Loading...
Towne Place Hotel 19-105134-Revised Critical Areas Report -08-18-2020-V3 Resource  Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 18 August 2020 TAL-1719 Becky Chapin, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Via email: becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com REFERENCE: Towne Place Hotel, 3rd Party On-Site Stream Review File #19-105134-00-UP SUBJECT: Response to Landau Comments Dear Becky: This letter is to respond to comments received from you via email on 13 August 2020 regarding Landau Associates, Inc.’s third party review of the Towne Place Hotel project site located at 34839 Pacific Highway South in Federal way (King County Tax Parcel 2021049044). We have provided the text of each comment or question verbatim in bold text. Our responses to each comment follow immediately in standard font. 1) LAI staff conducted a site reconnaissance of the subject property (i.e., Parcel No. 2021049044) on July 14, 2020 and agree with the delineation of the ordinary high water mark and classification of the onsite stream as Type F. LAI was able to locate several flags placed along the ordinary high water mark on the subject property, which were unlabeled but assumed to be delineation flagging. LAI also concurs with the estimated boundary of the offsite wetlands. LAI’s concurrence is based on limited observations from the subject property of areas north, and review of elevation data on King County iMap for potential limits of the West Hylebos Wetland Complex, in which the site elevation is about 240 feet and the wetland complex is likely at approximate elevation 210 feet and below. It is possible that the text originally written on these flags has worn off. Nonetheless, LAI’s agreement with the location and classification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) is duly noted. 2) The February 2020 Report does not satisfy all of the evaluation criteria provided in FWRC 19.145.080(2), specifically in relation to the following item: (e) Photographs of the site and critical areas. i. Photographs of the onsite stream described in the report are not provided. Photographs taken during the LAI site reconnaissance are Becky Chapin 18 August 2020 Page 2 of 2 Resource  Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 attached (Figure 1), which may be used to fulfill this criterion, with approval of the City. We would like to request that the photos provided by LAI satisfy the requirement of FWRC 19.145.080(2). 3) The February 2020 Report does not satisfy all of the evaluation criteria provided in FWRC 19.145.410(2), specifically in relation to the following item: (b) Documentation of fieldwork, including field data sheets, rating system forms, and baseline hydrologic data. i. Figures associated with the rating form are required. Wetland determination datasheets could not be included as part of this evaluation, due to the location of the wetland features offsite. However, LAI agrees with the approximate boundaries of the offsite wetlands, and the buffer widths from these offsite wetlands do not extend onto the Site, so formal datasheets should not be necessary. We have prepared figures associated with the wetland ratings (Attachment 1, Appendix D) to accompany the rating forms. These figures can be found at the end of Attachment 1. Thank you for your comments. We trust that this letter resolves any questions you have about the site. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (425) 861-7550 or (425) 949-6659. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Kellen Maloney Ecologist Attachments: 1. Existing Conditions Report, Revised 18 August 2020. REVISED EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HOTEL CONCEPTS FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Prepared For: HOTEL CONCEPTS Seattle, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington April 2018 (Revised August 2020) Revised Existing Conditions Report Hotel Concepts Federal Way, Washington Prepared For: Alfred Kim Hotel Concepts 3926 Aurora Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98103 Prepared By: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 150250 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 (425) 861-7550 April 2018 (Revised August 2020) Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Hotel Concepts Site PROJECT LOCATION: The address for the Site is 34839 Pacific Highway South in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The project includes King County Tax Parcel number 202104-9044. The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is Section 20, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. CLIENT: Alfred Kim, Hotel Concepts PROJECT STAFF: Bill Shiels, Principal; Jennifer Marriott, Senior Ecologist; and Kristen Numata, Ecologist. FIELD SURVEY: Site evaluations were performed on 1 and 6 February 2018. DETERMINATION: One stream (a tributary to West Hylebos Creek) was identified on-site, and one wetland (Wetland A) was observed off-site to the north. West Hylebos Creek is classified as a Type F stream, which requires a 100-foot setback per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). Wetland A rated as a Category III with a habitat score of 5, which requires an 80-foot standard buffer. VEGETATION: The Site is undeveloped and dominated by invasive species from lack of maintenance. The majority of the stream buffer is forested with deciduous tree species such as red alder and black cottonwood. PREVIOUS MITIGATION: As part of a previously permitted development, a 72” culvert on the north side of the property was removed and the 100-foot buffer for West Hylebos Creek was enhanced. Native species identified to be planted within the mitigation area included Douglas fir, western red cedar, willows, pacific ninebark, and snowberry. Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ ii List of Figures and Appendices ....................................................................................... iii Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of Accuracy ........................................................................ 1 1.3 Qualifications ....................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Property Description .................................................................................. 2 2.1 Property Location ................................................................................ 2 2.2 Existing Site Development ................................................................... 2 Chapter 3. Methodology .............................................................................................. 2 3.1 Background Data Reviewed ................................................................ 2 3.2 Field Investigation ............................................................................... 3 3.2.1 Wetland Determinations ...................................................................... 3 3.2.2 Ordinary High Water Mark Determinations .......................................... 3 Chapter 4. Results ....................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information ........................................................... 4 4.1.1 Natural Resources Conservation Service ............................................ 4 4.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory ................................................................ 4 4.1.3 King County GIS Database ................................................................. 4 4.1.4 City of Federal Way Public Records Request ...................................... 4 4.1.5 Washington Department of Natural Resources Wetlands of High Conservation Mapper .......................................................................... 4 4.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ............................................................ 4 4.2.1 Streams ............................................................................................... 5 4.2.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................. 5 4.2.3 Other Features .................................................................................... 6 Chapter 5. Regulatory Review ..................................................................................... 6 5.1 City of Federal Way Zoning Code ....................................................... 6 Chapter 6. Summary ................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 7. References ................................................................................................ 8 Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2 – NRCS Soils Map Figure 3 – National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 4 – Wetlands of High Conservation Value Map Figure 5 – Existing Conditions Map Figure 6 – West Hylebos Wetland Complex Map Figures occur at the end of the report. APPENDICES Appendix A: Documentation of Permanent Easement, dated 3 November 2009 Appendix B: Raedeke Associates Wetland & Stream Assessment, dated 30 January 2008 Appendix C: 2009 Site Development Plans, prepared by TRT Engineering, Inc. Appendix D: Wetland Rating Form, Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2014), Talasaea Consultants, 2018 Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report This report is the result of an existing conditions study for the property located at 34839 Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington (referred to hereinafter as the “Site”) (Figure 1). This report has been prepared to comply with the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145.080 – Critical area report to summarize the existing conditions of the Site. No site development impacts or mitigation are included within this report. This report will provide and describe the following information: • General property description; • Methodology for critical areas investigation; • Results of critical areas background review and field investigation; • Existing site conditions; and • Regulatory review. 1.2 Statement of Accuracy Stream and wetland characterizations and ratings were conducted by trained professionals at Talasaea Consultants, Inc., and adhered to the protocols, guidelines, and generally accepted industry standards available at the time the work was performed. The conclusions in this report are based on the results of analyses performed by Talasaea Consultants and represent our best professional judgment. To that extent and within the limitation of project scope and budget, we believe the information provided herein is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. Talasaea does not warrant any assumptions or conclusions not expressly made in this report, or based on information or analyses other than what is included herein. 1.3 Qualifications Field investigations and evaluations were conducted by Bill Shiels, Principal; Jennifer Marriott, PWS, Senior Ecologist; and Kristen Numata, Ecologist. Bill Shiels has a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from Central Washington University and a Master’s Degree in Biological Oceanography from the University of Alaska. He has over 40 years of experience in wetland delineations and mitigations. Jennifer Marriott has a Bachelor’s Degree and a Master’s Degree in Biology from University of Central Florida, and a second Master’s Degree in Soil and Environmental Science from the University of Florida. She has over 13 years of experience in wetland delineations and environmental permitting. Kristen Numata has a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology and Environmental Science from Santa Clara University. Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page 2 CHAPTER 2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2.1 Property Location The property is located along Pacific Highway (SR-99), and includes King County Tax Parcel number 202104-9044. The Site is approximately 2.8 acres in size. The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is Section 20, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. The topography of the Site is sloping downhill from east to west. The Site is bound by Pacific Highway to the east, development to the north and immediately west, and West Hylebos Wetlands Park farther to the west. The parcels to the south are not developed. 2.2 Existing Site Development The Site is not currently developed, although there have been previously submitted plans to develop the property. Several informal pedestrian trails traverse the Site that appear regularly used, and evidence of homeless camps occur across the Site. The majority of the Site is dominated by a variety of grasses and Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius) except for a shrub- and young tree-dominated buffer around the stream. CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY The critical areas analysis of the Site involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the Site and the immediate surrounding area using published environmental information. This information includes: 1) Wetland and soils information from resource agencies; 2) Critical Areas information from King County and the City of Federal Way; 3) Orthophotography and LIDAR imagery; and, 4) Relevant studies completed or ongoing near the Site. The second part consisted of site investigations where direct observations and measurements of existing environmental conditions were made. Observations included plant communities, soils, hydrology, and stream conditions. This information was used to help characterize the site and define the limits of critical areas onsite and offsite for regulatory purposes (see Section 3.2 – Field Investigation below). 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information from the following sources was reviewed prior to field investigations: • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wetlands Online Mapper (National Wetlands Inventory) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018) (www.wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html); • Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2018)(www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/); • King County GIS Database (King County, 2018); • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Mapper; Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page 3 • Orthophotography from USDA’s National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP 2018), Earth Explorer (USGS), and Google Earth; and • Information obtained from the City of Federal Way via Public Records Requests (2018). • Washington Department of Natural Resources Wetlands of High Conservation Value mapper (2020). 3.2 Field Investigation Talasaea Consultants evaluated the Site on 1 and 6 February 2018. A third Site visit was conducted on 27 January 2020 to determine the boundary of the West Hylebos Wetland Complex (discussed later). 3.2.1 Wetland Determinations Site investigation utilized the routine approach described in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountain, Valleys, and Coast Regions (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010) to evaluate the Site for potential wetlands. Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (Hitchcock, et al. 1973). Taxonomic names were updated and plant wetland status was assigned according to North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, Version 2.4.0 (Lichvar, et al. 2016). Wetland classes were determined with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s system of wetland classification (Cowardin, et al. 1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Wetland hydrology was determined based on the presence of hydrologic indicators listed in the Corps’ Regional Supplement. These indicators are separated into Primary Indicators and Secondary Indicators. To confirm the presence of wetland hydrology, one Primary Indicator or two Secondary Indicators must be demonstrated. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and flood predictions, historical records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. Soils on the site were considered hydric if one or more of the hydric soil indicators listed in the Corps’ Regional Supplement were present. Indicators include presence of organic soils, reduced, depleted, or gleyed soils, or redoximorphic features in association with reduced soils. 3.2.2 Ordinary High Water Mark Determinations The ordinary high water mark was determined using the current methodology as described in Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State” (Anderson, et al. 2016). Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page 4 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS This section describes the results of our in-house research and field investigations. For the purpose of this report, the term “vicinity” describes an area within 300 feet of the Site. 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information The following sources provided information on site conditions based on data compiled from resource agencies and local government. 4.1.1 Natural Resources Conservation Service The NRCS maps two soil types on the Site: Norma sandy loam and Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6-15% slopes (Figure 2). 4.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps one wetland on-site and one wetland off- site to the north (Figure 3). The mapped on-site wetland is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC) wetland. The wetland mapped north of the Site is mapped as a Palustrine Forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC) wetland. A large wetland complex is mapped south and west of the Site that overlaps the West Hylebos Wetland Park, which is mapped as a Palustrine Forested, temporarily flooded (PFOA) wetland with pockets of mapped PSSC wetlands. No streams are mapped on the Site by the NWI. 4.1.3 King County GIS Database King County identifies one stream that bisects the site. No wetlands were identified on, or in the vicinity of, the Site. 4.1.4 City of Federal Way Public Records Request The stream bisecting the Site is labeled as West Hylebos Creek. However, other sources identify the on-site stream as a tributary to West Hylebos Creek and not the main stem of this stream. According to documents acquired from the City of Federal Way, a permanent easement for surface water facilities (approximately 51,998 sf) is located in the western half of the property. The easement is associated with the on-site stream and includes the 100-foot standard buffer associated with the stream. Effectively, the Site from the eastern limits of the 100-foot stream buffer to the western property boundary are contained within the above-referenced easement (Appendix A). 4.1.5 Washington Department of Natural Resources Wetlands of High Conservation Mapper One feature, a Vancouverian Shrub Basin Swamp and North Pacific Conifer Seepage Swamp is mapped as occurring on the Site (Figure 4) (ID: 2947). This habitat type is listed by DNR as an imperiled to vulnerable habitat in Washington State. The wetland is mapped as having an association with the West Hylebos Wetlands Park. 4.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions The Site is generally heavily disturbed and is dominated by a variety of grasses, Scot’s broom, and Himalayan blackberry. There is an abundance of debris on the Site from homeless activity. Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page 5 4.2.1 Streams One stream (a tributary to West Hylebos Creek) was identified within the western half of the property (Figure 5). The stream enters the Site from the north and continues off property to the south before co-mingling with Hylebos Creek to the southwest. Short, steep slopes are located on either side of the stream channel as this stretch of the stream is highly channelized. The streambed was a mix of round rocks and silt. Riffles and pool complexes were observed off-site to the south, though none occurred within the Site. As outlined in the Raedeke Associates Wetland & Stream Assessment, dated 30 January 2008, a large 72” culvert was removed from the north end of the property as part of the previously permitted project (Appendix B). The 100-foot stream buffer was enhanced with native species such as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), willows (Salix sp.), pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). While the development associated with this mitigation was never completed, portions of the development plan were completed, including the stream mitigation and the construction of temporary stormwater facilities that were then left in place. 4.2.2 Wetlands Two offsite wetlands were identified within the vicinity of the Site. One wetland (Wetland A) was observed off-site to the north and the others (West Hylebos Wetland Complex) was observed to the southwest (Figure 6). Wetland A Wetland A is dominated by black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), red alder (Alnus rubra), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by precipitation, interception of surface and groundwater, and overbank flooding from the stream. Soils were not evaluated within Wetland A because this feature occurs off-site. Wetland A appears to be limited to a small area in proximity to the stream that is a combination of riverine and depressional wetland. Conditions were evaluated immediately adjacent to the Site in more detail to determine whether the buffer for Wetland A would extend onto the Site. The current extent of Wetland A was estimated based on field observations and aerial imagery. Wetland A is much smaller under current conditions than it was during the last round of critical area assessments done by Raedeke in 2008, which we believe to be a result of the culvert removal done as part of the previously permitted mitigation activities. While it seems difficult to think a 72” culvert caused a backwater effect, field conditions reflect an area that previously held higher levels of water than what was currently observed. The culvert removal is the most obvious detail that has changed since 2008. Water is able to move freely though the stream channel without any blockages and hindrances. The Stream is down-cut through the Site and the immediate areas north of the Site, such that stream-driven hydrology has little opportunity to extend up the slope. Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page 6 West Hylebos Wetland Complex The West Hylebos Wetland Complex is located approximately 352 feet southeast of the Site. The feature is documented by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a Wetland of High Conservation Value with Vancouverian Shrub Basin Swamp and North Pacific Conifer Seepage Swamp habitats. The majority of this complex is located within the City of Federal Way West Hylebos Wetlands Park. At least three streams, including the onsite stream, are associated with this wetland complex. 4.2.3 Other Features Two man-made features occur east of the stream and are presumed to have been constructed to handle stormwater, though no outlets were found associated with either feature. Both are clearly constructed features with steep, defined side slopes that are currently vegetated. The eastern feature, located immediately outside of the stream buffer, coincides with the proposed temporary sediment pond that was identified on the previously permitted plans (Appendix C). The western feature, located immediately within the stream buffer from the temporary sediment pond, is square in shape and of an unknown origin. It appears to have been constructed around the same time as the temporary sediment trap/pond, but is not reflected on any of the permitted drawings found to date. These features do not meet the definition of a regulated wetland. CHAPTER 5. REGULATORY REVIEW 5.1 City of Federal Way Zoning Code Wetlands and other critical areas in Federal Way are regulated under the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145. Wetlands have been rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication # 14-06-029). Wetland rating datasheets are provided in Appendix D. Due to its connection to Hylebos Creek, the on-site stream is considered a Type F stream. Fish-bearing streams within Federal Way have a standard 100-foot buffer according to FWRC 19.14.270. Wetland A was preliminarily rated as a Category III wetland with a Habitat Score of 5 based on best professional judgment, and a combination of limited field and extensive office evaluations. Category III wetlands with a Habitat Score of 5 require an 80-foot standard buffer according to FWRC 19.145.420. Wetlands of High Conservation Value within Federal Way require a standard 300-foot buffer per FWRC §19.145. The West Hylebos Wetland complex occurs approximately 352 feet southeast of the Site, so no portion of its associated buffer occurs onsite. CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY The Site is an approximately 2.8-acre parcel located in Federal Way, Washington. One stream and two wetlands (Wetland A and the West Hylebos Wetland Complex) were identified on, or in the vicinity of, the Site. The standard buffer for a fish-bearing stream Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page 7 is 100 feet. The stream continues off-site and connects to Hylebos Creek downstream approximately 2,500 feet south of the Site. Category III wetlands with a Habitat Score of 5 require an 80-foot standard buffer, which does not extend a buffer for Wetland A onto the Site. The West Hylebos Wetland Complex requires a standard 300-foot buffer, which does not extend onto the Site. A permanent easement exists on the Site that includes the lands from the eastern limits of the 100-foot stream buffer to the western property boundary. No additional critical areas constraints exist on this property beyond those already documented with the City of Federal Way. Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page 8 CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Way Revised Code. Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas (FWRC, 2017). Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [2018]. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program. ERDC/EL TR-10-3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Poverty Bay Quadrangle. Washington State Department of Ecology. March 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List. 2016. www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d (accessed 2018). Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife [Map Online], Olympia (WA): SalmonScape [2018]. URL: <http//wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html> Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Priority Habitats and Species Database [online], Olympia, WA. [Accessed 2018]. <www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/> Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Page 9 FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2 – NRCS Soils Map Figure 3 – National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 4 – Wetlands of High Conservation Value Map Figure 5 – Existing Conditions Map Figure 6 – West Hylebos Wetland Complex Map Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Appendix A APPENDIX A DOCUMENTATION OF PERMANENT EASEMENT, DATED 3 NOVEMBER 2009 Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Appendix B APPENDIX B RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES WETLAND & STREAM ASSESSMENT, DATED 30 JANUARY 2008 Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Appendix C APPENDIX C 2009 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, PREPARED BY TRT ENGINEERING, INC. Hotel Concepts Existing Conditions Report August 2020 Copyright © 2020 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1719 Existing Conditions Report V3 (2020-08-18).docx Appendix D APPENDIX D WETLAND RATING FORM, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING SYSTEM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON (2014), TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2018 (RATING FIGURES ADDED AUGUST 2020) Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Hylebos Wetland Date of site visit: 1-23-2020 Rated by KM Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 10-2018 HGM Class used for rating Depressional 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 I (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 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 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 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential M M H Landscape Potential H H L Value H H H TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 8 8 7 23 Hylebos Wetland 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 A Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 B Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 B Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 A Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 D 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 C Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 E Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 F 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 tr ees, 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 Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 -7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe 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 (witho ut 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. 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 fl ooding Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 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 floo ding 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 class es 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. Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0 4 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 5 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 0 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pol lutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 -D 2.3? Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 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 1 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 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 the unit is found )? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 Total for D 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 Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom o f the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 7 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the uni t points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 0 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residenti al at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 2 D 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 0 Total for D 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 Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 7 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 4 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 3 H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the 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 2 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. 3 None = 0 points Low 1 point = Moderate 2 points = All three diagrams in this row are HIGH 3points = Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 8 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) 5 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 17 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 2 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 -2 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 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) 2 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 com prehensive 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 Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 9 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 multilayered 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. Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 10 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 No 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 unmowed 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 No SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (W HCV) 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 No 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 No Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11 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 No 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 unmowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II No 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 No Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form N/A Hylebos Wetland Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally ~....._---' Page 1 of 2 TMDL Number:10-001 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Department of Ecology P.O.Box 47600 Olympia,WA 98504~7600 Developed pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7 and the Federal Clean water Act WATERRODY SEGMENT:WA-10-0020 RECEIVING SYSTEM INFORMATION: Commencement Bay (Inner) (S.and E.of line bearing 225 true through Hylebos waterway Light to the mouth of Puyallup River, excludes City Waterway) Basin: County: puyallup-White Pierce TMDL PARAMETER: 2,3,7,8 TCDD (Dioxin) SOURCES COVERED BY THIS TMDL: APPLICABLE RULES: WAC 173-201-047(3) WAC 173-201 047(4) Allocation Type WLA Source Description Simpson at Tacoma A TMDL for 2,3,7,8 TCDD of 0.07 mgper day to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.This loading rate has been shown to be consistent with the narrative state water quality criterion of 0.014 ppq at the edge of the mixing zone. Technical Documents: Industrial Section,Washington Department of Ecology.1990 (version 2.0). Proposed Effluent Limitations for Dioxin and AOX.Olympia,WA. Publication # 92-10-201