine stability include the installation of a concrete retaining wall to
support the access road and filling and grading of the adjacent ravine slopes to restore eroded
banks. Following fill and grading, the 5,967 square feet of fill slope will be seeded with a native
erosion control mix to stabilize the slope and reduce sedimentation and turbidity within
Drainage Y. Outside of the grading limits, 59,167 square feet of Drainage Y buffer will be
enhanced with native understory plantings to improve habitat adjacent to Drainage Y. Overall,
the proposed buffer enhancement actions are anticipated to provide a net lift in ecological
functions onsite.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the
action.
The remaining wetland, stream, and associated buffer areas onsite will be protected via the
establishment of a critical area tracts consistent with the requirements of FWRC 19.145.150.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 25 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
In addition, critical area fencing and signs will be installed along the perimeter of these areas
to further prevent intrusion into these areas as required per FWRC 19.145.180.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments.
See the response to part 3 above. Mitigation for impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y will be
provided through a combination of buffer restoration for Drainage Y, and additional voluntary
enhancement of the remainder of Drainage Y buffer.
6. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary.
The proposed buffer restoration and enhancement actions will be monitored for a period of
5 years consistent with the requirements of FWRC 19.145.150.
6.1.4 State Priority Habitats and Species
The biodiversity area/corridor on the subject property is identified as a priority habitat by WDFW
and likely regulated under FWRC 19.145.260(5); however, this area does not have a primary
association with state or federal listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. As such, protection
measures listed under FWRC 19.145.400 are not applicable to the proposed project.
6.2 State and Federal Considerations
In a December 2, 2008 memorandum from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
USACE, joint guidance is provided that describes waters that are to be regulated under section 404 of
the CWA (USACE, 2008). This memorandum was amended on February 2, 2012 where the EPA and
USACE issued a final guidance letter on waters protected by the CWA.
The 2012 guidance describes the following waters where jurisdiction would be asserted: 1) traditional
navigable waters, 2) interstate waters, 3) wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, 4) non-
navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent meaning they contain
water at least seasonally (e.g. typically three months and does not include ephemeral waters), and 5)
wetlands that directly abut permanent waters. The regulated waters are those associated with naturally
occurring waters and water courses and not artificial waters (i.e. stormwater pond outfalls).
The 2012 memorandum further goes on to describe waters where jurisdiction would likely require
further analysis: 1) Tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, 2) Wetlands adjacent
to jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, and 3) Waters that fall
under the “other waters” category of the regulations.
In addition, the 2012 guidance identifies thirteen waters or areas where jurisdiction will not be asserted:
1) Wet areas that are not tributaries or open waters and do not meet the agencies regulatory definition
of “wetlands”, 2) Waters excluded from coverage under the CWA by existing regulations, 3) Waters
that lack a “significant nexus: where one is required for a water to be jurisdictional, 4) Artificially
irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased, 5) Artificial lakes or ponds created
by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for
such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing, 6) Artificial reflecting pools
or swimming pools excavated in uplands, 7) Small ornamental waters created by excavating and/or
diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons, and puddles, 8) Water-filled depressions
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 26 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
created incidental to construction activity, 9) Groundwater, including groundwater drained through
subsurface drainage systems, 10) Erosional features (gullies and rills), 11) Non-wetland swales, 12)
Ditches that are excavated wholly in uplands, drain only uplands or non-jurisdictional waters, and have
no more than ephemeral flow, and 13) Ditches that do not contribute flow, either directly or through
other waterbodies, to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea.
Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, and Drainages W, X, and Y, and Stream Z are assumed to be regulated
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) due to their likely surface water connectivity to
Lakota Creek, a tributary to the Puget Sound. All of the identified wetlands and streams/drainages are
considered natural waters that are likely regulated by the WSDOE through the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 90.48. No direct impacts to any regulated wetlands or waterbodies are proposed,
therefore state and federal authorizations are not anticipated to be required.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 27 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Chapter 7. Buffer Enhancement Plan
The proposed buffer enhancement actions for the project attempt to strike a balance between
achieving project goals as well as a positive ecological result. The proposed stream buffer impacts
closely adhere to the mitigation standards specified in FWRC 19.145.140 while also utilizing the best
available science (Granger et al., 2005; Sheldon et al., 2005; WSDOE et al., 2006; WSDOE et al.,
2021). This Buffer Enhancement Plan utilizes City of Federal Way’s mitigation guidance (FWRC
19.145.140) and serves to outline the Applicant’s plan to offset impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y
from a proposed access road across the northern boundary of the subject property.
7.1 Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to provide residential housing for the City of Federal Way, consistent
with the City’s Comprehensive plan and current zoning. The proposed project will provide
approximately 20 single-family homes with associated utilities and infrastructure to increase residences
in the City of Federal Way.
7.2 Description of Impacts
The proposed project is for residential development of the subject property with a 20-lot residential
plat and associated infrastructure including internal site access and parking, utilities, and stormwater
infrastructure. The proposed project has been carefully designed to avoid impacts to the identified
critical areas and associated buffers to the greatest extent possible, and direct impacts, in-water work,
and impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z are
avoided entirely. However, due to the need to provide site access in compliance with the City of
Federal Way’s street design standards, the presence of steep slopes which limit the developable areas
onsite, the need to maintain site drainage patterns, and the location of Drainage Y near the northern
boundary of the subject property, complete avoidance is not feasible. The City of Federal Way’s street
design standards limit the length of dead-end roadways, as such access cannot be provided exclusively
via an extension of 22nd Avenue Southwest (north of the subject property). As such, an access road
extending from 21st Way Southwest across the northern boundary of the subject property is required.
Due to the location of Drainage Y near the northern boundary of the subject property, the proposed
access road requires intrusion into the buffer of Drainage Y. In addition, due to the slope of the
subject property and the need to maintain existing site drainage patterns, the proposed project requires
the location of a stormwater connection to an existing storm pipe within the buffer of Drainage Y.
Overall, the proposed access road will result in 6,115 square feet of impacts to the buffer of Drainage
Y, of which 148 square feet are permanent intrusions due to the installation of the sidewalk and
associated retaining wall, and 5,967 square feet are temporary in nature and will be restored through
grading, seeding, and planting.
7.3 Buffer Enhancement Plan
Non-compensatory buffer restoration and enhancement actions are proposed to help offset of
impacts to the buffer of Drainage Y from the proposed access road and stormwater connection. Per
FWRC 19.145.330, applicants for stream buffer intrusion shall provide a buffer enhancement plan
that demonstrates that the remaining and enhanced buffer will function at an equivalent or higher
level than the standard buffer. The plan shall provide an assessment of the existing habitat and water
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 28 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
quality functions, stormwater retention capabilities, groundwater recharge, and erosion protection and
the effects of the modification on those functions.
The existing buffer of Drainage Y is degraded due to the presence of non-native invasive species,
trash and debris, and existing erosion issues associated with a since-decommissioned stormwater
outfall previously located north of the drainage (Associated Earth Sciences, 2017; GeoResources 2019,
and 2020). The buffer of Drainage Y provides limited habitat functions as the understory is dominated
by non-native invasive species which limits food sources and browse, cover, and forage habitat for
native wildlife. Water quality functions provided by the buffer are also limited due to the presence of
trash and debris within the buffer which increases pollutant sources entering Drainage Y. Due to the
steep eroded slopes associated with the ravine where Drainage Y is located, the buffer of Drainage Y
has little to no stormwater retention capabilities, groundwater recharge, or erosion protection. The
eroded slopes also contribute to degraded water quality within Drainage Y, and further downgradient
waters include Stream Z, due to increased sediment loads and turbidity within the drainage.
The proposed access road will implement several measures to stabilize the ravine where Drainage Y
is situated. The road itself will be supported by a concrete retaining wall. Below the retaining wall,
the ravine will be filled and graded to create a more gradual, stable slope down to Drainage Y.
Following fill and grading of the slope, the 5,967 square feet of the buffer of Drainage Y will be
restored by seeding the fill slope with an erosion control mix to stabilize soils and reduce future
erosion.
The remaining 59,167 square feet of the buffer of Drainage Y will be enhanced by removing
degradations including non-native invasive species, trash, and debris and planting the understory with
native shrubs and groundcover. The removal of non-native invasive species and planting of native
shrubs and groundcover within the buffer will improve habitat functions by providing browse, cover,
and nesting for small birds and mammals, which will in turn provide prey for raptors and other small
mammals. The removal of trash and debris and stabilization of the ravine will improve water quality
by removing pollutant sources from the buffer of Drainage Y and reducing sediment loads and
turbidity within Drainage Y. Native plantings also have the potential to improve water quality by
increasing filtration for stormwater runoff entering Drainage Y. Stormwater retention capabilities,
groundwater recharge, and erosion protection will all be improved by filling, grading, and stabilizing
the ravine where Drainage Y is located with an erosion control mix. These measures will slow the rate
of surface runoff entering Drainage Y, allowing for more surface runoff to infiltrate, and will also
provide increased erosion protection by stabilizing soils with native plantings. The proposed
stormwater connection will facilitate controlled release of treated stormwater to an existing storm pipe
located in the Drainage Y buffer. As such, the connection will not adversely affect water quality,
habitat, stormwater retention, groundwater recharge, or erosion protection. Overall, the proposed
buffer restoration and enhancement actions will provide a net lift in ecological functions and values
associated with the existing degraded buffer associated with Drainage Y.
In addition to enhancing the buffer of Drainage Y to allow for buffer intrusion pursuant to FWRC
19.145.330, voluntary enhancement of the remaining onsite critical area buffers associated with
Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z onsite is also proposed. The
buffers will be enhanced by removing trash and debris that is prevalent throughout the site. The
removal of trash and debris will reduce pollutant sources entering the identified wetlands and streams
and provide a net lift in ecological functions onsite.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 29 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
7.4 Approach and Best Management Practices
Any earthwork adjacent to the identified critical areas and associated buffers will incorporate all
appropriate BMPs and TESC measures to minimize impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control measures will include high-visibility fencing (HVF)
installed around native vegetation along the perimeter of the grading limits, silt fencing between the
graded areas and undisturbed buffers, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, and seeding of
disturbed soils. These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development or
restoration actions and actively managed for the duration of the construction or restoration activities.
All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the identified critical areas and
associated buffers, and the areas will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. All fill
material should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers and will need to be
free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste
and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept free of the
remaining shoreline buffer area. Following completion of the development, the entire site should be
cleaned and detail graded using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be
removed.
7.5 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards
The goals and objectives for the proposed buffer enhancement actions are based on providing
improved habitat and protection for Drainage Y and improving habitat for Wetlands B, D, and E/F,
Drainages W and X, and Stream Z. The buffer enhancement actions are capable of improving habitat
functions for Drainage Y over time by stabilizing the ravine where Drainage Y is situated, removing
degradations such as non-native invasive species, trash, and debris, and the establishment of a native
vegetation barrier between the project and Drainage Y. Habitat functions associated with Wetlands
A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z will be improved by removing pollutant
sources (i.e., trash and debris) from the associated buffer areas.
Goal 1 – Improve and protect stream functions associated with Drainage Y by restoring and enhancing
approximately 59,167 square feet of stream buffer area onsite.
Objective 1 – Restore 5,967 square feet of the buffer of Drainage Y by stabilizing the ravine
where Drainage Y is located.
Performance Standard 1.2 – The buffer restoration area will be seeded with a native
erosion control seed mix by the end of Year 1.
Performance Standard 1.1 – No evidence of erosion or scour will be observed within
the 5,967 square-foot restoration area during any monitoring year. If erosion or scour
are observed, contingency measures will be implemented to ensure the stability of the
ravine.
Performance Standard 1.3 – Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than
20 percent cover in any growing season during the monitoring periods following Year
1.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 30 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Performance Standard 1.3 – No trash or debris will be present within the buffer
restoration area during the monitoring period.
Objective 2 – Establish a community of native trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs within the
buffer enhancement areas associated with Drainage Y to create diverse horizontal and vertical
vegetation structure and improve wildlife habitat.
Performance Standard 2.1 – By the end of Year 5, the buffer enhancement areas will
have at least 3 species of native shrubs (native volunteer species can be included)
present within all of the buffer restoration areas. To be considered, the native species
must make up at least 5 percent of the vegetation class.
Performance Standard 2.2 – Minimum plant survivorship will be 100 percent of
installed plants at the end of Year 1 (native recruitment and replacement of lost plants
allowed), 85 percent at the end of Year 2, 80 percent at the end of Year 3, and 70
percent at the end of Year 5.
Performance Standard 2.3 – Minimum native woody species in the buffer
enhancement areas will be 30 percent total cover at the end of Year 3 and 50 percent
at the end of Year 5.
Performance Standard 2.4 – Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than
20 percent cover in any growing season during the monitoring periods following Year
1.
Performance Standard 2.5 – No trash or debris will be present within the buffer
restoration area during the monitoring period.
Goal 2 – Improve onsite buffer functions associated with the remaining identified critical areas
(Wetlands A, B, D, E/F, and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z) by providing voluntary buffer
enhancement.
Objective 3 – Remove trash and debris from the onsite buffers areas Wetlands A, B, D, E/F,
and G, Drainages W and X, and Stream Z.
Performance Standard 3.1 – No trash or debris will be present within the buffer
restoration area during the monitoring period.
7.6 Plant Materials and Installation
7.6.1 Plant Materials
All plant materials to be used for restoration actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable,
local source. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings they will
exhibit normal, densely developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound,
healthy, vigorous plants free from defects, and all forms of disease and infestation.
Container stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not
more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under no circumstances shall
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 31 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Seed mixture used for hand or hydroseeding
shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. The mixture is specified
in the plan set.
All plant material shall be inspected by the qualified Project Scientist upon delivery. Plant material
not conforming to the specifications below will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor.
Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site.
Fertilizer will be in the form of Agriform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of
sterile wheat straw for seeded areas (if necessary) and clean recycled wood chips approximately ½-
inch to 1-inch in size and ½-inch thick for woody plants. The mulch material may be sourced from
non-invasive woody materials sourced from the land clearing activities.
7.6.2 Plant Scheduling, Species, Size, and Spacing
Plant installation should occur as close to conclusion of the redevelopment construction activities as
possible to limit erosion and limit the temporal loss of function provided by the stream, wetlands, and
associated buffers. All planting should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensure plants do not
dry out after installation, or temporary irrigation measures may be necessary.
7.6.3 Quality Control for Planting Plan
All plant material shall be inspected by the qualified Project Scientist upon delivery. Plant material
not conforming to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor.
Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Under no circumstances shall
container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops.
The landscape contractor shall provide the responsible Project Scientist with documentation of plant
material that includes the supplying nursery contact information, plant species, plant quantities, and
plant sizes.
7.6.4 Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage
All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing
weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent
wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing
plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be
packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out.
If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat
moss, or in a manner acceptable to the responsible Project Scientist. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not
installed immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No
plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants
transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn.
7.6.5 Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials
The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the restoration and enhancement
plan with the responsible Project Scientist prior to installation. The responsible Project Scientist
reserves the right to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 32 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
appropriate. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings, planting operations
will cease until alternate plant locations have been selected by and/or approved by the Project
Scientist.
Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container stock. The pits should be at
least 1.5 times the width of the rootball, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root
system.
Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked
prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment.
Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets. Water pits again upon
completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or
muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain
water and install a 4- to 6-inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant.
7.6.6 Temporary Irrigation Specifications
While the native species selected for restoration and enhancement actions are hardy and typically
thrive in northwest conditions and the proposed actions are planned in areas with sufficient
hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions.
Therefore, irrigation or regular watering will be provided as necessary for the duration of the first two
growing seasons, two times per week while the native plants become established. Irrigation may be
discontinued after two growing seasons if plants are well established. The frequency and amount of
irrigation will be dependent upon climatic conditions and may require more or less frequent watering
than two times per week.
7.6.7 Invasive Plant Control and Removal
Invasive species onsite to be removed include English Ivy and any listed noxious weeds or other
invasive species. These species can also be found nearby; therefore, to ensure these species do not
expand following the restoration actions, invasive shrubs within the enhancement area will be
pretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (e.g., Rodeo) a minimum of
two weeks prior to being removed from the shoreline buffer. The pre-treatment with herbicide should
occur prior to all planned restoration and enhancement actions, and spot treatment of any surviving
other invasive vegetation should be performed again each fall prior to leaf senescence for a minimum
of three years.
7.7 Maintenance & Monitoring Plan
The Maintenance and Monitoring Plan is described below in accordance with FWRC 19.145.140(8).
The Applicant is committed to compliance with the buffer enhancement plan and overall success of
the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping the site free from
non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and waste.
The City of Federal Way will require continued monitoring and maintenance to ensure the buffer
enhancement actions are successful. Therefore, the project site will be monitored for a period of five
years with formal inspections by a qualified Project Scientist. Monitoring events will be scheduled at
the time of construction, 30 days after planting, early in the growing season and the end of the growing
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 33 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
season for Year 1, and annually in Years 2-5, in accordance with FWRC 19.145.140(8). A closeout
assessment will also be conducted in Year 5 to ensure the goals of the buffer enhancement plan have
been achieved.
Monitoring will consist of percent cover measurements at permanent monitoring stations, walk-
through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying restoration plantings,
photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife observations, and general qualitative habitat and
wetland function observations.
To determine percent cover, observed vegetation will be identified and recorded by species and an
estimate of areal cover of dominant species within each sampling plots. Circular sample plots,
approximately 30 feet in diameter (706 square feet), are centered at each monitoring station. The
sample plots encompass the specified wetland areas and terminate at the observed wetland boundary.
Trees and shrubs within each 30-foot diameter monitoring plot are then recorded to species and areal
cover. Herbaceous vegetation is sampled from a 10-foot diameter (78.5 square feet) within each
monitoring plot, established at the same location as the center of each tree and shrub sample plot.
Herbaceous vegetation within each monitoring plot is then recorded to species and includes an
estimate of percent areal cover. A list of observed tree, shrub, and herbaceous species including
percent areal cover of each species and wetland indicator status is included within the monitoring
report.
7.8 Reporting
Following each monitoring event, a brief monitoring report detailing the current ecological status of
the buffer restoration and enhancement actions, measurement of performance standards, and
management recommendations will be prepared and submitted to the City of Federal Way within 90
days of each monitoring event to ensure full compliance with the buffer enhancement plan.
7.9 Contingency Plan
If monitoring results indicate that performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to
implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring
that problems do not arise. Should any portion of the buffer enhancement area fail to meet the success
criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with City approval. Such plans are
adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed restoration characteristics.
Contingency plans can include additional plant installation, erosion control, and plant substitutions
including type, size, and location. The Contingency measures outlined below can also be utilized in
perpetuity to maintain the buffers associated with the proposed project site.
Contingency/maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to:
1. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary;
2. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after 2 growing
seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function;
3. Irrigating the restoration areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to
be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water;
4. Reseeding and/or repair of buffer areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation
occurs;
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 34 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
5. Spot treat non-native invasive plant species; and
6. Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the buffer areas, as necessary.
7.10 Critical Areas Protection
Signage will be provided around the buffers as required under FWRC 19.145.140.180. A temporary
fence along the construction limits will prevent encroachment into the critical area during
construction, which will be replaced by permanent fencing and signage after completion of the project.
In addition, the project proposes to install fencing between the identified critical areas and developed
areas.
A performance and maintenance security will be provided as required under FWRC 19.145.140(10); a
bond estimate will be prepared once preliminary approvals are obtained on this buffer enhancement
plan.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 35 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Chapter 8. Closure
The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application
to Creekwood Plat project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care
and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing
under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report
are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are
made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or
implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because
of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this project may need to be revised
wholly or in part.
The wetland and OHW boundaries identified by Soundview Consultants LLC are based on conditions
present at the time of the site inspection and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland and
OHW boundaries are validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the wetland and OHW
boundaries by the regulating agencies provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland and
OHW boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date
or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification.
Since wetlands and waterbodies are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human
activities, changes in wetland and waterbody boundaries may be expected; therefore, wetland and
OHW delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Local agencies typically
recognize the validity of critical area delineations for a period of 5 years after completion of a wetland
delineation and fish and wildlife habitat report. Development activities on a site 5 years after the
completion of this report may require revision of the wetland delineations. In addition, changes in
government codes, regulations, or laws may occur Because of such changes, our observations and
conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 36 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Chapter 9. References
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 2017. Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation – Creekwood Plat, Federal Way,
Washington. Prepared May 12, 2017. Kirkland, Washington.
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). 2022. Chapter 19.145 – Environmentally Critical Areas.
Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalWay/#!/FederalWay19/FederalWay19145.html.
Current through July 19, 2022.
Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
ESA. 2017. Creekwood Preliminary Plat 2017 Submittal. Prepared December 14, 2017. Seattle,
Washington.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal
Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
GeoResources. 2019. Response to Comments – Creekwood Preliminary Plat (File No’s 17-103948-00-
SE/17-103947-SU), Federal Way, Washington. Prepared June 14, 2019. Fife, Washington.
GeoResources, 2020. Geotechnical Engineering Report Addendum – Revised Ravine Crossing and Comment
Response Letter – Creekwood Residential Plat, Federal Way, Washington. Prepared October 23, 2020.
Fife, Washington.
Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.
2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, Washington.
April 2005.
Hitchcock, C.L. & A. Cronquist, Ed. by D. Giblin, B. Ledger, P. Zika, and R. Olmstead. 2018. Flora
of the Pacific Northwest, 2nd Edition. U.W. Press and Burke Museum. Seattle, Washington.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
(Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.
Munsell Color, 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 37 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). N.d. Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List (Soil
Data Access Live). Website:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html
NRCS. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt,
and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
Potter, A. 2016. Periodic Status Review for Taylor’s Checkerspot. Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E.
Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington
State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, Washington. March 2005.
Shellberg, Jeffery. 2002. Bull trout in western Washington. January. Seattle, Washington
Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station.
Soundview Consultants, LLC. 2020. Revised Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment – Creekwood
Plat. Prepared March 8, 2017; revised October 30, 2020. Gig Harbor, Washington.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S.
Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.
EPA/USACE. December 2, 2008.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V.
Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
USACE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected
by the Clean Water Act. EPA/USACE. February 17, 2012.
USACE. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation
of Critical Habitat for Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark. Federal Register 50
CFR Part 17.
USFWS. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus).
Portland, Oregon. xii + 179 pages.
Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2:
Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1.0, March 2006, WSDOE publication # 06-06-11b). WSDOE
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Olympia, Washington.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat 38 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
WSDOE, USACE, and EPA Region 10. 2021. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State–Part 1: Agency
Policies and Guidance (Version 2). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #21-06-
003.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1991. Management Recommendations for
Washington’s Priority Habitats and Species. May 1991.
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. N.d. “Marbled Murrelet.” Website: wdfw.wa.gov/species-
habitats/species/brachyramphus-marmoratus. Accessed 7 July 2022.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia,
Washington. 292pp.
Wiles, G.J. and K.S. Kalasz, 2017. Washington State Status Report for the yellow-billed cuckoo. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. May 2017.
1001.0032 - Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix A –– Methods and Tools
Table A1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report.
Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference
Wetland
Delineation
USACE 1987
Wetland
Delineation
Manual
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mi
l/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Western
Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast
Region Regional
Supplement
http://www.usace.army.mil
/Portals/2/docs/civilworks
/regulatory/reg_supp/west
_mt_finalsupp.pdf
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), ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development
Center.
Wetland
Classification
USFWS /
Cowardin
Classification
System
http://www.fws.gov/wetlan
ds/Documents/Classificatio
n-of-Wetlands-and-
Deepwater-Habitats-of-the-
United-States.pdf
https://www.fgdc.gov/stan
dards/projects/wetlands/nv
cs-2013
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T.
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-
004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands
Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data
Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Hydrogeomorphic
Classification
(HGM) System
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mi
l/wetlands/pdfs/wrpde4.pd
f
Brinson, M. M. (1993). “A hydrogeomorphic
classification for wetlands,” Technical Report
WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Wetland
Rating
Washington State
Wetland Rating
System
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/bib
lio/0406025.html
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State wetland
rating system for western Washington –Revised.
Publication # 04-06-029.
Wetland
Indicator
Status
2020 National
Wetland Plant List
https://www.fws.gov/wetla
nds/documents/National-
Wetland-Plant-List-2016-
Wetland-Ratings.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). 2020. National Wetland Plant List,
version 3.5. http://wetland-
plants.usace.army.mil/.
Plant Names
and
Identification
USDA Plant
Database
http://plants.usda.gov/ Website.
Flora of the Pacific
Northwest
http://www.pnwherbaria.or
g/florapnw.php
Hitchcock, C.L. & A. Cronquist, Ed. by D.
Giblin, B. Ledger, P. Zika, and R. Olmstead.
2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest, 2nd
Edition. U.W. Press and Burke Museum.
Seattle, Washington.
Soils Data
NRCS Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.u
sda.gov/app/
Website GIS data based upon:
Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F.
Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area,
Washington. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in
1001.0032 - Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference
cooperation with the Washington Agricultural
Experiment Station
Soil Color Charts Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color
Charts. New Windsor, New York.
Soil Data Access
Hydric Soils List
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov
/Internet/FSE_DOCUME
NTS/nrcseprd1316620.html
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
N.d. Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List (Soil
Data Access Live).
Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov
/Internet/FSE_DOCUME
NTS/nrcs142p2_053171.pd
f
NRCS. 2018. Field Indictors of Hydric Soils in the
United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasialas, G.W.
Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in
cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Washington
Natural Heritage
Program
http://data-
wadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/
datasets/wnhp-current-
element-occurrences
Washington Natural Heritage Program.
Endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of
Washington. Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, Washington Natural
Heritage Program, Olympia, WA
Washington
Priority Habitats
and Species
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/p
hspage.htm
Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
Program Map of priority habitats and species
in project vicinity. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
Species of
Local
Importance
WDFW GIS Data http://wdfw.wa.gov/mappi
ng/salmonscape/
Website
Report
Preparation
Federal Way
Revised Code
https://www.codepublishin
g.com/WA/FederalWay/#!
/FederalWay19/FederalWa
y19145.html
FWRC 19.145 – Environmentally Critical Areas
1001.0032 - Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix B –– Background Information
This appendix includes a King County Contours Map (B1); NRCS Soil Survey Map (B2); Federal Way
Critical Areas Map (B3); King County Sensitive Areas Map (B4); USFWS NWI Map (B5); WDFW
PHS Map (B6); DNR Stream Typing (B7); WDFW SalmonScape (B8).
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix B1 –– King County Contours Map
Subject Property
Location
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix B2 –– NRCS Soil Survey Map
Subject Property
Location
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix B3 –– Federal Way Critical Areas Map
Subject Property
Location
(Approximate)
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix B4 – King County Sensitive Areas Map
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix B5 –– USFWS NWI Map
Subject Property
Location
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix B6 – WDFW PHS Map
Subject Property
Location
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix B7 –– DNR Stream Typing Map
Subject Property
Location
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix B8 –– WDFW SalmonScape Map
Subject Property
Location
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix C –– Existing Condition and Buffer
Enhancement Plans
ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØB-9B-10 / Z-33B-8B-7B-6B-5B-4Y-14Y-13Y-12Y-11Y-10Y-9Y-8Y-7Y-6Y-5Y-4Y-3Y-2Y-1B-3B-2B-1DP-5DP-6DP-7DP-18DP-17DP-10DP-9DP-11DP-12DP-13DP-15DP-16DP-14DP-19DP-4DP-3DP-2DP-1X-1W-1Z-20Z-21Z-22Z-23Z-24Z-25Z-26Z-27Z-27Z-27Z-27Z-27Z-27Z-34Z-35Z-36Z-37Z-38Z-39Z-40Z-41Z-42Z-43Z-44Z-45X-2X-3XA-4XB-6XB-5XB-4F-11F-7F-6F-5F-4F-3F-2F-1E-11E-1E-2E-3E-10E-3E-3E-3E-3E-3E-3F-10F-9F-8W-2W-3W-4W-5W-6WA-7WB-7D-1D-1D-3D-4D-5D-6D-7D-8D-9SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC
WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335
2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE
F
P
Environmental Assessment
. 253.514.8954
. 253.514.8952
Planning Land Use Solutions
CREEKWOOD
31XXX 21ST AVE SW
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023
SOURCE:JOB: 1001.0032BY: DSSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY
PARCEL NUMBER(S):
1221039037 EXISTING CONDITIONS10GRAPHIC SCALE1"=80 16032080'SHEET INDEXSHEETNUMBERSHEET TITLE1EXISTING CONDITIONS2PROPOSED SITE PLAN, IMPACTS &MITIGATION3PLANT SCHEDULE, NOTES, & DETAILSOFFSITEWETLAND GCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFEROFFSITEWETLAND ACATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFERWETLAND DCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER644 SFWETLAND E/FCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER9,351 SFWETLAND BCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER8,251 SFSTREAM ZTYPE F100-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE XTYPE NP50-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE WTYPE NP50-FT BUFFERPLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFERWETLAND FLAG LOCATIONSTREAM CENTERLINESTREAM CENTERLINE ESTIMATEDDRAINAGE CENTERLINESTREAM BUFFERSTREAM OHW (ORDINARY HIGH WATER)FLAG LOCATION5-FT BUILDING SETBACKEXISTING CONTOURW-#O-#ØVICINITY MAPSOURCE: ESRILOCATIONTHE NE 14 OF SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 3E, WMAPPLICANT/OWNERNAME: AMALANI LLCADDRESS:415 1ST AVENUE N, UNIT 998SEATTLE, WA 98109CONTACT: BARRY MARGOLESEPHONE: 206-910-2728E-MAIL:BARRY@AMALANI.COMENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVEGIG HARBOR, WA 98355(253) 514-8952SITE21ST WAY SWDASH POINTSWRD509SW 304TH STDRAINAGE YTYPE NP(Y-1 TO Y-9)50-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE YTYPE F(Y-9 TO Y-14)100-FT BUFFERDATE: 12/15/2022
ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ50'DATE: 12/15/2022SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC
WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335
2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE
F
P
Environmental Assessment
. 253.514.8954
. 253.514.8952
Planning Land Use Solutions
CREEKWOOD
31XXX 21ST AVE SW
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023
SOURCE:JOB: 1001.0032BY: DSSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY
PARCEL NUMBER(S):
1221039037 PROPOSED SITE PLAN, IMPACTS & MITIGATION2IMPACTS & MITIGATION LEGENDBUFFER IMPACTSSTREAM BUFFER INTRUSION6,115 SFBUFFER MITIGATIONBUFFER ENHANCEMENT59,167 SFRESTORATION OF BUFFER GRADING IMPACTS5,967 SFTOTAL BUFFER MITIGATION:65,133 SFCRITICAL AREA FENCE2,234 LFCRITICAL AREA SIGN25 SIGNS0GRAPHIC SCALE1"=8016032080'OFFSITEWETLAND GCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFEROFFSITEWETLAND ACATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFERWETLAND DCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER644 SFWETLAND E/FCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER9,351 SFWETLAND BCATEGORY IV50-FT BUFFER8,251 SFSTREAM ZTYPE F100-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE XTYPE NP50-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE WTYPE NP50-FT BUFFERPLAN LEGENDPROPERTY LINEEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFERSTREAM CENTERLINESTREAM CENTERLINE ESTIMATEDDRAINAGE CENTERLINESTREAM BUFFER5-FT BUILDING SETBACKPROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED CLEARING LIMITØDRAINAGE YTYPE NP(Y-1 TO Y-9)50-FT BUFFERDRAINAGE YTYPE F(Y-9 TO Y-14)100-FT BUFFERCLEARINGLIMITS (TYP.)NOTES:1.POSTS AND RAILINGS PRE-CUT FOR ASSEMBLY.2.3-RAIL DESIGNS ARE PERMITTED.3.FENCE SHALL BE PLACED AT APPROVED BUFFER EDGE.NOT TO SCALESPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL12" DIAM.8'-0"1'-6"3'-0"2'-0"MIN.6"COMPACTEDGRANULARSUB-BASE4-6"CONCRETE FOOTINGNATIVE SOIL BACKFILLFINISHED GRADEPITCH SURFACE TO DRAIN4 TO 6" SPLITCEDAR RAILS, TYP.6x6" SPLITCEDAR POSTSCRITICAL AREA BOUNDARY SIGN NOTES:1. THE WETLAND/STREAM SIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE LOT ANDTHE CRITICAL AREA.2. ONE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED PER LOT OR ONE SIGN PER 150 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS. FORALL PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, TRAILS, PARKING AREAS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND ALL OTHER USESLOCATED ADJACENT TO WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS.3. PRE-PRINTED METAL SIGN AVAILABLE THROUGH: ZUMAR INDUSTRIES PHONE: 1-800-426-7967, WEBSITE: WWW.ZUMAR.COMCritical Ar
e
a
MIN. 6" DEPTHCRUSHED ROCK BASECOMPACTEDNATIVE MATERIALWetlandNOT TO SCALECRITICAL AREA SIGN DETAIL5 ft.2 ft.min.Help protect and care for thisarea. Dumping of litter, trashand debris is prohibited.PRE-PRINTED METAL SIGN12"X18" 0.080 ALUMINUM SIGN WITHWHITE LETTERING ON STANDARDINTERSTATE GREEN BACKGROUND.ATTACH SIGN TO POST ORSPLIT-RAIL CEDAR FENCEWITH TWO 5/16" GALVANIZEDLAG BOLTS WITH WASHERS.4" X 4" X 8' CEDAR POST,SET 2' INTO POST HOLECOMPACTED NATIVEBACKFILL IN POST HOLENOTE·TRASH AND DEBRIS WILL BE REMOVEDFROM THE ENTIRETY OF TRACT F·SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR ADDITIONALFENCE DETAILS
SHEET:Soundview Consultants LLC
WWW.SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335
2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE
F
P
Environmental Assessment
. 253.514.8954
. 253.514.8952
Planning Land Use Solutions
CREEKWOOD
31XXX 21ST AVE SW
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98023
SOURCE:JOB: 1001.0032BY: DSSCALE: AS SHOWNKING COUNTY
PARCEL NUMBER(S):
1221039037 PLANT SCHEDULE, NOTES, & DETAILS3NOT TO SCALECONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL)LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCHMIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF TREESET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSHWITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVENOTES:1. PLANT TREES AS INDICATED ON PLAN. AVOIDINSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHT LINES.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASSAND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREADROOTS TO FULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFYSIDES OF PIT.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORMTABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATERONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.UNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADELOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)2 to 3 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCHMIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUB.EXTEND MULCH ABOVE CUT SLOPE ANDBELOW FILL SLOPE TO REDUCE EROSIONNOT TO SCALETREE AND SHRUB PLANTING ON STEEP SLOPESET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALLSLIGHTLY BELOW ADJACENT GRADEUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADEEXISTING SLOPECUT SLOPE ONUPHILL SIDEMULCHMULCHNOTES:1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES INGROUPS OF 3 to 9 AS APPROPRIATE, OR AS SHOWN ON PLAN.AVOID INSTALLING PLANTS IN STRAIGHT LINES TO ACHIEVE ANATURAL-LOOKING LAYOUT.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASSAND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TO FULLWIDTH OF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORM TABLET ANDWATER THOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)3 to 4 INCH LAYER OFMULCH - KEEP MULCH MIN. 3"AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUBNOT TO SCALETREE AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL)SET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOTBALL FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADEOR SLIGHTLY ABOVEUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADEPLANT SCHEDULEDATE: 12/15/2022
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix D –– Data Forms
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): <1
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'20.50" N Long: 122°21'57.71" W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: NA
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial
differences in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Glyceria elata 40 Yes FACW
2. Ranunculus repens 40 Yes FAC
3. Equisetum telmateia 10 N0 FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
90 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation met through Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-5 10YR 2/2 100 -- -- -- -- silty sand
5 - 12 2.5Y 3/1 98 10YR 4/2 2 RM M sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through Indicator S6.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3. No saturation above 9 inches due to pourosity of the sand. Water
level at elevation similar to stream.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 5
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'20.42"N Long: 122°21'56.56"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; no hydric soil observed. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013, and confirmed by SVC on August 30,
2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Rubus spectabilis 15 Yes FAC
2. Acer circinatum 15 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
30 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 70
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic criteria met through Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 2.5Y 4/3 100 - - - - Sand
8-10.5 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Sandy loam
10.5-16 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met. Does not meet S1, S4, S5, or S6 due to lack of muck presence and lack of redoximorphic features.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 8
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 8
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicator A2 and A3. No saturation present above water table due to porous sand. Water
table at stream elevation.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 15
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'20.78"N Long: 122°21'54.00"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; no hydric soil observed. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30,
2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Rubus spectabilis 100 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
100 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - Silty loam
3-18 2.5Y 4/2 100 - - - - Sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3. No saturation above water table. Water table at stream elevation.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-4
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 10
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'21.07"N Long: 122°21'51.73"W Datum: WSG 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; no hydric soil or wetland hydrology observed. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013 and confirmed by
SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Acer circinatum 100 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
100 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Carex obnupta 80 Yes OBL
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
80 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-16 2.5y 4/3 100 - - - - Sand
16-20 N/A - - - - Sandy gravel
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
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 criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-5
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 8
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'21.47"N Long: 122°21'49.18"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data collected just west of Wetland B. Data originally collected by SVC in 2013, and confirmed by SVC
on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1. Alnus rubra 50 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
50 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Rubus spectabilis 90 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
90 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Polystichum munitum 5 Yes FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
5 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loamy sand
6-13 5Y 3/2 100 - - - - Sand
13-20 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loamy sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-6
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 5
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'21.86"N Long: 122°21'48.67"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013, within Wetland B, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. Slight
differences in the soil profile and wetland hydrology indicators were observed during the 2022 site visit and have been updated to reflect these
changes.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
60 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Tolmiea menziesii 20 Yes FAC
2. Urtica dioica 5 No FAC
3. Epilobium ciliatum 5 No FACW
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
30 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 - 6 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - SaMu Sandy muck
6 - 15 10YR 4/2 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator S1.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3..
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-7
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 20
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'22.40"N Long: 122°21'46.04"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; no hydric soil criteria observed. Data originally collected in 2013, just east of Wetland B, and verified by
SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Acer circinatum 60 Yes FAC
2. Rubus spectabilis 40 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
100 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Equisetum arvense 10 Yes FAC
2. Tolmiea menziesii 20 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
30 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-7
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - Loamy sand
3-16 2.5YR 3/1 100 - - - - Sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3..
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-8
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 45
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'21.61"N Long: 122°21'53.17"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met; hydric soil and hydrology criteria was not observed. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by
SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Gaultheria shallon 5 Yes FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
5 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Carex obnupta 85 Yes OBL
2. Rubus ursinus 2 No FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
87 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-8
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Sandy loam
3-18 7.5YR 3/3 100 - - - - Sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-9
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 25
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'24.31"N Long: 122°21'45.94"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substancial differences
in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Glyceria elata 30 Yes FACW
2. Equisetum telmateia 30 Yes FACW
3. Athyrium cyclosorum 5 No FAC
4. Geum macrophyllum 5 No FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
70 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-9
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Loam
2-16 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - Gravelly sand
16+ 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0-2
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicator A3.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-10
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Bill House, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen, Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 25
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'24.10"N Long: 122°21'45.90"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substancial differences
in conditions observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Agrostis sp. 30 Yes FAC
2. Equisetum telmateia 20 Yes FACW
3. Athyrium angustum 20 Yes FAC
4. Glyceria elata 10 No FACW
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
80 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic soil criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-10
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Loam
3-17 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Gravelly sand
17-20 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
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 criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0-3
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicator A3.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-11
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Bill House, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 10
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.95"N Long: 122°21'45.32"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. Slight differences in the soil
profile and wetland hydrology indicators were observed during the 2022 site visit and have been updated to reflect these changes.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Glyceria elata 40 Yes FACW
2. Ranunculus repens 30 Yes FAC
3. Athrium filix femina 20 Yes FAC
4. Equisetum telmateia 10 No FACW
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-11
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 - 4 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - SiSaLo Silty sandy loam
4 - 7 2.5Y 3/1 100 - - - - Sand
7 - 14 10Y 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F3.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-12
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Hannah Blackstock, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 15
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'24.00"N Long: 122°21'44.82"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: No wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in
conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Rubus spectabilis 90 Yes FAC
2. Sambucus racemosa 10 No FACU
3.
4.
5.
100 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Polystichum munitum 10 Yes FACU
2. Equisetum telmateia 5 Yes FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
15 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-12
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Loamy sand
8-16 10YR 3/1 100 - - - - Loamy sand
16+ 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-27-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-13
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Hannah Blackstock, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 15
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.56"N Long: 122°21'43.92"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in
conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Rubus spectabilis 20 Yes FAC
2. Acer circinatum 15 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
35 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Athyrium angustum 50 Yes FAC
2. Blechnum spicant 2 No FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
52 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 48
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-13
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Silty loam
3-6 5YR 2.5/1 100 - - - - Gravelly loam
6-18 2.5Y 4/1 100 - - - - Gravelly sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A4.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2, A3, and C1.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-14
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Hannah Blackstock,Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.63"N Long: 122°21'44.10"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: No wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. Slight differences in the soil profile
were observed during the 2022 site visit and have been updated to reflect these changes.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Yes FAC
2. Alnus rubra 10 No FAC
3.
4.
5.
70 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Polystichum munitum 40 Yes FACU
2. Rubus ursinus 10 Yes FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-14
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 - 5 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 - - - - Loam
5 - 15 10YR 4/3 100 - - - - Sandy loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-27-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-15
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Hannah Blackstock, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 20
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.66"N Long: 122°21'42.59"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in
conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1. Acer macrophyllum 100 Yes FACU
2. Thuja plicata 10 No FAC
3.
4.
110 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Acer circinatum 25 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
25 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Athyrium angustum 30 Yes FAC
2. Urtica dioica 10 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
40 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-15
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - Loamy sand
4-16 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Sandy loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A4 and A12.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A2 and A3.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:12-23-13, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-16
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner, Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: Sec. 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 15
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°19'23.92"N Long: 122°21'42.44"W Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) NWI classification: N/A
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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: No wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2013 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in
conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1. Acer macrophyllum 90 Yes FACU
2.
3.
4.
90 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft)
1. Oemleria cerasiformis 10 Yes FACU
2. Acer circinatum 5 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
15 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Hedera helix 70 Yes FACU
2. Polystichum munitum 20 Yes FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
90 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-16
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 7.5YR 2.5/2 100 - - - - Loam
8-17 2.5Y 4/2 100 - - - - Sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way / King Sampling Date:8-13-14, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-17
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner,Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: S 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 25
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.32298 Long: -122.36262 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2014, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences
in conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Rubus spectabilis 40 Yes FAC
2. Rubus laciniatus 20 Yes FACU
3.
4.
5.
60 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Equisetum arvense 60 Yes FAC
2. Glyceria elata 5 No OBL
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
65 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-17
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-16 10YR 3/2 100 Gravelly sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric soil criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way/ King Sampling Date:8-13-14, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-18
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner,Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: S 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.32298 Long: -122.36262 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: All three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2014 and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences in
conditions were observed during the 2022 site visit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
0
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Equisetum arvense 80 Yes FAC
2. Ranunculus repens 20 No FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-18
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 - 1 10YR 2/1 Mineral muck
1 - 3 7.5YR 3/1 75 7.5YR 3/3 25 Restrictive layer
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A4. Data collected in man-made ditch, containing highly compacted soils below 3 inches, and
excavated from uplands. The presence of highly compacted soil prevented further excavation due to shovel refusal at this depth.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 3
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland hydrology criteria met through Primary Indicators A1, A2, and A3. Water table and saturation present to soil surface.
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: 1001.0032 Margolese: Creekwood City/County: Federal Way/ King Sampling Date:8-13-14, 8-30-22
Applicant/Owner: Barry Margolese / Peter Koszarek State: WA Sampling Point: DP-19
Investigator(s): Jim Carsner,Ryan Krapp, Rachel Quindlen Section, Township, Range: S 12, T 21N, R 3E, W.M.
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 40
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.32286 Long: -122.36183 Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD) 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
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria met. Data originally collected in 2014, and confirmed by SVC on August 30, 2022. No substantial differences
in conditions were observed during 2022 site visit. Data collected west of Drainage W and north of Stream Z, on an approximately 40 percent slope.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1. Alnus rubra 10 Yes FAC
2. Acer macrophyllum 5 Yes FACU
3.
4.
15 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1. Acer circinatum 40 Yes FAC
2. Rubus spectabilis 30 Yes FAC
3. Oemleria cerasiformis 5 No FACU
4.
5.
75 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1. Athyrium felix-femina 20 Yes FAC
2. Equisetum arvense 20 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
40 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: .DP-19
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy silt
6-18 10YR 3/1 100 Gravelly sandy silt
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) 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):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Hydric soil criteria met through indicator A4.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No wetland hydrology criteria met. Only one secondary hydrologic indicator observed.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix E –– Wetland Rating Forms
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential
Landscape Potential
Value TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
A - 1001.0032
A - 1001.0032 8/30/2022
J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18
Slope 4
ESRI ArcGIS
IV 4
L L L
L L L
L M H
3 4 5 12
N/A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
A - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
A - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
A - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources _________________________________________________________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
A - 1001.0032
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows .
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
0
0
1
0
1
A - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
A - 1001.0032
0
0
1
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
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.
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______%
points = 3
points = 2
points = 1
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
A - 1001.0032
1
3
11.71 2.65 13.035
1
1
18.09 13.89 25.035
-2
0
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
A - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
A - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
A - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
A - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential
Landscape Potential
Value TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
B - 1001.0032
B - 1001.0032 8/30/2022
J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18
Slope 4
ESRI ArcGIS
IV 4
L L L
M L L
L M H
4 4 5 13
N/A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
B - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
B - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
B - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources _________________________________________________________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
B - 1001.0032
1
0
2
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
utility road surface runoff and homeless encampment refuse
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows .
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
0
0
1
0
1
B - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
B - 1001.0032
0
1
1
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
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.
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______%
points = 3
points = 2
points = 1
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
B - 1001.0032
2
5
11.71 2.65 13.035
1
1
18.09 13.89 25.035
-2
0
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
B - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
B - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
B - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
B - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential
Landscape Potential
Value TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
D - 1001.0032
D - 1001.0032 8/30/2022
J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18
Slope 4
ESRI ArcGIS
IV 4
L L L
L L L
L M H
3 4 5 12
N/A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
D - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
D - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
D - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources _________________________________________________________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D - 1001.0032
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows .
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
0
0
1
0
1
D - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
D - 1001.0032
0
1
1
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
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.
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______%
points = 3
points = 2
points = 1
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D - 1001.0032
2
5
11.71 2.65 13.035
1
1
18.09 13.89 25.035
-2
0
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
D - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
D - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
D - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
D - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential
Landscape Potential
Value TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
EF - 1001.0032
EF - 1001.0032 8/30/2022
J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18
Slope 4
ESRI ArcGIS
IV 4
L M M
L L L
L M H
3 5 6 14
N/A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
EF - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
EF - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
EF - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources _________________________________________________________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
EF - 1001.0032
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows .
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
1
0
1
0
1
EF - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
EF - 1001.0032
1
2
1
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
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.
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______%
points = 3
points = 2
points = 1
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
EF - 1001.0032
2
7
11.71 2.65 13.035
1
1
18.09 13.89 25.035
-2
0
2
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
EF - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
EF - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
EF - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
EF - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential
Landscape Potential
Value TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
G - 1001.0032
G - 1001.0032 8/30/2022
J. Downs,E. Swain,R. Krapp, R. Quindlen 4 3/16&10/18
Slope 4
ESRI ArcGIS
IV 4
L M L
M L L
L M M
4 5 4 13
N/A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
G - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
G - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
G - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources _________________________________________________________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
G - 1001.0032
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
utility road surface runoff and homeless encampment refuse
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows .
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
1
0
1
0
1
G - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
G - 1001.0032
1
0
1
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
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.
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______%
points = 3
points = 2
points = 1
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
G - 1001.0032
3
6
11.71 2.65 13.035
1
1
18.09 13.89 25.035
-2
0
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
G - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
G - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
G - 1001.0032
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
G - 1001.0032
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix F –– Wetland Rating Figures
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland E/FWetland D
Wetland G
COWARDIN MAP
¢
0 270 540135 Feet
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO. of 4
10/17/2022
1001.0032
DS
11 " = 270 '
330' Boundary
Emergent
Forested
Scrub-Shrub
ADJACENT TO 30859 21ST AVE SWFEDERAL WAY, WA 98023
KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:1221039037
CREEKWOOD
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland E/FWetland D
Wetland G
HYDROPERIOD MAP
¢
0 220 440110 Feet
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO. of 4
10/17/2022
1001.0032
DS
21 " = 220 '
150' Boundary
Saturated Only
Occassionally Flooded
Flowing
Seasonally Flowing Stream
D D Permanently Flowing Stream
D D Seasonally Flowing Stream
DNR Streams
ADJACENT TO 30859 21ST AVE SWFEDERAL WAY, WA 98023
KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:1221039037
CREEKWOOD
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
ààààà
à
àààààààà
àààààà
àà
àààààààààààà
àà
HABITAT MAP
¢
0 1,400 2,800700 Feet
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO. of 4
10/17/2022
1001.0032
DS
31 " = 1,440 '
àààààààààààààààà
àààà
àààà
àààà
Wetland
1 KM Polygon
Accessible Habitat
Moderate & Low Intensity
Relatively Undisturbed
High Intensity
ADJACENT TO 30859 21ST AVE SWFEDERAL WAY, WA 98023
KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:1221039037
CREEKWOOD
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 4.78%
Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 1.70%
Accessible Habitat 5.63%
Undisturbed Habitat 17.66%
Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 13.93%
Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 24.62%
High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 68.41%
H.2.2
H.2.3
H.2.0 Wetland A
H.2.1
303(D) MAP
¢
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO. of 4
10/17/2022
1001.0032
DS
4
Sub Basin
Category 5 Assessed Waters
ADJACENT TO 30859 21ST AVE SWFEDERAL WAY, WA 98023
KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER:1221039037
CREEKWOOD
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
1 " = 3 mi
0 3.5 71.75 Miles
SITE
NOTE: THERE ARE NO IDENTIFIED WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS LOCATED IN HUC NO. 171100190204
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix G –– Site Photos
View of upgradient, Type Np portion of Drainage Y
View of downgradient, Type F portion of Drainage Y
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Appendix H –– Qualifications
All field inspections, wetland delineations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation,
including this Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared for the
Creekwood Plat site, were prepared by, or under the direction of, Matt DeCaro and Alex Murphy of
SVC. In addition, the site investigations were performed by Ryan Krapp and Rachel Quindlen and
report preparation was completed by Morgan Kentch. Final quality assurance was completed by
Rachael Hyland.
Matt DeCaro
Associate Principal
Professional Experience: 14 years
Matt DeCaro is an Associate Principal and Senior Scientist with a diverse background in
environmental planning, wetland science, stream ecology, water quality, tree assessments, site
remediation, NEPA compliance, and project management. He manages a wide range of industrial,
commercial, and multi-family residential projects throughout Western Washington, providing
environmental permitting and regulatory compliance assistance for land use projects from their
planning stages through entitlement and construction. His local expertise, diverse professional
background, and positive relationships with regulatory personnel are integral components of his
successful project outcomes.
Matt earned a Bachelor of Science degree with a focus in Environmental Science from the Evergreen
State College in Olympia, Washington, with additional graduate-level coursework and research in
aquatic restoration and salmonid ecology. Matt has received 40-hour wetland delineation training
(Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplements) and regularly performs wetland,
stream, and shoreline delineations. Matt has been formally trained in the use of the 2014 Washington
State Wetland Rating System and Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark by WSDOE, and he is a Pierce
County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wildlife Biologist. He has attended USFWS survey
workshops for multiple threatened and endangered species, and he is a Senior Author of WSDOT
Biological Assessments. Matt holds 40-hour HAZWOPER training and has managed Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments, subsurface investigations, and contaminant remediation projects
throughout the Pacific Northwest. His diverse experience also includes NEPA compliance for federal
permitting projects; noxious weed abatement; army ant research in the Costa Rican tropical rainforest;
spotted owl surveys on federal and private lands; and salmonid spawning and migration surveys.
Alex Murphy, AICP
Planner & Project Manager
Professional Experience: 7 years
Alex Murphy is a Planner and Project Manager with a background in land use planning, site planning
& design, permitting, and project management. He has over 7 years of experience working for local
jurisdictions in the Intermountain West and Pacific Northwest with an emphasis on maximizing
opportunities for culturally and environmentally sensitive projects.
Alex earned a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree from Utah State University. He is a Certified
Planner through the American Institute of Certified Planners and has received formal training in
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
climate adaptation planning for coastal communities from NOAA. Mr. Murphy currently assists in
wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts
environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports. He also
manages development projects, supporting clients through the regulatory and planning process for
various land use proposals.
Ryan Krapp
Environmental Scientist / Field Lead
Professional Experience: 10+ years
Ryan Krapp is an Environmental Scientist and Field Lead with a background in conducting wetland
delineations, habitat assessments, botanical surveys, avian surveys, threatened & endangered species
surveys, and fisheries studies. He has considerable experience in production of Environmental
Assessments and Biological Assessments and Evaluations under NEPA guidelines for projects
regulated by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Indian Affairs as
well as leading Section 7 ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project planning,
permitting, and compliance are all part of his professional experiences and practices at SVC.
Ryan has managed environmental investigation projects including wetlands, streams, and critical
habitats data collection on large pipeline corridors, overhead electrical transmission corridors, and
oil/natural gas drilling development. He has extensive experience in utilizing GIS to collect, manage,
and analyze large volumes of spatial and temporal field data to aide in project management,
monitoring, analysis, and mapping. In addition, he is a FAA trained recreational pilot and a PADI
certified SCUBA diver with fresh and saltwater diving experience. Ryan is a USFWS-approved
Mazama pocket gopher survey biologist.
Rachael Hyland, PWS, Certified Ecologist
Senior Environmental Scientist
Professional Experience: 9 years
Rachael Hyland is a Senior Environmental Scientist with extensive wetland and stream delineation
and regulatory coordination experience. Rachael has a background in wetland and ecological habitat
assessments in various states, most notably Washington, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Ohio. She has experience in assessing wetland, stream, riparian, and tidal systems, as well as
complicated agricultural and disturbed sites. She currently performs wetland, stream, and shoreline
delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and
prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit
applications to support clients through the regulatory and planning process for various land use
projects. She also has extensive knowledge of bats and their associated habitats and white nose
syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus destructans), a fungal disease affecting bats which was recently documented
in Washington.
Rachael earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University
of Connecticut, with additional ecology studies at the graduate level. Rachael is a Professional Wetland
Scientist (PWS #3480) through the Society of Wetland Scientists as well as a Certified Ecologist
through the Ecological Society of America. She has completed 40-hour wetland delineation training
for Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement, in addition to formal
training for the Northcentral and Northeast supplement, and experience with the Midwest, Eastern
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Mountains and Piedmont, and Atlantic and Gulf Coast supplements. She has also received formal
training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the Using the Revised 2014 Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington, How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark,
Navigating SEPA, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach, and Wetland
Classification. Rachael has also received training from the Washington State Department of
Transportation in Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects and is listed by
WSDOT as a junior author for preparing Biological Assessments.
Rachel Quindlen
Staff Scientist
Professional Experience: 4 Years
Rachel Quindlen is a Staff Scientist with a background in marine and environmental science, with a
focus in coastal geology. Rachel earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science
with a minor in Marine Science from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There she
received extensive, hands-on experience working in lab and field settings, while studying
biogeochemical processes, and participating in research used to study climate change within North
Carolina’s coastal plain. Rachel also spent a semester participating in an extensive research project at
University of North Carolina’s field site located in Morehead City, The Institute for Marine Sciences.
There, she worked in a coastal geology research lab, studying growth rates of oyster reefs within local
estuarine environments. During the regular semesters, Rachel worked in a biogeochemical lab within
the marine science department, assisting faculty research focused on salt marsh accretion rates and
utilize alpha radiation to date marsh sediments in deltaic systems. Rachel is also a scuba diver, holding
many certifications, including Open Water, Advanced, Nitrox, Rescue, and Science Diver. Previously,
Rachel worked as an environmental consultant in the piedmont and coastal regions of southeast North
Carolina, performing stream and wetland delineations, Phase I assessments, technical report writing,
as well as participating an extensive statewide stream survey project, Project Atlas. For this project,
Rachel studied the origin, geomorphology, and macroinvertebrates of streams from all 17 ecoregions
in North Carolina. This data was utilized by The Department of Water Quality and North Carolina
Department of Transportation’s biologists to improve mitigation strategies across the state and
improve water quality.
Rachel currently assists in wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat
assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and
mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the
regulatory and planning process for various land use projects.
Morgan Kentch
Environmental Scientist
Professional Experience: 4 years
Morgan Kentch is an Environmental Scientist with a background in marine and freshwater ecology,
wildlife and natural resource assessments, and monitoring wetland and riparian habitat restoration
sites in the Pacific Northwest. Morgan has field experience conducting wetland, stream, and shoreline
delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments in Washington State. She currently assists with
performing wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments,
conducting environmental code analysis, and preparing and/or providing final quality
assurance/control for various types of scientific reports and permits for agency submittal.
1001.0032 – Creekwood Plat Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Buffer Enhancement Plan December 16, 2022
Morgan earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Biology with Marine Emphasis from Western
Washington University, Bellingham. There she received extensive, hands-on experience working in
lab and field settings, conducting scientific background research, and performing statistical analyses.
She has also received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast
and Arid West Regional Supplements) and has received formal training through the Washington State
Department of Ecology and Coastal Training Program in Using the 2014 Wetland Rating System and
How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark.