The URL can be used to link to this page

08-100557-UP, 08-105969-HRDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South CITY OF RESUBMITTED. PO Box 9718 Federal WayFederal Way WA 98063-9718 MAY 1 9 zon 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com CITY OF FEDERAL G DAP WAY RESUBMHVI XL INFORMATION This completed form MUST accompany all resubmittals. "Pleasenote: Additional or revised plans or documents foran active project will not be accepted unless accompanied by this completed form. Mailed resubmittals that do not include this form or that do not contain the correctnumberofcopies will be returned ordiscarded. You are encouraged to submitall items in person and to contact the Customer Service Counter prior to submitting if you are not sure about the number of copies required. ** Project Number: - 0 S `� C- 0 0- S 0$ l o o S S q 6 o StJ Project Name: 3Zo -t P L-4c.E Project Address: S60714 3ZoTH SC ,r T @- Wn EIZ HAEOSS 2 W441 Project Contact: CEO&C NO fC - Phone: JZS' - 9.52 - (AS'-3 RESUBMITTED ITEMS: # of Copies ** Detailed Description of Item f Q►l� 1 N Cr � (. � S w � r! Cr 'i'� L, C.o N N t �-'i7 o d! * * Always submit the same number of copies as required for your initial application." Resubmittal Requested by: J1K WP5 Letter Dated: N & I� (Staffem er J, omcE USE oNi RESUI #.• '�'i Distribution Date: By. Dept/Div Name # bescription • Building -.Plannin (' PW Fire Other Bulletin #129 — August 8, 2006 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Resubmittal Information CITY OF �- Federal Way FILE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. citYoffederalway.. com Paul Lymberis Quadrant Corporation February 21, 2012 14725 SE 36`h Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98006 South 320`h Street Small Lot Demonstration Project, Federal Way, WA RE: FILE #07-106736-AD; WETLAND #AA MONITORING PEER REVIEW —ESA INSPECTION Dear Mr. Lymberis: I've received a memorandum from the City's wetland consultant, ESA, Inc., on the condition of the restoration planting at the wetland #AA and associated wetland buffer. This wetland is located within and adjacent to the South 320`h Street right-of-way, and was impacted by the undergrounding of utility lines along this roadway. ESA was asked to conduct peer review of the wetland buffer mitigation based on the schedule in the Wetland Restoration Plan, Existing Conditions & Proposed Impacts Plan, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. dated January 20, 2009, and approved by the City on March 6, 2069. The February 10, 2012, memo from Lizzie Zemke states that those areas disturbed by the undergrounding work appeared to not have been planted at all. They observed recently disturbed soils and missing siltation fences. Their six recommendations are forwarded to you for implementation. They are: • Plant all areas specified for planting in the approved mitigation plans; • Install silt fence according to approved plans; • Review the plans to ensure that the current plant spacing will achieve the areal coverage specified in the approved mitigation plan; if the spacing appears too wide, add plants such that the required density can be achieved,• ■ Prepare an as -built or record drawing for City review; • Conduct Year 1 monitoring in the fall of 2012 following city acceptance of the as -built drawing; and • Prepare and submit to the City a monitoring report documenting results of the monitoring effort and assessing the relative success of the mitigation plan. Further, without a monitoring report from the applicant and due to the incomplete condition of the planting, ESA classified their visit as an "initial planting approval site visit" rather than a year one monitoring review. This means that an additional peer monitoring deposit will be required to ensure that the full five years of peer monitoring is funded. The City will advise you of the amount of additional funds required once ESA quantifies that amount. PIease contact me at 253-835-2642 or at deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Deb Barker Senior Planner Enclosure as noted c: Lizzie Zemke, ESA, Inc., 5309 Shilshole Ave NW, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98107 Doc f D 60413 ESA 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax memorandum date February 10, 2012 to Ms. Deb Barker, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way from Lizzie Zemke, ESA subject January 2012 Review of S. 320t' Street mitigation installation, Federal Way, Washington At the request of the City of Federal Way, ESA reviewed plans and conducted a site visit to observe plantings installed as part of a wetland and buffer restoration plan approved by the City in 2009 and intended to compensate for impacts to Wetland AA and its buffer. The wetland and its associated buffer had been impacted by installation of underground utilities along north side of S 320t' Street in the City of Federal Way. The City has required that the project be be monitored for five years following approved installation of the plants, and has contracted with ESA to review the plantings and the monitoring reports prepared by the applicant. ESA is typically provided with final mitigation plans approved by the City and a monitoring report prepared by the applicant prior to conducting mitigation review site visits. These documents were not available to us at the time of our site visit. At the time of our site visit the City was anticipating that the planting had been installed according to the approved plans and that the January3l, 2012 ESA site visit would serve as the Year 1 planting/monitoring review. In the absence of the approved plans and the monitoring report, ESA relied on draft planting plans prepared for the project by Talasaea and dated February 2009 as the standard against which we judged the relative success of the mitigation plan implementation. The 2009 plans called for installation of wetland and wetland buffer plants throughout the area disturbed by the underground utility installation. Silt fence was specified to be installed between the edge of the restored buffer and the north edge of the South 320`h Street roadside ditch. During the site visit ESA observed that the vegetation on the portion of the wetland that had not been impacted by the utility installation consisted of a dense thicket of hardhack and other wetland plant species. We observed that a portion of the disturbed wetland and wetland buffer adjacent to the utility installation area had been replanted according to the mitigation plans. The installed plants appeared healthy and very few invasive plant species were evident in this area. The spacing of the plants appeared greater than what would be expected in order to achieve a plant density similar to that observed in the adjacent undisturbed portion of the wetland. The portion of the disturbed area located on top of/over the recently installed underground utilities appeared not to have been planted at all. A swath of cleared and recently disturbed soil was visible both east and west and within the wetland and wetland buffer, clearly in line with the recently installed utility corridor that parallels S. 320`h Street. Additionally we observed the fence posts that had apparently supported the specified silt fence; however the silt fencing fabric was absent. It should be noted that due to the incomplete nature of the mitigation installation and the lack of a monitoring report from the applicant, ESA's January 2012 site visit constituted an initial planting approval site visit rather than a Year l monitoring review. Based on our on -site observations we have the following recommendations: 0 Plant all areas specified for planting in the approved mitigation plans; ESA Ms. Deb Barker February 15, 2012 Page 2 • Install silt fence according to the approved plans; • Review the plans to ensure that the current plant spacing will achieve the areal coverage specified in the approved mitigation plan; if the spacing appears too wide, add plants such that the required density can be achieved; • Prepare an as -built or record drawing for City review; • Conduct Year 1 monitoring in the Fall of 2012 following City acceptance of the as -built drawing; and • Prepare and submit to the City a monitoring report documenting results of the monitoring effort and assessing the relative success of the mitigation plan. Please contact me at 206.789.9658 or [zemke@—esassot:.com esassoc.com if you have any questions about our review f Z~ TALa_ S_ AEA C 2 February 2009 TAL-030 Mr. Jim Harris City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 REFERENCE: So. 3201h Place Preliminary Plat — File #08-100555-00-SU Wetland Mitigation for Temporary Impacts from Underground Utility Construction at 31800 32"d Place SW SUBJECT: Proposed Restoration Plan Dear Jim: On behalf of Quadrant Homes, we are responding to your letter dated December 9, 2008 to address mitigation for temporary impacts to Wetland AA and its buffer located in the So. 320th St. right-of-way (ROW) that will result from construction of the proposed underground utilities. We agree with your suggestion to prepare a "stand-alone" wetland mitigation plan to compensate for these temporary impacts. We are proposing a 1:1 restoration ratio that will occur within the 2- 3-year timeline scheduled for the underground utility work. However, if the South 3201h Place plat is under construction, then the original wetland mitigation plans for the plat will be constructed and the impacts associated with the underground utility work will be mitigated on -site according to those plans. Enclosed please find the "Wetland Restoration Plans" that provide the details for the wetland and buffer restoration work to mitigate for these temporary impacts - The following is a brief discussion of the temporary wetland and buffer impacts, proposed restoration including goals, objectives, and performance standards, construction timing, and performance monitoring. Please refer to the Critical Areas Report and Final Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. dated October 30, 2008 for a full description of the wetlands located within the ROW. P_r ,posed Critical Area Impacts Construction plans for undergrounding the utilities within the ROW will temporarily impact 965 square feet (so of Wetland AA and 1,336 sf of buffer and all of Wetland S (1,144 so will be permanently filled. According to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) §22.1357(a)(2), Wetland AA meets the criteria for a Category III wetland. Category III wetlands that are between 2,500 sf and 10,000 sf require a 25-foot buffer. According to FWCC § 22.1357(a)(3), Wetland S meets the criteria for a Category III wetland. Category III wetlands that are less than 2,500 sf are not regulated in the City of Federal RESUBMITTED Resource & Environmental Planning s� 1 Si120 Bear (:reel: Rojd \Nmihe.isI • \V'oodin•,tllc, W.ishuigron 98077 • Bus: (I_5)•8G1.7550 F.;x• (-125)8G1-75-19 FEB 0 3 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEFT. Mr. Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 2 Way, therefore, Wetland S is exempt from City regulation. Total impacts regulated by the City are 965 sf of wetland and 1,336 sf of buffer. Wetland and Buffer Restoration Because the impacts to both Wetland AA and its buffer are temporary, we are proposing to restore the impacted areas at a 1:1 ratio to satisfy City requirements. Prior to the utility construction work, Talasaea shall flag topsoil donor areas, if any, from areas located within the project footprint to be stockpiled for later use in the restoration areas. The Contractor shall scrape organic duff from the flagged areas to depths determined by Talasaea. Upon completion of utility construction, the Contractor shall backfill utility trenches with native soil to 95% compaction. Project geotechnical engineer shall review backfill and determine if a till cap is necessary to prevent draining of restored wetland area- If a till cap is not necessary, the Contractor shall restore grades for wetland and buffer areas to pre -disturbance conditions. The Contractor shall leave subgrade 9" below finish grade for placement of 9" of stockpiled or imported topsoil. Talasaea shall review subgrades and make minor field adjustments to finish grading, as necessary, to ensure proper function of wetland and buffer areas. Following subgrade appro\ial, the Contractor shall place stockpiled or imported topsoil. A variety of indigenous species will be planted in Wetland AA and its buffers. Plant species have been chosen for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife, value as a physical or visual barrier, pattern of growth (structural diversity), and aesthetic values. Native tree and shrub species were chosen to increase both the structural and species diversity of the mitigation areas, thereby increasing the area's value to wildlife for food and cover. Plant materials will consist of a combination of bare -root specimens and container plants (5-gal. containers for small trees and 1-2-gal. containers for shrubs) - Goals ONectives and Performance Standards The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to restore the functions and values temporarily lost through impacting 965 sf of wetland and 1,336 sf of buffer. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will: Restore 965 sf of Wetland AA. Restore 1,336 sf of buffer around the restored portion of Wetland AA. Mitigation actions will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. Mitigation monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist. Obiective A: Create structural and plant species diversity in the restoration areas, Performance Standard Al: At least 10 species of desirable native plants will be present in the restored wetland and buffer areas during the monitoring period. Percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contactor warranty). and at least 75% for each subsequent year of the monitoring period. Resource & Environmenml Planning 15020 K.'r (_rCok 1',4,d \C'nodinvtIIv, AV.idimpun 98101 • !iLl . �=15;561--550 [:,ix: M25)861 Sag Mr. Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 3 Performance Standard A2: Herbaceous coverage of vegetation in the wetland area shall be at least 30% by the end of Year 1, 50% by the end of Year 2, and 80% by the end of Year 5, excluding those areas of the site that may have sparse herbaceous vegetation due to dense shade from woody species coverage. Objective B: Limit the amount of invasive and exotic species within the mitigation area_ Performance Standard B: After construction and following every monitoring event for a period of five years, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover throughout the restoration area. These species include Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, and creeping nightshade. Timing for Construction As you stated in your letter, "Since the site has an approved preliminary plat, and the Hearing Examiner has approved the wetland displacement, City staff would allow deferral of implementation of the mitigation plan for the requested two to three years-.." Therefore, if site construction is not implemented, the mitigation plan will be constructed during the late summer/early fall months of 2011. Performance Monitoring Performance monitoring of the restoration areas will be conducted for a period of five years for the City of Federal Way. Monitoring events will be conducted according to the schedule presented in (Table 1). Reports will include sections detailing the methods used, results, analysis, and recommendations. Table 1. Projected Calendar for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events Year Date Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to Agencies BA" Winter/SpringWinter/Spring X X X 1 Spring X X Fall X X X 2 Spring X X Fall X X X 3 Spring. X Fall X X X 4 Spring X Fall X X X 5 Sprin2 X Fall X X _ X" BA = Baseline Assessment following construction completion. Obtain final approval to facilitate bond release from the City of Federal Way (presumes performance criteria are met). Monitoring Reports Each monitoring report will include: a) panoramic photo -documentation, b) estimates of percent vegetative cover, plant survival and undesirable species, c) wildlife usage, d) water quality and hydrology, site stability, and soils, and e) an overall qualitative assessment of project success for the restoration areas. If the performance criteria are Resource & L-nvironmental Planning "! licit l:rrel< Ruud \urncc,i�t • Woo (It nv;!Ie% \ ,Arington 98077 • Bux (4I 5)361- 550 I,us. (-125)SG1-i 519 Mr. Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 4 met, monitoring for the City will cease at the end of year five, unless objectives are met at an earlier date and the City accepts the mitigation project as successfully completed. Vegetatioir One permanent vegetation sampling point or transect will be established at a selected location to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same monitoring location will be re -visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of the dominant species within the vegetative strata. A qualified wetland ecologist will conduct all monitoring. Findings of plant survival and vigor will also be reported for each plant community. Photo Documentation Locations will be established within the restoration area from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi -quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Vegetation sampling plot and photo -point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and yearly performance monitoring reports. Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates observed in the wetland and buffer al eas (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded during scheduled monitoring events, and at any other times observations are made. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities- Hydroiogy, Water QualitV, and Site Stabilit During each monitoring event, an assessment will be made of the water regime within the wetland and buffer areas to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist. General observations will be made of the extent and depth of soil saturation or inundation. Water quality will be assessed qualitatively-, unless it is evident there is a serious problem. In such an event, water quality samples will be taken and analyzed in a laboratory for suspected parameters- Qualitative assessments of water quality include: • oil sheen or other surface films, • abnormal color or odor of water, • stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna. • turbidity, and • absence of aquatic fauna. Observations will be made on the stability of slopes in the restoration areas. Any erosion or slumping of the slopes will be recorded and corrective measures will be taken. Resource & ['11 u-onmcnlal Plannine l n?n Br.0 (:neck Ro.id Nofthc:i:t • WOOLlimII]U, \V'i-hmgtlm'.';8t 9 ]iu, 425;861-,550 P:,. ;425 S61 -, J9 Mr. Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 5 Maintenance (M) And Contingency (C) Maintenance reviews will be performed according to schedule presented in Table 1 to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the restoration area. Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation project. If there is a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the Bond -holder shall work with the City to develop a Contingency Plan. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to: additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and location. Such Contingency Plan shall be submitted to City by December 31 of any year when deficiencies are discovered" Contingency will include many of the items listed below and would be implemented if the performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). • During year one, replace all dead plant material (M). • Water all plantings at a rate of 1" of water every week between June 15 — October 15 during the first year after installation, and for the first year after any replacement plantings (C & M). • Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goal and objectives of the enhancement plan, subject to Talasaea and agency approval (C). • Re -plant area after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C). • After consulting with City staff, minor excavations will be made to correct surface drainage patterns (C). • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, etc.) by manual -or chemical means approved by The City of Federal Way" Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval- All non-native vegetation must be removed and dumped off -site. (C & M). • Trees and shrubs should be weeded to the dripline and mulched to a depth of three inches (M). • Remove trash and other debris from the enhancement area twice a year (M) • Selectively prune woody plants to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M). Financial Guarantee A performance and maintenance Bond will be posted with the City by the property owner to ensure the success of the mitigation plan. The amount of the bond shall equal 120% of the cost of the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period" Cnnr_hision Your letter states that "The plan identified above must also address impacts and mitigation to the existing Wetland U buffer resulting from the utility undergrounding." We have reviewed the utility plans provided by PACE engineers and they depict there limits of construction outside of the buffer for Wetland U. Sheet W1.0 depicts the limits of construction as an orange dashed line for your review. Therefore, no mitigation/ Resource S: E'n ironmentnl Pimnim-, 1 02H BL':tr Crc(7l< Road \rnnc0.ut • \\")'IJ111Vd)U. 98077 • Ru. j.4 ;S(:1 Mr ,Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 6 restoration is proposed for the Wetland U buffer. We look forward to your review and approval of our proposal to provide restoration for temporary wetland and buffer impacts resulting from construction of the utilities within the So. 3201h St. ROW. Thank you for your assistance during this review and we look forward to your questions or comments. In the meantime, should you need further clarification on items presented here or require any further information, please contact me immediately. I may be reached at the office at (425) 861-7550, on my cell phone at (206) 390-7456, or by e-mail at aolsen@talasaea.com. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Aim M. Olsen Senior Project Manager Attachments Wetland Restoration Plan with plan Sheets W1 0, W1.1, & W1.2- cc: Mike Behn, Quadrant Homes File Resource & Environmental Planning 15!)', lir,n t rLA Road Noi'thnist • \Vood[IwiIIC' Wash III nm 98077 • Buy (425)861-7550 1 :u: i•1251861-7549 Deb Barker From: Deb Barker Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:41 PM To: Uzzie Zemke' Subject: So. 320th Place Wetland AA approved plans Attachments: sw 312TH OFFSITE 3.tif; sw 312TH OFFSITE 4.tif; sw 312TH OFFSITE 2.tif Lizzie - Here are the approved plans for wetland AA signed by Jim Harris in March 2009. (Please ignore the name on the file). Let me know if you can't open them - I'm working with a computer system I've not used before... Regards Deb Deb Barker, Senior Planner Community and Economic Development Department City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 253-835-2642 (p) 253-835-2609 (f) deb.barker@r,ityoffederalway.com The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: sw 312TH OFFSITE 3.tif sw 312TH OFFSITE 4.tif sw 312TH OFFSITE 2.tif Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www.esassoc.com rA Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax memorandum date February 10, 2012 to Ms. Deb Barker, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way from Lizzie Zemke, ESA subject January 2012 Review of S. 320t` Street mitigation installation, Federal Way, Washington At the request of the City of Federal Way, ESA reviewed plans and conducted a site visit to observe plantings installed as part of a wetland and buffer restoration plan approved by the City in 2009 and intended to compensate for impacts to Wetland AA and its buffer. The wetland and its associated buffer had been impacted by installation of underground utilities along north side of S 320s' Street in the City of Federal Way. The City has required that the project be be monitored for five years following approved installation of the plants, and has contracted with ESA to review the plantings and the monitoring reports prepared by the applicant. ESA is typically provided with final mitigation plans approved by the City and a monitoring report prepared by the applicant prior to conducting mitigation review site visits. These documents were not available to us at the time of our site visit. At the time of our site visit the City was anticipating that the planting had been installed according to the approved plans and that the January3l, 2012 ESA site visit would serve as the Year 1 planting/monitoring review. In the absence of the approved plans and the monitoring report, ESA relied on draft planting plans prepared for the project by Talasaea and dated February 2009 as the standard against which we judged the relative success of the mitigation plan implementation. The 2009 plans called for installation of wetland and wetland buffer plants throughout the area disturbed by the underground utility installation. Silt fence was specified to be installed between the edge of the restored buffer and the north edge of the South 320`4 Street roadside ditch. During the site visit ESA observed that the vegetation on the portion of the wetland that had not been impacted by the utility installation consisted of a dense thicket of hardhack and other wetland plant species. We observed that a portion of the disturbed wetland and wetland buffer adjacent to the utility installation area had been replanted according to the mitigation plans. The installed plants appeared healthy and very few invasive plant species were evident in this area. The spacing of the plants appeared greater than what would be expected in order to achieve a plant density similar to that observed in the adjacent undisturbed portion of the wetland. The portion of the disturbed area located on top of/over the recently installed underground utilities appeared not to have been planted at all. A swath of cleared and recently disturbed soil was visible both east and west and within the wetland and wetland buffer, clearly in line with the recently installed utility corridor that parallels S. 320a' Street. Additionally we observed the fence posts that had apparently supported the specified silt fence; however the silt fencing fabric was absent. It should be noted that due to the incomplete nature of the mitigation installation and the lack of a monitoring report from the applicant, ESA's January 2012 site visit constituted an initial planting approval site visit rather than a Year 1 monitoring review. Based on our on -site observations we have the following recommendations: 0 Plant all areas specified for planting in the approved mitigation plans; ESA Ms. Deb Barker February 15, 2012 Page 2 ■ Install silt fence according to the approved plans; • Review the plans to ensure that the current plant spacing will achieve the areal coverage specified in the approved mitigation plan; if the spacing appears too wide, add plants such that the required density can be achieved; • Prepare an as -built or record drawing for City review; ■ Conduct Year 1 monitoring in the Fall of 2012 following City acceptance of the as -built drawing; and • Prepare and submit to the City a monitoring report documenting results of the monitoring effort and assessing the relative success of the mitigation plan. Please contact me at 206.789.9658 or 1zemke g.esassoc.com if you have any questions about our review Deb Barker From: Lizzie Zemke [LZemke@esassoc.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 6:19 PM To: Deb Barker Subject: RE: S 320th Street Hi Deb I want to let you know that I visited the S 30th Street site and it doesn't look great. The plants that have been installed appear healthy, but the swath where the utilities were apparently installed appears to have never been planted. Also the silt fence is missing (although some of the fence posts remain). Our task authorization assumed we would have a monitoring report to review and compare with on -site conditions. In the absence of a Fall 2011 monitoring report I compared the on -site conditions with the plans provided by Talasaea in February 2009. According to those plans, the area above the installed utilities should have been planted. ESA never received a Final Mitigation plan with performance criteria etc. for this site. I was counting on that information being provided in the Year 1 Monitoring Report (which we also have not received). I know the project proponents already object to paying for this work by City consultants but it looks as though we will need to add an additional site visit and review memo to count as year one monitoring since what we are looking at right now is more of an approval (or disapproval in this case) of the initial planting. Usually in the first year the contractor is responsible for 100 % survival of all plants —and at this point they will need to replace (or initially install) quite few plants. My plan is to send you a memo documenting what I saw out there. I will recommend that the planting be completed per the approved plans and that the applicant needs to prepare an as -built drawing as well as a Year 1 Monitoring Report. After all that is done, we would start the monitoring review sequence that we detailed in our recent task authorization. Essentially they are now at the installation approval stage rather than the Year 1 monitoring stage of their project. In the meantime can you please send us the approved mitigation plan if you have it? We received something that was close to final but does not have City approval stamped anywhere on it, so I am assuming there is a more recent approved version somewhere. Thanks. I am out of the office this week but responding to emails and doing some project work. Lizzie From: Deb Barker[mailto: Deb. Barker@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:08 AM To: Lizzie Zemke Subject: RE: S 320th Street That sounds f_xR:%,A`3.". P�'.i. - It is nice and su:nnv 'here tc day :if you get a chance to came down. You won't; even get. your feet vet since you can see the whole thing froin the 320th ROW! Leh From: Lizzie Zemke [mailto:LZemke esassoc.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:06 AM To: Deb Barker Subject: RE: S 320th Street Thanks Deb. If that is the case, my approach will be to go out to the site, take a look, and report back to you on whether or not it looks like what the plans dictated. Lizzie From: Deb Barker mailto:Deb. Barker ci vffederalw ;ra Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 10:57 AM To: Lizzie Zemke Subject: RE: S 320th Street Lurie - I think it got: planted in 2010 and that's abbot it. I don't; have anything. This is truly a wild card. Deb From: Lizzie Zemke [mailto:LZemke@esassoc.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 10:52 AM To: Deb Barker Subject: S 320th Street Hi Deb Thanks for sending the Task Authorization for S. 320th Street. I don't believe we have received a monitoring report/memo to review for this yet. Has the City received it or are we all still waiting for that? Thanks. Lizzie Zemke Senior Scientist/Sustainability Specialist ESA I Northwest Biological resources 5309 Shils ole Avenue NVV, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206,789-9658 1 206,550.6796 mobile Izemke@esassoc_.corn Summary of wetland and wetland buffer mitigation review South 320th Street Demonstration Project Files: 08-100555-SU, 08-100557-UP, 08-105969-HR, 09-100931-OP, & 07-106736-AD Date & file # Action Status 6/26/08: Wetland and wetland buffer mitigation plan. Hearing 3/27/09 — Minor modification 08-100557-UP Examiner approved the wetland and wetland buffer to wetland mitigation plan Process IV. wetland mitigation plan associated with the small lot approved for wetland AA mitigation. subdivision. associated with ROW work on S. 320ffi Street. 7/15/08: Preliminary plat approval granted by City Council Five year preliminary plat 08-100555-SU for the I I5-lot small lot SF demonstration project. approval expires on 7/15/2013. Preliminary plat. Additional two year extension by State, now expires 7/15/2015. 1/8/10 Site is sold to South King Fire and Rescue. 3/10/09: Quadrant undergrounds the South 320 St. power Preconstruction meeting for the 08-105969-HR lines, intruding into wetland buffer associated with undergrounding project on ROW work. wetland #AA. Buffer mitigation required. 3/9/10, PW closes out project on 2/8/11. 09-100931-OP: OP for performance/maintenance bond for wetland Performance portion of the Bond file. buffer mitigation. bond released 12/21/2010. 07-106736-AD: AD file started in 2007 for overall wetland buffer Talasaea prepares the Wetland mitigation mitigation review. Jim is the initial planner on this mitigation plan for Quadrant. review. project. ESA reviews the plan for City. (See also below.) 12/17/07 — City requests ESA review proposed mitigation plan. They recommend approval of the mitigation plan. 3/6/09 — Wetland mitigation plan approval for temporary construction impacts for underground construction. 07-106736-AD: 12/21/2010 — City requests peer monitoring estimate (ROW construction work This folder also used from ESA once performance work completed. occurs between 3110 and 2111) for wetland -AA Report received. Peer review. modification 1/20/11 —ESA estimate of $7,246.80 received. associated with the January 2011 to March 2011 — E-mail discussion S. 320th St. work, as between City and ESA to have estimate reduced due well as the peer to simple nature of the wetland AA monitoring. review and 12/20/2011 — Revised reduced estimate received monitoring from ESA. 1/6/12 — Deb talks with applicant about monitoring status. 1/9/12 — Monitoring estimate forwarded to applicant. 1/9/12 — Authorization to proceed for ONLY year 1 monitoring forwarded to ESA. Created on 1/6/2012 4,13:00 PM Doc I D 60050 CITY OF Aft�'. Federal Way January 10, 2012 Ms. Lizzie Zemke ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 CITY HALL Fi 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com RE: FILE #07-106736-00-AD; AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH MONITORING TASK #1 WETLAND #AA MONITORING PEER REVIEW, S 320TH SMALL LOT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Dear Ms. Zemke: The purpose of this letter is to authorize the services of ESA in the wetland buffer monitoring of wetland #AA north of South 320th Street right-of-way. Authorization to Proceed with Year 1 Monitoring In ESA's Wetland Consultant Task Authorization #207004-43-E, dated January 20, 2011 (received on December 20, 2011), you indicated that a budget of $5,110.00 would be appropriate to fund site visits and review memorandums as ESA conducts the five years of wetland buffer monitoring on wetland #AA to ensure that the work meets approved plans and noted requirements. At this time, funds in the amount of $1,400 are in place and are sufficient to fund Year 1 Monitoring tasks. In the interest of time, this letter authorizes that work. Note that the City has also requested that applicant Quadrant submit the full $5,110.00 budget scope, and the City will not authorize any additional tasks until the full monitoring budget is funded. A copy of that letter is enclosed. A signed copy of the wetland consultant task authorization, noting authorization for Year 1 Monitoring, is enclosed for your files. I will amend the wetland consultant task authorization when funds are received from Quadrant, and send you an updated authorization. Please consider this letter as an authorization to proceed with ONLYthe Year 1 Monitoring as identified in the January 11, 2011, Task Authorization #207004-43-E. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Deb Barker Senior Planner enc: Task Authorization #207004-43-E signed by City of Federal Way —Approved for year 1. Copy of January 10, 2012 letter to Paul Lymberis c: Paul Lymberis, Quadrant Corporation, 14725 NE 361h Street, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98006 Doc I D 60039 CITY OF .� Federal Way January 10, 2012 Mr. Paul Lymberis Quadrant Corporation 14725 SE 36`h Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98006 1� CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue Sou h Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com RE: FILE #07-106736-AD; COST ESTIMATE FOR WETLAND #AA MONITORING PEER REVIEW SOUTH 320TH STREET SMALL LOT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, FEDERAL WAY, WA Dear Mr. Lymberis: The City's wetland consultant, ESA Adolfson, has prepared the enclosed cost estimate.for five (5) years of peer review monitoring of the wetland #AA buffer mitigation work as required by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner in his June 28, 2008 decision. The normal course of action is for the City to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn down by the work performed by ESA. If the money is not used, it will be returned to the applicant. At this point, please review the ESA 20 January 2011 task authorization #207004-43-E cost estimate. If you agree with the cost estimate, a check in the amount of $5,110.00, payable to the City of Federal Way, must be submitted along with the enclosed invoice. As we discussed on the phone Friday afternoon, the City has authorized ESA to conduct the work associated with the Year 1 Monitoring tasks as there is a balance of $1,400 remaining in your wetland review pass -through account. Please be advised that no other monitoring tasks will be authorized until full funding is in place. You are copied on that authorization letter. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 should you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Deb Barker Senior Planner enc: 20 January 2011 task authorization #207004-43-E cost estimate Invoice for wetland monitoring peer review Timeline c: ESA Adolfson, Lizzie Zemke, 5309 Shilshole Ave NW, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98107 Doc #6004o INVOICE City of Federal Way Ph: (253) 835-7000 mr or Federal Way Invoice Date: January 10, 2012 Bill #: 164563 Permit#: 07-106736-00 Project Name: SOUTH 320TH PLACE SUBDIVISION' Site Address: 31800 32ND PL S Applicant Name: QUADRANT HOMES *GEORGE COOK * FEE DESCRIPTION CD - DEP ENV PASS-THRU(8045)........................................... 001-0000-000-239-10-004 AMOUNT $5,110.00 TOTAL DUE: $5,110.00 FiLE Summary of wetland and wetland buffer mitigation review South 3201h Street Demonstration Project Files: 08-100555-SU, 08-100557-UP, 08-105969-HR, 09-100931-OP, & 07-106736-AD Date & file # Action Status 6/26/08: Wetland and wetland buffer mitigation plan. Hearing 3/27/09 — Minor modification 08-100557-UP Examiner approved the wetland and wetland buffer to wetland mitigation plan Process IV. wetland mitigation plan associated with the small lot approved for wetland AA mitigation. subdivision. associated with ROW work on S. 320th Street. 7/15/08: Preliminary plat approval granted by City Council Five year preliminary plat 08-100555-SU for the 115-lot small lot SF demonstration project. approval expires on 7/15/2013. Preliminary plat. Additional two year extension by State, now expires 7/15/2015. 1/8/10 Site is sold to South King Fire and Rescue. 3/10/09: Quadrant undergrounds the South 320 St. power Preconstruction meeting for the 08-105969-HR lines, intruding into wetland buffer associated with undergrounding project on ROW work. wetland #AA. Buffer mitigation required. 3/9/10, PW closes out project on 2/8/11. 09-100931-OP: OP for performance/maintenance bond for wetland Performance portion of the Bond file. buffer mitigation. bond released 12/21/2010. 07-106736-AD: AD file started in 2007 for overall wetland buffer Talasaea prepares the Wetland mitigation mitigation review. Jim is the initial planner on this mitigation plan for Quadrant. review. project. ESA reviews the plan for City. (See also below.) 12/17/07 — City requests ESA review proposed mitigation plan. They recommend approval of the mitigation plan. 3/6/09 — Wetland mitigation plan approval for temporary construction impacts for underground construction. 07-106736-AD: 12/21/2010 — City requests peer monitoring estimate (ROW construction work This folder also used from ESA once performance work completed. occurs between 3110 and 2111) for wetland AA Report received. Peer review. modification 1/20/11— ESA estimate of $7,246.80 received. associated with the January 2011 to March 2011— E-mail discussion S. 320th St. work, as between City and ESA to have estimate reduced due well as the peer to simple nature of the wetland AA monitoring. review and 12/20/2011— Revised reduced estimate received monitoring from ESA. 1/6/12 — Deb talks with applicant about monitoring status. 1/9/12 — Monitoring estimate forwarded to applicant. 1/9/12 — Authorization to proceed for ONLY year 1 monitoring forwarded to ESA. Created on 1/6/2012 4:13:00 PM Doe. I.D. 60050 WETLAND CONSULTANT TASK AUTHORIZATION TASK AUTHORIZATION NO. 27004-43-E DATE 0 20-Jan-11 CITY City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 33326 Eighth Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 CONSULTANT ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98107 PROJECT S. 320th Buffer Mitigation Monitoring PROJECT PROPONENT Quadrant Homes TASK AUTHORIZATION NO. 207004-TA-43E (#07-106736-00-AD) Deb Barker TASK SCOPE Year 1 Monitoring 1 Review Nov 2011 Monitoring Report 1 staff 2 hrs $ 200.00 2 Conduct site visit 1 staff 3 hrs $ 300.00 3 Prepare memo to City documenting findings 1 staff 6 hrs $ 600.00 4 Reimburseables $ 50.00 Year 1 Total $ 1,150.00 Year 2 Monitoring 1 Review Nov 2012 Monitoring Report 1 staff 2 hrs $ 200.00 2 Conduct site visit 1 staff 3 hrs $ 300.00 3 Prepare memo to City documenting findings 1 staff 4 hrs $ 400.00 4 Reimburseables $ 50.00 Escalation 4% per year $ 38.00 Year 2 Total $ 988.00 Year 3 Monitoring 1 Review Nov 2013 Monitoring report 1 staff 1 hrs $ 100.00 2 Conduct site visit 1 staff 3 hrs $ 300.00 3 Prepare memo to City documenting findings 1 staff 4 hrs $ 400.00 4 Reimburseables $ 50.00 Escalation 4% per year $ 68.00 Year 3 Total $ 918.00 Year 4 Monitoring 1 Review November 2014 monitoring report 1 staff 1 hrs $ 100.00 2 Conduct site visit 1 staff 3 hrs $ 300.00 3 Prepare memo to City documenting findings TOTAL COST TASKSCHEDULE DELIVERABLES AUTHORIZATION City of Federal Way ESA Adolfson ( Principal) 1 staff 4 hrs $ 400.00 4 Reimburseables $ 50.00 Escalation 4% per year $ 102.00 Year 4 Total $ 952.00 Year 5 Monitoring 1 Review November 2015 monitoring report 1 staff 1 hrs $ 100.00 2 Conduct site visit 1 staff 3 hrs $ 300.00 3 Prepare final memo to City documenting findings 1 staff 5 hrs $ 500.00 4 Reimburseables $ 50.00 Escalation 4% per year $ 152.00 Year 5 Total $ 1,102.00 Not to exceed $ 5,110.00 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization; tasks to be completed as described on the attached proposal dated November 6, 2006. Review memo to prepared witnin 4 weeks of receipt of yearly monitoring reports 1 memo per year for 5 years documenting findings of monitoring review Date Date CITY OF �- Federal Way December 21, 2010 Ms. Lizzie Zemke ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com RE: FILE #07-106736-00-AD; WETLAND MONITORING PEER REVIEW South 320`h Street Small Lot Demonstration Project, Federal Way Dear Ms. Zemke: The City appreciates your on -going assistance with review of previous environmental projects, including the wetland and wetland buffer mitigation that was proposed for Wetland AA at the South 320`h Street small lot subdivision project. Approved wetland buffer mitigation was recently installed at the site in conjunction with undergrounding work, and the five-year monitoring period began November 2, 2010. This letter requests your estimate of costs for peer review of the monitoring of this wetland mitigation project, based on the approved plans for the Wetland Restoration Plan, Existing Conditions and Proposed Impacts Plan Schedule 74 Undergrounding Work, South 320`h Place Plat, Federal Way WA, dated January 30, 2009, as prepared by Talasaea Consultants. Currently, there is a remaining balance of $1,400.00 in the project review account, which can be applied to monitoring work conducted by your firm. Please prepare a proposed scope and fee estimate for your services and send your proposed scope and fee estimate to my attention. I will forward your proposed scope to the applicant. Once accepted and funded by the applicant, you will be given notice to proceed with the review. Please contact me at 253-835-2642, or deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com, if you have any questions on the project. Sincerely, Deb Barker Senior Planner Doc. I.D. 56561 AkCITY OF Federal Way March 27, 2009 Mike Behn Quadrant Homes PO Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 1FILE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederal way. com RE: File #08-100557-UP; MINOR MODIFICATION TO WETLAND IMPACT APPROVAL South 3201' Place Preliminary Plat, 31800 32"d Place South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Behn: This letter grants approval to your February 26, 2009, request to modify the Hearing Examiner's June 25, 2008, decision on the wetland intrusions, displacement, and conceptual mitigation plan for the South 320`h Place preliminary plat. This approval allows an increase of approximately 1,038 square feet of additional wetland impact, which represents an approximate 10 percent increase. Process IV wetland impacts and wetland buffer impacts were granted by the Hearing Examiner in his June 25, 2008, report and decision_ There are no changes to site access points, easements, utilities, or substantial additional impacts to sensitive areas, significant trees, or the environment with the requested modification. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-460, "Subsequent Modification," the modification request does not constitute a change in use and is determined to have no substantial changes to the impacts on the neighborhood or the City as a result of the change. The additional wetland impacts were not created by a change in use, and additional impacts to the neighborhood or City are not expected due to the modification. The wetland mitigation plan was modified to mitigate impacts to wetlands and buffer on site as identified in your February 26, 2009 letter. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Jim Harris by e-mail at jim.hams@cityoffederalway.com or Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager, at 253-835-2643. Sincerely, Greg Fewins, Director Community Development Services c: Kevin Peterson, Public Works Plans Reviewer Lizzie Lemke, ESA Adolfson Ann Olsen, Talasaea Consultants Doc LD 49448 N. CITY OF CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South �. Federal Way 98 Mailing Address: Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway com March 27, 2009 Mike Behn Quadrant Homes PO Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 RE: File #08-100557-UP & 08-100555-SU; WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL 3201h Place Preliminary Plat, 31800 32"d Place South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Behn: This correspondence provides conditional approval of the Talasaea Consultants (revised) October 30, 2008, Critical Areas Report and Final Wetland Mitigation Plan for the South 320"' Place Plat in Federal Way. The approved plan sheets are by Talasaea Consultants, dated revised 2-24-09, pages W 1.0, W 1.1, W2.0, W2.1, W3.0, and W 3.1. Condition of approval: No off -site work is approved. Specifically, any reference in the Critical Areas Report to off -site work at wetlands X and Y near North Lake, (which may be required for state and Federal permit requirements) is excluded from this approval. Any work in and around the off -site wetlands near North Lake requires separate City review, permits and approvals, as specified in my December 9, 2008 letter. This approval does not allow any work at the site. Prior to any work, including clearing and grading, a financial guarantee as required by Federal Way City Code, must be provided to the City. The financial guarantee must be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the wetland mitigation. An itemized cost of the wetland mitigation plus five years of maintenance and monitoring must be provided to the City to initiate the financial guarantee process. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Jim Harris by e-mail at jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com or Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager, at 253-835-2643. Sincerely, � Ji arris ontract Senior Planner enc: Approved modified plan pages W1.0, Wl.1, W2.0, W2.1, W3.0, W 3.1 by Talasaea Consultants c: Kevin Peterson, Public Works Plans Reviewer Lizzie Lemke, ESA Adolfson Ann Olsen, Talasaea Consultants Doc 1 D. 49450 CERTIFICATE OF INCUMBENCY I, Claire S. Grace, Secretary of The Quadrant Corporation, do hereby certify that Vicki A. Merrick holds the office of Assistant Secretary pursuant to Article III of the Bylaws of The Quadrant Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington. Dated at Federal Way, Washington, this st'day of , 24 n`l . U 4..�t Secretary The Quadrant Corporation g:\corporate secretary docs\certificates\incumbency\merrick.doc - 5 4/1 /2009 t�x- T �g,4- `I(Gf 6h �Cy� not waive such breach or default. This Agreement may not be assigned by any Party without he written consent of the other Party. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties' successors in interest. Time is of the essence. QUADRANT CORPORATION By: . Vicki A. Merrick, Assistant Secretary PO Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 (253) 924-5272 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Cary Roe, Assistant City Manager 33325 8`h Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 ATTEST: Carol McNeilly, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF King On this day personally appeared before me Vicki A. Merrick, to me known to be the Assistant Secretary of Quadrant Corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. GIVEN ,4n: official seal this 13 davof March 2009. `m, �y\ QO S @ f1po10 �a �'�%.n Expo''"e ■'■. •; �� .+�° Lori. L Rose 2 L (typed/printed name of notary) " *,, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires_10/15/12 e i �+,'�0' Doc. I.D. 1'`�� .. 4 r ESAAdolfson J March 12, 2009 Mr. Jim Harris City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax www.adolfson.com RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAR 16 2UU9 Subject: Review of Addendum to Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan, S. 320th Small Lot Demonstration Project, (File #07-106736-00-AD), Federal Way, Washington Dear Jim: ESA Adolfson (Adolfson) is pleased to present our review of the Addendum to the Critical Areas Report and Final Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants and submitted to the City of Federal Way (City) for Quadrant Homes. The 19.12-acre site is located north of S. 320th St., east of I-5, and west of Military Rd. S. in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The property is undeveloped, with a majority of the site covered in forest. A grass field with scattered shrubs is located on the southeastern portion of the site. Quadrant Homes is proposing the development of a small lot subdivision on the property. Adolfson has previously provided comments on this project proposal. Our most recent comments pertained to the revised Critical Areas Report and Final Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants in October 2008, and were contained in a letter to the City dated November 23, 2009. Following our review of the October 2008 document, Adolfson recommended that the applicant provide the following: • Show the proposed overlook outside of the minimum 25-foot averaged buffer of Wetland U on all drawings; ■ Provide information that demonstrates that the proposed plant communities will survive the dry season, once the temporary irrigation system is removed, without additional input of water; ■ Provide a contingency measure that addresses the possibility of the wetland becoming too dry during the summer months; and Provide additional information, such as the results of water quality sampling efforts, to demonstrate that the quality of water entering the created wetland is sufficiently high • Modify the project design to ensure that the created wetland is not being used as a water quality treatment/polishing facility. ESAAdolfson J Mr. Jim Harris / City of Federal Way March 12, 2009 Page 2 For this critical area review, Adolfson evaluated the following materials received from the City on March 5, 2009: • Addendum to the Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan including Plan Sheets W1.0, W1.1, W2.0, W2.1, W3.0, and W3.1 (Talasaea Consultants, revised February 24, 2009) Review comments included in this letter are based on regulatory requirements presented in the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22 - Critical Areas Regulations, a review of materials submitted by the applicant, and a site visit conducted in February 2008. The scope of this review is limited to an evaluation of critical areas and proposed mitigation activities on -site. In addition to reviewing the addendum document ESA Adolfson met on January 27, 2009 with the applicant and the applicant's consultants, including Talasaea Consultants, to discuss the comments included in our November 2008 memorandum. Site Visit Adolfson biologists Michael Muscari and Laura Brock previously conducted a site visit on February 21, 2008 to verify the boundary and classification of the on -site wetlands presented in an earlier submittal. During their site visit, they observed that the majority of the site consisted of forested slopes, with a small grass field located on the southeastern portion of the site. Document Review The Addendum to the Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan provided direct responses to each of the five recommendations contained in our November 2008 memo to the City. In response to our request that a pedestrian overlook be shown outside of the wetland buffer, Talasaea has removed the overlook from the project altogether. In response to our request for information that demonstrates that the plant species proposed for the wetland creation area will survive summer drought, Talasaea has revised the planting plan to include some species that are more drought tolerant than some of the previously proposed species. In response to our request for a contingency measure that addresses the possibility that the wetland may become too dry during the summer months, Talasaea further elaborated on the plan to extend the hydroperiod in the wetland and listed several features of the design that they believe will ensure that the wetland receives enough water. In response to the ESA Adolfson request for additional information to demonstrate that the quality of the water entering the created wetland will be sufficiently high, Talasaea described that the treatment methods proposed should result in the removal of 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) from water that will eventually reach the wetland. ESo Adolfson Mr. Jim Harris / City of Federal Way March 12, 2009 Page 3 Finally in response to our concern that the created wetland would be used to polish stowater noff and would be included as part of the overall water quality treatment system far the development, rmru Talasaea explained that the water will already have been treated to acceptable standards by the time the water reaches the wetland.. Recommendations Based upon our understanding of the project proposal, including the proposed mitigation activities, and the applicant's responses to our earlier concerns and questions, we believe that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the FWCC with regard to impacts to on -site wetlands and wetland buffers. We have no further recommendations with regard to the project at this time. Limitations Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope -of -work, we warrant that this review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the authors' best professional judOnent, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this review. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this material for you. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at 206-789_9658. Sincerely, ESA Adolfson ivici 5 Lizzie Zemke Senior Scientist :March 6, 20f39 �iilcc; S3clzn Quadratat j;ic;mes PO'Box 130 l3 ll� t£ie,'L'iy 98009 RF; F-Ac'N'st. 08-100557-00-L;Tr & 08-1059694-0-1-IR; Bosnia 3.20'h ..PIAt:e iPreli 3 nary i' L 31.800 -1 ace SW, cder;a# NVa—, Wetland Mitigation Plau Approval for 'l'emporary € onstruction ..Lupacts froin Undesrgr mad Utility C,5iistvuelion The wedand rniti;;wnon platy PfIvtfandA:woia.do#- Mar:,Xxistirag C'w,?drt;:c;ns and Proposed linplets f'f«ra C i:r flirfE' i t I;badeqrrmz:c ir.� Work. 1 cderal Way W.A.' dated kaLiary 30; 2009, by Talasaca Consultants, i-_•^c , is hcrehy ;£pp3'me-d sub,, :ct k) the cOndi.tirril listcd uel nv� The prnp<>--;OA %i'etlaod gritipti-X). plan ldentitiws Ys ldplloo. ror impacts, to Wet€ -and ��A, r�,e£lti£tg, from the tttiltty tT31t�3 i(7iL11t31lS T%ill'lCft]Yi3]�r:t £e Sooth 3:2e Stme'tfrontaKc, ass�vwcj wt$ the South 320" lalace The impacts to Wiviand AA wire corntet pt'a W and approved by the fixieral'r ay Hearing Examiner in his report and dcci; oo oa ife'0-100557,.00= U-P, cl:iwd Amo M5> Zt10�, 1hz ;;uhjeet, property has an .approved: Lmraaty p,t£t, and the clearing Examine-r has approved wetland -dispta-cernc-w, which includes ut is not limited to the 9-56 square, € ct of -,ve hand ira£p;tct to'Wetlan(I AA.: mpiem raa ion of the January 30, 2009, R--;rtl nd Pkin, FKW.',- inn r Conditions and .Arnpowd fzufxacr-i Plug SCIWdvleY 7¢ Uriuergrtiwndirig Wcrrlt, st?uA.lt; s:umpletcd Widua L,,vo year& of C*mpletiotl of tits; i., r groan t.l=ii j' {gar .:k ona ye ar exiension of tbi?'s timefianw may- be pemiissitb,c l; qt "i on a S`s'tvW of good fi£ifh L-Nort ofprooeeding with development of thetvhrlc subject property. This wetland mitigation rl:an dots riot need to he constructed at the end of the tNwltltrc,c-,year dCad.linc We•ntlfwd- itl3ovt lL a. i'hr autlY 32t3££` 1'.l<t e flat is %t)nstrit<:tK and lh� er Lire wetland mitigation platy for the site has been ita�pfcmeznlb@'d, nr'tlxe plat is. undea' i orystrLivtLota and the rn alld trsittp.t on plan .Fur ll;t: entiru Sp..ouila: 320"" Plact: plat is approved and financially s;.cured; or b. These is a difi nt Jand :Etse for the site that: has art gpproved land use permit as:d the Esitzr il� under ccsnstrLtctissti, at?d t"oere .is accc;ntpat�yin rapproitci wetlttrLd traiti�tion pl;tr; fc;r the Thole Fitt°. CON-DITION OF APPROVAL prior to ant• work mop; iated vith the uiilitt� untl� r�rroun�# Fnnsti zc#icrn-in tsr aroxxnd'RYetiarsd 1�<f� ��r. its huffer, a financial guarantee in the.: unt of 120 permnt of the estianated cost of the wedand voitibaliox) work -and anmiatLU monitering must he provided to thy: City of Federal Way. A € and workshcet and request for all itenz.iacd cost estima. e were priyvi&d to you m March 4, '20.09. Please return tho cMplet d Bond tziformation sheet and cost estimate at SoLT conyeniemt. If you havt axfy qurstims or need fsixthrr.assistance: please cmtax~t zee b-y e-mail at }iih.11,zrcrisfa?city{?ffc iNraiwa�:s zn, I would be gad to mcec you. a% City Hall or 'WC nail arrange: a t m.e. to. further discuss thane comments. Since rc€ y. An Hams •c;. I:ee'ift P�rersnn, #�rgirse�t�rr�:; t�€%u� �e.�it�vc�e�r i37t:rtr ROMIIS, Street S :SfLrt : Fn� their QUADRANT MORE HOUSE. LESS MONEY. �} 14725 SE 36th Street, Suite #200 P.O. Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 February 26, 2009 Mr. Greg Fewins Tel. 425.455.2900 Fax 425.646.8377 0uadrantHomes.com CD RESUBMITTED RESUBMITTED Director of Community Development FEB 2 7 2009 City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue S CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Federal Way, WA 98063 BUILDNIG DEPT. RE: File No. 08-100557-00-UP; Wetland Mitigation Plan Review South 3201h Place Preliminary Plat, 31800 32"d Place South, Federal Way Request for Minor Modification to 6/25/08 Hearing Examiner decision Dear Mr. Fewins, This request for minor modification is in response to the City's December 9, 2008 letter I received from Jim Harris. In that letter, there were two main items that needed to be addressed in order to obtain approval of our wetland mitigation plan for the South 320th Place Small Lot Demonstration Project: 1) Respond to the comments contained in ESA Adolfson's November 25, 2008 review letter, and 2) Request approval of a minor modification allowing 1,038 square feet of additional wetland impact than was considered in the Hearing Examiner's decision. The responses to ESA Adolfson's comments are in a separate memo addressed to Jim Harris. This letter to you serves as our minor modification request. The June 25, 2008 Hearing Examiner decision approved the filling of 8,979 square feet of regulated wetland provided that the conditions of the City's staff report were met. Such conditions included adequately addressing all of the recommendations in the May 28, 2008, ESA Adolfson review letter. In addressing these recommendations - in particular adjusting the wetland buffers to no less than 25 feet in width - the calculated direct and indirect impact to existing Wetland U increased by a total of 1,038 square feet. This represents an approximately 10 percent increase in wetland fill over what was requested and approved by the Hearing Examiner. Per FWCC Section 22-460, an applicant may request a modification of a quasi-judicial decision unless one of two conditions exists: 1) There is a change in use and this chapter establishes different or more rigorous standards for the new use than for the existing use; or Q 2) The director of community development services determines that there will be substantial changes in the impacts on the neighborhood or the city as a result of the change. In this case, neither of these conditions applies. With regard to the first condition, the additional wetland impact was not created by a change in use that triggers different or more rigorous standards. With regard to the second condition, substantial changes in the impacts on the neighborhood or the city are not expected. The proposed mitigation plan was correspondingly adjusted to accommodate the additional wetland impact on -site. No offsite areas are needed to mitigate per City codes. The approval of the mitigation plan would successfully demonstrate that the impacts will be appropriately mitigated. Therefore, a modification of the Hearing Examiner's decision is allowed per the code. I hope this letter provides you the information you need to process this minor modification request. If you have any additional questions, comments, or need additional information, please call me at 425-452-6563. Sincerely, QUADRANT HOMES Mike Behn Development Manager 14725 SE 36th Street, Suite #200 P.O. Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 OuadrantHomes.com CITY OF � Federal March 6, 2009 Mike Behn Quadrant Homes PO Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 FILE CITY HALL Way 33325 Sth Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com RE: File No. 08-100557-00-UP & 08-105969-00-HR; South 3201h Place Preliminary Plat - 31800 32nd Place SW, Federal Way Wetland Mitigation Plan Approval for Temporary Construction Impacts from Underground Utility Construction Dear Mr_ Behn: The wetland mitigation plan titled, Wetland Restoration Plan, Existing Conditions and Proposed Impacts Plan Schedule 74 Undergrounding Work, Federal Way WA, dated January 30, 2009, by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., is hereby approved subject to the condition listed below. The proposed wetland mitigation plan identifies mitigation for impacts to Wetland AA, resulting from the utility undergrounding work along the South 3200` Street frontage, associated with the South 320'h Place Preliminary Plat. The impacts to Wetland AA were contemplated and approved by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner in his report and decision on file 08-100557-00-UP, dated June 25, 2008. The subject property has an approved preliminary plat, and the Hearing Examiner has approved wetland displacement, which includes but is not limited to the 956 square feet of wetland impact to Wetland AA. Implementation of the January 30, 2009, Wetland Restoration Plan, Existing Conditions and Proposed Impacts Plan Schedule 74 Undergrounding Work, must be completed within two years of completion of the underground utility work. A one-year extension of this timeframe may be permissible based on a show of good faith effort of proceeding with development of the whole subject property. This wetland mitigation plan does not need to be constructed at the end of the two/three-year deadline identified above if: a. The South 3201h Place plat is constructed and the entire wetland mitigation plan for the site has been implemented, or the plat is under construction and the wetland mitigation plan for the entire South 3201h Place plat is approved and financially secured; or b. There is a different land use for the site that has an approved land use permit and the site is under construction, and there is an accompanying approved wetland mitigation plan for the whole site. Mr. Behn March 6, 2009 Page 2 CONDITION OF APPROVAL Prior to any work associated with the utility underground construction in or around Wetland AA or its buffer, a financial guarantee in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the wetland mitigation work and associated monitoring must be provided to the City of Federal Way. A bond worksheet and request for an itemized cost estimate were provided to you on March 4, 2009. Please return the completed bond information sheet and cost estimate at your convenience. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact me by e-mail at jim.harrris@cityoffederalway.com. I would be glad to meet you at City Hall or we can arrange a time to further discuss these comments. Sincerely, '�-Jr'� "1�1 I m Hams enior Planner c: Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Brian Roberts, Street Systems Engineer 08-100557 Doc. LD 49256 l fllE TA CONSULTANTS. INC. 25 February 2009 ASA EA 00 RESUBMITTED FEB 2 7 2009 CITY OF FEOERAL VIIAY BUILDING DEPT TAL030 Mr. Jim Harris City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 REFERENCE: So. 3201h Place, Federal Way, Washington Wetland Status (File #07-106736-00-AD) SUBJECT: Addendum to the Critical Areas Report and Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Dear Jim: First of all, we would like to thank you and Lizzie Zemke of ESA Adolfson for meeting with us on January 27, 2009 to discuss the remaining issues for the final wetland mitigation plan for the South 320th Place project. ESA Adolfson reviewed our Critical Areas Report and Final Wetland Mitigation Plan, revised October 30, 2008, and provided a memorandum to the City dated November 23, 2008 that outlined these issues. The following responses will serve as an expansion/addendum to the October 2008 report noted above. We have included the recommendations by ESA Adolfson that were included in their memorandum followed with our responses in italics for the requested information. Bulleted Item 1: Show the proposed overlook outside of the minimum 25-foot averaged buffer of Wetland U on all drawings; Response 1: Sheets W2.0 and W3.0 (attached) have been revised to remove the overlook from the plan entirely. Bulleted Item 2: Provide information that demonstrates that the proposed plant communities will survive the dry season, once the temporary irrigation system is removed, without additional input of water; Response 2: The plant communities chosen for this project reflect the expectation that there will be a rather wide range of soils moisture conditions. Through the winter and spring, the wetland mitigation area will experience inundation or soil saturation for prolonged periods, as a reflection of normal precipitation patterns. In late spring and early summer, the mitigation areas are expected to become drier, with the facultative plant species perhaps becoming more dominant. In late summer and early fall, we expect that the mitigation area may experience droughty conditions. Resource `cQ Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 Mr. Jim Harris 25 February 2009 Page 2 of 4 Talasaea has always selected a plant pallet for wetland mitigation projects with species adapted to a range of tolerance or adaptation to either wetter or drier conditions. We oft choose a greater number of emergenf species, for example, than we would p s that are themselves as dominants by the end of the performance monitorin en predicting the precise site conditions following construction is near! ire expect to express g period. This is because Y possible. For this Quadrant mitigation project, we have selected E emergent plant species 5 sh Species, and 5 forested species for the wetland mitigation area. In addition, there are 4 b herbaceous species for the outlet swa/e, We have also selected 10 shrub species an species for the buffer mitigation areas. During the five years following completion of d $tree construction, we will continually monitor both the wetland and buffer mitigation areas to determine whether the standards for success are being met. Should we fat! to meet these standards, we will determine the cause, address the problem, and develop a cony of measure to correct the situation. A contingency Please note that we have revised our planting plan (see Sheet,3.0) to address the Cit ' concern that some of the plant species chosen might not perform well given the expected drier condition in the wetland mitigation area includes more drought -tolerant shrub anduring late summer and early fall. The revisedplan d emergent species. Bulleted Item 3: Provide a contingency measure that addresses the Possibility of t becoming too dry during the summer months; Y he we Response 3: The wetlands impacted by the proposed project are all seasonal O for the impact addresses creation and enhancement of wetlands, but will still be o wetlands. We have proposed using a range of plant species, most of Which only mitigation wet and dry conditions. This will result in a plant community that will r n/y seasonal ch are tolerant of both dry summer months. remain viable through the The Department of Ecology (DOE) determined that 45 days of continuous inundation saturation was required in order to satisfy their requirement for a successful Welland project. This period is two weeks longer than that required under the or soil the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual to classify an area as `wetland" when Regional Supplement to mitigation hydrology. Because of DOE's two -week extension on the 30-day requirement we looked considering carefully at overall site hydrology, and in particular, sformwater runoff Quadrant engaged the services of two independent geotechnical engineering requested that they evaluate whether the mitigation area would experience of least a period of continuous inundation or soil saturation during the row. firms and normal weather patterns. Hydrogeologists from both AEt and Tens Ass 45h same conclusion: adequate hydrology will exist in the g wing season in years with ame to the part of the growing season. wetland mitigation area during the early However, ,because we anticipated that the wetland could, in unusual! d wetland hydrology, we, along with the project engineers, designed a y d system t years, lack optima/ hydro period in the wetland. This system, is essentially a reverse French o extend the based on: drain. This was a) the nature of the underlying sails in the area where the mitigation con Planned (i.e., dense and relatively impermeable), struation was 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast .source & EnvironmcnW Planning Woodinville, Washington 98077 ■ Bus: (425)G1-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Mr. Jim Harris 25 February 2009 Page 3 of 4 b) the characteristics of stormwater runoff into the stormwater pond and subsequently into the mitigation area (i.e, the period in which the detention pond would receive stormwater from the site), c) the manner in which the treated and detained stormwater would be released to the mitigation area (i.e., into an infiltration/dispersal trench), d) the log weir design in the mitigation area (i.e., drainage outlet from the mitigation area crosses a bentonite-sealed log weir that will maintain the water level), and e) the reverse -French drain. Bulleted Item 4: Provide additional information, such as the results of water quality sampling efforts, to demonstrate that the quality of water entering the created wetland is sufficiently high; Response 4: Response provided by PACE Engineers: The City of Federal Way has designated the project area as a Level 1 Flow Control (the project was actually designed as Level 2 Flow Control) and as a Basic Water Quality Treatment Area in accordance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The KCSWDM specifies that the Treatment Goal for Basic Water Quality Treatment is 80% removal of total suspended solids (TSS). In its Basic Water Quality Menu it also provides a number of facility options that would meet this goal of TSS removal. These include the use of wetponds, combined detention/wetponds, biofiltration swales, filter strips, and sand filters. Through previous research and testing of these facilities it has been demonstrated that these types of facilities will achieve 80% TSS removal and that if it is designed in accordance with the 2005 KCSWDM requirements no additional testing or monitoring will be required. Bulleted Item 5: Modify the project design to ensure that the created wetland is not being used as a water quality treatment/polishing facility. Response 5: Response provided by PACE Engineers: As part of this project it was determined that a combined detention/wetpond would best suit the needs of the project. The wetpond was designed in accordance with section 6.4.1.1 of the KCSWDM. This calculation showed a required volume of 60,903 cubic feet of. storage with the project design providing 71,631 cubic feet of storage (approximately 18% additional volume). This pond is designed to entirely meet the water quality requirements of the project with no additional treatment needed to meet the water quality goal of 80% TSS removal. The outfall from this pond will discharge downstream into the newly constructed wetland. This wetland is not designed or intended to provide additional water quality treatment to meet any permit requirements or thresholds; this requirement is met completely within the designed wetpond as stated above. In addition to our response to ESA Adolfson's review, you requested that we separate out the wetland and buffer impacts required for City of Federal Way approval from those required for DOE/Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) approval from the Final Wetland Mitigation Plan sheets (enclosed). The revised plans now only depict City requirements and all references to off -site mitigation as required by the Corps/DOE have been removed. We hope this information adequately addresses the City's questions and concerns. If you have any additional questions, comments, or need supplementary information, please call Ann Olsen or me at 425-861-7550. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast 0 Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Mr. Jim Harris 25 February 2009 Page 4 of 4 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, TALAS SULTANTS, INC. William E. Shiels Principal Enclosures cc: Mike Behn, Quadrant Homes Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast ■ Woodinville, Washington 98077 + Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 TA LASA EA 0$ CONSITTANT5, INC. 2 February 2009 TAL-030 Mr. Jim Harris City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 REFERENCE: So. 3201h Place Preliminary Plat— File #08-100555-00-SU Wetland Mitigation for Temporary Impacts from Underground Utility Construction at 31800 32nd Place SW SUBJECT: Proposed Restoration Plan Dear Jim On behalf of Quadrant Homes, we are responding to your letter dated December 9, 2008 to address mitigation for temporary impacts to Wetland AA and its buffer located in the So. 320th St. right-of-way (ROW) that will result from construction of the proposed underground utilities. We agree with your suggestion to prepare a "stand-alone" wetland mitigation plan to compensate for these temporary impacts. We are proposing a 1:1 restoration ratio that will occur within the 2- 3-year timeline scheduled for the underground utility work. However, if the South 3201h Place plat is under construction, then the original wetland mitigation plans for the plat will be constructed and the impacts associated with the underground utility work will be mitigated on -site according to those plans. Enclosed please find the "Wetland Restoration Plans" that provide the details for the wetland and buffer restoration work to mitigate for these temporary impacts. The following is a brief discussion of the temporary wetland and buffer impacts, proposed restoration including goals, objectives, and performance standards, construction timing, and performance monitoring. Please refer to the Critical Areas Report and Final Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. dated October 30, 2008 for a full description of the wetlands located within the ROW. Proposed Critical Area Impacts Construction plans for undergrounding the utilities within the ROW will temporarily impact 965 square feet (so of Wetland AA and 1,336 sf of buffer and all of Wetland S (1,144 so will be permanently filled. According to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) §22.1357(a)(2), Wetland AA meets the criteria for a Category III wetland. Category III wetlands that are between 2,500 sf and 10,000 sf require a 25-foot buffer. According to FWCC § 22.1357(a)(3), Wetland S meets the criteria for a Category III wetland. Category III wetlands that are less than 2,500 sf are not regulated in the City of Federal Resource & Environmental Planning ESU�NIITTE® 15020 Rear (;reel: Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7 I FEB ® 3 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. Mr. Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 2 Way, therefore, Wetland S is exempt from City regulation. Total impacts regulated by the City are 965 sf of wetland and 1,336 sf of buffer. Wetland and Buffer Restoration Because the impacts to both Wetland AA and its buffer are temporary, we are proposing to restore the impacted areas at a 1 A ratio to satisfy City requirements. Prior to the utility construction work, Talasaea shall flag topsoil donor areas, if any, from areas located within the project footprint to be stockpiled for later use in the restoration areas. The Contractor shall scrape organic duff from the flagged areas to depths determined by Talasaea. Upon completion of utility construction, the Contractor shall backfill utility trenches with native soil to 95% compaction. Project geotechnical engineer shall review backfill and determine if a till cap is necessary to prevent draining of restored wetland area. If a till cap is not necessary, the Contractor shall restore grades for wetland and buffer areas to pre -disturbance conditions. The Contractor shall leave subgrade 9" below finish grade for placement of 9" of stockpiled or imported topsoil. Talasaea shall review subgrades and make minor field adjustments to finish grading, as necessary, to ensure proper function of wetland and buffer areas. Following subgrade approval, the Contractor shall place stockpiled or imported topsoil. A variety of indigenous species will be planted in Wetland AA and its buffers. Plant species have been chosen for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife, value as a physical or visual barrier, pattern of growth (structural diversity), and aesthetic values. Native tree and shrub species were chosen to increase both the structural and species diversity of the mitigation areas, thereby increasing the area's value to wildlife for food and cover. Plant materials will consist of a combination of bare -root specimens and container plants (5-gal. containers for small trees and 1-2-gal. containers for shrubs). Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to restore the functions and values temporarily lost through impacting 965 sf of wetland and 1,336 sf of buffer. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will: • Restore 965 sf of Wetland AA. • Restore 1,336 sf of buffer around the restored portion of Wetland AA. Mitigation actions will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. Mitigation monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist. Objective A: Create structural and plant species diversity in the restoration areas. Performance Standard A 1: At least 10 species of desirable native plants will be present in the restored wetland and buffer areas during the monitoring period. Percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contactor warranty), and at least 75% for each subsequent year of the monitoring period. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bcar Crcck Road Nornccasr • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 14u: (425)861-7549 Mr. Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 3 Performance Standard A2: Herbaceous coverage of vegetation in the wetland area shall be at least 30% by the end of Year 1, 50% by the end of Year 2, and 80% by the end of Year 5, excluding those areas of the site that may have sparse herbaceous vegetation due to dense shade from woody species coverage. Objective B Limit the amount of invasive and exotic species within the mitigation area. Performance Standard 8: After construction and following every monitoring event for a period of five years, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover throughout the restoration area. These species include Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, and creeping nightshade. Timing for Construction As you stated in your letter, "Since the site has an approved preliminary plat, and the Hearing Examiner has approved the wetland displacement, City staff would allow deferral of implementation of the mitigation plan for the requested two to three years..." Therefore, if site construction is not implemented, the mitigation plan will be constructed during the late summer/early fall months of 2011. Performance MonitDlnq Performance monitoring of the restoration areas will be conducted for a period of five years for the City of Federal Way. Monitoring events will be conducted according to the schedule presented in (Table 1). Reports will include sections detailing the methods used, results, analysis, and recommendations. Table 1. Projected Calendar for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events Year Date Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to Agencies BA* Winter/S rin X X X 1 Spring X X Fall X X X 2 Spring X X Fall X X X 3 Spring X Fall X X X 4 Spring X Fall X X X 5 Spring X Fall X X X** BA = Baseline Assessment following construction completion. Obtain final approval to facilitate bond release from the City of Federal Way (presumes performance criteria are met). Monitoring Reports Each monitoring report will include: a) panoramic photo -documentation, b) estimates of percent vegetative cover, plant survival and undesirable species, c) wildlife usage, d) water quality and hydrology, site stability, and soils, and e) an overall qualitative assessment of project success for the restoration areas. If the performance criteria are Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Crock Road Northeast • Woodinvillc, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Mr. Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 4 met, monitoring for the City will cease at the end of year five, unless objectives are met at an earlier date and the City accepts the mitigation project as successfully completed. Vegetation One permanent vegetation sampling point or transect will be established at a selected location to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same monitoring location will be re -visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of the dominant species within the vegetative strata. A qualified wetland ecologist will conduct all monitoring. Findings of plant survival and vigor will also be reported for each plant community. Photo Documentation Locations will be established within the restoration area from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi -quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Vegetation sampling plot and photo -point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and yearly performance monitoring reports. Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates observed in the wetland and buffer areas (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded during scheduled monitoring events, and at any other times observations are made. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Site Stability During each monitoring event, an assessment will be made of the water regime within the wetland and buffer areas to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist. General observations will be made of the extent and depth of soil saturation or inundation. Water quality will be assessed qualitatively; unless it is evident there is a serious problem. In such an event, water quality samples will be taken and analyzed in a laboratory for suspected parameters. Qualitative assessments of water quality include: • oil sheen or other surface films, • abnormal color or odor of water, • stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, • turbidity, and • absence of aquatic fauna. Observations will be made on the stability of slopes in the restoration areas. Any erosion or slumping of the slopes will be recorded and corrective measures will be taken. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creck ROad Northeast • Woodinvillc, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 I$s: (425)861-7549 Mr. Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 5 Maintenance (M] And Contingency (C) Maintenance reviews will be performed according to schedule presented in Table 1 to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the restoration area. Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation project. If there is a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the Bond -holder shall work with the City to develop a Contingency Plan. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to: additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and location. Such Contingency Plan shall be submitted to City by December 31 of any year when deficiencies are discovered. Contingency will include many of the items listed below and would be implemented if the performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). During year one, replace all dead plant material (M). • Water all plantings at a rate of 1" of water every week between June 15 — October 15 during the first year after installation, and for the first year after any replacement plantings (C & M). • Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goal and objectives of the enhancement plan, subject to Talasaea and agency approval (C). • Re -plant area after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C). • After consulting with City staff, minor excavations will be made to correct surface drainage patterns (C). • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, etc.) by manual or chemical means approved by The City of Federal Way. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval. All non-native vegetation must be removed and dumped off -site. (C & M). ■ Trees and shrubs should be weeded to the dripline and mulched to a depth of three inches (M). • Remove trash and other debris from the enhancement area twice a year (M) • Selectively prune woody plants to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M). Financial Guarantee A performance and maintenance Bond will be posted with the City by the property owner to ensure the success of the mitigation plan. The amount of the bond shall equal 120% of the cost of the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period. Conclusion Your letter states that "The plan identified above must also address impacts and mitigation to the existing Wetland U buffer resulting from the utility undergrounding." We have reviewed the utility plans provided by PACE engineers and they depict there limits of construction outside of the buffer for Wetland U. Sheet W1.0 depicts the limits of construction as an orange dashed line for your review. Therefore, no mitigation/ Resource & I3nvironmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washinggon 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fim (425)861-7549 Mr. Jim Harris 2 February 2009 Page 6 restoration is proposed for the Wetland U buffer. We look forward to your review and approval of our proposal to provide restoration for temporary wetland and buffer impacts resulting from construction of the utilities within the So. 3201h St. ROW. Thank you for your assistance during this review and we look forward to your questions or comments. In the meantime, should you need further clarification on items presented here or require any further information, please contact me immediately. I may be reached at the office at (425) 861-7550, on my cell phone at (206) 390-7456, or by e-mail at aolsen _ talasaea.com. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 Ann M. Olsen Senior Project Manager Attachments Wetland Restoration Plan with plan Sheets W1.0, W1.1, & W1.2. cc: Mike Behn, Quadrant Homes File Resource & Emvironmental Planning 15020 Bear Creck Road Norcheasr • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 FIT] C TA LASA EA CONS 17LTAN-1-5, INC 15 January 2009 TAL-030 Mr. Jim Harris City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 REFERENCE- So. 320th Place Preliminary Plat - File #08-100555-00-SU Wetland Mitigation for Impacts from Underground Utility Construction at 31800 32"d Place SW SUBJECT: Proposed Mitigation Plan Dear Jim: On behalf of Quadrant Homes, we are responding to your letter dated December 9, 2008 to address mitigation for impacts to wetlands located in the So. 320th St. right-of-way (ROW) that will result from construction of the proposed underground utilities. We agree with your suggestion to prepare a separate wetland mitigation plan to compensate for the impacts to Wetland AA resulting from the proposed utility undergrounding work. Because the timing for construction of the South 320th Place Plat has yet to be determined, we are proposing to provide mitigation at an off -site location adjacent to North Lake. We have enclosed the "Wetland Mitigation Plans" with Sheets W1.0, W1.1, & W1.2 that provide the details for the proposed wetland enhancement to mitigate for the wetland impacts located in the South 320th St. ROW. The following is a brief discussion of the proposed wetland impacts, City of Federal Way mitigation requirements, proposed mitigation including goals, objectives, and performance standards, and construction timing for the off -site mitigation work. Please refer to the Critical Areas Report and Final Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. dated October 30, 2008 for a full description of the wetlands located within the ROW and at the off -site location adjacent to North Lake. Proi2osed Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Requirements Construction plans for undergrounding the utilities within the ROW will fill 1,748 square feet (sf) of Wetland AA and all of Wetland S (1,144 sf). According to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) §22.1357(a)(2), Wetland AA meets the criteria for a Category III wetland. Category III wetlands that are between 2,500 sf and 10,000 sf require a 25-foot buffer. According to FWCC § 22.1357(a)(3), Wetland S meets the criteria for a Category III wetland. Category III wetlands that are less than 2,500 sf are not regulated in the City of Federal Way, therefore, Wetland S is exempt from City regulation. Total wetland impacts regulated by the City are 1,748 sf. # 0 & - 1,00- Lf-At-3 RESUBMITTED JAN 1 5 Z009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. Mr. Jim Harris 15 January 2009 Page 2 Table 1 below summarizes the wetland categories based on the January 2005 Federal Way City Code (FWCC), the Cowardin Classification of the wetlands as required under FWCC 22-1356(b)(4), and the mitigation ratios as required under FWCC 22- 1358(e)(3)(b). Table 1. Wetland Requlatory Considerations — City of Federal Wav Wetland Category-� Buffe Cowardin Mitigation Ratios l Class3 Creation OR Enhancement Wetland AA Category III 25 feet PSSC 1.5:1 3:1 5,596 s Wetland S Category III none PSSB Exempt Exempt 1,144 s 1. Based on the 2005 Federal Way Code FWCC 22-1357(a). 2. Based on the 2005 Federal Way Code FWCC 22-1357(b). 3. Cowardin Classifications as required by FWCC 22-1356(b) (4). B=saturated; C=seasonally flooded; F=Semipermanently flooded 4. Mitigation ratio based on FWCC 22-1358(e) (3). 5. Category III wetlands less than 2,500 sf are not regulated under FWCC 22-1. _Wetland Mitigation As stated in Table 1, the FWCC requires Category III wetlands be mitigated at a 1.5:1 creation ratio or 3:1 enhancement ratio. We are proposing 5,244 sf of wetland enhancement (3:1 enhancement ratio) to satisfy city requirements (Table 2). The proposed enhancement will occur at an off -site wetland adjacent to North Lake. All proposed wetlands enhancement will be done outside of the 200-foot shoreline management zone for North Lake. Table 2. Proposed Wetland Mitigation — City Requirements Wetland Wetland Fill Mitigation Ratio Wetland Enhancement Wetland AA 1,748 sf 3:1 enhancement 5,244 sf (5,596 sf) Wetland S 1,144 sf none* none 1,144 s TOTAL 2,892 sf 5,244 sf *Wetland S is not regulated by the City Off -site Wetland Enhancement We are proposing to enhance approximately 5,244 sf of Wetland X located off -site on the northwest tip of North Lake (Sheet W1.1). Wetland X, located west of the public boat launch, will provide adequate potential for wetland and associated buffer enhancement to mitigate for the impacts to Wetland AA and associated buffer. Wetland hydrology and soils are present and construction access is available through the adjacent Lakehaven sewer line corridor or the adjacent boat launch drive. A variety of native and weedy species are currently present in the wetland and buffer including: black cottonwood, western red cedar, Douglas fir, madrona, western hemlock, Oregon ash, red alder, salmonberry, rose, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, willows, red - osier dogwood, Indian plum, water parsley, soft rush, Scot's broom, and reed canarygrass. Wetland enhancement measures will include clearing and grubbing the roots of all invasive species, planting of native species, especially conifers; placement of Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast 9 Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 Mr. Jim Harris 15 January 2009 Page 3 large woody material in both wetlands and buffers; and increasing native species diversity in buffer areas. Coals, Obiectives, and Performance Standards The primary goal of the mitigation is to replace the functions and values lost through directly impacting 1,748 sf of wetlands. The secondary goal of the mitigation project is to provide a high functioning buffer around the enhanced portion of Wetland X. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will: ■ Enhance 5,244 sf of Wetland X. ■ Provide a high functioning buffer around the enhanced portion of Wetland X. Mitigation actions will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. Mitigation monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist. Objective A: Create structural and plant species diversity in the mitigation areas. Performance Standard A 1: At least 15 species of desirable native plants will be present in the mitigation wetland and buffer areas during the monitoring period. Percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contactor warranty), and at least 75% for each subsequent year of the monitoring period. Performance Standard A2: Herbaceous coverage of vegetation in the wetland areas shall be at least 30% by the end of Year 1, 50% by the end of Year 2, and 80% by the end of Year 5, excluding those areas of the site that may have sparse herbaceous vegetation due to dense shade from woody species coverage. Objective 8: Limit the amount of invasive and exotic species within the mitigation area. Performance Standard 8: After construction and following every monitoring event for a period of five years, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover throughout the mitigation area. These species include Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, and creeping nightshade. Compliance with Federal Way City Code Off -site mitigation of wetland impacts to Wetland AA can be allowed under Section 22- 1358(e)(2) of the code provided the mitigation is within the same basin as the impacts, of in -kind wetland type and results in no net loss of wetland function and value. The proposed wetland enhancement of Wetland X is within the same basin as the impacts to Wetland AA and will actually provide enhancement to higher category wetland then the wetlands being impacted. The impacted wetland, Wetland AA, was rated as a Category III wetland by both the City. Wetland X was rated as Category II wetlands by the City. Therefore, we are proposing to mitigate Category III impacts in a Category II wetland, thereby increasing a higher rated wetlands functions and values than the wetland being impacted. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast 9 Woodinville, Washington 98077 9 Bus: (425)861-7550 fax: (425)861-7549 Mr. Jim Harris 15 January 2009 Page 4 Timing for Construction As you stated in your letter, "Since the site has an approved preliminary plat, and the Hearing Examiner has approved the wetland displacement, City staff would allow deferral of implementation of the mitigation plan for the requested two to three years..." Therefore, if site construction is not implemented, the off -site mitigation plan will be constructed during the late summer/early fall months of 2011. Financial Guarantee A performance and maintenance Bond will be posted with the City by the property owner to ensure the success of the off -site mitigation plan. The amount of the bond shall equal 120% of the cost of the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period. Your letter states that "The plan identified above must also address impacts and mitigation to the existing Wetland U buffer resulting from the utility undergrounding." We have reviewed the utility plans provided by PACE engineers and they depict there limits of construction outside of the buffer for Wetland U. Sheet W1.0 depicts the limits of construction as an orange dashed line for your review. Therefore, no mitigation/ restoration is proposed for the buffer. We look forward to your review and approval of our proposal to provide off -site wetland enhancement for impacts resulting from construction of the utilities within the So. 320'h St. ROW. Thank you for your assistance during this review and we look forward to your questions or comments. In the meantime, should you need further clarification on items presented here or require any further information, please contact me immediately. I may be reached at the office at (425) 861-7550, on my cell phone at (206) 390-7456, or by e- mail at aolsen _talasaea.com. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Ann M. Olsen Senior Project Manager Attachments Wetland Mitigation Plan with plan Sheets W1.0, W1.1, & W1.2. cc: Mike Behn, Quadrant Homes File Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 9 Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 CITY OF Federal CITY HALL Way33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address. po Box Federal Way WA Q80 8 OX 977 971 (253) 835-7flQQ December 9, 2008 www.cityoffederaiwaycom Mike Behn Quadrant Homes PO Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 RE: File No. PLACE OS-108555-0Q-5U� SOUTH 32Q'�' Wetland Mitigation 31800 32 PRELIMINARY PLAT Place SWfor Impacis fro, Federal Waym Underground Uhliiy Cnnstrnction Dear Mr. Behn: This letter responds to your November 17, 2008 wetland mitigation necessaryProposal and re utility undergrounding. ° cover the impacts to wetland quest to post a bond for the amount below. The proposed' City staff does mat su resulting from the South 320'� of mitigation plan is plan to irrtplementdnd-bond.- PP°Tt this concept as Street potentially mat feasible as it would be di#c�a$uc ere Proposed' as discussed component of the current Weiland mitigation l p en ge of the larger ta mitigation. CityssfulIy se wetland staff would su P and meet the objectives for wetlanegate an area and without fw ther informationpport this proposal if the requirements we are unable to de uirementts identified below creation and Cruder the proposed scenario "Posting a deter if this is a feasible plan. are met; however, Mitigation from the entire g bond forroveimplementing items must be addressed and appro wetland mitigation I a propart,ionate percentage of wetland PPrvved by the City D pan, before impacting wetland AA', th ePartnient of Community Development e following ' The wetland creation and mitigation Services: need to be completed and approved Plan for the entire South 320�' Development Services. As of the da � ' City of Federal Way Place preliminary plat would correspondence, DPDepartment nt °pprov nruzity ' The wetland consultant would need to identifyPlan is not approved. componentlgeogmphicdrea of the a feasible and for the wetland impact resulting wetland mitigation l specific proportionate P p rtionate and potentialI g from the under pan that would be implemented y not feasible as it a gm�ding. This would likely be a difficult gate component of the c appears it would be difficult to succ mitigation. urxent mitigation plan and meet the objectives for wtllly segregate an area and and creation and Alternatively, City staff suggests that in order to AA resuIiing from the utili �d� a g� approval for displacement of a should be r tY wide g n South 320 would need a red for in -kind, in place Street, a s portion of wetland Prepared and reviewed b t2gation of the impacts to wetland to wetland mitigation Department of Community y a qualified wetland consul AA and its buffer. This Plan would be r tY Development Services before Wetland actin consultant and aPPmved b This plan required, based an 120 percent of the estirria.t d cost of the land. F' Y the City Financial guar tee of the wetland restoration and Mr. Behn ❑ecember 4, 2048 roved the Page 2 Examiner has approved plat, and Hearing lan far the requested two approved preliminary p lernentation Of this p Since the site has are Pp l o f imp cted before monitoring. year monitoring Citystaff would allow deferral would need to be constcu plan for the site wetland displaCeme1t,nest. This plan wetland mitigation identified in Your req d the entire anon plan for the entire to three y plat is constructed an deadline, unless the South 320''' Place p or the plat is under constructiod the wetland mittg has been implemented' buffer 'h Place plat is approved and financially sec wetland Ll South 320 mitigation to the existing identified above must also address impacts and The plan undeXgrounding. onion of wetland AA resulting from the utility displacement of a p three other potential alternatives to allow as follows - staff City staff has identified plan for the South in conjunction with the South 320`� Street utility undergr creation and mitigation p m lotion and implemeL7�tion of the whole wetland d wetland AA, 320`1, Place project; undergrounding by trenching ara undergrounding. acts from the utility undue wetland AA for the utility Avoid wetland imp b boring Avoid impacts to wetland AA Y e-mail at lease contact me by or we can arrange a time to uestions or need further assistance,ao meet you at City If you have any q wa com, f would be g jim.harnzs@cityoffederai Y further discuss these comments. Sincerely, Jim Hams Senior Planner edsn Peterson, Engineering plans Reviewer c: an 5alloum, Street Systems Manager M� Street Systems Pm7ect Engineer Brian Roberts, Doc l.D 48044 0B_100555 a = 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www adolfson.com. Es A d o if s on Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax memorandum date . November 23, 2008 to Jim Harris, City of Federal Way from Lizzie Zemke cc: Project File subject Review. of Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan (Talasaea Consultants, revised October 30, 2008) At the request of the City of Federal Way, I reviewed a letter from Ann Olsen of Talasaea Consultants dated October 30, 2008 and the revised Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan (October 2008) for conformance with the requirements of Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22 - Critical Areas Regulations. ESA Adolfson has reviewed material pertaining to this project in the past, and most recently we prepared a detailed review letter dated May 28, 2008. Rather than providing a more -lengthy, detailed review letter at this time, I have prepared this memorandum to outline the few remaining issues that still need to be addressed before ESA Adolfson can recommend that the City approve the proposal. Many of our most recent recommendations were addressed by Talasaea in this recent submittal, however there are still a few issues that must be resolved or clarified. We believe it will not be necessary for the applicant or Talasaea to submit a revised report or a complete, revised set of plans in order to address these issues. Rather, a response letter that specifically addresses and clarifies the items described below, and one or two modified plan sheets would be acceptable. Discussion The October 30, 2008 letter from Talasaea Consultants responded to the May 28, 2008 review letter prepared by ESA Adolfson on behalf of the City of Federal Way. The Talasaea letter addressed each of the seven recommendations made by ESA Adolfson. Talasaea has agreed to incorporate ESA's recommendations regarding increasing buffer widths, removing a proposed dispersal trench from a wetland, removing an access road from the wetland buffer, ensuring that native vegetation will not be removed as part of the buffer enhancement work between Wetlands U and C, and revising plans to reflect these changes. However, there were several recommendations from the May 28th, 2008 letter that Talasea has not incorporated into their revised submittal, described below. ■ In response to ESA's recommendation that the overlook be removed from the averaged buffer of Wetland U, Talasaea responded that the buffer is now a minimum of 25 feet wide; however on Sheet W2.0 the overlook is shown within the 25-foot buffer. • In response to our request for documentation of groundwater levels and saturation levels at several locations in the proposed wetland creation area, Talasaea responded that they believe that it is not necessary to make a determination of groundwater levels or soil saturation at this time. With regard to our request for detailed information on the soil conditions at and below the lowest proposed grade in the wetland creation area, they describe that the material in which the created wetland will be situated consists of till with a very low infiltration rate, and that discharge from the storm water detention facility will be sufficient to maintain wetland hydrologic conditions in the created wetland. Based upon our understanding of the wetland creation proposal, the system described by Talasaea will direct large volumes of water to the created wetland during wet periods. However, because the wetland will be supported solely by surface water runoff, there will be little to no water entering the wetland in the drier months. It is not clear that wetland plant communities will survive in this area if it dries out during the late spring, summer, and early fall when little rainfall occurs. The additional information on soil and hydrology present in this area will clarify those issues related to mitigation success. • In response to our request for details regarding the proposed method of treating water that flows from the detention pond to the created wetland, Talasaea described that the detention/water quality pond was designed for Level 2 flow control and basic water quality treatment, which exceeds the City's requirements. According to Talasaea, the water quality pond will provide ample residence time to settle out pollutants prior to discharging to the mitigation area that further polishes the water before it discharges into the downstream conveyance pipe. While exceeding the standard water quality treatment requirements of City code is commendable, it is not clear that the method of water quality treatment proposed will remove pollutants, such as those contained in lawn fertilizers, from the water before it reaches the created wetland. In terms of compliance with the Federal Way City Code and meeting the intent of the City's mitigation requirements, it is not acceptable to employ the required wetland creation area as a water quality polishing tool. Under pre -developed conditions, fertilizers and suburban runoff have not been directed into the on -site wetlands, therefore it is not acceptable to direct this type of runoff to the created wetlands once the site is developed. Recommendations Based upon my review of the materials submitted by Talasaea to the City of Federal Way on November 3, 2008 we have the following recommendations: Show the proposed overlook outside of the minimum 25-foot averaged buffer of Wetland U on all drawings; ■ Provide information that demonstrates that the proposed plant communities will survive the dry season, once the temporary irrigation system is removed, without additional input of water; • I Provide a contingency measure that addresses the possibility of the wetland becoming too dry during the F summer months; and "!.1. � Provide additional information, such as the results of water quality sampling efforts, to demonstrate that �MJ the quality of water entering the created wetland is sufficiently high Modify the project design to ensure that the created wetland is not being used as a water quality treatment/polishing facility. Please do not hesitate to contact me, or to have the applicant contact me at (206) 789-9658 or Ixemix emsoc.com to discuss these comments. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT AND FINAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN SOUTH 320TH PLACE FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Prepared For QUADRANT HOMES Bellevue, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS Woodinville, Washington 19 February 2008 (revised 30 October 2008) APPROVED PLANING City of Federal Way Dept. of Community Development Permit # • P y •v� ®ate 31b 'e X C-c� i S N `L [RESUBMITTED NOV 0 3 2008 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY StQ Col re S OlC'�rt Qt"J'tr0 Critical Areas Report and Final Wetland Mitigation Plan South 320t" Place Federal Way, Washington Prepared for: Quadrant Homes PO Box 130 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 19 February 2008 (revised 30 October 2008) South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME South 320th Place SITE LOCATION: The 19.12-acre property is located in Federal Way, Washington. The property is located north of South 320th Street, east of Interstate Highway 5, and west of Military Road South. The Public Land Survey System location for this site is T21 N, R04E, SW '/4 of Section 10. CLIENT: Quadrant Homes PROJECT STAFF. Bill Shiels, Principal; Ann Olsen, Project Manager, Richard Tveten, Wetland Ecologist, David Teesdale, Wetland Ecologist FIELD SURVEY: February 14, 1990, July 7, 1996, September 13, 1996, December 19, 1996, January 13, 1997, August 22, 2006, October 6, 2007, March 27, 2008, May 12 2008, and October 22, 2008. DETERMINATION: Six wetlands, Wetlands A, AA, C, D, S, and U, were identified and delineated on or adjacent to the subject site, and two wetlands, Wetland X and Wetland Y, were delineated adjacent to North Lake. Wetland A is a very small (462 sf), depressional wetland located in the west central, portion of the site. Wetland AA (5,596 sf) is a seasonally flooded wetland located near the southwest property corner. Approximately 1/3 of this wetland is located in the right-of-way for S. 320th St. Wetland AA drains to an offsite wetland south of S. 320th Street through a culvert. Wetland C occurs in a small (4,930 sf) topographic depression located in the central, southeastern corner of the site. Wetland D (434 sf, on -site) occurs in the central, northeastern corner of the site and is part of a much larger wetland system (approximately 2.7 acres) that extends off site to the east. Wetland S occurs in a small (1,144 sf) topographic depression located within the right-of-way on the north side of S. 320th St. Wetland U (7,938 sf) is located in the southeast corner of the site. Wetland U is the remaining wetland area of what was Wetland B, as delineated by Talasaea in the early 1990s. Wetland B was unintentionally created about 20 years ago when soils were excavated for fill material for use on the adjacent King County Fire Station No. 39 site. The remaining dense unweathered till soil retarded infiltration and allowed surface water runoff to collect and form the wetland. Over time, these dense till soils have weathered and have become more permeable resulting in the current delineation of a smaller wetland. Wetland X (19,590 sf) is a seasonally flooded wetland located north of North Lake, west of a public boat launch area. Much of the wetland area appears to have been filled in the past. The soils present are extremely gravelly loamy sands compacted into a dense, somewhat impervious layer. Peat soils were found approximately 18" below the dense fill in some areas of the wetland. Wetland Y (5,100 sf) is a seasonally flooded wetland located along the shore of North Lake. According to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC), Category III wetlands less than 2,500 sf in area are not regulated; therefore, Wetlands A and S are exempt from City jurisdiction. In April 2008, the Corps determined that Wetland A was isolated and therefore would not impose jurisdiction on this wetland. However, Wetland S is regulated by the Corps. Both of these wetlands were rated as Category IV wetlands per DOE (2006). Wetlands C, D, X, and Y are Category II wetlands and require a 100-foot buffer. Wetlands AA and U are Category III wetlands, less than 10,000 sf in size and they both require a 25-foot buffer. HYDROLOGY: Hydrology for Wetland A is supported, for the most part, by direct precipitation and the impoundment of surface runoff from an adjacent concrete foundation. Although several 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Pagel South 3201�' Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan inches of ponding were observed in the wetland during the winter months, soils within the wetland were dry during the summer field investigations. Hydrology for Wetland AA is supported by shallow groundwater and surface runoff. Hydrology for Wetlands C and D is supplied by shallow groundwater, surface runoff, and precipitation. Hydrology for Wetland S is supported by area runoff, particularly from the adjacent paved roadway. Hydrology for Wetland U is the result of surface runoff ponding over compacted till soils. Hydrology for Wetland X is supported by shallow groundwater and ponding of surface runoff by the impervious nature of the soils. Hydrology for Wetland Y is supported by shallow groundwater, with some seasonal inundation by North Lake along the shoreline. SOILS: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Although this soil type in not considered hydric by the NRCS, Alderwood soils may have hydric soil inclusions. Soils observed on site generally agreed with the descriptions for Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. The soils found at the off -site area were extremely gravelly loamy sands compacted into a dense, impervious layer. Peat soils were found approximately 18" below the dense fill in some areas of the wetland. The soils found within Wetland X do not match the general description of the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam soils mapped as present on the site by the NRCS. Soils found in Wetland Y are similar to those found in Wetland X. Peat layers were not seen in Wetland Y; rather, old lake bed was encountered at greater than 40 inches deep. Soil contained a significant amount of cobble. VEGETATION: The on -site plant community consists of mature mixed upland forest in the east, and a younger mixed forest in the central and western portions of the property. Several areas of the site have been disturbed by past land uses, including mining for fill material and uses associated with typical residential activities. The Bonneville Transmission Line Easement parallels and intrudes into the north property boundary. Vegetation within the easement is routinely mowed and no trees are allowed. Palustrine emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested plant communities are all represented on the subject property. Some plant communities are mature and of relatively high value (Wetlands C and D), and others are early successional and of relatively low value (Wetlands A, AA, S, and U). The off -site vegetation in Wetland X has a relatively young scrub -shrub and emergent plant community indicative of prior land disturbances (fill material) over the wetland area. The vegetation in Wetland Y consists of both forested and scrub -shrub plant communities. The uplands around Wetlands X and Y are second growth coniferous forest species of high value with fringes of Himalayan blackberry. PROPOSED PROJECT: Quadrant Homes has been selected as the Small Lot Demonstration Project builder by the City of Federal Way for the South 3201h Place project. They are proposing to develop a subdivision consisting of 115 lots, including active and passive open space, roads, and stormwater detention facilities, which will provide needed affordable housing in this area. The City is also requiring improvements to the north side of S. 320'h St. including an additional lane, planting strip, and sidewalk. The project has been carefully designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive areas, but some wetland fill is necessary to make the project financially feasible. CRITICAL AREA IMPACTS: The project has been designed to avoid the high -quality Category II wetlands, Wetlands C and D, and their associated 100-foot buffers. However, the project will impact all of the Category III and IV wetlands on the site. The project will fill Wetlands A and S (a total of 1,606 SO which are not regulated under the current Federal Way City Code due to their small size. Wetland A was determined to be isolated by the Corps and therefore is not regulated. Wettand AA (5,596 SO will also be filled. Impacts to a portion of Wetland AA and all of Wetland S are necessary due to required road improvements to S. 320th St. Approximately 3,808 sf of the western edge of Wetland U will be directly impacted for construction of the 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page ii South 320`h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan stormwater detention facility and approximately 613 sf of Wetland U will be indirectly impacted due to inadequate buffering (paper fill). Total direct wetland impacts are 11,010 sf. Total indirect wetland impacts are 613 sf. PROPOSED MITIGATION: Approximately 18,594 sf of wetlands creation/enhancement is proposed on the project site and an of f �r cement is proposed o - ' ' A buffer modification is being requested that will provide an averaged 44.5-foot buffer around the new Wetland U complex and will combine with the existing forested buffers associated with Wetlands C and D. All of the modified Wetland U buffer and portions of the buffer for Wetland C will be restored/enhanced following site development. Total on -site buffer enhancement proposed is 42,068 sf. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE: Proposed modifications to Wetlands AA and U satisfy the criteria for wetland modifications outlined in Section 22-1358(d) of the Federal Way City Code. Proposed buffer modification for the new Wetland U creation/enhancement complex satisfies the criteria as outlined in Section 22-1359(f) of the Federal Way City Code. Off -site mitigation of wetland impacts can be allowed under Section 22-1358(e)(2) of the code provided the mitigation is within the same basin as the impacts, of in -kind wetland type and results in no net loss of wetland area, function and value. 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page iii South 320th Place Critical Areas Report& Final Wetland Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ExecutiveSummary.....................................................................................,............................... i Tableof Contents...................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures, Tables, and Appendices.................................................................................... vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE..............................................1 3.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................1 3.1. Background Data Reviewed............................................................................................2 3.2. Field Investigation............................................................................................................2 4.0 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................3 4.1. Analysis of Existing Information.......................................................................................3 4.1.1. National Wetlands Inventory ........................................................................................... 3 4.1.2. Natural Resources Conservation Service........................................................................3 4.1.3. WDFW Priority Habitat Species and WDNR Natural Heritage Databases ...................... .3 4.2. Analysis of Field Conditions............................................................................................3 X2.On-site Wetlands............................................................................................................6 Off -site Wetlands � 6 4.3. Wetland Regulatory Considerations................................................................................7 4.4. WILDLIFE.......................................................................................................................8 5.0 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT.....................................................8 5.1. Wetlands A, AA, S, and U — Existing Functions and Values Summary ............................9 5.2. Wetlands C and D — Existing Functions and Values Summary ........................................9 Offsite Wetland X — Existing Functions and Values Summary .........................................9 4. Offsite Wetland Y — Existing Functions and Values Summary .........................................9 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................................................10 6.1. Project Description........................................................................................................10 6.2. Impacts to Critical Areas...............................................................................................11 7.0 MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO CRITICAL AREAS....................................................11 7.1. Predicted Post -Mitigation Functions and Values for Wetlands U, X, and Y ...................13 7.2. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards............................................................15 7.3. Grading and Hydrological Support ................................................................................16 7.4. Plantings.......................................................................................................................18 7.5. Habitat Features-.. ......................................................................................................... 18 7.6. Temporary Irrigation System.........................................................................................18 8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE......................................................19 9.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT...............................................................................22 9.1. Post -Construction Approval.........................,.......................,.........................................22 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page iv South 320t' Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan 9.2. Post -Construction Assessment.....................................................................................22 10.0 MONITORING METHODS............................................................................................23 10.1. Reports........................................................................................................................23 10.2. Vegetation.....................................................................................................................23 10.3. Photo Documentation....................................................................................................24 10.4. Wildlife..........................................................................................................................24 10.5. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Site Stability..................................................................24 11.0 MAINTENANCE (M) AND CONTINGENCY (C)............................................................24 12.0 PERFORMANCE AND MAINTENANCE BOND............................................................25 13.0 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................25 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................27 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-Mi tPlan-8(300ct08). doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page v South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3. NRCS Soils Map Figure 4. Existing Conditions Map Figure 5a. Proposed Location of Off -site Mitigation Area Figure 5b. Existing Conditions Map of Wetlands X and Y Figure 5c. Photos of Wetland X Current Conditions Figure 5d. Photos of Wetland X Current Conditions LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Wetland Regulatory Considerations — City of Federal Way Table 2: Wetland Regulatory Considerations — Corps/DOE Table 3: Existing Functions and Values for Project Wetlands Table 4: Proposed Wetland Mitigation — City Requirements Table 4a: Proposed Wetland Mitigation — Corps/DOE Requirements Table 5: Existing and Post -Mitigation Functions and Values for Wetlands U, Y, and X LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Wetland Delineation Data Sheets (Talasaea, 1990, 2007, 2008) APPENDIX B: Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Version 2 (July 2006) APPENDIX C: Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM) Data Sheets — Existing Conditions APPENDIX D: Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM) Data Sheets — Post Mitigation Conditions APPENDIX E: Supplemental Hydrology Support Report (Terra Associates, May 21, 2008) APPENDIX F: Final Wetland Mitigation Plans: Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Site Plan, Impacts, & Mitigation Sheet W2.0: Grading Plan & Details Sheet W2.1: Grading Specifications Sheet W3.0: Planting Plan & Plant Schedule Sheet W3.1: Planting Specifications & Details Sheet W4.0: Off -site Minor Grading Plan, Notes, & Details Sheet W4.1: Off -site Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, & Details 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page vi South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to describe existing site conditions, wetland classifications, and the proposed development for the South 320th Place project. This report and mitigation plan is designed to meet the requirements for projects impacting wetlands and buffers as stated in the Federal Way City Code (FWCC), Section 22, and requirements set forth by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Department of Ecology (DOE) relating to Section 404 and Section 401 permits. Information presented in this report will be utilized by the City of Federal Way, the Corps, and DOE to assist in their evaluation of impacts from the proposed project on wetlands on or in the vicinity of the site. The objectives of this report are to describe: 1) critical areas identified and delineated; 2) wildlife use and habitats; 3) impacts on sensitive areas from the proposed development; and 4) proposed mitigation measures. 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE The 19.12-acre property is located in Federal Way, Washington. The site consists of the following 10 parcels: 551560-0005, -0010, -0015, -0020, -0025, -0026, -0030, -0035, -0090 and -0091. The southern property boundary is South 320th Street. The western property boundary is the undeveloped 32nd Avenge South right-of-way (Figure 1). Undeveloped parcels are present north and east of the project site except for the King County Fire District No. 39 station which is adjacent to the southeast corner of the site. The Bonneville Transmission Line Easement parallels the northern property boundary. The easement extends onto the northeast portion of the project site. The Public Land Survey System location for this site is T21 N, R04E, SW '/4 of Section 10. The project site is currently undeveloped and consists primarily of mature second growth coniferous forest in its eastern portion, and a younger mixed forest in its western portion. The southeastern corner of the site was stripped of vegetation and topsoil approximately twenty years ago (Talasaea Consultants, Inc., 1998). Excavated soils from this area provided fill material for the development of Fire Station No. 39 located immediately to the east. The central portion of the site has remnants of a past residence. A ridge protrudes onto the site from the north into the central area of the property; elevations slope down from this ridge both to the east and west and then the western edge of the site scopes back up to 32nd Ave. So. Surrounding parcels include: a forested wetland system to the east, the King County fire station to the southeast, commercial properties south of South 3201h St., undeveloped land to the west, and the Bonneville Transmission Line easement to the north. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The wetland analysis of the subject property involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the site (and its immediate surroundings) using published information about local environmental conditions. This information included: 1) wetland and soil maps from resource agencies, 2) sensitive areas maps from King County GIS, 3) orthophotography, and 4) any relevant studies completed or ongoing in the vicinity of the project site. The second part involved a field survey in which direct observations and measurements of soils, hydrology, and vegetation were made to determine whether wetlands were present, the type of wetlands present, and the extent of their boundaries (see Section 3.2 - Field Investigation below). 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 1 'tees yark t@wery;PI 5 3 Zgth SL idSt [n I}}} It z 0 I! qP —V1 il'—� 2th 5t PROJECT SOURCE: MAPOUEST http://www.mapq,uest.Gom/; KING FIGURE # I 6) TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. VIGINITI' MAP Resource & Environmental Planning SOUTH 520TH PLAGE 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast FEDERAL WAY, W.A. Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)861-75.19 � t~ pf S Mth S DESIGN I DRAWN I PROJECT AO PW 050 SCALE NTS DATE I REVISED tzo Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC. South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan 3.1. Background Data Reviewed Background information was reviewed prior to field investigations and included the following: • National Wetlands Inventory Map (Poverty Bay, Quad), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987 • Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey for King County, 1973 • Color aerial photographs in stereo for the year 1973 at 1 "=400' • Black -and -white aerial photograph (paper) for the year 1992 at 1 "=200' • King County, Sensitive Areas Map Folio, 1990 • Wetlands Reconnaissance Study for Pipeline No. 5, City of Tacoma, 1989 • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database, November 2007, and • Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Database, November 2007. 3.2. Field Investigation A general site reconnaissance was conducted in February of 1990 to gain an overall impression of the existing environment. Observations were made of the general plant communities, wildlife habitats, and the locations of potential wetland areas. Present and past land use practices were also noted, as were significant geological and hydrological features. During our on -site investigations, we used the general methodology for routine wetland delineations as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineations Manual (1997), which is based principally on the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987). This methodology utilizes three parameters to make a wetland determination. These parameters include existing vegetation types, existence of hydric or hydrologically modified soils, and general hydrologic conditions. The wetland delineation was originally completed in the winter and spring of 1990. Review of the wetland boundaries was then conducted during several site visits that occurred on July 7, 1996, September 13, 1996, December 19, 1996, January 13, 1997, August 22, 2006, October 6, 2007, March 27, 2008, May 12, 2008, and October 22, 2008. Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973) and the wetiand status of plant species was assigned according to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands for Region 9, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed 1988, 1993). Wetland classes were determined on 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). Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the following characteristics were present: • organic soils or soils with an organic surface layer, • matrix chroma just below the A -horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is less) of 1 or less in unmottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or • gleying immediately below the A -horizon. 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 2 South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. An evaluation of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology was made along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information and marked with flagging and surveyed. Appendix A contains data forms prepared by Talasaea for representative locations in both the upland and wetland. These data forms document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1. Analysis of Existing Information 4.1.1. National Wetlands Inventory National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) do not indicate any wetlands on the site (Figure 2). The King County Sensitive Areas Folio (December 1990) also does not indicate any wetlands on the site. Since both the NWI mapping and the Sensitive Areas Folio are only general inventories based largely on aerial photographs, actual field investigation was necessary to ensure that any wetlands were identified. 4.1.2. Natural Resources Conservation Service The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the entire site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Figure 3). Although this soil type in not considered hydric by the NRCS, Alderwood soils may have hydric soil inclusions. Soils observed on site generally agreed with the descriptions for Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. According to the geotechnical report provided by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., Vashon Lodgement Till underlies the surface soils on the site. Vashon Lodgement Till is found at depths beginning as shallow as 1.5 feet below the surface on the site. This till is dense to very dense and has low permeability. 4.1.3. WDFW Priority Habitat Species and WDNR Natural Heritage Databases The WDFW PHS Database was ordered and reviewed for habitats and species in the vicinity of the subject property. No priority habitats and species are known to exist or utilize the subject property. North Lake is located approximately 0.5 miles south of the site. The PHS maps show that North Lake has a Bald Eagle Management Zone around the lake and that there is a protected nest southeast of the lake. The WDNR Natural Heritage Database was searched and does not have any records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the vicinity of the project site. 4.2. Analysis of Field Conditions Six wetland areas (Wetlands A, AA, C, D, S, and U) were identified and delineated on or adjacent to the project site (Figure 4 and Sheet W1.0), and two wetlands, Wetland X and Wetland Y were identified and delineated off -site adjacent to North Lake (Figures 5A-D). These wetlands are described in the following sections. An additional wetland is present south of S. 320"' St. and west of Weyerhaeuser Way S, outside of the project area. This wetland was not evaluated for this study. Wetlands X and Y were evaluated for potential off -site mitigation. 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport- MitPlan-8(30Oct08).doc Page 3 NORTH r. 7 J-� SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATION WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP, POVERTY BAY OUADRANOLE - htEo://wet 1andsFws.er.u5o5.caov TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 - Fax (425)861-7549 F I OURE # 2 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP SOUTH 520TH PLAGE FEDERAL HAY, W.A. DESIGN DRAWN I PROJECT AO BH 050 SCALE NTS DATE 4-04-OB REVISED Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC. F- r- L— L- L e _ i,6 I 9 40 00 * \� 0 6 QL/ x *�"4/ fat •l�*k - 0 a-. -` ollAL � • A 5 y F- - I �I f '', OFFSITE ::. McTLAND •J _I C RAFH I (f, SCALE NORTH ( IN FEET ) D 80 160 520 SCALE: 1:160' � WE4ND - 1/0 LE ' TLAND ro } CATEC- KW a �� • : / 1 l� K1N6 GO. FIRE �w� —I STATION NO. FL,4N 1_EC--;rzN:;) - - - - PROPERTY LINE rr EXISTING WETLAND -� -- *EXEMPT WETLANDS (PER FEDERAL ; ` WAY CITY GODS SECTION 22.1357(a)(3)) -------- BUFFER — EXISTING WETLAND — — — — — — — — EXISTING CONTOUR (Di* "- EXISTING TREES A-# WETLAND FLAG LOCATION +TP-# SOIL TEST PLOT LOCATION 07E5 I. SURVEY PROVIDED BY ESM GONSULTING, 55G 15 FIRST WAY S., STE 200 FEDERAL WAY, WA c10003 , (255) 838-6113. 2. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY PAGE ENGINEERS, 1601 2ND AVE. STE. 1000 SEATTLE, WA ci,5101 , (206) 441-1855. 3. SOURGE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANGEMENT. 4, THIS PLAN 15 AN ATTACHMENT TO THE GRITIGAL AREAS REPORT and DETAILED GONGEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS IN APRIL 2005. 2 L Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC. ti h't��'' ! i, �{r'"" .. L•.� ash 'S ri Am ,. 'fir. •„� J. Fr J 4A-1 FIRE STATION ' `,c fJ f � � ►Iy� � Von Z. AN INTO NETLANDS NORTH LA<E .. •'�_�?'.1V(l. ..Sr '•, s`- 1. ,�f,_ .• _ .� fir- �: - -fie i� r'N�� •c �., y� � - .. •• "�� r� a : ' � .y-` •• p."k h � 1,y ' v • '+-�.� '� , Si ti•:-ffiY1� _ . •• i.. r: ' �� r tit • � • .�' Q.'rk �� ,�!'�, _ • {� i - AA �F• 11 7{up-�� 'fir. t�shti• t , ••., +. R a •�1. �'• Ct �C�}�� " ;- • •k• 1 -f�;' '1 • Stt+�. �i+''�'•Nw3..Pl rf.�...�' ir cr - - " +, '� � '" 1 �"7 � � v a�'• + f;1•*�fjC�t '.•, '- :•,�°�htl'c 6�y>}yr r 44. 4 •� 1 f '+�t.•`v ! I W �r�.•11.1 .- r- • �iill�•�:i��r 1 ' ■ s� _ ��. .F:, I .. •14�:... ,r � .. .. `'i•� pool SHOR MANA6EMENT UPLAND J FOREST, NICE UNDERSTCRY EX. OLD ASPHALT ROAD r -+ 0 0 0 LAKE HA\4M 5.5,M..4. #10 RIM al.3gg70 0 _ a rGZ 0 0 AND X i - - S►� CATE60RY II SL •r # 60AT 15P �'} _ • _ . ° LAUNCH A I 1-4 A- •'k SLACKM I 5L-2] , ; •� -SL-1 A-I3 mruas aw9� o -IF _ SL-,q-HIMALAYAN v MIX BLACKBERRY / �-•-•/' FOREST $-3 IA6 I£VEL-HI Id I CHAIN j-lly NTLAND `Y r a \e e o- pFJ1G \ CATE6ORY II y (FWGG) 5,100 SF ONSIDE srermoe FEW-,FJ jl '• OHWM NORTH LAKE — FLAN LECr=Ni7 -------PROPERLY LINE - • - • - • - • - - - • - WETLAND BOUNDARY - • • - - - - - OHWM NORTH LAKE — 200' 5HORELINE MAi A-# WETLAND FLAG • 5L-# 501 L LOG TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 -J Bus (425)861-7550 - Fax (425)661-7549 I .f' ORAF [G 5GALE: NORTH (IN EET ) -�r 0 40 80 60 SGALE:1"=8 .,,ONE FIGURE #5B DESIGN I DRAWN I PROJECT AO AG 03❑ EXISTING CONDITIONS WETLANDS X ff Y 1" 80' SOUTH 520TH PLACE DATE FEDERAL WAY, WA 5-Iq-08 j� E REVISED 10-50-08 Copyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC 1 ".44 ..- W�3, in HAS=,yr.•�s .. :_ , ..f _ _' - �-�1,�.- .- � - - --.s - .. - - Y - Y-f - _yam;�•r��;L. = •Je •.ti. �•."� - - - - �. .np.-, r -1~ •r•. ��}i+.t`--ww.: r'� X=�iY�:w .F��T / • _ __ - r - ' � �- - — :�f T I_42 ��: _��: �i. r mow_. - _� • ! i �� _ -^ --j�' _ _ _ � 1 � , } 3+ ~r _ • . 'gin h " i��'�•';�.` -• � _�i:_ .��w._ `!fir _ -_ ..� �s_^-:: �$t °= i ►r+ 5-` ^ i • • � y �,. sue"'_' ` _ : •. ~y - � � i � - .�` � � • fi - - _ - _ � ;�. � �. y3 .. ., f_ - �`` �__ mow. c: - .... _ - i7�• -• -� .�,' .: i � _. _ .. f• - - - _ .l•-c+-'•�.+:i•..t�, -'�.1� •ter' _ - _ - - - tq Al _ -ell max_ ¢.� - _ _ - '_for A;eA r "r `_ „'r.� _ F I • _ r - ti._. r � .: -. - �� M's".:.� -.;, -r _ ~� _y"s' -r `' _ f •'?•'1 - _ �j„�. _ _ 'y,�y-., �•± '�s2'P'.c ' - ..��+ _+:"1- �-��- -`f. - _ _ _•r - �� a ram• - / '�, _ __�"": -vim. - -r• _ •F :.¢ '; :"' •�,_" ..i-y� -"'^�! w��a'. y _4_ .. � I� _�F - _ __ `,•�"f/�1-t •�r�F - `�� _ #t �.. - i � `�'/t'-��`{Fr1 j"�' !_ay�� -sl. �'�•yrv_�: �,��. F'1� � 111 �-�• . Y�-�. �J � -- - _ y - - �'k � �fyy{�1 y _ •_'�-' • }�:..r.� _ - - C., - %ate•-'4 '}•- -'s^ 4l`' _ v=��--�F.s.� j -:"-�� • f'' - �Y' S.+C�'• _ '+. - I� • r R' 1 �: w .� �i7., - _ _- .. -. �`:` �. .� �J. +fir r •= w�.ti: .r13� 4t. + � '�'. +f-�..,. - t r'_ .: o- •+• �yM;lf ` r p • w . r �'� � ,•s' �� J F;~ � •J � ` _� w- _ _ �sr' -6- 1��.S�r!'.t'_. - •�1_j~_ ,- ?ten _��.i �1�F�. ��c rah .t.�- � w��=�' .r:•7°- ..•,11,or�1'3•r-i or South 320'h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan 4.2.1. On -site Wetlands Wetland A Wetland A (462 sf) is a palustrine scrub -shrub, seasonally saturated wetland (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland A is a located in the west central portion of the site. The wetland is located immediately to the east of the remains of a foundation of a former home, and may have been created as a result of the previously unrestricted drainage being blocked by the foundation. Wetland A consists of a scrub -shrub plant community dominated by salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and Douglas's spirea (Spiraea douglasil). In addition, several young red alder (Alnus rubra) trees and one western red cedar (Thuja plicata) tree are located along the wetland edge. The plant community in the uplands surrounding Wetland A consists largely of young red alder forest with an understory of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and salmonberry. Soil in Wetland A is a mottled gravelly, sandy, loam (5YR 3/4). Hydrology for Wetland A is supported by direct precipitation and the impoundment of surface runoff from the adjacent concrete foundation. Although several inches of ponding were observed in the wetland during the winter months, soils within the wetland were dry during the summer field investigations. According to FWCC § 22.1357(a)(3), Wetland A is a Category III wetland because it does not satisfy the criteria for either Category I or II wetlands. Category III wetlands that are less than 2,500 sf are not regulated in the City of Federal Way. Hence, no buffer is required. However, Wetland A may be regulated by the Corps and DOE. Wetland AA Wetland AA (5,596 sf) is a palustrine scrub -shrub seasonally flooded wetland located near the southwest property corner. It drains via an 18-inch round concrete culvert, to an offsite wetland south of S. 3201h Street. Vegetation in Wetland AA consists mainly of salmonberry with a small number of red alder and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa) trees. Trees rooted at least partially in the wetland did not constitute more than 30% aerial coverage; therefore the wetland was not characterized as having a forested vegetation class. Other species present in the wetland include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and black hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii). Species in the buffer include red alder, black cottonwood, Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Hydrology for Wetland AA is supported by direct precipitation and surface runoff. Water that would normally flow quickly out of the wetland to the roadside ditch for S 320th Street is currently partially constrained by two large black cottonwood trees, which allows water to pond in the lower portions of the wetland. According to FWCC §22.1357(a)(2), Wetland AA meets the criteria for a Category III wetland. Category III wetlands that are between 2,500 sf and 10,000 sf require a 25-foot buffer Wetland C Wetland C (4,930 sf) is a palustrine forested, scrub -shrub seasonally flooded wetland (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland C is located in the central southeastern corner of the site. Wetland C contains a mixture of forested and scrub -shrub vegetation dominated by a canopy of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). Salmonberry, Douglas's spirea, and red -osier dogwood (Corpus sericea) are the dominate species in the scrub -shrub stratum within the wetland, and water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) is present in the herbaceous layer. Vegetation in the 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport- MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 4 South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan adjacent upland buffer is mainly dominated by a mature second growth coniferous forest that includes Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh), vine maple (Acer circinatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). The buffer area immediately west of Wetland C and north of the adjacent fire station was disturbed during construction of the fire station and invasive species (Himalayan blackberry) quickly took over. Soil in Wetland C is a deep, organic, black (10YR 2/1-) decomposed peat or muck. Hydrology for Wetland C is supplied by precipitation and surface runoff ponding over compacted till soils. According to FWCC § 22.1357(a) (2), Wetland C meets the criteria for a Category II wetland. Category II wetlands require a 100-foot buffer. Wetland D Wetland D (434 sf, on -site) is a palustrine forested, scrub -shrub seasonally flooded wetland (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland D is located in the central northeastern portion of the site. Wetland D is part of a larger wetland system (approximately 2.7-acres) that extends off site to the east. The on -site portion of the wetland consists of a forested plant community dominated by western red cedar, red alder, crabapple (Malus fusca), salmonberry, and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Much of the wetland was ponded to a depth of several inches during the winter field investigations. The buffer of Wetland D consists of a densely vegetated primarily coniferous forest similar to the buffer area of Wetland C. Hydrology for Wetland D is supplied by precipitation and surface runoff ponding over compacted till soils. According to FWCC § 22.1357(a)(2), Wetland D meets the criteria for a Category II wetland. Category II wetlands require a 100-foot buffer. Wetland U Wetland U (7,938 sf) is the remaining wetland area of what was Wetland B, as delineated by Talasaea in the early 1990s (Talasaea Consultants, Inc., 1998). Wetland B was unintentionally created about 20 years ago when soils were excavated for fill material to use on the adjacent King County Fire Station No. 39 site. The remaining dense unweathered till retarded infiltration and allowed surface water runoff to collect and form the wetland. Over time, these dense till soils have weathered and have become more permeable resulting in the current delineation of a smaller wetland. Hydrology for Wetland U is the result of surface runoff ponding over the compacted till soils. Wetland U is a palustrine emergent, scrub -shrub seasonally saturated wetlands (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Vegetation in this wetland is typical of disturbed habitats and consists of both emergent and scrub -shrub plant communities. Dominant vegetation includes: black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa), Douglas's spirea, Scouler willow (Scoulers willows), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Vegetation within the buffer of these wetlands is also largely degraded and includes a mix of shrubs, young trees, and weeds, many of which are non-native invasives. Common species include red alder, Himalayan blackberry, Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis), common velvet -grass (Holcus lanatus), and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata). The plant community immediately west of the wetlands includes Douglas fir, salal, and bittercherry (Prunus emarginata). Soils in Wetland U have low chromas (10YR 3/1 between 8 and 15 inches, and 10YR 5/1 at 15+ inches). According to FWCC § 22.1357(a), Wetland U meets the criteria for a Category III wetland Category III wetlands that are between 2,500 sf and 10,000 sf require a 25-foot buffer. 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 5 South 320`h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan 4.2.2. Off -site Wetlands Off -site areas were examined for wetlands to determine potential impacts due to site development, and to provide potential areas for off -site mitigation. Three wetlands were identified and delineated off -site: Wetlands S, X, and Y. Wetland S Wetland S (1,144 sf) is a palustrine scrub -shrub seasonally saturated wetland (Cowardin, et a/., 1979). Wetland S is located in the right-of-way on the north side of South 3201h St. The wetland consists of a scrub -shrub plant community dominated by Douglas's spirea, Scouler willow, and black twin -berry (Lonicera involucrata). The plant community in the uplands surrounding Wetland S consists largely of Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundianacea). Hydrology for Wetland S is supported by surface runoff from the adjacent paved roadway. Flows eventually leave the wetland to the east in a roadside ditch. Road improvements and more recent utility (fiber optic) work created the wetland as this wetland was not present in the 1990s (Talasaea Consultants, Inc., 1998). According to FWCC § 22.1357(a)(3), Wetland S meets the criteria for a Category III wetland. Category III wetlands that are less than 2,500 sf are not regulated in the City of Federal Way. However, Wetland S may be regulated by the Corps and DOE. Wettand X We d X (19,590 sf) is a palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent wetland that i season flooded. It is located north of North Lake, west of a public boat la area, which connects to eyerhaeuser Way South. The wetland is dominated by glas spirea, salmonberry, so sh, and red fescue (Festuca rubra). Upland cies include Douglas fir, Indian plum, trailing kberry, and sword fern. Himalay ackberry was found growing in the buffer area and into t argins of the wetland. Much of the wetland area appears hav a--e-n filled in the past. The soils present are extremely gravelly loamy sands com d into a dense, impervious layer. Peat soils were found approximately 18" below t dense fl ' some areas of the wetland. The soils found within Wetland X do not ma the general desc ' ion of the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam soils mapped as prese n the site by the NRCS. Hydrology for W and X is supported by direct precipitation d ponding of surface runoff by the impervio nature of the soils. Groundwater was seen ente ' g test pits between 6 and 10 inches beiW the ground surface within the wetland and below 18 ches for test pits in upland areas. According to FWCC §22.1357(a)(3), Wetland X meets the criteria for a Category II wetland (less than one acre and having two or more vegetation classes). Category II .tiaV-e a 100-foot s-Ondard buffer. Wetland Y Wetland Y (approxima eff_5,100 sf) is a palustrine scr -shrub/palustrine forested wetland that is seasonally flooded. It is loc d along the sh of North Lake west of the public boat launch area. The wetland vegetation Is d( Douglas spirea. Upland species in fern. Himalayan blackberryi o salmonberry, red alder, black cottonwood, and uglas fir, Indian plum, trailing blackberry and sword 'I,oughout the wetland and buffer. 30 October 2008 -- 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page 6 South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Soils are similar to those found in Wetland X. Peat layers were not seen in Wetland Y; rather, old lake bed was encountered at greater than 40 inches deep. Soil contained a significant amount of cobble. Hydrology for Wetland Y is supported by direct precipitation, with some seasonal inundation by North Lake along the shoreline. According to FWCC §22.1357(a)(3), Wetland Y meets the criteria for a Category II wetland (less than one acre and having two or more vegetation classes). Category II wetlands have a 100-foot standard buffer. 4.3. Wetland Regulatory Considerations City of Federal Way Table 1 below summarizes the wetland categories based on the January 2005 Federal Way City Code (FWCC), the Cowardin Classification of the wetlands as required under FWCC 22- 1356(b)(4), and the mitigation ratios as required under FWCC 22-1358(e)(3)(b). Table 1. Wetland Re ulato Considerations — City of Federal Wes_ Wetland Category :IBI�uffe7Cowardin Mitigation Ratios _Class' Creation OR Enhancement Wetland A Category III none PSSB Exempt' Exempts 462 sf Wetland AA Category III 25 feet PSSC 1.5:1 3:1 5,596 sf Wetland C Category 11 100 feet PFO/PSSC 3:1 & 6:1 & 4,930 sf , 2:1 4:1 Wetland D Category II 100 feet PFO/PSSF 3:1 & 6:1 & 434 sf, on -site 2:1 4:1 Wetland S Category III none PSSB Exempt Exempt' 1,144 sf Wetland U Category III 25 feet PEM/PSSB 1.25:1 & 2.5:1 & 7,93,8 sf) 1.5:1 3:1 W and X Category II 100 feet PSSC/PEMC 2:1 4:1 ,590 sf tland Y Category II 100 feet PFOC/PSSC 3:1 & 6:1 & 5,1 0 sf 2:1 4:1 1. Based on the 2605 Federal Way Code FWCC 22-1357(a). 2. Based on the 2005 Federal Way Code FWCC 22-1357(b). 3. Cowardin Classifications as required by FWCC 22-1356(b) (4). B=saturated; C=seasonally flooded; F=Semipermanently flooded 4. Mitigation ratio based on FWCC 22-1358(e) (3). 5. Category III wetlands less than 2,500 sf are not regulated under FWCC 22-1. Army of En ineerslDe artment of Ecoiogy We also rated the wetlands according to the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Version 2 (July 2006). Wetland rating forms are included in Appendix B. Table 2 summarizes the regulatory requirements as suggested in the Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, 2006. We have requested a jurisdictional determination by the Corps for all of the wetlands on the project site. 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(30Oct08).doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page 7 South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Table 2. Wetland Regulatory Considerations — Corns/DOE Wetland Category 1 Cowardin Class' Wetland A [Category 50 feet PSSC 462 sf IV Habitat Scorel5 Wetland AA Category 80 feet PSSB (5,596 sf) III Habitat Score 18 1 Wetland C Category 150 feet PFO/PSSF j (4,930 sf) III Habitat Score 24_, Wetland D Category 150 feet PFO/PSSF (434 sf, on -site) II Habitat Score 27 Wetland S Category 50 feet PSSB (1,144 sf, off -site) IV _Habitat Score 11 Wetland U Category 1 80 feet PEM/PSSB (7,938 sf) III Habitat Score 19 . Mitigation Ratios Creation or Creation/Rest. & Restoration Enhancement 1.5:1 _ 1:1 C & 2:1 E 2:1 1:1 C & 4:1 E 2:1 1:1 C & 4:1 E 3:1 1:1 C & 8:1 E 1.5:1 _ 1:1 C & 2:1 E 2:1 1:1 C & 4:1 E etiao X Category 80 feet PSSC/PEMC 2:1 1:1 C & 1 0 sf III Habitat Score 19 1 4:1 E W I nd Y Category 80 feet PSSC/PFOC 2:1 1:1 C & 10 sf III Habitat Score 18 4:1 E� 1. Based on the 2006 Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Form — 'Nestern Washington. 2. Based on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, 2006. 3. Cowardin Classifications as required by FWCC 22-1356(b) (4). B=saturated; C=seasonally flooded; F=semipermanently flooded 4.4. WILDLIFE Observations of wildlife usage of the site were recorded during field investigations. Wildlife species observed included: American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), spotted towhee (Pipilo erythropthalmus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black -capped chickadee (Parus atricap/Ilus), chestnut -backed chickadee (Parus rufescens), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stellen), American robin (Turdis migratorius), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), dark -eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), golden -crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), pine siskin (Carduelis pinus), winter wren (Trogodytes troglodytes), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa), and Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii). No endangered or threatened wildlife species or habitats were identified during the field investigations. It should be noted that the number of wildlife species that utilize the site could be expected to be higher than the number actually observed during our limited field investigation due to the seasonality and secretive nature of most wildlife species. Mammal species that were not observed but that likely utilize the site include raccoon, Virginia opossum, deer mouse, northern flying squirrel, and a variety of voles, shrews, and bats. Bird species that were not observed but that likely utilize the site include a variety of woodpeckers, thrushes, warblers, sparrows, flycatchers and finches. Herptiles on the site are most likely restricted to the Pacific chorus frog and garter snake, but may also include the northern alligator lizard, western red -back salamander, and red -legged frog. 5.0 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetlands and their associated buffers may provide many valuable ecological and social functions, including: stormwater storage, water quality maintenance, groundwater recharge and discharge, erosion and shoreline protection, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation. The 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 8 South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan purpose of the functions and values assessment was to gain a general understanding of the existence and relative importance of specific wetland functions for each wetland system. A functional analysis of both the on- and off -site wetlands is required for projects located in the City of Federal Way under the 2005 code (FWCC 22-1356(b)(7)). The functions and values of wetlands were evaluated using the Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM) (Cooke, 2000). This methodology uses a semi -quantitative analysis to rate a wetland or buffer in eight categories: 1) flood/stormwater control, 2) baseflow/groundwater support, 3) erosion/shoreline protection, 4) water quality improvement, 5) natural biological support, 6) overall habitat functions, 7) specific habitat functions, and 8) cultural/socioeconomic values. None of the on -site wetlands had a stream or surface water flow associated with it. Therefore, erosion/shoreline protection functions were not evaluated. It should be noted that this is a rapid assessment method and is meant to be used as a general guideline. It is not intended to assign an absolute value to the function within a given wetland area. Existing functional values for both the on- and off -site wetlands are summarized in Table 3. Data forms are included in Appendix C. 5.1. Wetlands A, AA, S, and U — Existing Functions and Values Summary Wetlands A, AN S, and U rated low for overall functions and values. Wetland AA scored low or low -moderate in all individual functions. Wetland A scored low for all functions except flood/stormwater control and overall habitat functions where it scored low to moderate and moderate, respectively. Wetland A is less disturbed than Wetlands S and U, and provides greater habitat opportunities and greater levels of flood and stormwater control. Wetland S is a recentl� formed wetland due to road improvements and utility installation in the right-of-way of S. 320' Street and has been regularly disturbed by maintenance activities. Wetland U is low in vegetative, habitat, and structural diversity. Additionally, Wetland A, a portion of Wetland AA, and all of Wetland U are on privately owned land with no public access and consequently scored low for cultural/socioeconomic values. 5.2. Wetlands C and D — Existing Functions and Values Summary Wetlands C and D are relatively undisturbed with high levels of vegetative, habitat, and structural diversity. These wetlands scored moderate to high for all evaluated functions, except cultural/socioeconomic. Wetland D generally scored higher than Wetland C in all categories due to its larger size. Larger size provides more potential for vegetative, habitat, and structural diversity, while providing greater opportunity to positively affect water -related functions (flood/stormwater control, base flow/groundwater support, and water quality improvements). 3. Offsite Wetl d X — Existing Functions and Values Summary W land X rated to overall for all functions and values, except for natural biological support (low moderate)and water quality improvement (moderate). The generally low rating for v functio s and lues is likely a reflection of previous clearing and filling in the wetland, which is now sta "nq t6 re-establish itself. 5.4. O to Wetland Y — Existing Functions and Values Summary Wetland ra d moderate for overall habitat functions, moderate to high for water quality improv ment, d high for specific habitat functions. It generally rated low to moderate or low for re aining fun ions and values. This wetland was likely affected by the same land distu ances as W and X. However, its location adjacent to North Lake resulted in higher sco es than Wetland . 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page South 320`h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Table 3. Existing Functions and Values for Project Wetlands Function ° r E UJ Assessment w, ca c c c g �a �� M = c m _ c o c _ 0 �7 o y Lu CL75 o� Unit 3° E D3 � W- c o � o �, c M'vD0 M° � 3 = 2 �a 0� N ++ O 0 7 cL C� d 0 O Q C� C) 7 O (7 ++ fn (7 fC o Q. G� o wcnvl M &- 3 m(9cn O` t 0 wcna M �_ 8/15 i4 3 zm 1 17136 > 7 Ou. 6/9 O. 7 mw 1 6/15 7 0 vv) 6/18 +� Q� 59/123 E 9 /15 7/15 N/A Wetland A 60% 47% 53% 47% 67% 40% 33% 48% L-M3 L L 7/15 L 19/36 M 5/9 L 7/15 L 7/18 L 9/15 8/15 N/A 62/123 Wetland AA 60% 53% 47% 53% 56% 47% 39% 50% L-M L-M L L L-M L L L 10/15 10/15 26/36 7/9 9/15 8/18 10/15 N/A 80/123 Wetland C 67% 67% 67% 72% 78% 60% 44% 65% M M 11/15 N/A M 11/15 M-H 30/36 M-H 8/9 L-M 11/15 L 8/18 M 91/123 12/15 Wetland D 80% 73% 73% 83% 89% 73% 44% 74% M-H M-H M-H H H M-H L M-H 44/123 6/15 6/15 N/A 6/15 12/36 .3/9 5/15 6/18 Wetland S 40% 40% 40% 42% 33% 33% 33% 36% L L L L L L L L 6/15 7/15 N/A 8/15 14/36 3/9 5/15 6/18 45/123 Wetland U 40% 33% 53% 36% 33% 33% 33% 40% L L L L L L L L 7/15 7/15 N/A 10/15 20/36 4/9 6/15 6/18 60/123 Wetia X 47% 47% 67% 56% 44% 40% 33% 49% L L M L-M L L L L 6/15 etlan Y 40% L 7/15 47% L N/A 11/15 73% M-H 22/36 61% L-M 6/9 67% M 13/15 12/18 87% 67% H L-M 75/123 61% L-M - points scored 2 - maximum points possible 3 - Functional value categories: 33% to 53% - Low; 54% to 63% - Low to Moderate; 64% to 70% - Moderate; 71 % to 80% - Moderate to High; 81 % - 100% - High. These value categories were not originally indicated in the SAM manual, but have been developed independently by Talasaea Consultants, Inc, and others. 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1. Project Description Quadrant Homes has been selected as the Small Lot Demonstration Project builder by the City of Federal Way for the South 3201h Place project. They are proposing to develop a subdivision consisting of 115 lots, including active and passive open space, roads, and stormwater detention facilities, which will provide needed affordable housing in this area. The City is also requiring improvements to the north side of S. 3251h St. including an additional lane, planting strip, and sidewalk. The project has been carefully designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive areas, but some wetland fill is necessary to make the project financially feasible. 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 10 South 320rh Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland f<.4iliga,;or Plan 6.2. Impacts to Critical Areas The project has been designed to avoid the high -quality Category II wetlands, Wetlands C and D, and their associated 100-foot buffers. However, the project will impact all of the Category III and IV wetlands on the site. The project will fill Wetlands A and S (a total of 1,606 sf) which are not regulated under the current Federal Way City Code due to their small size (Sheet W1.1). In April 2008, the Corps determined that Wetland A was isolated and therefore would not impose jurisdiction on this wetland. However, Wetland S is regulated by the Corps. Wetland AA (5,596 sf) will also be filled. Impacts to a portion of Wetland AA and all of Wetland S are necessary due to required road improvements to S. 320th St. Approximately 3,808 sf of the western edge of Wetland U will be directly impacted for construction of the stormwater detention facility and approximately 613 sf of Wetland U will be indirectly impacted due to inadequate buffering. Total direct wetland impacts are 11,010 sf. Total indirect wetland impacts are 613 sf. 7.0 MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO CRITICAL AREAS Wetlands Creation/Enhancement The project will require obtaining permits from the City of Federal Way as well as the Corps/DOE for proposed impacts to wetlands on the site. As stated in Table 1, the FWCC requires Category III wetlands be mitigated at a 1.5:1 creation ratio or 3:1 enhancement ratio. Whereas, ratios for impacts to wetlands as noted in Table 2 by the Corps/DOE suggests that Category IV wetlands be replaced either at a 1.5:1 creation/rehabilitation ratio or 1:1 creation/rehabilitation and 2:1 enhancement ratio and that Category III wetlands be replaced either at a 2:1 creation/rehabilitation ratio or 1:1 creation/rehabilitation and 4:1 enhancement ratio. In order to satisfy all regulatory agencies, we have provided required mitigation ratios in two tables below. Table 4 represents City requirements, and Table 4a represents Corps/DOE requirements. Table 4. Pro osed Wetland Mitigation — City Re uir Wetland Wetland I Wetland Mitigation Ratio Fill I Paper Fill Wetland A 462 sf (462 sf) Wetland AA 5,596 sf (5.596 sf Wetland S 1,144 sf 1,144 sf Wetland U 3,808 sf 613 sf** i 7,938 sf TOTAL 11,010 sf 1 613 sf none* 1.5:1 creation none* rents Wetland Creation /Restoration none 8,394 sf 1.5:1 creation L_. none 5,712 sf 4,106 sf Wetland Enhancement none none 3(517 sf in Wetland U 721 sf in Wetland C -- 4,238 sf *Wetlands A & S are not regulated by the City. **3:1 wetlands enhan ement is required to satisfy FWCC. 6.9:1 is proposed for the paper fill portion of Wetland U. This po ion of the wetland will not actually be filled, but rather will not have the minimum 25- foot buffer. �qo y x �_'t� 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-M i tPla n-8 (300ct08 ).d oc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page 11 South 320th Place Table 4a. Pr Wetland Wetland A t462 sf) Wetland AA (5,596 sf) Wetland S (1,144 sf Wetland U (7.938 sf) ["O: 0a�►e� Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan d Wetland Mitigation -- Corps/DOE Requirements Wetland Fill 462 sf 5,596 sf 1,144 sf 3,808 sf 1 613 sf*** Wetland Mitigation Ratio Wetland Creation/ Wetland Paper Rehabilitation Enhancement Fill none* _ none none 1 1:1 creation & 5,596 sf adjacent to 1,229 sf in Wetland U 4:1 enhancement Wetland U I & 721 sf in Wetland C** 1:1 creation & 1 1,144 sf adjacent to 2,288 sf in Wetland U _2:1 enhancement_ Wetland U 2:1 creation 7,616 sf adjacent to Wetland U 613 sf adjacent to ,786 I Wetland X 100 s I I ( I T TA - 11,010 sf 613 sf [_ 14,356 sf on -site 4,238 sf onsite & _ 613 sf off -site 22,886 off -site *Wetland A is not regulated by the City or the Corps. **The remaining required 20,434 sf of wetland enhancement for impacts to Wetland AA will be provided in Wetlands X and Y located off -site on the north shore of North Lake. ***1:1 creation/rehabilitation & 4:1 enhancement for the 613 sf of paper fill portion of Wetland U will be in Wetlands X and Y and adjacent to Wetland X. By adhering to the more stringent mitigation ratios suggested by Corps/DOE, we are proposing total wetland creation/enhancement of 18,594 sf on -site plus an additional 23,499 sf of wetlands rehabilitation/enhancement off -site (Table 4a). See Section 7.3 for discussions on grading and hydrological support for the wetlands creation/enhancement areas. Off -site Wetland Rehabilitation and Enhancement �� We are proposing to enhance approximately 22,886 sf of Wetlands X and Y a acted off -site on e northwest tip of North Lake (Sheets W4.0-4.1). In addition, we a roposing to rehabilitate 61 f of previously filled wetland area adjacent to Wetland X in-1i6u of on -site mitigation to satisf orps/DOE requirements. Wetlands X and Y, loc west of the public boat launch, provide a quate potential for wetland and associa uffer enhancement. Wetland hydrology and soils ar resent and construction access vailable through the adjacent Lakehaven sewer line corn or or the adjacent boat la drive. A variety of native and weedy species are currently present the wetlands and ers including: black cottonwood, western red cedar, Douglas fir, madron western h ock, Oregon ash, red alder, salmonberry, rose, Himalayan and evergreen black , w' ws, red -osier dogwood, Indian plum, water parsley, soft rush, Scot's broom, and reed arygrass. In addition, the area immediately adjacent to the western edge of Wetland X s the p tential to be rehabilitated as wetland. We found during our test plot exploratio , at this area h d been obviously filled in the past and the underlying soils were peat. a believe that shallo grading in this area will restore wetland functions to this area. etland enhancement measu s include shallow grading in select areas, increase w nd species diversity; removal of in sive species; planting of native species, especially onifers; placement of large woody mate I in both wetlands and buffers; and increasing native species diversity in buffer areas. Suffer Modification through Process IV Since the new Wetland U complex of creation/enhancement (18,594 sf) exceeds 10,000 sf in size, Section 22-1357(b)(3) of the FWCC requires a 50-foot buffer for Category III wetlands. 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page 12 South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Due to site constraints, a buffer modification is being requested that will provide an averaged 44.5-foot buffer around the new Wetland U complex (pursuant to FWCC §22.1359(f)) and will combine with the existing forested buffers associated with Wetlands C and D. All of the modified Wetland U buffer and portions of the buffer for Wetland C will be restored/enhanced following site development. Total buffer enhancement proposed is 42,068 sf. (Sheet W1.1). Additional Site Elements In their review letter dated 28 February 2008, the City of Federal Way asked the project design to "consider additional site design elements to better incorporate the storm drainage/wetland facility/buffer areas portion of the site as an open space amenity accessible to the residents. For example, incorporate some limited trail access within the buffer/open space area and look to innovative design solutions to the design of the drainage facility to lessen the aesthetic impact of pond walls and associate retaining walls." We have considered the additional site design suggestions and have incorporated a joint use pedestrian trail and maintenance access to the central detention pond area, and we will provide an overlook area for viewing into the mitigation wetland complex. The trail/maintenance access is located adjacent to the Wetland U buffer, but is not part of the buffer area as directed by the City in their letter dated May 13, 2008. In addition, all native plantings have been removed from the interior of the detention pond within the live storage portion of the pond, but native plants will be planted at the base of the retaining wall per direction of the public works department to better integrate the detention facility with the adjacent wetland and buffer areas. 7.1. Predicted Post -Mitigation Functions and Values for Wetla , X. and Y All functions and values of Wetlands U, X, and Y are expected to sig 7 can increase post - mitigation (Table 5). Data sheets may be found in Appendix D. Wetland U (past -mitigation) The remaining portion of Wetland U will be enhanced significantly by enlarging its current size and creating a controlled outfall to the existing Wetland C, by planting with a variety of native herbs, shrubs, and trees, and placement of new habitat features, such as snags, downed large woody debris, bird nesting boxes, and bat boxes. Flood and stormwater control functions are expected to increase from low to low -moderate levels by providing a semi -constrained outlet and ponded areas, which are not now present in Wetland U. Similarly, the creation of ponded area is expected to increase baseflow and groundwater support functions from low to low -moderate. Water quality improvement functions will be greatly improved from low to moderate -high. This increase is attributable to the potential of more organic material in the soil and the greater area of vegetative cover. Natural biological support, overall habitat functions, and specific habitat functions will all be improved greatly resulting from a more diverse plant community with expanded habitat features and structure. Natural biological support will increase from low to high, overall habitat functions and specific habitat functions will increase from low to moderate -high. Finally, cultural and socioeconomic values are expected to increase from low to moderate -high as a result of higher aesthetic values of the mitigated wetland and through the potential for increased educational and recreational opportunities that do not now exist for Wetland U. Wetlands X and Y,,(Do#-inithI gation Work within Wetlan will include a combination of rehabilitation/restoration and enhancement. Based on field obse a 'ons, it is likely that Wetland X was previously filled as indicated by the presence of a pea ayer elow 18 inches. This fill material has subsided over time and allowed 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 13 South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland MIligation Plan wetland conditions to become re-established Wetland X will be rehabilitated by selective excavation of fill material outside of the current wetland boundaries to approximately 18 inches and replacing the excavated till soils with high -quality organic topsoil. Excavating to this depth will expose underlying peat and allow for existing groundwater to saturate the newly placed soils. The newly graded area will be revegetated with a variety of native wetland herbs, shrubs, and trees. In addition, the vegetated portions of Wetlands X and Y will be enhanced with additional plantings of herbs, shrubs, and trees. Finally, the overall habitat structure of Wetland X will be enhanced by placement of large woody debris collected from the Quadrant site development, and installation of bird boxes. All functions and values of Wetlands X and Y are expected to increase as a result of wetland rehabilitation/restoration and enhancement. The greater increases will occur for natural biological support, overall habitat functions, and specific habitat functions. Cultural/socioeconomic values are expected to increase slightly, but will still remain low due to private ownership and public access restrictions to the Wetlands. Table 5. Existing and Post -Mitigation Functions and Values for Wetlands U, X, & Y Function �+ f+ M tu N N F- 01 " l9 y C 3 cC to N 2 N 0 C C C 0 O y 0.0 Assessment co 3 3 c = c ° c _ W Q. a' — Unit E° —Co o c 6-ono �� =° �U c �ccMo OCc; N 00 0 U v; .. OoO � �a �o +.o me 0 me _. 0 0 Q. Q� E � in M CD 3 Lu in � � Z m in LL 3/9 W LL _ _ 5/15 ci voi 6/15 7/15 N/A 8115 14136 6/18 45/123 Wetland U 40% 33% 53% 36% 33% 33% 33% 40% (Existing) L L L L L 7/9 L 11/15 L L Wetland U 9/15 9/15 N/A 12/15 32/36 11/18 1 91/123 (Post- 60% 60% 80% 89% 78% 73% 61% 74% Mitigation) L-M 7/15 L-M 7/15 M-H H M-H M-H L-M M-H N/A 10/15 20/36 4/9 6/15 6/18 60/123 Wetland X 47% 47% 67% 56% 44% 40% 33% 49% (Existing) L L M L-M L L L L Wetland X 9/15 8/15 N/A 12/15 27/36 7/9 10/15 9/18 82/123 (Post- 60% 53% 80% 75% 78% 67% 50% 67% Mitigation) L-M L M-H M-H M-H M L M 6/15 7/15 N/A 11/15 22/36 6/9 13/15 12/18 75/123 Wetland Y 40% 47% 73% 61% 67% 87% 67% 61% (Existing) L L M-H 11/15 L-M M 7/9 H 15/15 L-M 12/18 L-M Wetland Y 8/15 8/15 N/A 29/36 90/123 (Post- 53% 53% 73% 81% 78% 100% 67% 73% Mitigation) L L M-H H M-H H L-M M-H ' Pull IIJ SI;VICU 2 maximum points possible 3 - Functional value categories: 33% to 53% - Low; 54% to 63% - Low to Moderate; 64% to 70% - Moderate; 71 % to 80% - Moderate to High; 81 % - 100% - High. These value categories were not originally indicated in the SAM manual, but have been developed independently by Talasaea Consultants, Inc, and others. 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(30Oct08).doc Page 14 South 320�h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan 7.2. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The primary goal of the mitigation is to replace the functions and values lost through directly impacting 11,010 sf and indirectly impacting 613 sf of wetlands. The secondary goal of the mitigation project is to provide a high functioning buffer around the wetland creation area and the enhanced portion of Wetland U and preserve the existing forested adjacent buffers. To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will: • Create 14,356 sf of new wetland contiguous with Wetland U. • Enhance 3,517 sf of Wetland U. • Enhance 721 sf of Wetland C. Enhance 22,886 sf of Wetlands X and Y located off -site on the northwest tip of North Lake. • Rehabilitate/restore 613 sf of previously filled wetland area adjacent to Wetland X. Provide a high functioning buffer around the new mitigated Wetland U complex, including some native plantings at the base of the wall in the detention facility. Preserve and enhance the existing forested buffers associated with Wetlands C and D. • Total on -site buffer enhancement is 42,068 sf. Mitigation actions will be evaluated through the following objectives and performance standards. Mitigation monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist. Objective A: Following construction, the created and enhanced wetland areas must exhibit wetland hydrology. In these wetland areas, wetland conditions will be verified by the presence of field indicators. Performance Standard A: After construction, the soils of the compensatory mitigation site shall remain inundated or saturated to the surface for a minimum of 45 days during the growing season in a normal year of rainfall for at least three out of ke years during the monitoring period. Evidence of wetland hydrology may include evidence saturated soil conditions (ie., signs of ponding, a water table near the surface, water marks, wa -stained leaves, or oxidized rhizomes). In addition, a combination of native or naturalized woody, and herbaceous vegetation that is predominantly FAC or wetter will cover the wetland areas. Objective 6: Create structural and plant species diversity in the mitigation areas. Performance Standard 81: At least 15 species of desirable native plants will be present in the mitigation wetland and buffer areas during the monitoring period. Percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 100% at the end of Year 1 (per contactor warranty), and at least 75% for each subsequent year of the monitoring period. Performance Standard 82: Herbaceous coverage of vegetation in the wetland areas shall be at least 30% by the end of Year 1, 50% by the end of Year 2, and 80% by the end of Years 5, 7, and 10, excluding those areas of the site that may have sparse herbaceous vegetation due to dense shade from woody species coverage. Performance Standard 83 -- Years 1-3: Native woody species (planted or volunteer) will achieve an average stem density of at least 0.03 stems per square foot by the end of Year 1 and an average stem density of at least 0.04 stems per square foot by the end of Year 3. Performance Standard 84 --Years 4-10: Total percent aerial woody plant coverage must beat least 35% by Year 4, 50% by Year 5, 55% by Year 7, and 65% by Year 10. Woody coverage 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08). doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page 15 South 320�h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan may be comprised of both planted and recolonized native species; however, to maintain species diversity, at no time shall a recolonized species (i.e., red alder) comprise more than 35% of the total woody coverage. There must be at least three native species providing at least 20% each, or four native species providing at least 15% each, or five native species providing at least 10% of the total aerial woody plant coverage. Objective C: Increase the overall habitat functions of the mitigation wetland and buffer areas by incorporating habitat features (i.e., bird nest boxes, snags, down logs, stumps, and boulder piles, as appropriate) into the wetland and buffer. Performance Standard C: After construction and for the entirety of the monitoring period, the mitigation area will contain at least 30 habitat features per acre (1 piece/2, 500 so including down woody material (logs, rootwads, etc.) and snags. Down logs shall be a minimum of 20 feet in length and 15" diameter at breast height, with or without roots. Stumps to be either well - decayed relocated stumps, or cut live rootwads with a minimum of 3 feet of trunk. Stumps will be placed both upright and lying down. Additional habitat features can be placed within the mitigation areas only after specified quantities and sizes have been met. There will also be a bird nest box installed on each snag. Obiective D: Limit the amount of invasive and exotic species within the mitigation area. Performance Standard D1: After construction and following every monitoring event for a period of ten years, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover throughout the mitigation area. These species include Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, and creeping nightshade. Performance Standard D2: Per Corps requirements, after construction and following every monitoring event for a period of ten years, Japanese knotweed will be completely removed from the mitigation area. There will be 0% total cover of this species. 7.3. Grading and Hydrological Support On -site Wetlands Prior to grading, all of Wetland U and the proposed buffer areas, except for areas of significant native vegetation, will be cleared and grubbed to depth of 6-8 inches to remove the roots/rhizomes and seed bank of the non-native grasses, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry and other undesirable species. All cleared and grubbed vegetation will be exported from the project site to an approved dump location. The wetland creation, wetland enhancement and buffer areas will be graded per plan (Sheet W2.0). Uplands and Wetland U will be sub -excavated to depths approximately 2 1/2 feet below the existing land surface elevation to create a larger wetland basin with a range of hydrologic regimes. The proposed South 320th Place Plat is approximately 20-acres in size consisting of approximately 9.5 acres of impervious land (roads, building, driveways and sidewalks) area and 10.5 acres of pervious land (lawns, natural areas and landscape areas). The run off from this area is conveyed through a series of pipes to a combination detention/water quality pond in the southeast corner of the site. This pond was designed for Level 2 flow control and basic water quality treatment. This is in excess of current Federal Way standards which only required Level 1 flow control. That water quality portion of the wetpond was designed in accordance with the 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(30Oct08).doc Page 16 South 3200 Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for basic water quality treatment. This portion of the pond provided approximately 64,700 cubic feet of dead storage in two cells over a 3.5 depth for water quality treatment. This volume of water across the two cells of the wetpond provides ample residence time to settle out pollutants prior to discharging from the detention portion of the pond. Upon discharging from the pond, the stormwater is further treated and polished by flowing through the wetland mitigation area prior to discharging into the existing downstream conveyance pipe. The volume of water entering the wetland area is more than four times that entering the wetland under existing conditions. Soils on the project site are very dense, and infiltration rates were determined to be very low (on the order of 10-7 cm/sec). Therefore, water entering the wetland area will be lost only by evapo-transpiration (ET) and surface runoff, but not infiltration to any significant degree. Qualitative hydrological assessments were made by two geotechnical firms: AESI and Terra Associates. While both firms concluded that it is very unlikely the wetland would not experience 45 days of continuous soil saturation during the growing season of a normal spring, we are proposing a contingency measure to extend the hydro -period. This hydro -period supplement will involve construction of a reverse French drain in the buffer of the mitigation area (Sheet W2.0). This drain will receive rooftop and footing drain runoff from 11 adjacent homes and contribute this hydrology supplement to the wetland after the detention pond has released its stored volume following a storm. Please see appended "Supplemental Hydrology Support" prepared by Terra Associates, May 21, 2008 in Appendix E. A notched log weir will control the water elevation in the mitigation wetland to maintain the desired area of wetlands creation/enhancement. Excess flows will be routed to a Swale that will discharge into Wetland C. After clearing and grading is completed, a minimum of 9 inches of stockpiled topsoil (forest duff from site strippings) will be spread over the graded mitigation areas prior to planting. On -site Buffers In addition to the wetlands creation and enhancement described above, approximately 42,068 sf of wetland buffer area will be enhanced to reduce impacts from the site development, increase wildlife habitat value, and increase water quality protection to the wetlands. The enhanced buffer areas will be stripped of the existing non-native grasses and invasive weeds and regraded to create berms of varying topography to provide additional screening from the adjacent fire station and from S. 3201h St. Other enhancement measures will include: 1) planting the graded buffers with a wide variety of native trees and shrubs to increase both plant structural and species diversity and 2) the placement of large woody material to provide enhanced wildlife habitat diversity and value. or to minor rading, all areas of Wetlands X and Y, except for areas of significant native vegXh I be cleared and grubbed to depth of 6-8 inches to remove the roots/rhizomes and sof the non-native grasses, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry and other undeecies. All cleared and grubbed vegetation will be exported from the project site to an dump location. In the wetland rehabilitation area we found during our test plot explot this area had been obviously filled in the past and the underlying soils were peat. that shallow grading in this area will restore wetland functions to this area.Wetic ent measures include shallow grading in select areas, increase wetland specity; movai of invasive species; planting of native species, especially conifers; 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 17 South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan placement of large woody material in both wetlands and buffers; and increasing native species diversity in buffer areas (Sheets W4.0-4.1). 7.4. Plantings A variety of emergent species will be planted in the shallow ponded areas of the wetlands mitigation areas, and indigenous woody species will be planted around the perimeter and in the enhanced buffers (Sheets W3.0 and W4.1). Plant species have been chosen for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife, value as a physical or visual barrier, pattern of growth (structural diversity), and aesthetic values. Native tree, shrub, and herbaceous species were chosen to increase both the structural and species diversity of the mitigation areas, thereby increasing the area's value to wildlife for food and cover. Plant materials will consist of a combination of cuttings, bare -root specimens, and container plants (5-gal. containers for trees and 1-2-gal. containers for shrubs). 7.5. Habitat Features Snags, down logs, and stumps, will be incorporated into the mitigation areas to provide ecologically important habitat features for wildlife. All down woody material shall be coniferous species (western red cedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock, or Sitka spruce). Snags provide perching, feeding and nesting sites for a variety of native birds. Cavity nesting bird species, such as tree swallows, violet -green swallows, chickadees, and woodpeckers, would be expected to utilize such features. A bird -nesting box will be attached to each created snag to initially augment the natural habitat for swallow species. Down logs and stumps provide the slow release of nutrients as the wood decays, and also provide cover for amphibians, small mammals, and other wildlife. Boulders recovered from site excavation (if available) will be placed in small piles throughout the mitigation area. These piles can provide habitat for reptiles and small mammals. 7.6. Temporary Irrigation System An above ground temporary irrigation system capable of full head to head coverage of all planted areas will be provided or the on -site mitigation area. The temporary irrigation system shall either utilize controller and point of connection (POC) from the site irrigation system or shall include a separate POC and controller with a backflow prevention device per water jurisdiction inspection and approval. The system shall be zoned to provide optimal pressure and uniformity of coverage, as well as separation for areas of full sun or shade and slopes in excess of 5%. The system shall be operational by June 15 (or at time of planting) and winterized by October 15. Irrigation shall be provided for the first 2 years of the monitoring period. The irrigation system shall be programmed to provide 1/2" of water per week (one cycle with two start times per week or every three days). A chart describing the location of all installed or open zones and corresponding controller numbers shall be placed inside the controller and given to the owner's representative. In addition to the temporary irrigation system, a soil moisture retention agent will be incorporated into the backfill of planting pits to minimize the potential for plant desiccation in the mitigation areas. 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-Mi tP la n-8(300ct08). doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page 18 South 320ffi Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mi[iga�ion Plan 8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE Wetland Modification The City of Federal Way regulates the modification of wetlands under Section 22-1358 of its 2005 Land Use Code. Wetlands A and S are Category III wetlands and are not regulated under the current Federal Way City Code due to their small size. Section 22-1358(d) of the code stipulates that the City may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in land surface modification within a regulated wetland using Process IV and if the following nine criteria are met. Proposed modifications to Wetlands AA and U would satisfy each of these criteria as follows: It will not adversely affect water qualify_. Modifications to Wetland U will not adversely affect water quality, and Wetland AA currently has limited ability to provide water quality treatment. The proposed enhancements to Wetland U will provide additional treatment of water released into the wetland from the detention pond. Water quality improvement functions will be greatly improved over existing conditions. This increase is attributable to the potential of more organic material in the soil and the greater area of vegetative cover. 2. It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. Wetlands U and AA currently provide low habitat and biological support functions. Proposed mitigation measures will significantly enhance these functions (Table 5). 3. It will not adverse!y affect drains e or stormwater retention capabilities. Currently Wetlands AA and U have very limited stormwater retention capabilities. Following construction of the Stormwater Detention Pond, the stormwater retention capability of the mitigation Wetland U complex will be significantly increased, and will more than compensate for the minor amount of stormwater storage currently provided by Wetlands AA and U. The proposed enhancements to Wetland U will provide increased flood and stormwater control functions by providing a semi -constrained outlet and ponded areas, which is not now present in Wetland U. Similarly, the creation of ponded area is expected to increase baseflow and groundwater support functions. 4. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. The proposed modifications to Wetlands AA and U will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards. The proposed grades in the new Wetland U complex and buffer areas will be 5:1 or shallower in the wetland areas and 3:1 or less in the buffer areas. In addition, stormwater containment measures and the City of Federal Way Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to protect the water quality of wetlands from possible impacts during construction. 5 It will not be material!y detrimental to any other property in the area of the sub sect projoert nor to the city as a whole including the loss of significant open sace or scenic vista. Both Wetlands AA and U have been disturbed by past modification. Modifications to these wetlands associated with the proposed development will not be materially detrimental to any other property. Proposed mitigation measures will enhance the aesthetic value of the wetland and the surrounding buffer. 6. It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value. Approximately 14,356 sf of wetland creation is proposed for impacts to wetlands on the site; 3,517 sf of wetland enhancement is proposed on -site in Wetland U, 721 sf of wetland enhancement is proposed for Wetland C, and an additional 613 of wetlands rehabilitation 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 19 South 320`h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan and 22,886 of wetland enhancement is proposed off -site. All functions and values of the new Wetland U complex and both Wetlands X and Y are expected to significantly increase post -mitigation (Table 5). Habitat and water quality improvement functions are expected to increase most dramatically. In addition, approximately 42,068 sf of wetland buffer area will be enhanced to reduce impacts from the site development, increase wildlife habitat value, and increase water quality protection to the wetlands. 7. The proiect is in the best interest of the public health safety or welfare. Proposed modifications to on -site wetlands are necessary to provide a practical configuration for the proposed small lot demonstration residential development and required stormwater facilities within this urbanizing area. Residential development of the site is in compliance with the City of Federal Way's Zoning Code and the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. 8. The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory ca abilit to carry out the pMjact. The applicant and its consultants have constructed numerous successful wetland mitigation and restoration projects. The existing conditions within the proposed mitigation area (i.e., existing wetland conditions adjacent to the proposed wetland creation area and adequate hydrological support) do not suggest any constraints to the successful construction of this project. 9. The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to make corrections if the ro'ect falls to meet Proiected -goals. The applicant and its consultants are fully committed to monitoring the project to a successful conclusion. A qualified ecologist with experience in wetland monitoring will conduct all monitoring of the wetland mitigation area and all wetland and buffer restoration areas. A detailed mitigation monitoring, maintenance and contingency plan will be submitted with the final mitigation plan. Wetland Mitigation at Off -site Wetland Off -site mitigation of wetland impacts to Wetlands AA and U can be allowed under Section 22- 1358(e)(2) of the code provided the mitigation is within the same basin as the impacts, of in - kind wetland type and results in no net loss of wetland area, function and value. The proposed wetlands rehabilitation and enhancement of Wetlands X and Y is within the same basin as the impacts to Wetlands AA and U and will actually provide rehabilitation and enhancement to higher category wetlands then the wetlands being impacted. The impacted wetland, Wetland AA, was rated as a Category III wetland by both the City. Wetlands X and Y were rated as Category II wetlands by the City. Therefore, we are proposing to mitigate Category III impacts in Category II wetlands, thereby increasing a higher rated wetlands functions and values than the wetland being impacted. Wetland Rehabilitation The City of Federal Way regulates the rehabilitation of wetlands under Section 22-1358 of its 2005 Land Use Code. Section 22-1358(c) of the code stipulates that the director of community development may permit or require an applicant to rehabilitate and maintain a regulated wetland by removing detrimental material such as debris and inappropriate vegetation and by requiring that native vegetation be planted. The proposed rehabilitation and enhancement to Wetland X, in order to supplement mitigation ratios necessary to mitigate for impacts to Wetlands AA and U, will satisfy this criteria. As discussed under Section 7.0 and as determined with the post -construction functional value analysis, portions of Wetland X was obviously filled 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitP Ian-8(300ct08 ). doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page 20 South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan in the past and a variety of non- and native species have taken root in and adjacent to the wetland. We believe that shallow grading in this area will restore wetland functions to this area. In addition, Wetland X enhancement measures include shallow grading in select areas, increase wetland species diversity; removal of invasive species; planting of native species, especially conifers; placement of large woody material; and increasing native species diversity in buffer areas. Buffer Modification through Process IV Buffer modification is permitted through Process IV provided that the following conditions are met: 1. It will not adversely affect water quality; The modification of the buffer around Wetland U is in conjunction with the creation of a stormwater detention facility. This facility is designed to maintain water quality to the levels mandated by applicable stormwater management code. There will be no adverse affect to water quality resulting from the modification of the buffer. 2. It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; The current wetland and associated buffer is generally low in wildlife habitat. The mitigation for the proposed buffer modification will provide higher quality wildlife habitat than is currently present on site. 3. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; As with the response for Item 1 above, the modification of the buffer around Wetland U is in conjunction with the creation of a stormwater detention facility. There will be no adverse affect to drainage or stormwater retention capabilities of the wetland. 4. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; The modification of the buffer for Wetland U will be mitigated by planting a variety of native trees and shrubs. These plantings will help stabilize the soil and prevent erosion by intercepting precipitation and reducing the potential for mobilization of soil during significant rain events. The proposed buffer modification will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. 5. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space. The proposed buffer modification will be located exclusively on the subject property and will not affect any other properties in the area, private or public. Wetland U and its modified buffer will not reduce existing open space. The proposed buffer modification will not reduce the buffer by more than 50 percent and the maximum buffer reduction at any point will not be less than 25 feet. The existing and proposed buffer will be enhanced by planting with a variety of native trees and shrubs to improve buffer functions and values over what currently exists. 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitP I a n-8(300ct08 ). doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc Page 21 South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan 9.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT A pre -construction meeting will be held on -site to review and discuss all aspects of the mitigation project prior to any construction activity. The owner, as well as a City representative, will attend the meeting. Prior to commencement of any work by contractors in the mitigation area, the clearing limits will be staked and fenced. Silt fences will be installed at the clearing limits adjacent to sensitive areas at locations depicted on Sheets W2.0 and W4.0, and significant habitat features and vegetation to be retained will be clearly marked in the field. Areas will be designated for stockpiling of topsoil and habitat features. A wetland ecologist or landscape architect will regularly supervise plan implementation during construction to ensure that the objectives and specifications of the mitigation plan are met. Any significant modifications to the design that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances will be approved by the owner, the City, and Talasaea Consultants prior to their implementation. Stormwater containment measures and the City of Federal Way Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to protect the water quality of wetlands and streams from possible impacts. Implementing BMPs will act to minimize erosion and sedimentation and protect water quality within the wetlands and stream during storm events. Silt fences, straw bales, and other structures will be installed to slow runoff and remove suspended sediments during construction. BMPs to be implemented may include, but will not be limited to: site runoff containment, street sweeping, filter fabric fences, interceptor & rock -lined swales, catch basin inserts, straw bales and rock and check dams, rocked road entries, construction practices, covered stockpiles. Street sweeping will clean construction sediments from roads to minimize sediment -laden runoff into storm drains. Filter fabric fencing at the clearing limits will reduce over -ground stormwater sediment transport. Interceptor swales will divert construction runoff from sensitive areas to treatment facilities. Rock -lined swales will reduce the sediment loads in stormwater runoff. Catch basin inserts will act as sediment control during construction by removing sediment, oil and grease, and other pollutants adsorbed to sediments from stormwater. Straw bales placed in ditches will slow water down and catch sediment as stormwater leaves the construction site. Rocked road entries will minimize mud and sediment collection on roadways. Construction practices will include capping, covering, and stabilizing exposed soil before building. Other BMPs will be implemented, as appropriate. 9.1. Post -Construction Approval Following construction completion of both the grading and planting portions of the mitigation areas, Talasaea Consultants shall request in writing a final inspection by the City of Federal Way, to approve of the final grading, topsoil and habitat feature placement, and mulching before any planting is to occur. Talasaea Consultants shall also notify the City in writing when the planting is completed for a final site inspection and subsequent approval by the City. 9.2. Post -Construction Assessment Once construction is approved by the City, Talasaea Consultants shall conduct a post - construction assessment. The purpose of this assessment will be to establish baseline conditions for future monitoring. A Baseline Assessment report including "as -built' drawings will be submitted to all of the required agencies. The as -built plan set will identify and describe any 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 22 South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan changes in grading, planting or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. 10.0 MONITORING METHODS Performance monitoring of the mitigation areas will be conducted for a period of five years for the City of Federal Way and for a period of ten years for the Corps of Engineers. Monitoring events will be conducted according to the schedule presented in (Table 6). Reports will include sections detailing the methods used, results, analysis, and recommendations. Table 6. Proiected Calendar for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events Year Date Maintenance Review Performance Monitoring Report Due to Agencies BA* Winter/SpringWinter/Spring X X X 1 Spring X X X Fall X X X 2 Sprinq X X X Fall X X X 3 Spring X Fall X X X 4 Spring X Fall X X X 5 Spring X Fall X X X** 6 Spring X Fall 7 Spring X Fall X X 8 Spring X Fall 9 Sprinci X Fall 10 SpringSpling X X Fall X X*** * BA = Baseline Assessment following construction completion. ** Obtain final approval to facilitate bond release from the City of Federal Way (presumes performance criteria are met). *** Obtain final approval from the Corps (presumes performance criteria are met). 10.1. Reports Each monitoring report will include: a) panoramic photo -documentation, b) estimates of percent vegetative cover, plant survival and undesirable species, c) wildlife usage, d) water quality and hydrology, site stability, and soils, and e) an overall qualitative assessment of project success for the mitigation areas. If the performance criteria are met, monitoring for the City will cease at the end of year five, unless objectives are met at an earlier date and the City accepts the mitigation project as successfully completed. Monitoring will continue for the Corps/DOE through year ten. 10.2. Vegetation Permanent vegetation sampling points or transects will be established at selected locations to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same monitoring locations will be re -visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of the dominant species within the vegetative strata. A 30 October 2008 030-CARepo rt-MitP la n-8(300ct08). doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page 23 South 32& Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan qualified wetland ecologist will conduct all monitoring. Findings of plant survival and vigor will also be reported for each plant community. Stem density will be calculated by random placement of a minimum of ten permanent 250 sf quadrats within the mitigation area. All living woody stems (planted or native volunteer) within each quadrat will be counted and the density calculated by dividing the number of stems within the quadrat by the area of the quadrat. The average stem density for the mitigation area will be the mean value of the calculated stem densities divided by the number of quadrats. These permanent quadrats will be evaluated each year from Year 0 to Year 3. 10.3. Photo Documentation Locations will be established within the mitigation area from which panoramic photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi -quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Vegetation sampling plot and photo -point locations will be shown on a map and submitted with the baseline assessment report and yearly performance monitoring reports. 10.4. Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates observed in the wetland and buffer areas (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded during scheduled monitoring events, and at any other times observations are made. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 10.5. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Site Stability During each monitoring event, an assessment will be made of the water regime within the wetlands and buffer areas to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist. General observations will be made of the extent and depth of soil saturation or inundation. Water quality will be assessed qualitatively; unless it is evident there is a serious problem. In such an event, water quality samples will be taken and analyzed in a laboratory for suspected parameters. Qualitative assessments of water quality include: • oil sheen or other surface films, • abnormal color or odor of water, ■ stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, • turbidity, and • absence of aquatic fauna. Observations will be made on the stability of slopes in the mitigation areas. Any erosion or slumping of the slopes will be recorded and corrective measures will be taken. 11.0 MAINTENANCE (M) AND CONTINGENCY (C) Maintenance reviews will be performed according to schedule presented in Table 6 to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation area. Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation project. If there is a significant problem with achieving the performance standards, the Bond -holder shall work with the City to develop a Contingency 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 24 South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan Plan. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to: additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and location. Such Contingency Plan shall be submitted to City by December 31 of any year when deficiencies are discovered. Contingency will include many of the items listed below and would be implemented if the performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). • During year one, replace all dead plant material (M). • Water all plantings at a rate of 1" of water every week between June 15 — October 15 during the first year after installation, and for the first year after any replacement plantings (C & M). • Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goal and objectives of the enhancement plan, subject to Talasaea and agency approval (C). • Re -plant area after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C). • After consulting with City staff, minor excavations will be made to correct surface drainage patterns (C). • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, etc.) by manual or chemical means approved by The City of Federal Way. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval. All non-native vegetation must be removed and dumped off -site. (C & M). • Trees and shrubs should be weeded to the dripline and mulched to a depth of three inches (M). • Remove trash and other debris from the enhancement area twice a year (M) • Selectively prune woody plants to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M). • Repair or replace damaged structures including: boardwalk, fences, signs, or bird boxes (M). 12.0 PERFORMANCE AND MAINTENANCE BOND A performance and maintenance Bond will be posted with the City by the property owner to ensure the success of the mitigation plan. The amount of the bond shall equal 125% of the cost of the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period. 13.0 SUMMARY A critical areas study was conducted on a 19.12-acre site located in the City of Federal Way, Washington. Six wetlands, Wetlands A, AA, C, D, S, and U, were identified and delineated on or adjacent to the subject site, and two wetlands, ted orth Lake. Quadrant Homes is proposing to develop a subdivision consisting of 15 lots, including active and passive open space, roads, and stormwater detention facilities. The City is also requiring improvements to the north side of S. 3201h St. including an additional lane, planting strip, and sidewalk. The project has been carefully designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive areas, but some wetland fill is necessary to make the project financially feasible. 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page 25 South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan The project has been designed to avoid the high -quality Category II wetlands; however the project will impact all of the Category III and IV wetlands on the site. Total direct wetland impacts are 11,010 sf. Total indirect wetland impacts are 613 sf. Approximately 18,594 sf of wetlands creation/enhancement is proposed on the project site and a ditional 3 sf of wetlands rehabilitation and 22,886 sf of wetlands enhancement is propose of -site in and adjacent to Wetlands X and Y. A buffer modification is being requested t will provide an averaged 44.5-foot buffer around the new Wetland U complex and will mb e with the existing forested buffers associated with Wetlands C and D. All of the modifie Wetla U buffer and portions of the buffer for Wetland C will be restored/enhanced followi g site deve pment. Total on -site buffer enhancement proposed is 42,068 sf. 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitP Ian-8(300ct08 ). doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page 26 South 3201h Place Critical Areas Report & Final Wetland Mitigation Plan REFERENCES Cooke Scientific Services Inc. 2000. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM). Final Working Draft User's Manual. Cooke Scientific Services Inc. Seattle, WA. http://www.cookescientific.com/sam.htm 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 City Code, Section 22. 2005. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. King County GIS Center. 2006. GIS database. Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. December 5. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1998. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Update. Talasaea Consultants, Inc. November 20, 1998. Quadrant Residential North Federal Way, Washington Wetland Delineation And Study Report U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. June, 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (1973),. King County Area Soil Survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Issaquah Quadrangle. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. March Washington State Department of Ecology. 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance Wetlands Reconnaissance Study for Pipeline No. 5, City of Tacoma, 1989 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Page 27 South 320t" Place Critical Areas Report & Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan APPENDIX A Wetland Delineation Datasheets (Talasaea 1990, 2007, and 2008) 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-MitP Ian-8(30Oct08). doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Appendix A ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORNI 1 (Revised) Project/Site: So. 320"' Small Lot Development Demonstration Project TAL-030 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant Investicators: Richard Tveten Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) Is the area a ootential Problem Area (If needed, expl, VEGETATION Yes Yes on reverse)? No Date: 10/6/07 County: King State: Washington Community ID: Upland near Wetland-U TransectID: Plot ID: TP-1 Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Black cottonwood T 60% FAC Douglas Fir T 20% FACU Himila an blackberry S 70% FACU ` Dominant Percent of dominantspecies that are OBL. FACK or FAC 33% Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: Area was previously (perhaps 70 years ago) graded and cut down to till Ran. Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water n/a Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ❑ No Depth to free water >16" Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Depth to saturated soil 10" ❑ Other (explain): Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Water marks ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ Drift lines ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Other ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: SOILS Map unit name Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0-6% slopes Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonom (subgroup) mappedtype? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth Munsell moist (Munsell moist) J etc 0-14" 10YR 2/2 n/a Gravelly loam 14-16" 10YR 6/1 10YR 5/6 20% Gravelly sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Reducing conditions 71 Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: Wetland hydrology present? Yes Hydric soils present? No ❑ Matrix chroma :52 with mottles ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Other ( ) ric soil not in top 12" Is this sampling No point within a wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORivI 1 (Revised) Project/Site: So. 320 Small Lot Development Demonstration Project TAL-030 I Date: 10/6/07 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant County: King Investigators: Richard Tveten State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Wetland U Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) Yes Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area (If needed, explain on reverse)'' No Plot ID: TP-2 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Carex obnu to H 20% OBL Juncus effusus H 70% FACW Black cottonwood T 10% FAC h Dominant Percent of dominantspecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100% Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: Site was cleared and graded down to till an (perha s 70 Xears ago). Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water n/a Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ❑ No Depth to free water 11" Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Depth to saturated soil 8" ❑ Other (explain): Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Water marks ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ Drift lines ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Other Drainage patterns in wetland Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: SOILS I Map unit name Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0-6% slopes Drainage class f (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm { Taxonomy (subgroup) mapped type? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth Munsell moist Munsell moist etc 0-8" 10YR 2/2 None Grevell loam 8-15" 10YR 3/1 None Gravel) loam sand Sandy gravellyloam 15-16"+ 10YR 5/1 10YR 3/6 10% Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma :52 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ® GI e ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Is this sampling Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes point within a Hydric soils present? Yes wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERINIINATION DATA FORIM 1 (Revised) Project/Site: So. 320 Small Lot Development Demonstration Project TAL-030 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant Investigators: Bill Shiels Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area (If needed_ , explain on reverse)? No VEGETATION Date: 2/14/90 County: King State: Washinoton Community ID: Wetland -A TransectID: Plot ID: TP-3 Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator l Status Moss H 95% NI Alnus rubrus T 15% FAC Western buttercup H 5% FACW Dominant Percent of dominantspecies that are 06L, FACW, or FAC 20% Criterion Met? No I Rationale/Remarks: Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities 171 Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water n/a Depth to free water 4" Depth to saturated soil surface Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Criterion Met? Yes � Rationale/Remarks: Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ❑ Other (explain): Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other SOILS Map unit name Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0-6% slopes Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic Durochrepts mapped type? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) _ etc 0-14" 5YR 3/4 n/a Gravelly loam Hydric Soil Indicators ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Gleved or low chroma Criterion Met? Yes ❑ Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Other ( ) ==matrix Rationale/Remarks: Mottles, water level to near surface WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: Although vegetation criterion was not met, Is this sampling Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes mottled soils, hydrology, topography and spiraea nearby point within a Hydric soils present? Yes suggest wetland conditions. wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERiVIINATION DATA FORINI 1 (Revised) Project/Site: So. 320 Small Lot Development Demonstration Project TAL-030 Date: 2/14/90 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant County: King Investigators. Bill Shiels State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland near Wetland -A Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) Yes Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area ff needed, explain on reverse ? No Plot ID: TP-4 _ VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Rubus discolor S 40% NI Alnus rubrus T 80% FAC Western buttercup H 10% FACW ' Dominant Percent of dominantspecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 50% Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water n/a Depth to free water 2-3" Depth to saturated soil surface Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland 11 Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: SOILS Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ❑ Other (explain): Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other Map unit name Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0-6% slopes Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic Durochrepts mapped e? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth Munsell moist Munsell moist) etc 0-14" 5YR 4/3 n/a Gravelly loam 4 Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma (=1) matrix Criterion Met? No 1 Rationale/Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Marginal, but w/o mottles 71sthis sampling No Wetland hydrology present? Yes point within a Hvdric soils present? No wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERiVIINATION DATA FORNI 1 (Revised) Project/Site: So. 320 Small Lot Development Demonstration Project TAL-030 Date: 2/14/90 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant County: King lnvesticgators' _ Bill Shiels State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Wetland-C Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area If needed, ex lain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP-5 _ VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status S iraea dou lasii S 60% FACW Tsu a hetero h lla T 5-10% FAC Carex obnu to H 20% OBL Gaultheria shallong S NI ` Dominant Percent of dominantspecie s that are OBL, FACW, or FAC >50% Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water Depth to free water Depth to saturated soil close to ground surface n/a surface Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ❑ Other (explain): Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Water marks ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ Drift lines ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Other ❑. Drainage patterns in wetland Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: SOILS Map unit name Seattle Muck Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) Saprist mappedtype? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) etc 0-14" 10YR 2/1- I Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Is this sampling Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes point within a Hvdric soils present? Yes wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERINIINATION DATA FORM I I (Revised) Project/Site: So. 320 Small Lot Development Demonstration Project TAL-030 I Date: 2/14/90 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant County: King Investigators: Bill Shiels State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland near Wetland-C Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area (if needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP-6 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Gaultheria shallop S 90% Po! stichum munitums H 10% Tsu a hetero h lla T 20% FAC Dominant Percent of dominantspecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC <50% Criterion Met? No I Rationale/Remarks: Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water n/a Depth to free water 2-3" Depth to saturated soil surface Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators. ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits Met? Yes SOILS in wetland Rationale/Remarks: Is it the growing season? ❑ Yes ❑ No Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) ❑ Other (explain): Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other Map unit name Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0-6% slopes Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) mappedtype? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, De_oth Munsell moist Munsell moist etc 0-14" 10YR 2/2 n/a Gravelly loam Hydric Soil Indicators: I ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma [2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? No I Rationale/Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: Is this sampling No Wetland hydrology present? Yes point within a Hydric soils present? No wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERINIINATION DATA FORINI 1 (Revised) Project/Site: TAL-030 Date: 03-27-08 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant NW County: King Invesfi ators: DIRT State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland near Wetland AA Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area (If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP-7 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Alnus rubra T 10 FAC Populus balsamifera var. trichocar a* T 20 FAC Oelmeria cerasiformis* S 30 FACU Rubus laciniatus* S 40 FACU+ Rubus s ectabilis S 20 FAC+ I Dominant Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 50% Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: Dominantspecies are not greater than 50% FAC, FACW, or OBL Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Ej Technical literature ❑ Other (explain] HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water - Depth to free water 13.5" Depth to saturated soil 11.5 Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: Gro SOILS Map unit name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Series and phase) Taxonomy (subgroup) Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors 0 7" 7"-18" Hydric Soil Indicators: (Munsell moist)_ (Munsell moist) 10YR 3/3 10YR 3/2 Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ® Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): Time of year Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other below 12". Saturation not assumed to the surface. Drainage class Field Observations confirm mapped type? Yes Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc Sandy loam Sandy loam Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma s2 with mottles Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) Gle ed or low chroma =1) matrix IL Criterion Met? No WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Wetland hydrology present? No Hydric soils present? No e/Remarks: High chroma indicates upland conditions. Remarks: No indications of wetland hydrology or soils. Is this sampling No point within a f wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Project/Site: TAL-030 Date: 03-27-08 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant NW County: King Investigators: DIRTState: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes _ Community ID: Wetand AA Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP-8 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Populus balsamifera var T 50 Status FAC Alnus rubra T 10 Status FAC frichocar a * Crafae us dou lash' S 20 FAC Oemleria cerasiformis* S 30 FACU Rubus s ec[abilrs FAC+ S iraea dou lasii* S 40 FACW Pol stichum munifumrE:�� H5 FACU ' Dominant Percent of dominantspecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 75% Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: Dominantspecies greater 50% FAC, FACW, or OBL Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: -than ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Technical literature ❑ Other explain HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water 1" Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Depth to free water -1 Based on: ® Soil temp (record temp) Depth to saturated soil 0 ® Other (explain): Time of year Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ® Inundated ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ® Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ElWater-stainedleaves El Water marks [I❑ Local soil survey data Drift lines ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Other ® Drainage patterns in wetland Lvi i{-1 Wi I rvlVL 1 CJ rcanonaie�K SOILS Map unit name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Series and phase) Profile Description: Depth 0-101, Hydric Soil Indicators: El El Matrix colors I Mottle colors Munsell moist Munsell moi 10YR 3/1 - Histosol Histic epipedon Sulfidic odor Aquic moisture regime Reducing conditions GIs ed or low chroma =1 Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Re WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes Hydric soils present? Yes dation. Positive indications of wetland h drolo Drainage class Field Observations confirm mapped type? Yes Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc Sandy loam ❑ Matrix chroma <_2 with mottles ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Other( ) matrix arks: Low chroma indicates wetland conditions. Remarks: Positive indications of wetland vegetation, Is this sampling Yes hydrology, and soils. l point within a wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERINIINATION DATA FORM I (Revised) Project/Site: AL-030 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant Investigators: DIRT Date: 05-14-08 County: King State: Washing Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes f Community ID: Upland near Wetland X Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No I Transect ID: Is the area a eotential Problem Area (If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID:_ SL-1 VF(;FTATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Acermacro h llum T 5 FACU Alnus rubra T 5 FAC Po ulus balsamifera var frith. * T 20 FAC Rubus discolor* S 20 FACU Oemleria cerasiformis S 5 FACU Trifolium re ens* H 20 FAC- Geum macro h Hum H 1 5 FAC+ Festuca rubra* H 60 1 FAC+ Dominant Percent of dominantspecies that are OBI-, FACW. or FAC 50% Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: Dominantspecies not Qreater than 50% FAC, FACW, or OBL. Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Morphological adaptations E7 Technical literature HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water - Depth to free water >17' Depth to saturated soil >17" ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ® Wetland plant database ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Other (explain) Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ® Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): Time of year Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Water marks ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ Drift lines ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Other ❑ Drainage atterns in wetland Criterion Met? No _ Rationale/Remarks: No indications of wetland hytiro1o9y.__ SOILS Map unit name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Series and phase) Taxonomv (subgroup) Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Depth 1 (Munsell moist) (Munsell moi 0-3" fl 10YR 2/2 - 3"=17" 10YR 4/3 - Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Glued or low chroma (=1) matrix Drainage class Field Observations confirm mappedtype? No Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc Sandv loam ravelly sand. ❑ Matrix chroma s2 with mottles ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Other ( ) Met? No I Rationale/Remarks: Hiqh chroma indicates upland conditions WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: No indications of wetland vegetation, Is this sampling No Wetland hydrology present? No hydrology, or soil. Soil contains medium cobble. point within a Hydric soils present? No wetland? ROUTINE `VETLAIND DETERMINATION DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Project/Site: TAL-030 Date: 05-14-08 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant County: King Investigators: DIRT _ State: Washincton Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: 'Nelland X Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area (If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: SL-2 _ VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Po ulus balsamifera var frith. * T 40 FAC Thu'a licata* T 20 FAC S iraea dou lasii* S 20 FACW Juncus effusus* H 10 FACW Veronica serpyllifolia H <2 FAC * Dominant Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100% Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: Dominantspecies greater than 50% FAC, FACW, or OBL. L:hecK all Hydrophytic vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: Li Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ® Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water - Depth to free water 10" Depth to saturated soil 0 Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ® Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ® Drainage oatterns in wetland Is it the growing season? ®Yes ❑ No Based on: ® Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): Time of year Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ® Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other 11 Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: Surface 4" were saturated, water entering aDDroximately 10" below surface, SOILS Map unit name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) mappedtype? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist etc 0-4" 10YR 4/1 - Coarse sand 4"-16" 10YR 4/3 - Very ravel) sand Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma 52 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gleyed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? No I Rationale/Remarks: High chroma above 12" indicates upland conditions. WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Perched water on surface and at 10". Area on Is this sampling No Wetland hydrology present? Yes cusp of being a wetland. point within a Hydric soils present? No wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERNIINATION DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Project/Site: TAL-030 Date: 05-14-08 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant County: King Investigators: DIRT State: Washin tan Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Wetland X Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area (If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: SL-3 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Thu'a plicata* T 90 FAC Po ulus balsamifera var trick. T <2 FAC Cornus sericea* S 20 FACW S iraea dou lasii* S 20 FACW Ranunculus re ens H 10 FACW Gaultheria shallon S 10 FACU ' Dominant Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100% Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: Dominantspecies greater than 50% FAC, FACW, or OBL. Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ® Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water - Depth to free water 14" Depth to saturated soil 0 Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ® Drainage patterns in wetland Criterion Met? Yes f Rationale/Remarks SOILS Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ® Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): Time of year Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required) ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other Positive indications of wetland hydrology. Map unit name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) mapped type? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) etc 0-3" 10YR 2/2 - - Topsoil 3"-14" 10YR 4/1 - Loamy sand Peat 1411+ Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma _<2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle_ jed or low chroma =1 . matrix Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: Low chroma indicates wetland conditions. \AIC-r ALIM P1rT-I�1 wvr_ 1 Lli1VLJ WC I CIMIMNIA I IVIV Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Positive indications of wetland vegetation, Is this sampling Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes hydrology, and soil. Existence of peat layer @ 14" point within a Hydric soils present? Yes suggests fill was placed on site. wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Project/Site: TAL-030 Date: 05-14-08 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant County: King Investigators: DIRT State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland near Wetland X Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area (If needed, explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: SL-4 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Tsu a hetero h Ila' T 20 FACU+ Thu'a plicata T 10 FAC Pseudotsu a menziesii' T 40 FACU Gautheria shal/on` S 70 FACU Dominant Percent of dominantspecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 0% Criterion Met? No.1 Rationale/Remarks: Dominantspecies not greater than 50% FAC, FACW, or OBL. Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ® Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water - Depth to free water >18" Depth to saturated soil >18" Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits Criterion Met? No SOILS Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ® Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): Time of year Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other Rationale/Remarks: No indications of wetland h Map unit name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) mappedtype? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth Munsell moist) Munsell moist) etc 0-5" 10YR 2/1 - - Organic topsoil 5"-18" 2.5Y 3/2 10YR 3/6 Common fine Gravelly sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ® Matrix chroma :52 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: Low chroma with mottles indicates wetland conditions. WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: No indications of wetland vegetation or Is this sampling No Wetland hydrology present? No hydrology. Soil likely fill material point within a Hydric soils present? Yes wetland? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Project/Site: TAL-030 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant Investicators: DIRT Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Is the area a potential Problem_ Area (If needed, explain on reverse)? No VEGETATION Date: 05-14-08 County: King State: Washinciton Community ID: Wetland X TransectID: Plot ID: SL-5 Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Po ulus balsamifera var (rich. * -T T 20 FAC S iraea dou lasii* S 40 FACW Trifolium re ens H 10 FAC- Rumex cris us H <2 FAC+ * Dominant Percent of dominantspecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 100% Criterion Met? Yes RatlonalelRemarks: J Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ® Technical literature ❑ Other (explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water 0 Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Depth to free water 6" Based on: ® Soil temp (record temp) Depth to saturated soil 0 ® Other (explain): Time of year Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ® Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ® Drainage patterns in wetland Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): [I Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other Criterion Met? Yes N Rationale/Remarks: Water enterinE@LqL Slight surface pon SOILS Map unit name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) mapped type? Yes Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth Munsell moist Munsell moist) etc 0-3" 10YR 2/1 Topsoil 3"-6" 2.5Y 3/2 2.5Y 4/4 Few coarse Sand 6"-7" 2.5Y 4/1 - Gravelly sand 711+ 2.5Y 3/2 10YR 4/6 Few coarse Gravelly sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ® Matrix chroma :52 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ® Gle ed or low chroma =1 matrix Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: Low chroma indicates wetland conditions. WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Positive indications of wetland vegetation, Is this sampling Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes hydrology, and soil, point within a Hydric soils present? Yes wetland? ROUTINE `VETLAIND DETERMINATION DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Project/Site: TAL-030 Date: 05-14-08 Applicant/Owner: Quadrant County: King Investigators: DIRT State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland near Wetland X Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area If needed. _explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: SL-6 _ VEGETATION Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Plant species Stratum % Cover Indicator Status Alnus rubra* T 50 FAC Pseudotsu a menziesii* T 30 FACU Cratae us mono na S 10 FAC- S iraea dou lasii S 10 FACW Rubus ursinus* S 20 FACU Oemleria cerasiformis* S 40 FACU * Dominant Criterion Met? No Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC 25% I Rationale/Remarks: Dominant species not greater than 50% FAC, FACW, or OBL Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ❑ Morphological adaptations F� Technical literature HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water - Depth to free water >10" Depth to saturated soil >10" Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ❑ Inundated ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water marks ❑ Drift lines ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ® Wetland plant database ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Other (explain) Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Based on: ® Soil temp (record temp) ® Other (explain): Time of year Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators (minimum 2 required): ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water -stained leaves ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Other Criterion Met? No V Rationale/Remarks: No indications of wetland hvdroloov. SOILS Map unit name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Drainage class (Series and phase) Field Observations confirm Taxonomv (subgroup) mapped type? Yes Profile Description Matrix colors Mottle colors I Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, concretions, structure, Depth Munsell moist (Munsell moist) etc _ 0-Z 10YR 2/2 - - Topsoil 2°+ 10YR 3/3 - - Very ravel) sand Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma s2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions j❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime ❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions ❑ Other ( ) ❑ Gle ed or low chroma (=1) matrix Criterion Met? No . Rationale/Remarks: High chroma indicates upland conditions T WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? No Remarks: No indications of wetland vegetation, Is this sampling No Wetland hydrology present? No hydrology, or soil. Soil heavily gravelled and extremely point within a Hydric soils present? No hard to dig. I wetland? South 320`h Place Critical Areas Report & Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan APPENDIX B Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Version 2 (July 2006) 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(30Oct08).doc Appendix B Wetland name or number. WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (if known): 7L'D3y (Ve- 44" Date of site visit:, I -L3—t1? Rated by ti' Trained by Ecology? YesjNo_ Date of training/ SEC: I J TWNSHP: 22hV RNGE: L _ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ Ng Map of wetland unit: Figure _ Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV - Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Cateizory IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Z I S— z_3 0 Wetland Unit lies Special, ; Cl aractof,—f ics' W:etland HGM Class used #or Ratin' Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Cfieek' List forWetlandsThat i' A-y Need Additional Protection YES N-0 i addition `to the rotectivn recommended`for'is cafe or ) SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitatfor any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the HydrogeomoMhic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number A Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being. rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case,'idendfy which hydrologic criteria in questions ]=7 apply 'and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO — Co to 2� YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Gr dwater--an urface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO — o YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 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? 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 � _�Jf ter and less than 1 foot deep). �I O -got �—YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number U'_ 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 two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is notflooding. Iooding. - go t YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. �f— - -- NO — go to ES — The wetland class is Depressional } 7. Is the entire we located in a ve flat are ith-no-abyfaus 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 clases. 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 your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the 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. 3}iGM Classes K7ith n. the ivetlarKd.•unii liein r.,uted . - . HGM Class to -Use in:Ratin .-: Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still 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. Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number D: Depre_ssional and Flans Wetlands Points NEATER QUALITY _FUNCTIONS - .Indicators that the wetland unit functions to (only S scare . improve water quality per. ") D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 Qf ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide hoto or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) D YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure _ This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out D sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition S out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > '/z total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of N dro eriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants cottsing from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 / Add score to table on . I (J Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number A— D Depressional and Flats: Wetlands Points HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS Ipdicatclrs,thak the wetland unit functions to tan}y i score reduce flaodin and stream de adatxo.n pcr box) D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlei) points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanentlyflowing treat unit as "intern ittently flowing') Unit has an unconstricted. or sliehtly constricted. surface outlet (nermanenth; flowinz) points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dty). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 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 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit 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 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 unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above .� D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the o o� to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Z Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number R Fiverine.and Fresh=water Tidal Fringe Wetlands Faints WATER [C.IALITY FUNCTIONS-- lndicators that wetlaftd functions Co:iiiripro watery Per box) i,' R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep.52) R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments Figure during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 If depressions > '/z of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland points = 2 No depressions 2resent points = 0 R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure -_- Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or ma2 showing ❑I . ons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above I s R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 7 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number R a and• Freshwater Tidal Firi ge W&lands :: Paints .Riverit HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS = T idicators that; �i&Fand flirictioris`` Q reduxe (file swre per box), floo- dln •.and-stT6�m e%05ion R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width ofstream between banks), If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5 - <10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 - <5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure large woody debris as 'forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for- the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing of ons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above 1 1 R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the oRportuni to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. — There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 8 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number L Lake -fringe' Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FliI�CTIQIR S - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to 'Only rscore �z; . ; . r,cr box}, iin rove.water ualit L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Figure Vegetation is more than 33ft (10m) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description: Figure --- that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understony in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with poly. ons of different vegetation t oes L Add the points in the boxes above 1 r w L L 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity, to improve water quality? (see p.6I) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the'sources ofpollutants. A unit nniay have pollutants comingfrom several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2 Add score to table on D. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number L '' • '`` Lake=frift e XVetIands �' < , ' {<�� u�`i Points HYDROLOGIC FUNCTl(Id `.=' 16di�kors that (he we, iIaT) j unit funet: ons to .oar > O'X) reduce;sha elite erosion L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (seep.62) L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) • 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (l Om) wide points = 6 > 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 >'/4 distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or ria2 with Cowardin vicetation classes L Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity, to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. — There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion --- Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Figure (see p.63) multiplier Wetland name or number . olilts 5 Slope Weda.nd5 P WATER QUALITY Ft"IQCTIONS. -.Indicators that the wetland unit functions to (IfIv 19 ore iiri C Ve, Vl+ t � U31f PC.- box) S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is % or less (a 1 % slope has a I foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1 % - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points. NO = 0 points S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Figure Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > '/2 of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo ormap with vegetation polygons S Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep.67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming fi•orir several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington ] ] August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number S S S S S S oj]e Wetlands ��_; ;j;•. �.h'r .r� e3� .�. _�y :'•T;�; {; s�{•F�...: •� z. �rl{;��'�}�i;� s Points HYI7PLL3LC]C IC 1 L NCTIe1i�'S Indtcatorz that �lte wetland uziit farictI ns to S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (sterns ofplants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during sui face flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid points_ = 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES points = 2 _ NO points = 0 Add the points in the boxes above S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e,g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 12 August 2004 version 2 (see p. 68) l I f(,—,e-. 70) multiplier Wetland name or number 4` 7"hese questions apply to wetlands of all HGM ciasses. Poilni (only,] score HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that uilit.funtrjans. tv provide iril.porlant habitat' per:bvx] H 1. Does the wetland unit have the pntential to provide habitat for many species? H L i Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure --- Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is % acre or more than 10% of the ai=ea if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants V Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) 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 Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. Yyou have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = I 1 structure 2oints = 0 H 1.2. Hydroneriods (seep. 73) Figure _-- Check the types of water regimes (h))droperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for descriptions of h),droperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 CD Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 Y 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 wedaird = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) 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) 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 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 G < 5 species points = 0 Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1. 1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. 0 f None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "hiizh". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number ofpoints you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (1 Om) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey brown) At least '/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation 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 each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat I � I Add the scores /'rani H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4. H1.5 -: —— Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number l- H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for- definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > ✓50% circumference. Paints = 4 — 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >950/0 circumference. Points = 4 — 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 in (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial r)hoto showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES =1 point NO = 0 points Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number, H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These ar-e DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there ar-e any questions. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 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. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages on white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where Ore coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi - enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearbv wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within ''/z mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development, points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within '/z mile points = 5 L� There are at least 3 other wetlands within %z mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within''/z mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within ''/z mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within'/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores roin H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 3 Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on I s P. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number n CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the a ro riate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = CateEory I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (1/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a UII Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 1/4 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 2 of the following features; tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO k not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No,Y— Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the 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/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. Cat. I YES = Category I NO Lriot a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) 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 surface 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 NOY not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets 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 invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least 1/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. + Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II I Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO ). not an interdunal wetland for rating Ifyou answeryes you will still need to rate the wetland based oil its 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 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Cho'ose,the: ''Fziglzest " ratingg.;if i ?en trtd falls into several c°ateaor IVs, and i=ecnrd on P. 'lf you:answered. NO for a]I t es enter "Not -Applicable" i n":' �. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (if known): L &3 10 sir, I Date of site visit: Rated by rjW Trained by Ecology? Yes No_ Date of training SEC: _ TWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV Category I =Score >=70 Score for Water Quality Functions Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions Cateaory IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit M a I Wetland Unit has Special.. Characteristics W,etland.HG!1I Class °tr:, used fQr Kafiri Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Sloe �( Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above I W Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form — western Washington I August 2004 version 2 V Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Checklist for_'4Vetla.nds That ?V#a '"Need,Additiona.l Protection �,.[ YES NU. .. .. `- f�Yy -y'�3' ..fir r'..P." il• .. in addition to the ratection recommended 'for'ifs ,cate a ry SP 1. Has the tivetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitatfor and) State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the tivetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFWfor the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To comvlete the next art of the data sheet you will need to determine the HvdrogeonioMhic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question'do not apple to the'entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit `�jth multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify= which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go-to.Question S. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the fauns for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 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 both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO —go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the e �e wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? l wetland is on a slope (slope can be veiygradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually copi6s. from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without tstinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Su7face water does not pond in these ope of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than ]foot deep). NO - go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number &- 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 two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is _�tf l�dirt�i INTO - go to 6 'YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the yeaT. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the �� - NO — go to 7 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetly at area with pQ b ious 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 clases. 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 your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the 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. HGIY.(:C'liisses.withiii,tlre t�vetTiind unit;beiri :rated;s;"�'Hf-rsY�Class"�o:Use::iit-Ratin Slope + Riverine Riverine Slo e + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still 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. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number AL D ; rq's onO'kid FiatsV4etards Pa`intsDe WATER Q,i7ALITY FUNCTIONS - hadicatbrs.that the ),v' rnd il?lit fi�riction to fe^.�Y,� score er qua IFi7 i3.Ve watlt . Pcr.box): D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure --- Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanentlyflowing) points = 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittentl))flowing') Provide photo or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) D YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average.condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > '/2 total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of H dro eriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions Provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coating from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 �3 Add score to table on D. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number D. Depressional and Flats Wetlands Points HYDROLOGIC FU IC.TIONS - Indicators that the_werland unit functions to (°°ly'•5C0Cc bax) reduce floodir laind,stream' de radation W D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and, erosion? (see p.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlei) points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing ") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet ermanendv flowing) points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height ofponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units With no outlet measure from the surface ofpermanent water or deepest part (f dr)). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 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 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft Roints = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstremn basin contributing surface water to the ivetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 3 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 unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 �! D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above — D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Other t YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number R Riverine and 'Freshwater.Tidal Fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS. - In icators that wetland functions to iznpior e :,'waf'er'uaity R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 If depressions >'/z of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showinq polvgons of different vegetation tvoes R Add the points in the boxes above R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants conning from several sources, but any single source would quali)5, as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland Points (only I scorc per ba ; ) (see p.52) Figure --- Figure --- (see p.53) — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington version 2 Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 Add score to table on A. I August 2004 Wetland name or number R `- Rivuine azi:d Firesh�water Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points HYDRDI,C2GIC;, U-NC'I lnlicatai s that wetland : uiictirins :fo zedu�e �apiv i scare flobdui atid_StTet71 eTflS]QF1 R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average ividth ofstream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5 - <10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 - <5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial Rhoto or map showing avers e widths R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial hoto or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the ooeyortunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply, — There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. — There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R ! TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 8 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number L Lake=frince Wetlands - Points WATER Q,V-ALITY FU CTIONS indicators tint t the weflaiid`i nit' furicf a s [o' ' •'' '; f°n'.y-i score. `ini rove water,qua 1) L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep.59) L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes: Figure ___ Vegetation is more than 33ft (I Om) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description Figure that results in the highest points, and do not include and, open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the donziriant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest conzn7uni0j. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit., but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with polybons of different ve etation types L Add the points in the boxes above W r L L 2. Does the wetland have the ❑mortunity to improve water quality? (see p.61)~ Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the'sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants conzing from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Ll by L2 Add score to table on D. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 y Wetland name or number L Lake-ffinbe.,:.Wetla>ads Paints HYDROLOGIC FU C t•_ t t't et an unit functions to ftlr.i 5`an N T ON8 Inciica ors lia l ` yox) ,. ;u7. retluce ski�xeluie`erosion'' L ' L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.62) L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) > 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (l Om) wide points = 6 > 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 >'/4 distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (1 Om) wide points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes L Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the 000portunity to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. — There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washineton 10 August 2004 version 2 Figure _— (see p.63) multiplier Wetland name or number S Slope Wetlands :':..�;,:. .:points 1t':1TER QUALITY FUNC'I IONS - ln6icators that the wetland unit fun�t oris to s,. rily'-score Per box) - improve; water' uali S IS 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope isl% or less (a 1 % slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 f horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1 % - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points NO = 0 2oints S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation nneans),ou have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants ar-e higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation >'/z of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerialooto or map with vegetation of ons S Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or'surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming fr-onn several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunio,. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 11 version 2 Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 Add score to table on P. 1 August 2004 Figure (see p. 67) multiplier f Wetland name or number 5 SIapQ'W iilaflds Poftits HYDRDLQCrIC,FLTI�CTiON' S' Indicators that -the wetland un it fhndtions to terjr l scorn ;. reduce fl'oodid"' Ahd stream erosion:. S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream (see p•68) erosion? S S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (stems ofplants should be thick enough (usually > 118in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES points = 2 NO points = 0 S Add the points in the boxes above S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other (Answer NO if the major source of water• is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 12 version 2 August 2004 f 1 L — — — — I(seep. 70) multiplier Wetland name or number T liese, r�uestioizs apply to wetlaiirs of aIt HGII� clas'ses.. Points HABITAT FUNCTIONS = Indicafars that unit fun- ctioris-to=provide. important habitat �hly.l Scare pubox) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the ote�ntiai to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Veetation structure (seep. 72) Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is '14 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants V Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) 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 Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. Ifyou have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hvdroperiods (seep. 73) Figure ___ Check the o pes of water regimes (h))droperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 1( Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 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 ►vetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft-. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do n.ot include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, pacrple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below ifyou ivant to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 . i . . S. . i .. LI Wetland name or number Vim• H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. 0. (*) D 0i, None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The nuniber of checks is the number ofpoints you put into the next colunin. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (1 Om) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least'/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less that 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat ; Add the scores fi•om H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Comments Wetland Rating Form — westem Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number. H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >951/o circumference. Points = 4 — 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 251/0 circumference, . Points = 3 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showin❑ buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian cor-r-idors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page L] Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Vdetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE.- the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. X Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 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. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. VUrban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a L corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi - enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If Nvetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not Included in this list. Atearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within''/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within''/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within % mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within '/2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores fi-cm H2. I.H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number ,� CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply,to the wetldhd; Cii=cle the Category when the appropriate criteria are nset. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I 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 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a UII Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least'/4 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 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 18 Aueust 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact PYNHPIDMR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO �r� not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its fu nctiolns. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous coven)? 2. YES = Category I No V Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number tI_ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the 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/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO,_not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) 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 surface 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 NOV not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets 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 invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least'/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Cat. II Wetland name or number 4, SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 N0'X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you fvill still heed to rate the tivetland based on its f llictions. 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 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Chara.cteriAcs.; Ch6ose the "Jiiglt st" rating ti;:etic izd fglls i��ro':eevercrl`cuiegories, i 3nd record on If" ou: answ!i !red Na for all types: enter Not pplicabfe; _ on ]),I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 AUEllst 2004 version 2 Cat. III Wetland name or number WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users � I Name of wetland (if known): �-�� k [1 ,Z & Date of site visit: Rated by L) i71 Trained by Ecology? Ye?No Date of training �{ SEC: 0 TWNSHP: 901 RNGE: t-/E- Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No eX Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size ------ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III-,L IV. Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit 0 Wetland Ufift has Spec,lal Charactersfres - Wetland HGlvl Class used for Rating Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form — western Washington I August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for NVetlands That ,M'tav Feed Additional Protection YES N� in additionv_the rvtectinn� lr-ecommerided for_its cafe ar ) SP 1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for- any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To cony lete the next art of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hvdrozeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number _C Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington if the hydrologic criteria listed in eacli 'question do not apply to. the. entire Unit being. . rated. you probably:have a unit with.tnultiple HUM classes. In this case, identify.ryhich hydrolo is criteria iiz`questions:177 apply,, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 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 — YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the e e wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? h-wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), e 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 inct banks. he water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these O)pe of wetlands except occasionally in ve7y small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less e_ NO - go to 5 __,YE — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number 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 two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO - go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, 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 clases. 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 your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the 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. H-GM Classes within,the.wetland'�ura t';bein ;raied=;.'.;::, •::: ;: ; .H.-GM Glass to' -Use i R.. atiri Slo e + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still 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. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number ' Depressivnal: a." Fiats We>1:Ian S Points nJ iy i s WATER QU:kLITY,F.LINCTIONS = Ihdicatflr that'tlie' wetlah& : it functions to (o"core im roVe:;u�ater 4iiali..:: per box) D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure ___ Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanentl)lflowing) points = 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 — (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as 'intermittentl);flowing') Provide ph6to or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS _ - definitions) D YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure _ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 -- Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Mao of Cowardin vegetation classes DIA Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > '/2 total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is >'/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Mao of Hvdrooeriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming ft•om several sources, but any single source would guar as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other YES multi tier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on P. 1 F7 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number D.- Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that -the wetland unit functions to reduce flaodin aild'stream-de radatioia. . D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flouring outlet points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittentl),flowing') Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted. surface outlet (De7•777anent1y floiving) Doints = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height ofponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface ofperrrranent water or deepest part (if d73). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 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 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit 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 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 unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the Opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Points (only I score per box) (see p.46) (seep. 49) multiplier Wetland name or number R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe VYetlands Points 1hrATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS = .Indicators that wetland functlolis •to improve . ('iniy t 5cort per box) water quality j•:::.,:. : R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments Figure --- during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > 1 /2 area of wetland points = 4 If depressions >'Y2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualms as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 7 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number R % Rivgine and' Fresh,�yater Tidal Frii &."etlands , Points - - HYDROLOGIC FQNCTIONS- -: 1hdic'ators.tnafw0tIa..nd fu cfiaris to reduce' . floodin and slrenn erosion R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width ofstrearn between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5 - <10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 - <5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure --- large woody debris as 'forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 R Add the points in the boxes above I 1 R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the onnortunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. — There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 Add score to table on p. 1 F�] Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 8 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number L Lake -fringe Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY 1"UWT1ON$ - Indicators that the wetland unit funCti&is to Lonly ! score PC, liax� irn rove..w.ater: ualilt L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Figure _-- Vegetation is more than 33ft (10m) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Mao of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description Figure --- that results in the highest points, and do not include arty open lVater in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the domihantform or• as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Mao with polyqons of different ve etation types L Add the points in the boxes above _ L L 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source Would quay as opportunio). — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2 Add score to table on . I Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 L.. ... . A. . ,_1__1. _. . ME Wetland name or number L La e-fringe Wetlands ' HY . RQLOGIC 1-UNCTIONS - Iridicalors'that the wetiand inut fitnctio.ns to reduce, shoreline erosion . L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) >'/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 6 > 3/ of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 >'/4 distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes L Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. — There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L j TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Points (only I score Fier.:h'vxl (seep,62) Figure (see p.63)' multiplier Wetland name or number S Slope Wetlands — Points WATER QUALITY .FU-NICTIONS _ Indic -,tors that the u'etIand t1nIf fIII]CtiC}I]S tU [oni} l score improve water' Bali per box} S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope isl % or less (a 1 % slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1 % - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) 3 YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Figure Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil sulfate (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > '/2 of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons S Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above I— I S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland multiplier — Other 2 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 / Add score to table on p. I I` Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington ] 1 August 2004 version 2 it T Wetland name or number S Slape'VF-6dand T, Paints '�- YDROLbGICfUNCTIONS Indicators that tl e:�vetland 111 iE functions to °niv' wore _. cr box i•edt—fl60di6' An` d st.ream .erosion S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream (see p.68) erosion? S S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that bestfrt conditions in the wetland, (stems ofplants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least ? 10% of its area. YES points = 2 \ NO points = 0 S Add the points in the boxes above S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? seep. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number G These questions apply to wetlands af'all HG1Yf classes. HABITAT. FUNCTIONS .,Indicators that unit furtctian-s;:to provide itoortant Habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? Points (only. I xro PCT box) H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure Check the t3 pes of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is % acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed �C _Emergent plants Scrub/slu-ub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) ' -(_Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Z 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 Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroyeriods (seep. 73) Figure --- Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The eater regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre 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 point = 1 Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river gin, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness -of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygr•ass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below ifyou want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points Z j 1 .:sti [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland, The number of checks is the number ofpoints you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>41n. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft 3 (1 Om) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least'/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation 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 each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores firom H1.1, HI.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 _ Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? I I H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >951/o of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 259/0 circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 Aerial Dhoto showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor Z (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page i` Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number _L_ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFWdefrnttions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 in (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age, Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 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. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi - enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but ar-e not included in this list. Nearbv wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the -wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within % mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe ''/z wetlands within mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/z mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within '/z mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within % mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within''/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat i Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 l TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 �U Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 !I - Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off arty criteria that apply to the wetland Circle the Category when the a ro riate criteria are niet: SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I 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 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/11). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a UII Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Progran-/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identiIfy if the wetland is a bog. Ifyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes = go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No�— Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number r SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the 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/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. Cat. I YES = Category I NO -not a forested wetland with special characteristics i SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) 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 surface 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 ear the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 N07Y not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets 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 invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO � not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer• yes you will still nee to rate the svetland based on its 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 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Category,ofrvetland based -on Special Characteristics choose rhea` highest'' rcitirtgif-we lqnd falls into several categwIes, and record On yl j If"`oii,ansvv red NO far all -types enter Not A livable on p.1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (if known): I T,/—Y)�/) kl,- l ,, !_ l Date of site visit: Rated bye Trained by Ecology? YeyNo Date of training) SEC: 10 TwNSHP:2&RNGE: 1�-I y _ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit 0 Wetland Unit bas Special Characteristics Wetland'HGM Class tiled for.Ratin" . Estuarine De sessional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above KHGM Check if unit has multiple classes present Wetland Rating Form —western Washington August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check Lisf 'fnr Wetlands 'That.May'�Need AAd'dit deal Pr6fectivr� YES Na_ in addtinn,�#o=tie, irofectain,r��o`m'rimended�ftir_�ts,ca�e`'nr.' ,.: SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered aninral or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hvdrogeomoa2hic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number ir�_ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed.ixi 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. questibns 177 apply; and go to.Question 8. . 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO — go to 2 _ YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 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. _N_O—Lr^ t__ — - YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? N — -- 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 ve7)� gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these o pe of wetlands except occasionally in ve73) small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO - a to N, ES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number 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 two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is notflooding. NO - go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the welanel. NO —go 7 YES — The wetland class is Depressional _ 7. Is the entire 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 clases. 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 your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the 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 :withfif-t le i�iretic2rtd unit rdted j : HG.V Class ry Use: in Rai ri Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still 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. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number D Depressintfai and Flats Wetlands Paints WATER QUALITY FU_NCTIONS. - Indicators that the wetlan unit ftnictibris to {p1 Y spore un rove water quadf = Pr-r box) D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure --- Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently floliling) points = I Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently floi44ng beat unit as "intermittentl),floi+ling') Provide Photo or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS D definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure --_ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yis. Area seasonally ponded is > '/2 total area of wetland points = 4 L/ Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of H dro eriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the bogies above _ _ _ _ 1 � 5 1 D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions Provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit nTay have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as oppot�tunio). — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other 2 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Fo Add score to table on P. l Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number C) D ; Depressional andYlats Wetlands Points HYDRO L0 GIC.FLINCTI.ONS Indicators that the wetland utui functions -to .(0nI 3 score uc �L+x) reduce flobdiri -.arid stream de"radation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlei) points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittentl),fowirrg') Unit has an unconstricted. or sliehtly constricted. surface outlet (nerrnanenth- llolvina) points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height ofponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface ofpernranent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 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 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of pondinc less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit 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 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 unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class -points = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multi Tier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number R Riverine and Freshwater.Tidal Fringe Wetlands Muts Jodi aprs that wetlandfundri,tot prav� WATERATIQNS - ., co�!v 15�0° war& cfuallty per box) R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments Figure --- during a flooding event: Depressions cover >314 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > 1 /2 area of wetland points = 4 If depressions >'/z of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure --- Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different ve etation types R Add the points in the boxes above _ I !� R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants corrtingfr•orrs several sources, but any single source would qualms as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 Add score to table on v. I Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 7 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number R,. Riverine and FreshWatei• Tidal Fringe )Vetland5 Points i� 1),I�OX:.001C.FU-,NC:�T10NS - rnd3cators that wetland lun tlflris to reduce.. :aEk)' ! srorc 110din , and(strearn erosion R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width ofstream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5 - <10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 - <5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. — There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 8 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number -L' Lake-fringe Wetlands Points WATER -QUALITY Ft;Mti TIONS -' Indicators that tiie vretlatid'ula.i.f 'u ctiOn �o rn TOir�.^W ter •..Ua'lity L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Figure Vegetation is more than 33ft (10m) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description Figure that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water- in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with poi bn's of different vegetation types L, Add the points in the boxes above L L 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingfr•om several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2 Add score to table on v. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number L :L'ake�fri ge Wetla'nds,. Ni_nts HI'I]1ZOLOGJC FI]N.CTIQI)iS;. .IrtdicaforS tliaf.'tk e etlariti:'unit fdrictions to'.. {°°!Y.3 ..;....:.- .- - , . reduce°Slxoreliite: eros�an _�;�-�,�. L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the otn ential to reduce shoreline erosion? (seep.62) L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do Figure not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) > 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 6 > 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 >'/ distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial phcto or map With Cowardin vegetation classes L Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the oyoortunity to reduce erosion? 7seep.63) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. — There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion — Other multiplier YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number S Slope Wetlands Points WATER Qli:AI 1TY F-U-NCT10N5 - Ind.lcmbrsthat the. �veflaz.id unit fii ctiai s to im rove water ual per box} S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep.64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is l % or less (a 1 % slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1 % - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 oiiits NO = 0 points S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Figure --- Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > '/z of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or ma2 with vegetation polygons S Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above I 11 S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.67)1 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water II coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming fr•orin several sources, but any single source would quali, as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington ] ] August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number S Slope WetlaD Paints 11YDROI OGIC FL`NCTJONS..._- Indicators that the wetland unit fq�iicrignsto. rangy i .: per r^v: reduce f]oodin arzd stream e�oSioit S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream (see p.68) erosion? S S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the descrrption that best fit conditions in the wetland, (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 118in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surfaceflows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid Doints = 0 S S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES points = 2 NO points = 0 S Add the points in the boxes above _ I a S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 12 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number These questions apply to`iuettands �f all HG11� classes. Paints HABITAT FUNCTIONS Indicators that unit fln,ctioris fo pro v1de important Habitat (only I score p,hat) H 1. Does the wetland unit have theytp ential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is '/ acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed iE"'mergent plants erublshrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) lfth rail has a forested class check if The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, L moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. Ifyou have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the Wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or'/a acre to count. (see text for- descripti.ons of h))droperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 `SeasonaIly flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 12, Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 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 Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. (different patches of the same species can be corrabined to meet the size threshold) 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 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Total for page 7 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points Z' p A '- [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "hijeh". Use may of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number ofpoints you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (1 Om) / Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned greylbrown) /At least'/ acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation 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 each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores rom H1.1. H1.2. H1.3. H1.4. H1.5 / Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for• definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% Lcircumference. Points = 4 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 Aerial ahoto showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or Z forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number 0 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WD;' W (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 in (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 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. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages ____Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi - enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearbu wetlands are addressed in [question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the v>>etland that bestfits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development, points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within''/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/z mile, BUT the connections between them are 5 disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within '/z mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within ''/z mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/z mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores fi-con H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 I L/ f Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result onP. i 1 1?1 2 Wetland Rating Form — ",estern Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type- Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the' Category when the appropriate criteria. are nset. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit 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 = Cateaory I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating I/II Wetland name or number j SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Cat. I Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WIVHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant spe ies9 YES = Category I NO not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identi ) if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes = go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrublherbaceous cover)? YES = Category I No Y Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number 0 SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the 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/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 - 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO�Lnot a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) 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 surface 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 V not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets 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 invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least 1/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number 0 SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO4not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its 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 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Category of Nvettand Eased on Special Ch.aracteristies Choose the .`highest'' rating into several categories, and mcnrd on P. 1. I f ou: ansi�rere�l NO for all t , es et�tter.�°`NQi A iicable" ort :l Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number, WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (if known): 'D4�- U30 Date of site visit: Rated by- ''1 Trained by Ecology? YesyNo_ Date of training -�`-- SEC: I0 TWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ Nd� Map of wetland unit: Figure __ Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV�4 Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Applyx-- Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information. about the wetland unit r3. 2� Weiland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class'-' used fox )Fiatin' Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for. Wetlands. That May Need Additional Protection YES NQ in addition. to the p rotection recommended for its.catedoi y SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitatfor any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hvdrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number -S Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each questi6n do not apply to the entiz'e unit being rated, you probably have a unit with Multiple HGNi classes.'' In this case, identify Which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7.apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are t r levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundw and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. — ga'to YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; _ t least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO — go to YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? l/` he wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), /The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually co es from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without istinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? 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 <3ft diameter and less than I fgot deep). NO - go to YES — The wetland classis Tape Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number 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 two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO - go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, 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 clases. 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 your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the 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. 'H-GAI Classes. within, the wetland uni 6e rated;'i' HGM: iass_to ;flse'in Raiiri Slo e + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still 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. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number ] Uepiressional and Flats Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY F'UNCTI0NS - :Indicators that the wetland unit functions to (oniy I score i):r hox) u-n rave water quality. •:. D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide photo or drawin S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) D YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Man of Cowardin vegetation classes D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > '/2 total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hvdroperiods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I I D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would guar as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number D DePlressional.and Flats Wetlands Points HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -. Indicators.that the wetland unif functi.ons,tQ ... reduce floodinv and stream de radatiori per box] D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanentlyllowing treat unit as "intermittently,Jlowing') Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (ermanentlp owirr ) points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height ofponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure front the surface ofpermanent water or deepest part (if dty). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 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 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit 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 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 unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 1_ D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above _ _ D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number R Riyerine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points WATER QU.PAL[TY.FUNCTIQIVS =:. lztdicatars that wetland furictiozas to irnpro�e; t :: (onty't start per hux} water R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments Figure --- during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 If depressions >'/z of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with>90% cover at person height): Figure --- Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or mae showing polygons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above I I R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL_- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 Add score to table on ,?. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 7 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number R`' Mverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe W-eiN' l6ds Points �IYDRaL0QQ-FUNCTIONS - hidi.cators-that wetland functions to reduce fn.iily 1 score flooding and streaifi erosion :: pe tinxl R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width ofstream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5 - <10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 - <5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure --- large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or mae showing of ons of different vegetation t es R Add the points in the boxes above R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or . reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. — There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding — Other multiplier (Answer- NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 IR I TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 I Add score to table on p. l l Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington S August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number WATEIz LIAIITY:FUNCTIOiV5 = Irfd oators that the wetland uiut fiznctioiis t` [6nly-l'seore M7'� r' i rx iial'.. "irn ' z a�i e stair t L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (arse polygons of Cowardin classes): Figure Vegetation is more than 33ft (10m) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5rri) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description Figure --- that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shraib or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Mao with polvgons of different ve etation types L Add the points in the boxes above r r L L 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit niay have pollutants comingfi•om several sources, but any single source would qualms as opportunity. — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 L TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2 Add score to table on . 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number L Lake fringe, Wetlands Points 1Y 17ROLL7CiIC FUNCTI(:iNS - IridI at that'the �� etland uiiit iuncrions to., .. ... aer�igx) reduce.shafelme erosfo.n L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (seep.62) L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do Figure not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) > 1/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (1 Om) wide points = 6 > 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 >'/ distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classesIF L e I Record the points fr-onz the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p.63) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. — There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion — Other multiplier YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number_ S Slv a Wetlands :.. - Points WATER QUALITY, FUNCTIONS .= Indicators that the wetland unit.functions.to [only.-� score per box} "un rave i�-ater;t4uaii S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope isl % or less (a 1 % slope has a ]foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Figure --- Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > % of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons S Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above _ I -7s S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming fr-orri several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 Add score to table on a. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 11 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number S Slope Wetlands Paints , .,: HYDRq� OGIC FUNCTIONS"= Indidators`tilSt flte wetland,uillC fttncttons t0 [only'I Beare t;axj; .reduce Doodfhg and stream erosiari S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream (see p.68) erosion? S S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriatefor the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (stems ofplants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES points = 2 NO points = 0 S Add the points in the boxes above 1 1 S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number TI;&d questions apply to wedafids of all HGM classes. :.Pginfs {eniy l soUre HABITAT FUNCTIONS Indicators that unit fUnctivns tq provide im ortaht habitat Per box) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is % acre or more than 10% of the ai=ea if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre 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 point = 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 ►vetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal ►vetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft'. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, pan ple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1. 1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. SS ecial Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number ofpoints you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (1 Om) Stable stdep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least'/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation 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 each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat � I Add the scores from HI.1, H1.2. HI J H1.4, HI.5 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 in (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (33Oft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% rcumference, . Points = 3 =�50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffet does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 in (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands, that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adiacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFGYdefinitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth 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-70 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 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. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or fortis form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi - enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. ____�VIarine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearb:v wetlands are addressed in question H2A Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description: of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) - There are at least 3 other wetlands within %z mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within ''/z mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within %z mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within %z mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within %z mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/z mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scoresfrom H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 �t] TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 al Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 C Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland: Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO�_ SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Cate2ory I NO 20 to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least'/4 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 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO snot a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? YES = Category I No Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the 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/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. Cat. I YES = Category I NO i7 not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) 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 surface 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_ C not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets 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 invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least'/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category lI f Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO 4 not an interdunal wetland for rating If you ans►ver yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its fi[nctions. 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 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Category,.of ►wetland liased'a'n'Special Characteristics Choose the' " i'g17est" rirt��tg If falls into:severu! caregc�r ies, u��d recurd an p: If you answered NO for a'Ift es enter Nag A, licabl'e, an 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number_ WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (if known):i tL�O3��tlrn� Date of site visit: Intraining/0 Rated b� , : — Trained by Ecology? Yes�No_ Date of trainin /g 0 —05 SEC: 10 TWNSHP: a 114 RNGE: tp'- Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No�C Map of wetland unit: Figure —_ Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III- IV Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit has Special- Characteristics Wetland HG-N1 Class . used for gating Estuarine Depress onal Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above VH1, heck if unit has multiple GM classes resent t Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Clieck List for Weflaads That May Need Additional Protection YES NO in addition to the protection recommended for its category) SP 1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number �3 - Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington if the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being_ rated. you probably have'a ,unit with multiple I-IGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in'questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question $. 1. Are theater levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 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 — t YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NOS o t 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? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these 0,pe of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO - go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number � 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 two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO - go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the wetland. _ -� NO — go to 7 -,YES-- he wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire we#lan Waetlatr 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 clases. 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 your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the 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 .ivetland un i$ein .rated HGM Class to. Use in Rating,-' Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slo e + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still 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. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number D ' Depression al- and Flats Wetlandsr•,':: �. Points ', ATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS lndieatc'rs that r':le u�� tlaE�d unit faric"ions to ..- .. ...: j nip rove water q uality Per D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide photo or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS def nitions) D YES points = 4 NO poilits = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) figure D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin ve etation classes D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out D sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition S out of IO yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > '/2 total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hdro eriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above ! D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-dut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other { YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Add score to table on r). 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number —4— D.' Depressional and Flats Wetlands Points . HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS,, Indicators that tie; wetland unit functions to (only 1. S�oOrz per box), reduce flvoding and streahl- de" adatxou " D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and 2— no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Unit has an unconstricted, or slightlZ constricted, surface outlet (errnanently flowin) points = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height ofponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface ofpernianent water or deepest part (f dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 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 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit 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 unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Other 1 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 5- Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points WATER'QV L1TY FUNCTIONS hidicators that wetland functionS.to irrtpr�ve; toniv S�arC water 96alijx.:. pcf.box) R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments Figure --- during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 If depressions >'Y of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure --- Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming fr•orn several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL_- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 7 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number R 1byerine and Fresh*A.10 Tidal Fringe Wetlands Points HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - lndicatars that wetland fitnctionsto reduce • .j•. - .. . PC! box). f Oodin - and stream erosion R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure Estimate the average width of the wetland unit pe7pendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: ( average width of unit)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5 - <10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 - <5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for>1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R Add the points in the boxes above 1 ! R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. — There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides ofa dike) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 8 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number L Lake, fringe Wetlands. Points iWATER 1 ALITY FUNCTIONS;- Indicators that the wetNnd unit functions ton .: {°". SC°�° _ im pro`water' uali per box) L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the laotential to improve water quality? (seep.59) L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Figure Vegetation is more than 33ft (10m) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description Figure --- that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with polons of different vegetation t pes L Add the points in the boxes above 1 L L 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the follorling conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit shay have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number L Lake=fringe Wedands Points HYDROLOGIC, FUNCTIONS = tndicatars that (lie wetland unit farictions to ��!' 1 seorc pi— L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.62) L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do Figure not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) > 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (1 Om) wide points = 6 > 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 >'/4 distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (I Om) wide points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes L Record the points ftoni the box above- 1 L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? _____ (see p.63) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. — There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion — Other multiplier YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number S Slope Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCT10NS, - Indicators that the wetland unit f in'ctions to' (miy t wore- ihlpiOVe`wate�r qualit;r Orbx) S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1 % or less (a 1 % slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1 % - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Figure --- Choose the points appropriate for the description that bestfits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation rrreans you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or nrowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation >'/z of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerialor map with vegetation pc)lygons S .photo Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above I ` s S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming frronr several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 Add score to table on P. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 11 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number 5: Slope Wettands Points HYI]RLOGIC. FUNCTIONS .- lndicators that the wetland unlit functions to, : jonly l score per.box) reduce floddin . arld:strekm erosion - S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream (seep.68) erosion? S S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland - (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during sw face f ows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES points = 2 NO points = 0 S Add the points in the boxes above I s R S S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? see p. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other multiplier (AnsK,er NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number T'liese questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points [only i scare HABITAT FI_ WTIONS, -.Judicators. that -"it functions, to, provide i npo =t ha-bitat..per box} H 1. Does the Nvetland unit have the R©tential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for• each class is % acre or more than 10% of the ai-ea if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed V Emergent plants .YScrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) 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 Add the number- of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the 01pes of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or %4 acre 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 point = 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 Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) 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) You do not have to none the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Figure --- Figure Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 3 Wetland name or number H 1 A. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points L _ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always ,`high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next colurnn. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6,6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (1 Om) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least ''/o acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation 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 each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20 % stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores f-on? H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, Hl,4, H1.5 y Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. 77ie highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (33Oft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 5Q in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% Vicircumference. Points = 4 -- 100 in. (33Oft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% 3 circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the coi-i•idor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor Z (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page -t> Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number �. H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 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. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban, Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi - enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/z mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within'/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within ''/z mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within ''/z mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within ''/z mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/z mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat r r Y - Add the scores f -oin H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 U Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P. 1 c/ Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are nzet. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit 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 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 114 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 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating I/II Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as - or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant sped 9 YES = Category I NO !not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identiIfy if the wetland is a bog. Ifyou answer yes you ►vill still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the — soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes_ go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground, level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No�c Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the 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/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. YES = Category I NO not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) 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 surface 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 N04 not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets 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 invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Wetland name or number SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rating Ifyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its 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 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Category of Wetland based on Special Characteristics, choose tti ' 7highest" racing. rf into.several categories;.. and retard on p 1: If you answered:NO for ail "es enter "Not A-0pliiahlole" on 0.1 :- Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number � WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (if known): I J�k-` O7 :Date of site visit: Rated by 1V Trained by Ecology? YesYNo_ Date of training L'C�j SEC: TWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yesi NoJ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II-HI.7L IV Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit . V4'etland l aiit_`l `as S.pecial:. ; ;,Characteinstics, :: Wetland J-16 M—Class ., used fo'r 'Rafin�. Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present F1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number ]'. Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington if the hydralugic criteria listed in each question do not apply -to -the entire4nit 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: r: 1. Ares water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? go to 2 - YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe ~lf yes; is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is SalhVater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. �G °trrtd as e—ran� ce water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. C NC— go to YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; =�► least�:0° 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? NOTE: Sur face water does not pond in these 0,pe of wetlands except occasionally in very s777.all and shallow depressions or behind hunnnocks (depressions are usually ,,,—`<1ff_ #ameter and less than 1 foot deep). �NO - ga-to-5 YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western'"lashington 3 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number p Di pressxor al and Flats N etlands Points v ..: -.: farky : scnrr � V�.ATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -: la�G, ators that the wetland unif fiaiictions LO per oo�) :; trrt rage water .uali ,. . D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the votential to improve seater quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (pern:aliently fouling) points = 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is riot permanently flowing treat unit as "inter)7?ittently f oN)ing') Provide photo or drawinc S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS { definitions) D YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardih ve etatiory classes D1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure This is -the -area -of the -wetland unit- that is-ponded for- t at-leas2--months,—but-dr--ies- out- -- - - -- ---- - D sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of I o yis. L/ Area seasonally ponded is > '/z total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/ total area of wetland points = 0 Map of H dto eriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualms as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 0 Add score to table on . 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number lr s.0 r L1 1111. f1AAU A- 1 W-3tA ■■ FiI.GA 1 AUgl 1' 1 111gr_ VT. r'"4AIU3 F Vill Lb. W A ER QLiALITY FUNCTI-0 - Lidicatois that : etlaiid ;urictioias'to iriipro.�re ' (only izrw� water ual 7. p nbox) R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.52) R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments Figure during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > 1/2 area of wetland points = 4 If depressions > '/z of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland points = 2 No de ressions present points = 0 R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure --- Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R d Adthe points in the boxes above _ _ _ r. 1 i R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL_- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 Add score to table on . I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 7 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number L Lake -fringe Wetlands Pvints- WATER UALITY FUNCTIQNS ,- Indicators that the �� etlano unit functions to .. ;- (Only t scnrc ,Q . ... , .. _ ... ' .. Per:6ox�. i rove.iyatef::..ali ty- L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep.59) L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Co14,ardin classes): Figure --- Vegetation is more than 33ft (10m) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Map_of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description Figure that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plaints can be either the dominant form or as an understor), in a shrub or forest connrrnunity. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3. unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 MO, with polAons of different v6 etation types L Add the points in the boxes above I L L 2. Does the wetland have the importunity to improve water quality? (seep. 61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants conning from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2 Add score to table on . I Comments Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number S S16pe We Points WATER Q,QALITY FUNCTION'S - Inulic.ators ,hat the ;kfe.tland unit funct�ions:,zo font. 3 wore Improve water qiiaIL 0Cr box) S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.6A) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope isl % or less (a 1 % slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft. horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1 % - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Figure Choose the points appropriate for the description that bestfits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, he vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation >'/z of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation. polygons S Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or'surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming froiis several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington I i August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number V ese questioils apply td wetlands of all HGM classes.. Points (only I scan HABITAT FUNCTIONS- = Indicators -that unit fitrtetiatis to provide irnpnrtant habitat prbux) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the of to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure --- Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is acre or more than 10% of the ai=ea if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants YScrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, ino.ss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. H drxo periods p. 73) Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or acre 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 Y Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types pfesent point = 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 Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Specie (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) 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 List species below ifyou want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 j < 5 species points = 0 Tnfr. Total for page Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 am 1 Wetland name or number � r H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. . Points =1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dons in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to.H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part.of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 3.0% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? ES = 1 noin NO = 0 points Total for page L� Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the ivetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within''/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within''/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within'/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within''/z mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within % mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores rom H2.I,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 q Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and 'record the result on cr P. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact iVNHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant spe i s? YES = Category I NO snot a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes' - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrubAerbaceous cove7)? YES = Category I No Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Cat. I Wetland name or number SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? ,! YES - go to SC 6.1 NO x not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based oil its 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 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? Cat. II YES = Category III Cat. III Cate&f o€W" .etlan- Based on Special Characteristics R, . :C1�pase the '`lii�l�e:st" I line i f wetland fzl_1s into sei,a� uf-:c�utegnr re's, �iia�l're�ord�.� •..fir'„ if oti:answeied-NO frn�.;a11;, es enter-``l�A�: `licable .on. :1; - Tak't� i�6i<< Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (if known): AL- mo Wetland Y , Date of site visit: Oct 22, 2008 Rated by DRT Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training 10-05 SEC: 15 TWNSHP: 21 N RNGE: 4E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No X Map of wetland unit: Figure —— Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III x IV Score for Water Quality Functions Category I =Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply X Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Wetiani iJsit has .special characteristics ":VI'etlat�d.+HG1V1 as u5ir' ,,;: �_ Nr Q +ilia�In ,u Estuarine De sessional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe x Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above x Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present 9 6 18 33 Cat. III Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for ,That Nlav : Need -a - YES., N (in addition. to the rotection recvmmejid d fvi its ca.te oev) - SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the x a2propriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the x appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? x SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master x Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of'the data sheet you will need to determine the Hvdrogeomorphic Class of the wetland beingrated. ated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the bydroIogic criteria listed in eaeli question do not aplily to the eiitire`uriiit beinig rated, you probably hate -,a unit with niultip.le I)GM .classes.:'. In .this case.,`idenfify .�ti;l hydrologic criteria in •tluesfia'ns 1-7 apply, ar�d go to Question $: 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? ❑x NO — go to 2 ❑ YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 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. ❑x NO — go to 3 ❑ YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? NThe vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; DAt least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? ❑ NO — go to 4 ❑x 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? 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 <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). ❑x NO - go to 5 ❑ YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y 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 two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. x❑ NO - go to 6 ❑ YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time 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. ❑x 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 clases. 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 your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the 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. Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional. Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional De ressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still 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. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y Tie ressio.nal and;Flats VL'etlands' Points p. VATERCALIYFLYCTIDS '``Indicators that the weland unit flctians to per -box) �m rove vvater quali D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 Unit is a "flat' depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide photo or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (Ilse NRCS definitions) D YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, bttt dries out D sometime dttrino the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > I/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of H dro eriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other 1 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL.- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on P. 1 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y I7 Depression. al and, Flats Wetlands Points HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS. '- ltidicators that'the .wetland unit fulictioris to (onlv:1 Scar, Per boxy reduce flaodri and stcearri degradatian D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Unit has an unconstricted, or sliahtly constricted, surface outlet (ermanentl flowing) 2oints = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 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 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of 2onding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit 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 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 unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above s D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 i i Add score to table on p. 1 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y .R Rlverine. and FrOh..water Tidal Fringe NN'etlands Po.ints lA'ATER.QUALITY-FL'NCTIONS - Indicators tl at;�� etlarid fitizctio��5 tib improve {nniy J. scare water a i Per box7...: R R 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep.52) R R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments Figure during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > 1 /2 area of wetland points = 4 If depressions >'/z of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Figure Trees or shrubs > 2/3 the area of the unit points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the unit points = 6 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of unit points = 6 Ungrazed herbaceous plants > 1/3 area of unit points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of unit points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing ` polygons of different vegetation es R Add the points in the boxes above ! R R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland — The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the river water above standards for water quality multiplier — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 1 R TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 0 Add score to table on . 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 7 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y •Riyelrine and `Freshwater Tidal Fringe WetlandsPoints HYDROLOGIC FtNCTlONS - lndicators that wetland functions to,reiiuce boa}' . per #loud i ri and •stteairt erosion R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.54) R R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Figure __ Estimate the average width of the wetland unit perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)f(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is between 10 — 20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5 - <10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 - <5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 Aerial photo or map showing average widths R R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat Figure _ large woody debris as `forest or shrub ". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height NOT Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Vegetation does not meet above criteria points = 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation t pes R.1 Add the points in the bores above I R R 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.57) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, farms) that can be damaged by flooding. — There are natural resources downstream (e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) 1 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 R TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4i Add score to table on p. 1 0 .-- - I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 8 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or member Y L Lake -fringe Wetlands Poi nts WATER QUALITY" FUNCTIONS `= `Irfcticators'that'the W!Ctland unit`f Inctions to �°rig:' score ' per,}�vx] improve water uality L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.59) L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (itse polygons of Cowardin classes): Figure Vegetation is more than 33ft (10m) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 6 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description Figure that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominantform or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 3 Cover of herbaceous plants is >1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points = 0 Map with of ons � of different ve etation _ es L Add the points in the boxes above 9 L L 2. Does the wetland have the ounortunity to improve water quality? (see p.61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources ofpollictants. A unit may have pollutants comingfrom several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 1 150 ft. of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 L TOTAL.- Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2 9 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y L Lake -fringe We,tiand`s `'° Paints HYDROLOGI:C;PUNCTlCN:§ ..- ll7dkat6rs:that.tllc wetlarid unit •fuhetlons.;t0 ��nl I s�crre . p�r.6.x1 ,reduce- shorel itie: eroszoti L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (see p.62) L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do Figure_ not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) > 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (1 Om) wide points = 6 > 3/4 of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 6 >'/4 distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes L r a �s 1 Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (see p.63) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. — There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. — There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion — Other multiplier YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 i L TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 i Add score to table on p. 1 6 I Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y S Slope Wetlands Points WATER QUAUTY FUNCTIONS - 1ndGcators,thdt the wetland unit functions to .per hvx] itn t;o�e;water iialit '. -. , S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.64) S S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is 1 % or less (a I % slope has a I foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (itse NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points NO = 0 points S S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Figure Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > '/2 of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or rfibp with vegetation polygons S Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above _ 1 1 S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of polltttants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland — Other 1 YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 S TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S 1 by S2 0 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 11 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y S Slope Wetlands Points HYDROLOGIC FC]NCT:IONS - Indic; (tors that the wetland unit functions to: reduce:'Poodin sand stream ervstort S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream (see p-6 8) erosion? S S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 118in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 S S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES points = 2 NO points = 0 S Add the points in the boxes above _ I m _. S S 4. Does the wetland have the opyortunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other multiplier (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep 1 that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO _multiplier is 1 S TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 I Add score to table on p. 1 0 F Comments Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 12 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y These uestians .cr d tv n�ettajrds all HG:If classes: ' Points 4 Pp..Y .,. f HABITAT FOM—_TIQNS ndicators that unit fun( tioris to proyide important habitat p�c 6ox) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is % acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed X Emergent plants X Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) X Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: 2 The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that quay. Ifyou have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Figure__ Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or `/a acre 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 point = 1 3 X 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 X Lake fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 fe. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Nfilfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 Total for page A Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) gure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. CD ❑ None = 0 points ❑Low = 1 point ❑x Moderate = 2 points . �_.: ..:lei - �:.� :�; •.d:" . 'Yr1< r; [riparian braided channels] El High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. X Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (1 Om) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cart shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 11/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation 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 each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manatal on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat 9 Add the scores fi'om H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or member Y H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the tivetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 X 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 4 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). O YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) ElNO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or 2 forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? ED YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) E-1 NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR Mwithin 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR E]within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? D YES = 1 point 0 NO = 0 points Total for page 6 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 33Oft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFYV definitions. Check with your local DFTV biologist if there are any questions. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old -growth forests: (Old -growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 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. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a 0 corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi - enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low -energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within % mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. E] points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within % mile rl points = 5 3 There are at least 3 other wetlands within % mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed El points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within 'Iz mile 11 points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within % mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within % mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores rom H2.I,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 9 Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on 18 P. 1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Welland Type . Category Check aff any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category vvher the appMriati cr teria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I 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 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (UII). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least'/4 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 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural HeritaZD ge wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact PVNHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO X SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO x not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its filnctions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 [3 No - go to Q. 2 El 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 El No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 0 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating 0 No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2.0 YES = Category I No X Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I Cat. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the 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/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old -growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth. Cat. I YES = Category I NO X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) 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 surface 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 X not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets 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 invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Wetland name or number Y SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 El NO x not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its ficnctions. 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 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II El NO — go to SC 6.2 El SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III El Cat. II Cat. III Category of wetland based on Speclal'Chaz acEeristics G1n3ose: he, "highest'<!.rcrting it W.etluncl falls'. irilo several::categories, civi l Y'ec-oicl N/A ' Ifvoii answered NO for lilt t ' es enter "Not -'A plicablean`..l Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan Appendix C Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM) Data Sheets — Existing Conditions 30 October 2008 030-CARe port-M itPl a n-8(30Oct08).doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Appendix C 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland A Staff DRT Date 01-08-08 Location S 10 T 21 N R 4E N/A = Not Applicable, N/1 = No information available Table 1: Determining Wetland Size in Landscape Context I Attribute Low 1 t. Medium 2pts.) High 3pts.) Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 1 ``(Wetland Loss in Basin > 60 % 20 — 60 % < 20 % 1 Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on INAVI maps) < 100% of average size 100 — 200 % of t average size > 200% of average size 1 Buffer Size < 75 feet 75 to 200 feet > 200 feet 3 Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed 20-60% disturbed < 20% disturbed 3 Relative Size If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question a 3 score/5 2 Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ❑ < 10 % forested cover ® 10 - 30 % forested cover ❑ > 30 % forested cover ❑ unconstrained outlet ® semi -constrained outlet ❑ culvert/bermed outlet points 9 ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 113 of the drainage (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ® temporally flooded or saturated drainage []_permanently flooded or saturated, or points 7 ❑ seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ® vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ❑ vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A 20 to 60 /a shoreline developed El 20 0 ❑ <20 /o shoreline developed (max 9) Water Quality ❑ rapid flow through site ❑ moderate flow through site ® slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ® 50 - 80 % cover ❑ > 80 % veg cover ® <20% of basin upstream from ❑ 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 8 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ® soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ❑ soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland A Staff DRT Date 01-08-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low 1 t. Medium (2 ts.) High 3 ts. Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- shaped Deep Bowl- shaped 1 Drainage Basin Size < 2 acres 2-5 acres > 5 acres 2 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 1 Input Groundwater only Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 2 Basin Condition < 20% irnenvious 20-40 % impervious >40% impervious 1 Flow Contained score/5 1 Natural ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ® high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ® ag land, low veg structure ❑ 2 layers of vegetation ❑ high veg structure ® seasonal surface water ❑ permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ® one habitat type ❑ two habitat types ❑ > 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 17 ® low plant diversity (< 6 species) ❑ moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ❑ high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ® > 50 % invasive species ❑ 10 to 50 % invasive species ❑ < 10% invasive species ® low organic accumulation ❑ moderate organic accumulation ❑ high organic accumulation ® low organic export ❑ moderate organic export ❑ high organic export ® few habitat features ❑ some habitat features ❑ many habitat features ❑ buffers very disturbed ® buffers slightly disturbed ❑ buffers not disturbed ❑ isolated from upland habitats ® partially connected to upland habitats ❑ well connected to upland habitats Overall Habitat ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ® low habitat diversity ❑ moderate habitat diversity ❑ high habitat diversity points 6 ❑ low sanctuary or refuge ❑ moderate sanctuary or refuge ® high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ® low invertebrate habitat ❑ moderate invertebrate habitat ❑ high invertebrate habitat Functions ® low amphibian habitat ❑ moderate amphibian habitat ❑ high amphibian habitat points 6 ® low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ❑ high fish habitat (max 15) ❑ low mammal habitat ® moderate mammal habitat ❑ high mammal habitat ® low bird habitat ❑ moderate bird habitat ❑ high bird habitat Cultural/ ® low educational opportunities ❑ moderate educational opportunities ❑ high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ® low aesthetic value ❑ moderate /aesthetic value ❑ high aesthetic value ® lacks commercial fisheries, ❑ moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 6 ® lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site ❑ important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ❑ some passive and active recreational site ® lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities ® private) owned ❑ privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted public access 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland AA Staff DIRT Date 04-01-08 Location S 10 T 21 N R 4E N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available Table 1: Detetmining Wetland Size in Landscape Context Attribute Low 1 t.) Medium 2 ts.) High 3 ts. Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 1 Wetland Loss in Basin > 60 % 20-60% < 20 % 2 Size Relative to Other Wedands in Basin (on NWI maps) < 100% of average size 100 — 200 % of t average size > 200% of average size 1 Buffer Size < 75 feet 75 to 200 feet > 200 feet 3 Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed 20-60% disturbed < 20% disturbed 2 Relative Size If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question a 3 score/5 2 Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ❑ riverine, or shallow depression ® mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ❑ < 10 % forested cover ® 10 - 30 % forested cover ❑ > 30 % forested cover ❑ unconstrained outlet ® semi -constrained outlet ❑ culvert/bermed outlet points 9 ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ❑ located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ❑ riverine, or shallow depression ® mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ❑ located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ❑ temporally flooded or saturated drainage ❑_permanently flooded or saturated, or points 8 ® seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ® vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ❑ vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points NA ❑ 20 to 60% shoreline developed ❑ <20% shoreline developed (max 9) Water Quality ® rapid flow through site ❑ moderate flow through site ❑ slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ® 50 - 80 % cover ❑ > 80 % veg cover ® <20% of basin upstream from ❑ 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 7 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ❑ result from Table 2 ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ® soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ❑ soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland AA Staff DRT Date 04-01-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low (1 t.) Medium 2 ts.) High (3 ts.) Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- sha ed Deep Bowl- shaped 1 Drainage Basin Size < 2 acres 2-5 acres > 5 acres 3 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 2 Input Groundwater only Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 1 Basin Condition < 20% impervious 20-40 % impervious >40% impervious 1 Flow Contained _T I score/5 Natural ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ® mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ❑ ag land, low veg structure ® 2 layers of vegetation ❑ high veg structure ® seasonal surface water ❑ permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ® one habitat type ❑ two habitat types ❑ > 3 habitat types PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 19 ® low plant diversity (< 6 species) ❑ moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ❑ high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ❑ > 50 % invasive species ® 10 to 50 % invasive species ❑ < 10% invasive species ® low organic accumulation ❑ moderate organic accumulation ❑ high organic accumulation ® low organic export ❑ moderate organic export ❑ high organic export ❑ few habitat features ® some habitat features ❑ many habitat features ❑ buffers very disturbed ® buffers slightly disturbed ❑ buffers not disturbed ❑ isolated from upland habitats ® partially connected to upland habitats ❑ well connected to upland habitats Overall Habitat ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ® low habitat diversity ❑ moderate habitat diversity ❑ high habitat diversity points 5 ❑ low sanctuary or refuge ® moderate sanctuary or refuge ❑ high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ® low invertebrate habitat ❑ moderate invertebrate habitat ❑ high invertebrate habitat Functions ® low amphibian habitat ❑ moderate amphibian habitat ❑ high amphibian habitat points 7 ® low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ❑ high fish habitat (max 15) ❑ low mammal habitat ® moderate mammal habitat ❑ high mammal habitat ❑ low bird habitat ® moderate bird habitat ❑ high bird habitat Cultural/ ® low educational opportunities ❑ moderate educational opportunities ❑ high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ❑ low aesthetic value ® moderate /aesthetic value ❑ high aesthetic value ® lacks commercial fisheries, ❑ moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 7 ® lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site ❑ important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ❑ some passive and active recreational site ® lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities ® privately owned ❑ privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted public access 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland C Staff DIRT Date 01-09-08 Location S 10 T 21 N R 4E N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available Table 1: Determining Wetland Size in Landscape Context Attribute Low 1 t. Medium 2pts.) High (3pts.) Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 1 Wedand Loss in Basin > 60 % 20-60% < 20 % 1 Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on NWI maps) < 100% of average size 100 — 200 % of t average size > 200% of average size 1 Buffer Size < 75 feet 75 to 200 feet > 200 feet 2 Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed 20-60% disturbed < 20% disturbed 2 Relative Size If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question a 3 score/5 1 Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Groue 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ❑ riverine, or shallow depression ® mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ❑ < 10 % forested cover ❑ 10 - 30 % forested cover ® > 30 % forested cover ❑ unconstrained outlet ® semi -constrained outlet ❑ culvert/bermed outlet points 10 ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ❑ riverine, or shallow depression ® mid -sloped wetland p El lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ❑ temporally flooded or saturated drainage ®_permanently flooded or saturated, or points 10 ❑ seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ❑ vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ® vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A ❑ 20 to 60% shoreline developed ❑ <20% shoreline developed (max 9) Water Quality ❑ rapid flow through site ® moderate flow through site ❑ slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ❑ 50 - 80 % cover ® > 80 % veg cover ® <20% of basin upstream from ❑ 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 10 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ❑ result from Table 2 ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ❑ soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ® soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # C Staff DRT Date 01-09-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low 1 t. Medium (2 pjs. High (3 ts.) Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- shaped Deep Bowl- shaped 2 Drainage Basin Size < 2 acres 2-5 acres > 5 acres 2 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 2 Input Groundwater only Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 2 Basin Condition < 20% impervious 20-40 % impervious >40% impervious 1 Flow Contained score/5 2 Natural ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ® high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ❑ ag land, low veg structure ❑ 2 layers of vegetation ® high veg structure ® seasonal surface water ❑ permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ❑ one habitat type ® two habitat types ❑ > 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 26 ❑ low plant diversity (< 6 species) ® moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ❑ high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ❑ > 50 % invasive species ® 10 to 50 % invasive species ❑ < 10% invasive species ❑ low organic accumulation ® moderate organic accumulation ❑ high organic accumulation ❑ low organic export ® moderate organic export ❑ high organic export ❑ few habitat features ❑ some habitat features ® many habitat features ❑ buffers very disturbed ® buffers slightly disturbed ❑ buffers not disturbed ❑ isolated from upland habitats ❑ partially connected to upland habitats ® well connected to upland habitats Overall Habitat ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ❑ low habitat diversity ❑ moderate habitat diversity ® high habitat diversity points 7 ❑ low sanctuary or refuge ❑ moderate sanctuary or refuge ® high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ® low invertebrate habitat ❑ moderate invertebrate habitat ❑ high invertebrate habitat Functions ® low amphibian habitat ❑ moderate amphibian habitat ❑ high amphibian habitat points 9 ® low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ❑ high fish habitat (max 15) ❑ low mammal habitat ❑ moderate mammal habitat ® high mammal habitat ❑ low bird habitat ❑ moderate bird habitat ® high bird habitat Cultural/ ® low educational opportunities ❑ moderate educational opportunities ❑ high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ❑ low aesthetic value ❑ moderate /aesthetic value ® high aesthetic value ® lacks commercial fisheries, ❑ moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 8 ® lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site ❑ important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ❑ some passive and active recreational site ® lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities J�]c privately owned ❑ privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted public access 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland D Staff DIRT Date 01-09-08 Location S 10 T 21 N R 4E N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available Table 1: Determining Wetland Size in Landscape Context Attribute Low 1 t.) Medium 2pts.) High 3pts.) Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 2 Wetland Loss in Basin > 60 % 20-60% < 20 % 1 Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on NWI maps) < 100% of avera e size 100 —200 % of t average size > 200% of average size 2 Buffer Size < 75 feet 75 to 200 feet > 200 feet 2 Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed 20-60% disturbed < 20% disturbed 2 Relative Size If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question a 3 score/5 2 Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group?_ 2 pts I Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ❑ riverine, or shallow depression ® mid -sloped wetland p ❑lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ❑ < 10 % forested cover ❑ 10 - 30 % forested cover ® > 30 % forested cover ❑ unconstrained outlet ❑ semi -constrained outlet ® culvert/bermed outlet points 12 ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ❑ riverine, or shallow depression ® mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ❑ located in lower 113 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ❑ temporally flooded or saturated drainage ®_permanently flooded or saturated, or points 11 ❑ seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ❑ vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ® vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A ❑ 20 to 60% shoreline developed ❑ <20% shoreline developed (max 9) Water Quality ❑ rapid flow through site ® moderate flow through site ❑ slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ❑ 50 - 80 % cover ® > 80 % veg cover ❑ <20% of basin upstream from ® 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 11 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ❑ result from Table 2 ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ❑ soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam 0 soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat A Ll . 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # D Staff DIRT Date 01-09-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low 1 t.) Medium 2 ts. High 3 ts. Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- shaped Deep Bowl- shaped 2 Drainage Basin Size < 2 acres 2-5 acres > 5 acres 2 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 2 Input Groundwater only Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 2 Basin Condition < 20% im eivious 20-40 % impervious >40% impervious 1 Flow Contained score/5 2 Natural ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ® high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ❑ ag land, low veg structure ❑ 2 layers of vegetation ® high veg structure ® seasonal surface water ❑ permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ❑ one habitat type ❑ two habitat types ® > 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 30 ❑ low plant diversity (< 6 species) ® moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ❑ high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ❑ > 50 % invasive species ® 10 to 50 % invasive species ❑ < 10% invasive species ❑ low organic accumulation ❑ moderate organic accumulation ® high organic accumulation ❑ low organic export ❑ moderate organic export ® high organic export ❑ few habitat features ❑ some habitat features ® many habitat features ❑ buffers very disturbed ® buffers slightly disturbed ❑ buffers not disturbed ❑ isolated from upland habitats ❑_partially connected to upland habitats ® well connected to upland habitats Overall Habitat ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ❑ low habitat diversity ❑ moderate habitat diversity ® high habitat diversity points 8 ❑ low sanctuary or refuge ❑ moderate sanctuary or refuge ® high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ❑ low invertebrate habitat ® moderate invertebrate habitat ❑ high invertebrate habitat Functions ❑ low amphibian habitat ® moderate amphibian habitat ❑ high amphibian habitat points 11 ® low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ❑ high fish habitat (max 15) ❑ low mammal habitat ❑ moderate mammal habitat ® high mammal habitat ❑ low bird habitat ❑ moderate bird habitat ® high bird habitat Cultural/ ® low educational opportunities ❑ moderate educational opportunities ❑ high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ❑ low aesthetic value ❑ moderate /aesthetic value ® high aesthetic value ® lacks commercial fisheries, ❑ moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 8 ® lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site ❑ important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ❑ some passive and active recreational site ® lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities lZ privately owned L7 privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted public access 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland S Staff DIRT Date 01-09-08 Location S 10 T 21 N R 4E N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available Table 1: Determining Wetland Size in Landscape Context Attribute Low (1 t.) Medium 2 ts.) High 3 ts.) Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 1 Wetland Loss in Basin > 60 % 20-60% < 20 % 1 Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on NWI maps) < 100% of average size 100 — 200 % of t average size > 200% of average size 1 Buffer Size < 75 feet 75 to 200 feet > 200 feet 1 Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed 20-60% disturbed < 20% disturbed 1 Relative Size If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question a 3 score/5 1 Function I Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ® < 10 % forested cover ❑ 10 - 30 % forested cover ❑ > 30 % forested cover ® unconstrained outlet ❑ semi -constrained outlet ❑ culvert/bermed outlet points 6 ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ® temporally flooded or saturated drainage ❑_permanently Flooded or saturated, or points 6 ❑ seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ® vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ❑ vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A ❑ 20 to 60% shoreline developed ❑ <20% shoreline developed (max 9) Water Quality ® rapid flow through site ❑ moderate flow through site ❑ slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ® 50 - 80 % cover ❑ > 80 % veg cover ® <20% of basin upstream from ❑ 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 6 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ® soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ❑ soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # S Staff DRT Date 01-09-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low (1 t.) Medium 2 ts.) High 3 ts.) Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- sha ed Deep Bowl- shaped 1 Drainage Basin Size < 2 acres 2-5 acres > 5 acres 2 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 1 Input Groundwater only Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 2 Basin Condition < 20% impervious 20-40 % impervious >40% im envious 1 Flow Contained score/5 1 Natural ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ® low connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ® ag land, low veg structure ❑ 2 layers of vegetation ❑ high veg structure ® seasonal surface water ❑ permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ® one habitat type ❑ two habitat types ❑ > 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 12 ® low plant diversity (< 6 species) ❑ moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ❑ high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ® > 50 % invasive species ❑ 10 to 50 % invasive species ❑ < 10% invasive species ® low organic accumulation ❑ moderate organic accumulation ❑ high organic accumulation ® low organic export ❑ moderate organic export ❑ high organic export ® few habitat features ❑ some habitat features ❑ many habitat features ® buffers very disturbed ❑ buffers slightly disturbed ❑ buffers not disturbed ® isolated from upland habitats ❑ partially connected to upland habitats ❑ well connected to upland habitats Overall Habitat ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ® low habitat diversity ❑ moderate habitat diversity ❑ high habitat diversity points 3 ® low sanctuary or refuge ❑ moderate sanctuary or refuge ❑ high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ® low invertebrate habitat ❑ moderate invertebrate habitat ❑ high invertebrate habitat Functions ® low amphibian habitat ❑ moderate amphibian habitat ❑ high amphibian habitat points 5 ® low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ❑ high fish habitat (max 15) ® low mammal habitat ❑ moderate mammal habitat ❑ high mammal habitat ® low bird habitat ❑ moderate bird habitat ❑ high bird habitat Cultural/ ® low educational opportunities ❑ moderate educational opportunities ❑ high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ® low aesthetic value ❑ moderate /aesthetic value ❑ high aesthetic value ® lacks commercial fisheries, ❑ moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 6 ® lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site ❑ important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ❑ some passive and active recreational site ® lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities ® privately owned ❑ privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted public access 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland U Staff DRT Date 01-08-08 Location S 10 T 21 N R 4E N/A = Not Applicable, N/1 = No information available Table 1: Deterxninin& Wetland Size in Landscape Content Attribute Low (1 pt.) Medium (2pts.) HiLrh (3pts.) Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres >10 acres 1 Wetland Loss in Basin >60 % 20 - 60 % <20 % 1 Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on NWI ma s) < 100% of average size 100 - 200 % of t average size > 200% of average size 1 Buffer Size <75 feet 75 to 200 feet >200 feet 1 Buffer Condition >60% disturbed 20-60% disturbed <20% disturbed 1 Relative Size If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question a 3 score/5 1 Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ® riverine, or shallow depression Cl mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ® < 10 % forested cover ❑ 10 - 30 % forested cover ❑ > 30 % forested cover ® unconstrained outlet ❑ semi -constrained outlet ❑ culvert/bermed outlet points 6 ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ® temporally flooded or saturated drainage El —permanently flooded or saturated, or points 7 ❑ seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ® vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ❑ vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL s ecies Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWNI ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A ❑ 20 to 60% shoreline developed ❑ <20% shoreline developed (max 9) Water Quality ❑ rapid flow through site ® moderate flow through site ❑ slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ® 50 - 80 % cover ❑ > 80 % veg cover ❑ <20% of basin upstream from ® 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 8 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ❑ soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ❑ soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland U Staff DRT Date 01-08-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low 1 t.) Medium (2 ts.) High 3 ts. Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- sha ed Deep Bowl- shape 1 Drainage Basin Size <2 acres 2-5 acres >5 acres 1 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 1 Input Groundwater only Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 1 Basin Condition <20% impervious 20-40 % impervious >40% impervious 2 Flow Contained score/5 1 Natural ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ® mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ® ag land, low veg structure ❑ 2 layers of vegetation ❑ high veg structure ® seasonal surface water ❑ permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ❑ one habitat type ® two habitat types ❑ > 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 14 ® low plant diversity (< 6 species) ❑ moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ❑ high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ® > 50 % invasive species ❑ 10 to 50 % invasive species ❑ < 10% invasive species ® low organic accumulation ❑ moderate organic accumulation ❑ high organic accumulation ® low organic export ❑ moderate organic export ❑ high organic export ® few habitat features ❑ some habitat features ❑ many habitat features ® buffers very disturbed ❑ buffers slightly disturbed ❑ buffers not disturbed ® isolated from upland habitats ❑ partially connected to upland habitats ❑ well connected to upland habitats Overall Habitat ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ® low habitat diversity ❑ moderate habitat diversity ❑ high habitat diversity points 3 ® low sanctuary or refuge ❑ moderate sanctuary or refuge ❑ high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ® low invertebrate habitat ❑ moderate invertebrate habitat ❑ high invertebrate habitat Functions ® low amphibian habitat ❑ moderate amphibian habitat ❑ high amphibian habitat points 5 ® low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ❑ high fish habitat (max 15) ® low mammal habitat ❑ moderate mammal habitat ❑ high mammal habitat ® low bird habitat ❑ moderate bird habitat ❑ high bird habitat Cultural/ ® low educational opportunities ❑ moderate educational opportunities ❑ high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ® low aesthetic value ❑ moderate /aesthetic value ❑ high aesthetic value ® lacks commercial fisheries, ❑ moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 6 El lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site ❑ important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ❑ some passive and active recreational site lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities 2 privately owned ❑ privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted public access 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland X (Pre -mitigation) Staff DIRT Date 05-13-08 Location S 15 T 21 R 4 N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available Table 1: Determining Wetland Size in Landscape Context Attribute Low 1 t.) Medium 2 ts.) High (3 ts.) Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 1 Wetland Loss in Basin > 60 % 20-60% < 20 % 2 Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on NWI maps) < 100% of average size 100 —200 % oft average size > 200% of average size 1 Buffer Size < 75 feet 75 to 200 feet > 200 feet i 2 Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed 1 20-60% disturbed < 20% disturbed 3 Relative Size If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question a 3 score/5 2 I { Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 2ts Flood/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ® < 10 % forested cover ❑ 10 - 30 % forested cover ❑ > 30 % forested cover ❑ unconstrained outlet ® semi -constrained outlet ❑ culvert/bermed outlet paints 7 ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ❑ located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ❑ located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ❑ temporally flooded or saturated drainage ❑_permanently flooded or saturated, or points 7 ® seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ® vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ❑ vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A ❑ 20 to 60% shoreline developed ❑ <20% shoreline developed (max 9) Water Quality ❑ rapid flow through site ❑ moderate flow through site ® slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ® 50 - 80 % cover ❑ > 80 % veg cover ❑ <20% of basin upstream from ® 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 10 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ❑ result from Table 2 ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ® soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ❑ soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # Wetland X (Pre -mitigation) Staff DRT Date 05-13-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low 1 t.) Medium (2 ts.) High (3 ts.) Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- shaped Deep Bowl- shaped 1 Drainage Basin Size < 2 acres 2-5 acres > 5 acres 3 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 2 Input Groundwater 0nlY Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 2 Basin Condition < 20% impervious 20-40 % impervious >40% impervious 2 Flow Contained score/5 2 Natural ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ® mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ❑ ag land, low veg structure ® 2 layers of vegetation ❑ high veg structure ® seasonal surface water ❑ permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ❑ one habitat type ® two habitat types ❑ > 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 20 ❑ low plant diversity (< 6 species) ® moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ❑ high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ❑ > 50 % invasive species ® 10 to 50 % invasive species ❑ < 10% invasive species ® low organic accumulation ❑ moderate organic accumulation ❑ high organic accumulation ® low organic export ❑ moderate organic export ❑ high organic export ® few habitat features ❑ some habitat features ❑ many habitat features ❑ buffers very disturbed ® buffers slightly disturbed ❑ buffers not disturbed ❑ isolated from upland habitats ® partially connected to upland habitats ❑ well connected to upland habitats Overall Habitat ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ® low habitat diversity ❑ moderate habitat diversity ❑ high habitat diversity points 4 ® low sanctuary or refuge ❑ moderate sanctuary or refuge ❑ high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ® low invertebrate habitat ❑ moderate invertebrate habitat ❑ high invertebrate habitat Functions ® low amphibian habitat ❑ moderate amphibian habitat ❑ high amphibian habitat points 6 ® low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ❑ high fish habitat (max 15) ® low mammal habitat ❑ moderate mammal habitat ❑ high mammal habitat ❑ low bird habitat ® moderate bird habitat ❑ high bird habitat I Cultural/ ® low educational opportunities {{ ❑ moderate educational opportunities 1 ❑ high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ® low aesthetic value I ❑moderate /aesthetic value ❑high aesthetic value ® lacks commercial fisheries, ❑ moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 6 ® lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site ❑ important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ❑ some passive and active recreational site ® lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities 0 privately owned ❑ privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted public access 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland Y Staff DIRT Date 45-13-08 Location S 15 T 21 R 4 N/A = Not Applicable, N/1 = No information available Table 1: Determining Wetland Size in Landscape Context Attribute Low 1 t. Medium 2pts.) High (3pts.) Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 1 Wetland Loss in Basin > 60% 20-60% < 20 % 2 Size Relative to Other 1 Wetlands in Basin (on < 100% of 100 — 200 % oft > 200% of NWI maps) average size average size average size Buffer Size < 75 feet 75 to 200 feet > 200 feet 2 Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed 20-60% disturbed < 20% disturbed 3 If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 score/5 Relative Size If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the uestion a 3 Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score see Table 1 ( ) ❑size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland p [I lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ® < 10 % forested cover ❑ 10 - 30 % forested cover ❑ > 30 % forested cover ® unconstrained outlet Elsemi-constrainedoutlet Elculvert/bermed outlet points 6 ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ❑ located in middle 1/3 of the [Ilocated in upper 1/3 of the drainage j (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland p El lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ❑ located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ❑ temporally flooded or saturated drainage ❑_permanently flooded or saturated, or points 7 ® seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ® vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ❑ vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A (max 9) El20 to 60% shoreline developed ❑ <20% shoreline developed Water Quality ❑ rapid flow through site ® moderate flow through site ❑ slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ❑ 50 - 80 % cover ® > 80 % veg cover ❑ <20% of basin upstream from ® 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 11 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ❑ result from Table 2 ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 71 soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ® soil organic mineral mix 0 soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # Wetland Y Staff DRT Date 05-13-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low (1 t.) Medium (2 ts.) High (3 ts.) Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- shaped Deep Bowl- shaped 1 Drainage Basin Size < 2 acres 1 2-5 acres > 5 acres 3 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 2 Input Groundwater only Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 2 Basin Condition < 20% impervious 20-40 % impervious >40% impervious 2 Flow Contained score/5 2 Natural ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ® mod connectivityd buffers to veg'd [I high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ❑ ag land, low veg structure ® 2 layers of vegetation ❑ high veg structure ❑ seasonal surface water ® permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ❑ one habitat type ® two habitat types ❑ > 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 22 ❑ low plant diversity (< 6 species) ® moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ❑ high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ❑ > 50 % invasive species ® 10 to 50 % invasive species ❑ < 10% invasive species ® low organic accumulation ❑ moderate organic accumulation ❑ high organic accumulation ® low organic export ❑ moderate organic export ❑ high organic export ❑ few habitat features ® some habitat features ❑ many habitat features ❑ buffers very disturbed ® buffers slightly disturbed ❑ buffers not disturbed ❑ isolated from upland habitats ® partially connected to upland habitats ❑ well connected to u iand habitats Overall Habitat ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score see Table 1 ( ) ❑size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ❑ low habitat diversity ® moderate habitat diversity El high habitat diversity points 6 ❑ low sanctuary or refuge ® moderate sanctuary or refuge ❑ high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ❑ low invertebrate habitat ❑ moderate invertebrate habitat ® high invertebrate habitat Functions ❑ low amphibian habitat ❑ moderate amphibian habitat p ®high amphibian habitat points 13 ❑ low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ® high fish habitat (max 15) ❑ low mammal habitat ® moderate mammal habitat ❑ high mammal habitat ❑ low bird habitat ® moderate bird habitat ❑ high bird habitat Cultural/ ❑ low educational opportunities ® moderate educational opportunities pp ❑high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ❑ low aesthetic value ❑ moderate /aesthetic value ® high aesthetic value ❑ lacks commercial fisheries, ® moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 12 ® lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site g [I important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ® some passive and active recreational site ❑ lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities 0 privately owned ®privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted public access South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan APPENDIX D Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM) Data Sheets — Post Mitigation 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-M itPl a n-8(30Oct08 ). doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Appendix D 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland U (Mitigation) Staff DRT Date 01-14-08 Location S 10 T 21 N R 4E N/A = Not Applicable, N/1 = No information available Table 1: Determining Wetland Size in Landscape Context Attribute Low 1 t. Medium 2 ts. High (3 ts.) Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 1 Wetland Loss in Basin > 60 % 20 — 60 % < 20 % 1 Size Relative to Other 2 Wetlands in Basin (on < 100% of 100 — 200 % of t > 200% of NWI maps) average size average size average size Buffer Size < 75 feet 75 to 200 feet > 200 feet 1 Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed 20-60% disturbed < 20% disturbed 3 If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 score/5 Relative Size If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question a 3 Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ❑ < 10 % forested cover ® 10 - 30 % forested cover ❑ > 30 % forested cover ❑ unconstrained outlet ® semi -constrained outlet ❑ culvert/bermed outlet points 9 ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ❑ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ® located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 113 of the drainage ❑ temporally flooded or saturated drainage ❑_permanently flooded or saturated, or points 9 ® seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ❑ vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ® vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A 20 to 60 /o shoreline developed El 20 <20 /o shoreline developed ❑ 0 (max 9) Water Quality ❑ rapid flow through site ❑ moderate flow through site ® slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ❑ 50 - 80 % cover ® > 80 % veg cover ❑ <20% of basin upstream from ® 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 12 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ❑ result from Table 2 ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ❑ soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ® soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # U (Mitigation) Staff DIRT Date 01-14-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low (1 t.) Medium 2 ts. High (3 ts.) Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- shaped Deep Bowl- shape 2 Drainage Basin Size < 2 acres 2-5 acres > 5 acres 1 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 2 Input Groundwater only Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 2 Basin Condition < 20% itnervious 20-40 % impervious >40% im ervious 2 Flow Contained score/5 2 Natural ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ® high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ❑ ag land, low veg structure ❑ 2 layers of vegetation ® high veg structure ❑ seasonal surface water ® permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ❑ one habitat type ® two habitat types ❑ > 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 32 ❑ low plant diversity (< 6 species) ❑ moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ® high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ❑ > 50 % invasive species ❑ 10 to 50 % invasive species ® < 10% invasive species ❑ low organic accumulation ® moderate organic accumulation ❑ high organic accumulation ❑ low organic export ❑ moderate organic export ® high organic export ❑ few habitat features ❑ some habitat features ® many habitat features ❑ buffers very disturbed ❑ buffers slightly disturbed ® buffers not disturbed ❑ isolated from upland habitats ❑ partially connected to upland habitats ® well connected to upland habitats Overall Habitat ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ❑ low habitat diversity ❑ moderate habitat diversity ® high habitat diversity points 7 ❑ low sanctuary or refuge ® moderate sanctuary or refuge ❑ high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ❑ low invertebrate habitat ® moderate invertebrate habitat ❑ high invertebrate habitat Functions ❑ low amphibian habitat ® moderate amphibian habitat ❑ high amphibian habitat points 11 ® low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ❑ high fish habitat (max 15) ❑ low mammal habitat ❑ moderate mammal habitat ® high mammal habitat ❑ low bird habitat ❑ moderate bird habitat ® high bird habitat CUltural/ El low educational opportunities ®moderate educational opportunities El high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ❑ low aesthetic value ❑ moderate /aesthetic value ® high aesthetic value ® lacks commercial fisheries, ❑ moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 11 ® lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site ❑ important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ® some passive and active recreational site ❑ lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities 0 privately owned ® privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted ublic access 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # TAL-030 Wetland X {Post-mit.) Staff DRT Date 05-13-08 Location S 15 T 21 R 4 N/A = Not Applicable, N/1 = No information available Table 1: Determining Wetland Size in Landscape Context Attribute Low (1 t.) Medium 2 ts. High (3 ts.) Total Absolute Size <5 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 1 Wetland Loss in Basin > 60 % 20-60% < 20 % 2 Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on NWI maps) < 100% of average size 100 —200 % oft average size > 200% of average size 1 Buffer Size < 75 feet 75 to 200 feet > 200 feet 2 Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed 20-60% disturbed < 20% disturbed 3 Relative Size If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question. a 3 score/5 2 Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ❑ < 10 % forested cover ❑ 10 - 30 % forested cover ® > 30 % forested cover ❑ unconstrained outlet ® semi -constrained outlet ❑ culvert/bermed outlet points 9 ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ❑ located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage (max 15) drainage Base Flow/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ❑ located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ❑ temporally flooded or saturated drainage ❑_permanently flooded or saturated, or points 8 ® seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ❑ vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ® vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A ❑ 20 to 60% shoreline developed ❑ <20% shoreline developed (max 9) Water Quality ❑ rapid flow through site ❑ moderate flow through site ® slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ❑ 50 - 80 % cover ® > 80 % veg cover ❑ <20% of basin upstream from ® 20 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 12 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ❑ result from Table 2 ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 0 soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ® soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # Wetland x (Post -Mitigation) Staff DRT 'r 1.l0 7. n1 avla,nA Flnm rnntained in Wetland Date 05-13-08 vibute Low 1 t. Medium (2 ts.) { High (3 ts.) Total ion Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- Deep Bowl- 1 ;Dr2ainage shaped shaped asin Size < 2 acres 2-5 acres > 5 acres 3 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 2 Input Groundwater Surface flow and Surface flow 2 groundwater Basin Condition -only < 20% 20-40 % >40% 2 impervious impervious im ervious Flow Contained 1 score/5 2 Natural Biological Support points 27 (max 36) Overall Habitat Functions points 7 Specific Habitat Functions points 10 (Max 15) Cultural/ Socioeconomic points 9 (max 18) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ ag land, low veg structure ® seasonal surface water ❑ one habitat type PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST ❑ low plant diversity (< 6 species) ❑ > 50 % invasive species ❑ low organic accumulation ® low organic export ❑ few habitat features ❑ buffers very disturbed ❑ isolated from upland habitats ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ low habitat diversity ❑ low sanctuary or refuge ❑ low invertebrate habitat ® low amphibian habitat ® low fish habitat ❑ low mammal habitat ❑ low bird habitat ® low educational opportunities ❑ low aesthetic value ® lacks commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources ® lacks historical or archeological resources ❑ lacks passive and active recreational opportunities ® privately owned ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ 2 layers of vegetation ❑ permanent surface water ❑ two habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST ❑ moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ❑ 10 to 50 % invasive species ® moderate organic accumulation ❑ moderate organic export ❑ some habitat features ® buffers slightly disturbed nd habitats ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ moderate habitat diversity ® moderate sanctuary or refuge ® moderate invertebrate habitat ❑ moderate amphibian habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat ❑ moderate mammal habitat ❑ moderate bird habitat ❑ moderate educational opportunities ❑ moderate /aesthetic value ❑ moderate commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources ❑ historical or archeological site ® some passive and active recreational opportunities owned, some public access I ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ high connectivity to veg'd buffers ® high veg structure ❑ open water pools through summer ❑ > 3 habitat types PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST ® high plant diversity (> 15 spp) ® < 10% invasive species ❑ high organic accumulation ❑ high organic export ® many habitat features ❑ buffers not disturbed ❑ well connected to upland habitats ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® high habitat diversity ❑ high sanctuary or refuge ❑ high invertebrate habitat ❑ high amphibian habitat ❑ high fish habitat ® high mammal habitat ® high bird habitat ❑ high educational opportunities ® high aesthetic value ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources ❑ important historical or archeological site ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities n access 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # Wetland Y Post -Mitigation Staff DIRT Date 10-29-08 Location S 15 T 21 R 4 N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available Table 1: Determinina Wetland Size in Landscape Context Attribute Low (1 t.) Medium 2 ts.) High (3 ts.) Total Absolute Size 6 acres 5-10 acres > 10 acres 1 Wetland Loss in Basin > 60 % 20 — 60 % <20 % 2 Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on NWI ma s) < 100% of avera e size 100 — 200 % of t average size > 200% of average size 1 Buffer Size <75 feet 75 to 200 feet >200 feet 2 Buffer Condition >60% disturbed 1 20-60% disturbed <20% disturbed 3 Relative Size If score is =1.4 then give the question a 1 If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then give the question a 2 If score is 2.5 to =3 then give the question a 3 score/5 2 Function Criteria Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Storm Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Control ❑ < 10 % forested cover ❑ 10 - 30 % forested cover ® > 30 % forested cover ® unconstrained outlet ❑ semi -constrained outlet ❑ culvert/bermed outlet points 8 ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage El located in middle 1/3 of the [I located in upper 1/3 of the drainage (max 15) drainaoe Base Flow/ ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Ground Water ® riverine, or shallow depression ❑ mid -sloped wetland ❑ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs Support ® located in lower 1/3 of the drainage ❑ located in middle 1/3 of the ❑ located in upper 1/3 of the drainage ❑ temporally flooded or saturated drainage El —permanently flooded or saturated, or points 8 ® seasonally or semi -permanently intermittently exposed (max 15) ❑ vegetation < 20 % OBL species flooded or saturated ❑ vegetation > 40 % OBL species ® vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species Erosion/ ❑ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along ❑ sparse wood or veg along OHWM ❑ dense wood or veg along OHWM Shoreline OHWM Protection ❑ wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM ❑ wetland extends 30 - 60 m from ❑ wetland extends > 200 m from ❑ >60% shoreline developed OHWM OHWM points N/A ❑ 20 to 60% shoreline developed ❑ <20%shoreline developed (max 9) Water Quality ❑ rapid flow through site ® moderate flow through site ❑ slow flow through site Improvement ❑ < 50 % veg cover ❑ 50 - 80 % cover ® > 80 % veg cover ❑ <20% of basin upstream from 2120 to 50% of basin upstream from ❑ > 50% of basin upstream from points 11 wetland is developed wetland is developed wetland is developed (max 15) ❑ result from Table 2 ® result from Table 2 ❑ result from Table 2 ❑ soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam ® soil organic mineral mix ❑ soil heavy organic muck and peat 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # Wetland Y Post -Mitigation Staff DIRT Date 10-29-08 Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Low 1 t.) Medium (2 ts.) High (3 ts.) Total Configuration Plate -shaped Shallow bowl- shaped Deep Bowl- shaped 1 Drainage Basin Size <2 acres 2-5 acres >5 acres 3 Outlet Unconstrained Semi -constrained Constrained 1 Input Groundwater only Surface flow and groundwater Surface flow 2 Basin Condition , <20% impervious 20-40 % impervious >40% im ervious 2 Flow Contained .. score/5 2 Natural ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Biological ❑ low connectivity to veg'd buffers ❑ mod connectivity to veg'd buffers ® high connectivity to veg'd buffers Support ❑ ag land, low veg structure ❑ 2 layers of vegetation ® high veg structure Cl seasonal surface water ® permanent surface water ❑ open water pools through summer ❑ one habitat type ❑ two habitat types ® > 3 habitat types PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST points 29 ❑ low plant diversity (< 6 species) ❑ moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp) ® high plant diversity (> 15 spp) (max 36) ❑ > 50 % invasive species ❑ 10 to 50 % invasive species ® < 10% invasive species ❑ low organic accumulation ® moderate organic accumulation ❑ high organic accumulation ® low organic export ❑ moderate organic export ❑ high organic export ❑ few habitat features ❑ some habitat features ® many habitat features ❑ buffers very disturbed ® buffers slightly disturbed ❑ buffers not disturbed ❑ isolated from upland habitats ED partially connected to upland habitats ❑ well connected to upland habitats Overall Habitat ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) ® size cumulative score (see Table 1) ❑ size cumulative score (see Table 1) Functions ❑ low habitat diversity ❑ moderate habitat diversity ® high habitat diversity points 7 ❑ low sanctuary or refuge ® moderate sanctuary or refuge ❑ high sanctuary or refuge (max 9) Specific Habitat ❑ low invertebrate habitat ❑ moderate invertebrate habitat ® high invertebrate habitat Functions ❑ low amphibian habitat ❑ moderate amphibian habitat ® high amphibian habitat points 15 ❑ low fish habitat ❑ moderate fish habitat (D high fish habitat (max 15) ❑ low mammal habitat ❑ moderate mammal habitat ® high mammal habitat ❑ low bird habitat ❑ moderate bird habitat ® high bird habitat Cultural/ ❑ low educational opportunities ® moderate educational opportunities ❑ high educational opportunities Socioeconomic ❑ low aesthetic value ❑ moderate /aesthetic value ® high aesthetic value ❑ lacks commercial fisheries, ® moderate commercial fisheries, ❑ high commercial fisheries, agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources agriculture, renewable resources points 12 ® lacks historical or archeological ❑ historical or archeological site ❑ important historical or archeological (max 18) resources ® some passive and active recreational site ❑ lacks passive and active opportunities ❑ many passive and active recreational opportunities recreational opportunities ❑ privately owned ® privately owned, some public access ❑ unrestricted public access South 3201" Place Critical Areas Report & Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan APPENDIX E Supplemental Hydrology Support (Terra Associates, May 21, 2008) 30 October 2008 030-CAReport-Mi tPlan-8(30Oct08 ). d oc Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Appendix E TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences May 21, 2008 Project No. T-6231 Mr. Bill Shiels Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road N.E. Woodinville, Washington 98077 Subject: Supplemental Hydrology Support Wetland Mitigation South 320th Place Federal Way, Washington Reference: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, South 320th Place Small Lot Detached Development Demonstration Project, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated November 30, 2007 Dear Mr. Shiels: As requested we have completed an analysis of hydrology that will support wetland construction at the subject site. Our analysis is based on soil and groundwater information contained in the referenced report, review of the conceptual wetland mitigation plan, sheet W2.0 prepared by Talasaea Consultants dated January 18, 2008, review of the stormwater pond performance calculations prepared by PACE Engineers, Inc., and discussions with you regarding the project and its objectives. Site and Soil Conditions The project site is located northeast of the intersection of 32nd Avenue and South 320th Street in Federal Way. The project consists of developing the property with 117 small lot detached housing units and associated roadway and utility improvements. A stormwater detention pond will be constructed in the southeastern portion of the site where wetlands have been delineated. Wetland impacts will be mitigated by construction of new wetlands immediately east of the detention pond's eastern containment berm. The wetland area will be triangular in shape and created by constructing containment berms along the south and eastern perimeters of the mitigation area. Hydrology support for the created wetlands will be supplied by direct rainfall and stored water in the detention pond. The pond is designed to discharge into the southwest corner of the created wetland by means of a dispersal trench that is tied to the pond outfall pipe. The water level in the wetland will be controlled by constructing a log weir at the north end of the mitigation area. The log weir will cause released stormwater to accumulate in the mitigation area and maintain a water level equal to site elevation 433.4 feet. Based on design grades, this will result in a water depth varying from 1.4 to 2.4 feet. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 + Fax (425) 821-4334 Mr. Bill Shiels May 21, 2008 Soil conditions in the mitigation area are shown to consist of glacially derived silty sand with gravel (glacial till). The till is weathered and medium dense in the upper four feet. Below this upper weathered horizon, the till is not weathered and is characterized by a gray color and very dense cemented condition. No groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits. However, oxidation staining at the contact between the weathered and unweathered till horizons indicates perched groundwater seepage is likely present during and shortly following the wet winter seasons. Based on testing and field measurements local practice typically assigns the weathered and un- weathered till permeability coefficients of 10-4 and 10-6 cm/sec respectively. Discussion As we understand in order for the wetland mitigation to be successful, the wetland hydrology must be sustained to demonstrate full saturation of the upper 12 inches for a 45-day period during the growing season. The wettest portion of the growing season is normally considered to occur in the months of March and April. A primary concern with regards to the pond as a source of water is the rate at which the pond discharges verses periods of time during the early part of the growing season that are dry. Pond hydrographs are typically very steep both with ascending inflow and descending outflow. If there are a, number of days with no outflow the water level in the wetland area will drop due to both natural seepage and some evapotranspiration (ET) losses. This drop in water level can cause the mitigation area to fail the saturation criteria for wetland designation. The volume of water required to fill the wetland pool is approximately 23,500 cubic feet. The stormwater pond has a total live storage of slightly greater than 200,000 cubic feet at its maximum 6.7 foot reservoir stage. The volume of water needed to fill the wetland pool would be available from the pond with the live storage at the one - foot stage. Needless to say, there will be a sufficient volume of water in the stormwater pond to replenish the wetland volume during most storm events. Analysis of the pond stored volumes and discharge rates indicates that the time required to drain the live storage volume from the one foot and from the peak reservoir stages will range from 2.4 days to 6.4 days respectively. To evaluate the potential for dry periods during the growing season we reviewed daily rainfall records from a King County recording station on Lake Dolloff located approximately one half mile north of the site. The rain gauge was established in 1989 providing a nineteen year record of daily precipitation. Daily precipitation for the months of March and April obtained from King Counties Hydrologic Information Center has been tabulated and is attached. Statistical analysis of the data over the sample period results in an average two -month rainfall amount of 7.33 inches with a standard deviation of 2.32 inches. As we understand, regulatory review of the mitigation plan requires evaluation of the hydrology support for a normal (average) water year less one standard deviation which in this case is about 5 inches. The 1998 water year had a total two -month rainfall of five (5) inches. Examination of the rainfall frequency_, shows that there is a 37-day period after March 24th when there was no rainfall or rainfall generally less than .1 inches. In the four days preceding this drier span the rainfall amount was 1.43 inches. This amount of rainfall would result in a pond stage of between one and two feet which will drain from the pond in about three days. This results in a 34-day time span where there will be no or very little hydrology support from the pond. A water balance negating any contribution from the pond over this time span, with losses from the wetland pool from seepage and ET, estimates a loss in the pool level of approximately two (2) inches. Water balance calculations with supporting references are attached. Project No. T-6231 Page No. 2 Mr. Bill Shiels May 21, 2008 The above analysis demonstrates, in our opinion, that hydrology support from the stormwater pond will likely be adequate to support the hydrology of the wetland mitigation area during the growing season. However as we discussed, the wetland hydrology could be supplemented by using an exfiltration trench to slowly release stored water into the wetland. The exfiltration trench would be constructed along the centerline of the southern containment berm and would consist of a gravel filled trench with a perforated discharge pipe. Water from the roof tops of 11 adjacent homes would be directed to the trench with an overflow bypass directing water back to the stormwater pond when the trench is at capacity. Water stored in the trench would be slowly released into the wetland through a seepage layer placed adjacent the base of the trench at an elevation equal to the wetland pool water elevation. A cross sectional detail of the exfiltration trench with construction specifications is shown on attached Figure 1. With a width of 4 feet and a length of 150 feet, the trench will have the capacity to store and release approximately 900 cubic feet of water which, over the area of the wetland, is equivalent to a water depth of about one inch. Analysis of the system constructed as shown on Figure 1 indicates 90 percent of this stored water would flow to the wetland fringe over a 10-day time period. This would supplement the dry or low rainfall periods shown in the rainfall record and reduce the loss in the pool level. sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require Attachments: ab e 1 — Rainfall Record Table 2 — Water Balance Figure 1 — Ex -filtration Trench Detail Project No. T-6231 Page No. 3 Gage: 41v - Lake Dolloff Rain Gauge Dateffear 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 3/1 0 0 0.44 0 0.14 0.32 0 0 0.56 0.64 0.31 0 0.26 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 3/2 0.01 0 0.94 0 0.07 0.58 0 0 0.25 0.35 0.17 0.39 0.06 0 0.15 0 0.23 0.02 0.26 313 0.42 0.07 0.8 0.12 0.38 0.48 0 0.25 0.1 0.06 0.53 0.38 0.01 0 0 0.32 0 0 0.08 3/4 0.25 0.07 0.29 0.1 0.52 0.25 0.15 0.06 0 0 0.09 0.59 0 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 3/5 0.48 0.07 0.48 0.32 0 0 0.02 0.06 0.22 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.15 0 0.03 0.07 3/6 0.09 0.24 0.06 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.52 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.16 0 0 0.08 0 317 0.26 0.41 0 0.02 0 0 0 0.05 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.19 0 0.04 0.15 3/8 0.01 0.44 0 0 0.08 0.01 0.37 0 0.03 0.28 0.36 0.02 0.17 0 0.22 0 0 0.34 0.1 3/9 0.36 0.37 0.43 0 0 0.02 0.55 0.08 0.46 0.82 0.04 0.08 0.17 0 0.59 0.03 0.07 0.13 0.05 3/10 0.16 0.25 0.13 0 0 0.36 0.38 0.28 0.01 0.16 0 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 0 0 0.14 0.52 3111 0.31 0 0.2 0 0 0.06 0.26 0.24 0.21 0 0 0.05 0 0.95 0.47 0 0 0.01 0.69 3/12 0.74 0 0.48 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.03 0.25 0.01 0.63 0 0 0.48 0.99 0 0 0 0.37 3/13 0.38 0.25 0.02 0 0.1 0 0.14 0 0 0.01 0.47 0.49 0.08 0.08 0.11 0 0 0 0 3/14 0.2 0.27 0.02 0 0.78 0 0.21 0.01 0 0 0.33 0.1 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.12 0.06 3/15 0.1 0 0 0.33 0 0.19 0.04 0 0.92 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.42 0.06 0.07 0 0 0.04 0.01 3116 0.42 0 0 0.03 0.29 0.2 0 0 0.18 0.07 0 0.34 0 0.37 0.15 0 0.24 0.04 0.01 3/17 0.07 0.3 0 0.25 0.05 0.07 0.04 0 0.24 0.01 0.04 0.03 0 0.25 0.01 0.03 0 0.22 0.23 3118 0.41 0 0.25 0.01 0 0.29 0.38 0 1.21 0 0.05 0.3 0.66 0.21 0.07 0.12 0 0.26 0.02 3/19 0.01 0.07 0.05 0 0.16 0.11 0.04 0.1 1.11 0 0 0.03 0 0.74 0.12 0.03 0.23 0 0.6 3/20 0.2 0.07 0 0 0.06 0.35 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.45 0.22 0 0.13 0 0.14 3/21 0.25 0 0.04 0 0.01 0.31 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.01 0 0 0.61 0 0.06 0.02 0 3/22 0 0.39 0 0 1.6 0.29 0.01 0.14 0 0.67 0.16 0.65 0 0 0.53 0.19 0 0.03 0.12 3/23 0 0.03 0.04 0 0.13 0 0.25 0.04 0 0.39 0.04 0 0 0.01 0.03 0.01 0 0.02 0.24 3/24 0.4 0 0.45 0 0 0.03 0 0.01 0 0.22 0.27 0 0.23 0.04 0.01 0.51 0 0.34 1.17 3/25 0.39 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.01 0.07 0 0.35 0 0.04 0.55 0 0.03 0.02 3/26 0.13 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.27 0.04 0.34 0 0.16 0.01 0.22 0.16 1.55 0.06 0.01 3/27 0.34 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 0.02 0.1 0.02 0.06 0.14 0.44 0 0.01 0.04 0.88 0 0.4 3/28 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.3 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.27 0.17 0 3/29 0.08 0 0 0 0.21 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.16 0.05 0 0.01 0 0 0.2 0.04 0.01 3/30 0.16 0 0 0 0.08 0.01 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.04 0 0.08 0.11 0 0 0.12 3/31 0.37 0 0 0 0.19 0 0.02 0.43 0.18 0.12 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0 0.08 0.08 0.17 411 0.33 0 0 0 0.19 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.02 0.11 0 0.52 0.43 0.02 4/2 0.28 0 0.45 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0 0.43 0 0.09 0 0.04 0 0 4/3 0.31 0 0.74 0.01 0.37 0.25 0 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.2 0 0 0 0.11 0 0.33 0.14 0 4/4 0.51 0 2.84 0.43 0 0 0.08 0.01 0 0 0.05 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4/5 0.64 0 0.97 0.3 0.01 0.21 0 0 0.01 0 0.04 0 0.24 0.01 0.16 0 0.03 0 0 4/6 0.08 0 0.25 0 0.29 0.49 0.05 0.41 0 0.01 0 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.07 0 0.01 0 0 4/7 0 0 0.02 0 0.07 0.2 0.39 0 0 0.01 0.13 0 0 0 0.29 0 0.23 0 0.11 4/8 0 0.04 0.44 0 0.93 0.52 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0 0.32 0 0 0.39 0.21 4/9 0 0 0.07 0.22 0.19 0.02 0 0.12 0 0.09 0.02 0 0 0.31 0.09 0 0 0 0.25 4/10 0 0 0.34 0.01 0.21 0 0.19 0.09 0 0.13 0.1 0 0.88 0.43 0.08 0 0.23 0 0 4/11 0 0.26 0 0.16 0.08 0 0.03 0.12 0 0.14 0 0 0.01 0.28 0.06 0 0.62 0 0.01 4/12 0 0 0 0.11 0.01 0.33 0.37 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.01 0 0.01 0.19 0.07 0 0.02 0.03 0 4/13 0 0.38 0 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.5 0.02 0 0.71 0 1.6 0.67 0 0.02 0.62 0.11 4/14 0 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0.3 0 0.29 0 0.34 0.03 0.48 0.03 4/15 0.01 0 0.09 0.05 0.23 0 0.01 0.38 0.14 0 0 0.14 0 0.05 0 0.02 0.36 0.31 0 4/16 0 0 0 0.74 0.15 0 0 0.3 0.22 0.01 0 0 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.92 0.02 0.06 4/17 0 0.19 0 0.66 0.18 0 0.03 0.18 0 0 0 0 0.28 0 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.08 4/18 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.26 0.01 0 0.04 0.07 0.11 0 0 0.07 0.01 0 0.01 4/19 0.18 0.04 0 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.14 1 0.01 0.19 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.18 0 0 0.01 4/20 0.31 0.2 0 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.18 0.08 0.26 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 4121 0.01 0 0 0.19 0.28 0.17 0 0 0.08 0 0.01 0.08 0 0.06 0.52 0.01 0 0.24 0.12 4/22 0.39 0.57 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.57 0.39 0 0 0.02 0.03 0 0.04 0 0 0 0.01 4/23 0 0.11 0.3 0 0.11 0 0 1.48 0.27 0.35 0 0.14 0.08 0 0.29 0.02 0.17 0 0 4/24 0 0 0.26 0 0.11 0 0 0.33 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.35 0 0.13 0 0.2 4/25 0.01 0.35 0.01 0 0.44 0 0 0.38 0 0 0.16 0.34 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 m 4/26 0.01 0 0 0.04 0.21 0.06 0.01 0.12 0.24 0 0.09 0 0 0.21 0.1 0 0 0 0.02 4/27 0 0.34 0 0.13 0 0 0.02 0 0.07 0 0.31 0.11 0.12 0.25 0 0.06 0 0 0.02 4/28 0 0.34 0.25 0.05 0.12 0 0.03 0 0.24 0 0 0.03 0.18 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 4/29 0 0.07 0.04 0.59 0.17 0.18 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.21 0 0 0 0.58 0.61 0 4/30 0 0 0 0.01 0.18 0.01 0 0.06 0.5 0 0.03 0 0.9 0 0 0 0.08 0.01 0.13 Total Monthly Rainfall 10.27 6.22 12.26 5.37 9.8 6.49 4.54 7.52 11.48 5 6.26 5.76 7.24 7.68 8.86 3.3 8.58 5.55 7.02 Average Monthly Rainfall 7.33 Standard Deviation 2.32 2008 0.08 0 0.03 0 0 0.01 0.04 0.02 0 0.24 0.1 0.01 0.46 0.44 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.25 0 0 0.57 0 0.15 0.4 0.16 0.32 0.43 0.2 0.01 0 0 0 0.19 0.04 0.26 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.01 0 0 0.08 0.09 0 0.01 0 0 0.04 0 0.2 0 Rainfall Record - King County Hydrologic Data - Lake Dolloff Wetland Mitigation South 320th Place Federal Way, Washington Terra Associates Project No. T-6231 Wafer Balance in Wetland Pool after Pond is Drained Followed by a Period of Low or No Rainfall pond volume drained Day 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24 3/25 3/26 3127 3/28 3/29 3/30 3131 4/1 4/2 413 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21 4/22 4/23 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28 4/29 4/30 Total Water (inches) = Net Loss in Pool Level (inches) = Rainfall 0.15 0.67 0.39 0.22 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.01 0 0.03 0.12 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.02 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.35 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.08 -1,95 Seepage Loss' ET LosS2 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0,057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 0.033 0.057 1.155 1.875 Note 1: Based on till permeability of 10-6 cm/sec and recharge through till as outlined in U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report Note 2: Based on U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 94-4082, 1995 and calculation of monthly ET using Thomthwaite. South 320th Place Critical Areas Report & Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan APPENDIX F Final Wetland Mitigation Plans (large plans in pockets) Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Site Plan, Impacts, & Mitigation Sheet W2.0: Grading Plan & Details Sheet W2.1: Grading Specifications Sheet W3.0: Planting Plan & Plant Schedule Sheet W3.1: Planting Specifications and Details Sheet W4.0: Off -site Minor Grading Plan & Details Sheet W4.1: Off -site Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, & Details 30 October 2008 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 030-CAReport-MitPlan-8(300ct08).doc Appendix QUADRANT HOMES PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION SOUTH 320TH PLACE FEDERAL WAY. WA FEBRUARY 1, CITY OF Federal Way MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8'h Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway. coin .;eji 07 -10 53 7 9 -00 - PC. xfCoZ - iob 755- oo - s� -!APPLICATION NO(S) _ _ Date 16PVR9y I dC]g Project Name SoC.1 - Property Address/Location S l C—) S ?, A� R�E IT "Al F&DIR&L PVAV" Parcel Numbers) sE_ Artso P aLw=L Lis 7—} Project Description G PLEASE PRINT p pU JXC-r C GV E Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director=s Approval) Process II (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process VI SEPA w/Project SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information Q Zoning Designation %"IXT—% A Comprehensive Plan Designation Value of Existing Improvements 33050value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (IBC): 3 Occupancy Type Tr 5 Construction Type +.1I4a L ir1�41� FwC-c- ad -15% Applicant Name: CaURP"_NT HOMES Address: P.O. re- X /3 City/State: SF I VUr ) �p Zip: a Phone: 00 9 ¢�� Fax: �ZCj - !e 4-+ro - ¢-� 3 3 Email: mcirmi h01y11�� Signature: Y �" . BOG K 9 J4, Agent t than Appfant) Name: (',-s So P-GIF F.. CoO4 P. E. Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Owner Name: Address: City/State: zip: Phone: Fax. - Email: Signature: Bulletin #003 —August 18, 2004 Page I of I k:\Handouts\Master Land Use Application South 320th Place Parcel Numbers Parcel No. Parcel Area 551560-0005 2.41 ac 551560-0010 2.57 ac 551560-0015 2.57 ac -551560-0020 2.57 ac 651560-0026 1.29 ac 551560-0025 1.38 ac 551560-0030 2.75 ac 551560-0035 1.61 ac 551560-0091 0.72 ac 551560-0090 1.25 ac Total Area 19.12 ac SOUTH 320TH PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION February 1, 2008 This is a preliminary plat application submitted by Quadrant Homes for Preliminary flat approval of 115 lots on approximately I9 acres in Federal Way. The South 3201h Place site and land use plan was selected as a Small Lot Demonstration Project on January 22, F_ 2008 by the City of Federal Way in accordance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) 20-155. Our application for Preliminary Plat approval is contained in the South 320`h Place bound Preliminary Plat application book and attached plans and reports. A list of the attached plans and reports is contained in the last Preliminary Plat application book tab titled "Attachments." Quadrant Homes began the process of selection as a Small Lot Demonstration Project on September 28, 2007 with the submittal of a pre -application submittal to the City of Federal Way (CFW). On October 18, 2007 Quadrant Homes met with the CFW Pre - application Development Review Committee. Following the meeting with the Review Committee a pre -application comment letter was issued by the CFW on November 5, 2007. The land use plan contained in the pre -application submittal was modified to substantially conform to the CFW pre -application comment letter. On November 30, 2007 Quadrant Homes submitted a formal application for selection as a Small Lot Demonstration Project in Federal Way. A letter of Application Completeness was issued by the CFW on December 14, 2007, and on January 22, 2008 the City of Federal Way issued a letter conditionally approving the South 3201h Place project as a Small Lot Demonstration Project. The South 3201h Place Preliminary Plat application has been designed to address conditions 1 through 5 as outlined in the January 22, 2008 small lot demonstration project approval letter. Staff -recommended modifications 7, 8 and 9 have been incorporated into the plan and will be discussed in more detail in this application. The South 320`h Place site is located adjacent to and north of South 320`h Street approximately '/ mile east of I-5. The site is bounded on the west by 32°d Avenue South and on the east side by a Federal Way fire station. The fully signalized intersection of Weyerhaeuser Way South and South 320a' Street lies south and adjacent to the site and provides the main entrance to the site. South 320`h Street is an arterial street and provides quick access to 1-5 and westerly to shopping and restaurants along the north and south sides of South 3201h Street, west of I-5. The South 3201h Place preliminary plat application consists of 115 homes on 19.2 acres, containing a mix of homes with garages on the front side of the home (front -loaded homes) and homes where the garage is located on an alley in back of the house (alley - loaded homes). Lot sizes vary from 2,703 square feet to 5,396 square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 2,900 square feet. The City of Federal Way zoning code, Chapter 22-667, allows a minimum lot size of 2,400 square feet. All lots in South 3201h Place will exceed the minimum lot size allowed by the Federal Way zoning code and will average about 2,900 square feet South 320'h Place is served by a combination of public roads meeting the requirements of the Federal Way Public Works Standards and private roads meeting the requirements of the Federal Way Small Lot Development Standards. The internal local access roads are proposed as a Type W local access street with a modification to allow two 12-foot travel ri lanes plus an 8-foot parking bay. The CFW approved a modification to the lane configuration on January 16, 2008. A second entrance into the community is provided from 32"0 Avenue South, which is proposed to be constructed to City of Federal Way Arterial Road Standard "O." The connection to 32"d Avenue South will provide the ^- second access required for emergency vehicles. A planter strip is located on both sides of all public roads that serve the site. Street trees located within the planter strip will create an attractive appearance to the neighborhood street scape. In addition to the publicly owned local access roads, the site includes two private road tracts, three alley tracts and one private street that provide access to homes not accessed by public roads. These Small Lot Development access roads will be owned and maintained by the South 3201h Place Homeowners Association. The main local access streets consisting of modified Street Section W will be dedicated to and maintained by the City of Federal Way. The north margin of South 3201h Street will be improved with the addition of an HOV lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk and a planter area as part of the development improvements to South 320" Place. Additional R/W along the north margin of South 320`h Street will be dedicated east of the project entrance so as to contain all required South 320`h Street road r A improvements within City owned R/W. ` The main entrance to the site is on Weyerhaeuser Way South and will feature alley - loaded homes on both sides of the main entrance street. Garages will be located on the back side of these homes and will be accessed by an alley. The absence of driveways will provide an attractive entrance to the community with a traditional appearing streetscape. The streetscape for the main entrance is shown in the attached architectural L rendering under the tab "Plans." The front elevations of the homes shown in the architectural rendering display a number of details such as window grids, shutters and window boxes. Some of these architectural features will be standard features on the South 320t' homes, while other features (such as the window boxes) can be selected by the home buyer at the time of purchase and will be added to the cost of the home. South 320`h Place has one native growth open space tract, three active recreation tracts and one storm water quality control and detention pond tract. Active open space tract PT-3 is located adjacent to and east of 32"d Avenue South and contains a City of Tacoma water transmission line. This tract will serve as an active recreation tract and greenbelt buffer and will be maintained by the HOA in accordance with the City of Tacoma easement restrictions. Active open space tract PT-2 is located along the north property line and is predominantly within the Bonneville Power Administration (`BPA") easement area. Tracts PT-2 and PT-3 will be improved as active grassed play field areas and will be maintained by the South 320t' Place HOA in conformance with the terms. and restrictions of the BPA and City of Tacoma easement. Tract PT-1 is an active open space tract and wifl be [in proved as a tot lot play area with active recreation park equipment as depicted on the attached Landscape Plan for South 3201h Place. Open space tract T-I contains a native growth area and two small wetlands and associated buffers. Wetland "U" will be enhanced during development of the South 3201h site as mitigation for the removal of wetlands "A," "S" and "T." Tract ST-1 will contain a storm drainage detention facility required for the South 3201h site. The exact size and location of the storm drainage facilities will be determined during the engineering phase of the project. Water and sewer service will be provided by Lakehaven Sewer District. Power and natural gas will be provided by PSE. Letters of Water and Sewer Availability are provided in the application package. The South 320th Place neighborhood has been designed with sensitivity to adjacent properties. A minimum 10-foot wide Type III landscape buffer will be planted along the south margin of South 3201h Place. Quadrant Homes will be requesting a vacation of a 10-foot wide strip of land adjacent to and parallel with the south margin of South 320"' Street. The Type III landscaping will be located within this tract and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. A small retaining wall will prevent lot grading from extending into the landscaped buffer area along South 3201h Street. The 100-foot wide BPA easement area along the north side of the site will provide a natural buffer to properties to the north. Tract T-1 will provide an approximately 130-foot wide vegetated buffer to the City of Federal Way Fire Station east of the site. Tract PT-3 will provide a 60-foot wide vegetated buffer to the west. Site construction is expected to be typical for a single family project. The site slopes gently to the north from South 320'h. A small wetland borders the easterly portion of the site and provides a buffer between the site and the adjoining fire station. The site is currently covered with a mix of second growth evergreen and alder. Soils are typical for a site in the Federal Way area. It is critical to the success of the South 3201h Place Small Lot Demonstration Project that site clearing and grading be completed in a single unified and coordinated process. Quadrant Homes is requesting that the Preliminary Plat approval include a condition allowing a single unified clearing and grading construction process that would be completed before construction of sewer, water and road improvements are begun. A single unified grading effort enables cut and fill areas to be balanced across the site so that very little or no soil material needs to be removed from the site during development. A grading plan limited to roads and utility corridors would require approximately 18 tandem truck loads of soil material to be removed or imported for each lot on the site. During the home construction phase of the project, approximately 2,070 tandem truck loads of material would need to be transported from the site if a single unified clearing and grading construction plan were not approved. Each truck load of material leaving or arriving at the site requires two turning movements on South 3201h Street for a total of 4,140 turning movements onto or from South 320'h Street. The traffic impact of 4,140 additional traffic movements of tandem truckloads of material leaving and arriving from the site can be avoided by clearing and grading the entire developed portion of the site at one time. The grading plan shown on Sheet C-I I of the Preliminary Plat application has been designed so that there are equal volumes of cut and fill material. No structural soil material needs to be removed from or imported to the site during construction. A unified clearing and grading plan also enables the onsite stockpiling of organic topsoil so that this material can be placed on lots and active open space areas after the site grading is completed. If each lot is cleared and graded one at a time when building permits are issued, then excess grading material must be hauled from the site and organic topsoil must be hauled from the site and disposed of at an offsite disposal area. The ability to recycle organic soil back onto the lots and open space areas would be lost if the site can not be cleared and graded in a single balanced process. The South 320Lh Place land use plan was configured to conform to existing utility corridors. A Bonneville Power Administration power line corridor borders the site to the north. A single alignment of towers containing one circuit of 320 KV power lines is contained in the corridor. A 115 KV Puget Sound Energy line located on wood poles borders the site to the south and provides power to an existing power substation lying south of 320th Street and west of Weyerhaeuser Way. The PSE power poles also contain a 12.5 KV circuit of local distribution power lines as well as telephone and cable TV franchise utility lines. An Olympic Pipe Line Corporation main traverses the site from north to south. The City of Tacoma operates a water transmission line within an easement that parallels the south margin of the BPA easement together with an easement encumbering the entirety of Tract PT-3. Quadrant Homes seeks to build an attractive and diverse community with values similar to those of the City of Federal Way. It is our intent to build communities that are compatible with neighboring properties and homes that are in scale with the lots on which they are built. South 320th Place will have a mix of housing types that provides for flexibility of family sizes and market conditions. All homes will be single-family two- story, detached dwellings. The demonstration project will highlight the Cottage Collection (22 to 26 feet wide) with homes ranging from approximately 1,000 to 1,800 square feet We intend to offer up to ten (10) different front -loaded garage homes with one -car garages and four (4) different alley -loaded homes with one -car or two -car garage options. Other available floor plan options, such as guest rooms, additional baths or utility rooms, are available to meet diverse family needs and lifestyles. Each lifestyle floor plan will have three (3) elevations. That is, the buyer will have a choice of three front fagades for each plan which are designed to be pedestrian oriented and provide visual interest. These elevations will vary in roof form, porch design and/or fagade detailing. We have made every effort to create diversity in plans and elevations. The success of our communities is based upon a program of offering the buyer choices that results in varied roof and porch forms, different textures from the siding and exterior elements, and a mixed color palette on siding, trim, and accents (doors and shutters). The primary ground floor entries will be oriented toward the streets. Fagades will vary from one building to the next to further diversify the streetscape. We also ensure variety in elevations and scale by not allowing the same home elevation to be built on adjoining lots. In addition to the Cottage Collection, the site plan includes ten (10) home sites that will allow for a limited number of larger homes. A limited offering of our Olympic (30-foot wide) homes will provide additional diversity in the neighborhood. These homes will be available with a standard 2-car garage and will be approximately 1,500 to 3,000 square feet in size. The Olympic Home will be available on approximately 16 home sites. Many of the same options are available in these floor plans as well. The exact mix of home plans and styles will depend upon the choices that home buyers make. The South 320`t' Place Homeowners Association will be an essential and important part of the Quadrant homeowner community. Quadrant Homes values the legacy we leave in a community. For that reason, we ensure that each community we develop has a capitalized, educated, functioning Homeowners Association at time of transition to homeowner control. The purpose of a Homeowners Association is to maintain and insure the common areas preserve a consistent look throughout the community, and enhance the sense of community. It is intended to prevent neighbors from making changes to their homes and using their property in ways that negatively impact property values. To create that legacy, we use the following tools and techniques to help our HOAs run well: • Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") include important use restrictions (such as restrictions on RV and boat parking), and empower the Board of Directors to enforce them, including the power to raise, spend and save money for the benefit of the community over the long term. • Rules and Covenant Enforcement Policy is in place before we open for sale. It restates the use restrictions in a format people will read. Our property managers make sure the rules are enforced during developer control, establishing solid traditions of compliance. The Property Improvement Handbook is a full -color, illustrated guide to what changes to the exterior of the property are and are not acceptable. Quadrant Homes uses an independent architect to manage the property improvement committee process (others may use the term "Architectural Control Committee" or "ACC") during development; to educate a Property Improvement Committee of homeowners before transition; and to provide ongoing services after transition if the Board wishes. Property Managers and other key vendors, such as landscape maintenance contractors, are under contract to the HOA before the first home closes. Our goal is for these vendors to provide outstanding service and continue to work for the HOA before, during and after transition. A Build -out Budget is established that includes vendor contracts, so income from assessments ("dues") is sufficient to cover necessary services without the need to steeply increase assessments after transition. In addition, we have a professional reserve study performed before transition, and establish a reserve account. A reserve study recommends the level of savings necessary to repair or replace all common area amenities over a 20-year time horizon, and helps ensure financial stability for the HOA. • Websites are established for each HOA, where the Rules, Covenant Enforcement Policy, Property Improvement Applications, Handbook, CC&Rs, and all other important information are available to homeowners online. Other homeowner education includes welcome packets, homeowner skills workshops before transition, and board training afterwards. The Quadrant Homes Small Lot Demonstration Project application is in compliance with Federal Way City Code Section 20-155 and the Small Lot Detached Dwelling Unit Use. See zoning code compliance chart in the "Project Description" tab. Quadrant Homes would begin construction of the plat improvements during the first week of June. Home construction and sales would commence in early 2009. The schedule is challenging and will require careful coordination with the City to achieve a construction start in early June. A more detailed development schedule is included in the "Schedule" tab. Quadrant Homes is proud to have been selected as the first City of Federal Way Small Lot Demonstration builder. We have over 35 years of land use development and building history with the City of Federal Way, beginning with our parent company's corporate headquarters and continuing through the 15-year development of West Campus. Quadrant Homes has over 38 years of homebuilding experience in the five -county Puget Sound area. Quadrant Homes prides itself on delivering compelling value to our homebuyers, many of whom are young families and first time homebuyers. We have an extensive array of small lot home plans that we have built and marketed in the Puget Sound area. These house plans have proven their value to our buyers. The wide array of house plans that Quadrant Homes can offer and the range of options available to the buyer will create an attractive and varied streetscape within the South 320t' Place neighborhood. The streetscape views shown in the " Plan" tab illustrate how these different house plans will appear from the street. Quadrant Homes is ready to demonstrate to the City of Federal Way that homes on small lots can be created in an attractive and sustainable way and still be of compelling value to young families and first time homebuyers. We are looking forward to working with City Staff during review and approval of the South 320"' Place Preliminary Plat. Federal Way Zoning Code Requirements for Small Lot Detched Homes in RM 2400 Zone December 3, 2008 Zoning Code Requirement Federal Way Zoning Code Requirements in Chpt 22-667 Attached, Detached, Stacked Dwelling units South 320th Place Lot Size 2400 Sq. Ft Min lot size Smallest lot 2,703 sq. ft. Approx. 2,900 s . ft. Ave lot size 1.7 Parking spaces per dwelling unit 195 Parking Spaces Required Over 200 Provided Maximum Ridge Ht 30 feet 27 feet Max. Lot Coverage No maximum lot coverage 45% Typical South 320th Place Open Space Requirements February 1, 2008 Type of Open Space Open Space Tract Open Space Tract Area South 320th Place % of Gross Area City of Federal Way Required % of Gross Area Notes Active Open Space PT-1, PT-2 and PT-3 (Tracts N,O & P on the PP plan set) 1.92 Ac 10.1 % 10.0% See 11 x17 colored map for Tracts PT-1, PT-2 and PT-3 Buffer Area Tracts A,B,D,E,G &M 2.71 Ac 14.2% 2.0% Total Percent of Gross Area 24.3% 15.0% South 3201h Place Description of Maps and Drawings I) South 3201h Place Site Plan The South 3201h Place Site plan is a graphic layout of the lots, road, open space tracts and location of the storm drainage detention pond. The local access roads are intended to be public. Driveways are shown in light blue shading. The proposed road sections are shown in the upper left hand area of the drawing. A preliminary set of more detailed engineering drawings of the project site is attached to the application booklet. An I Ix17 reduced copy of the preliminary plat map is included as required in the CFW preliminary plat check list II) Alley Load Streetscape Drawing This drawing is a 3-dimensional representation of the main entrance to South 320"' Place. It is a view of what misfit be seen from the second story window of lot 98 looking north East toward lots 7 through 11. The architectural rendering of the homes on lots 7 through 11 are created by using actual architectural plans for these Quadrant homes. All of the homes shown in this architectural rendering will be available for purchase by South 3201h Place home buyers. The front elevation of the homes, display a number of architectural features such as window grids, shutters and window boxes. Some of these architectural features will be standard on the South 320th homes, while other features (such as the window boxes) can be selected by the home buyer at the time of purchase and will be added to the cost of the home. r III) Front Load Streetscape Drawing This drawing is a 3-dimensional representation of the front load homes on lots 22 through 30 along the local access street. It is a view of what might be seen from the second story window of the home on lot 20 looking westerly. The architectural rendering of the homes on lots 22 through 30 are created by using actual architectural plans for these Quadrant homes. All of the homes shown in this architectural rendering will be available for purchase by South 320`h Place home buyers. The front elevation of the homes, display a number of architectural features such as window grids, shutters and window boxes. Some of these architectural features will be standard on the South 320th homes, while other features (such as the window boxes) can be selected by the home buyer at the time of purchase and will be added to the cost of the home. 52' RIGHT OF WAY R ¢ L , I 5 1 4�5 10 —I-^ 19 ^'{-PA 5 1 I I PARKING I 52' RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION PROPOSED FEDERAL WAY STANDARDS ROW 52' 52' PAVEMENT 28' 28' WIDTH SIDEWALK 5' S' WIDTH LANDSCAPE 45 4' STRIP UTILITY 2.5' 3' STRIP 0 — — Rw— — — — — 1-20' PR`IV'A�T"EALLEY— ALLEY SECTION PROPOSED FEDERAL WAY STANDARDS ROW 20' 20' PAVEMENT WIDTH 16' 16' SIDEWALK WIDTH 0 0 SHOULDER 2' 2' PRIVATE STREET F_ rL I —€ 5' I r 5' LANDSCAPE 12' I 12' �JI 34' PRIVATE STREET SECTION PROPOSED FEDERAL WAY STANDARDS ROW 34' 34' PAVEMENT 24' 24' WIDTH SIDEWALK WIDTH (ONE SIDE) (BOTHSIDES) LANDSCAPE 1 5• 1 o (OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS) rrr� Ir r rrr� r r � � r � r r s ■ ■ �� Ir IIIIrr� Is I ! ' PT-2 ' 1 5' I ACTIVE ` OPEN SPACE �,� `',� 55";\;" . `y I (58,690 SF),6 , 5 ' ' 52 58 I 59 S. 319th STREET SOUTH 320th STREET I F-- — — — — — L -----'I ^ 1601 A 5116E 10p9 1 Seattle,e, 9810 WA 96101 p. 206.441.18551 /. 206.446.7167 CIA-1 ShucNr_a Planning Survey An EmIneMv SerAm Company oaceenam.com �■ 1 0000, F,G. ■ " 6 - � 36, r ■ 3 _ { - • i 1' 0 25 50 100 � r �+ . r Scale In Feet 41 ' F` . r � �'y �.�� LEGEND 4 ■ J: •� 1:35 [� ASPHALT PAVEMENT SIDEWALKS / DRIVEWAYS .' ^� •1L� } J I' -_I_^ �� ® LANDSCAPE STRIP 4 . Q 1 J r �'\ �1•. ." 52''----- �� 0 r PROPERTY LINE 47 33 j — — — RIGHT OF WAY LINE (8,580 SF) 1lI—_lI --_II��4�-__I; •_� �I! —— 1l• lafJ—. j ■yl. I ]�.... � iI no T-L�� ---ill II ACTI 48 24! 2322k321: IOPEN SPACE 1� L S. 317th STREET r 52' ..21 92 93 I I 11 I I' I l --—L4 _ 10 12 i 13 i 4 15 6 �' 7 91 9JI t 1 ---.---1-------T r-------- —- 90 �� 1 95 l l� 1 9 i r FF T-1 89 g6 8 2fl OPEN SPACE —r—__�---- —_---.— j L----__.�� ■ _88 I Il—+� 97 l 7 I 1 [705,785 SF) ------1 ,C r�_----�---- =, 87� -- 20 g8 i 52' 6 I DETENTION POND ND t-l ST`1 �rr�rww>l r:iK 86 _ 99 i 5 ' r 85 l 100 T] ,l ILL ^ 4 _ --_•-I- - - -' i I- 3 I Y I ra 52' + I —� f c CITY OF FEDERAL WAY l 20, t o FIRE DEPT. i=LlI 1. ------�- 1 I I� � �, I I IT 2 I r 72 f•113 l 114 l 115111 i i--- 1 _1_^7-1 VAY R/W w —RIW QUADRANT HOMES 14725 SE 36TH STREET BELLEVUE, WA 98009 I 3 R/W SOUTH 320TH PLACE JOB NUMBER JARY 2008 05809 SITE PLAN SHEET NAME 1 "=50' SHEET 1 OF — r+r 4 i r�-7w South 320th Place Entitlement Schedule February 1, 2008 Task Quadrant Target Completion Date Apply for Small Lot Development Pre -application Conference September 28, 2007 Meet with City Pre -application Development Review Committee October 18, 2007 Pre -application Letter issued by the City November 5, 2007 Quadrant Homes Submits application for selection as a Small Lot Demonstration Project November 30, 2007 Letter of Completeness Issued by the City of Federal Way December 14, 2007 Draft Preliminary Plat Application released for internal review and edits January 18, 2008 Comments on Draft PP Application to PACE January 21, 2008 Decision by the City of Federal Way to Select Quadrant as the Small Lot Demonstration Project January 22, 2008 Finalize PP Application January29,2008 Submit Preliminary Plat application February 4, 2008 Submit Sewer and Water Improvement Plans for LUD for review and approval February 15, 2008 Letter of Preliminary Plat Application Completeness issued (16 days) February 20, 2008 Submit Engineering Construction Plans for review February 15, 2008 Issue NOA and Post Site February 27, 2008 Issue SEPA March 1, 2008 SEPA Comment / Appeal Period Ends March 31, 2008 Issue Public Notice for Hearing April 2, 2008 Staff Report to Hearing Examiner April 8, 2008 Preliminary Plat Public Hearing April 16, 2008 Hearing Examiner Report and Recommendation Issued Aril 30, 2008 City Council LUTC May 19, 2008 Preliminary Plat Decision by City Council June 3, 2008 Engineering Plans approved June 4, 2008 Start Construction June 9, 2008 South 320`h Place Description of Application Attachments The following plans were phrepared in support of the Quadrant Homes Preliminary Plat Appiication for South 320` Place in Federal Way. The plans described below are an attachment to the Preliminary Plat Application booklet. The Preliminary Plat Application Book and attachments were prepared in accordance with the City of Federal Way Submittal Requirements Checklist for a preliminary plats. 1) Preliminary Plat Application Drawings Prepared by PACE Engineers, Inc The attached site plan drawing, dated February 2008 shows the lot layout, building setbacks and lot grading as well as the site road and utility layout. A single storm drainage facility has been proposed for the South 3201h site. A Storm Drainage "Preliminary Technical Information Report" dated January 31, 2008 has been prepared by PACE Engineering and submitted to the City for review as a submittal separate from the South 320`h Place application for Small Lot Demonstration Project. A "Critical Areas Report" for the South 320`h site dated November 30, 2007 and revised on January 30, 2008 has been prepared by Talasaea Consultants. The November 30, 2007 Critical Areas report was submitted to the City for review as a submittal and is currently being reviewed by the City contract consultant. 2) Landscape and Park Plan A Landscape and Park Plan, dated is included in the Preliminary Plat Drawing set on sheets L1.0 and L1.1. The Landscape and Park Plan was prepared by The Weisman Design Group. 3) Preliminary Technical Information Report This report outlines the Stonn Drainage facilities and downstream offsite conditions for South 320th place 4) SEPA Check List 5) Certificate of Water and Sewer Availability The Certificate of water and sewer availability was issued by Lakehaven Utility District 6) A Subdivision Guarantee Title report for South 320`h Place The Title Report was issued by Steward Title Co on January 2, 2008 7) Public Notice Mailings A list of all property owners within 300 feet of the project site together with a King County Assessors map showing the listed properties. Three sets of Stamped and addressed envelopes for all listed properties. 8) School Access Analysis Report 9) Pre -Application Comment Letter from the City of Federal Way dated November 5, 2007 CITY OF Federal Way COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS IV HEARING EXAMINER REVIEW OF PROPOSED WETLAND ELIMINATION AND WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION SOUTH 320TH PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT Federal Way File No. 08-100557-00-UP PUBLIC HEARING June 11, 2008 Federal Way City Hall Council Chambers 33325 8th Avenue South Table of Contents I. Project Information..............................................................-------- .....................2 II. Summary of the Requests......................................•---..................................................................-----•.4 III. Process IV Decisional Criteria---•.......................................................................................................5 IV. Hearing Examiner Decisional Criteria ........................... ...........9 V. Findings of Fact............................................................... ..................10 VI. Recommendation......................................................................................................................13 VII. Exhibits .......... ............................. ........................................... ................................................13 Report Prepared by: Jim Harris, Senior Planner June 4, 2008 Wetland Elimination and Wetland Buffer Reduction South 320th Place Preliminary Plat - Process IV Application File No: 08-100556-00-UP Engineer: Pace Engineers Kennith Nilsen, P.E. 1601 2nd Avenue, Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 206-441-1855 Wetland Consultant: Talasaea Consultants Ann Olsen 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Owner: Quadrant Homes George Cook PO Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 425-452-6553 Action Requested: The applicant is seeking approval pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22 Article XIV, "Critical Areas" Division 7, "Regulated Wetlands". • Request to fill Wetland AA, for roadway and lot development. ■ Request to f ll a portion of Wetland U for stormwater pond and plat improvements. • Reduce the required 50 foot wetland buffer to a 25 foot buffer around created Wetland U. Relevant Dates.- Process IV Application Filed: February 5, 2008 Application Determined Complete: February 22, 2008 Notice of Application Published: February 27, 2008 SEPA Determination Issued: April 9, 2008 SEPA Addendum Issued May 22, 2008 Staff Representative: Jim Harris, Senior Planner, 253-835-2649 Staff Recommendation: Process IV Approval with Conditions I. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Decision Requested Process IV Approval — The Process IV application for wetland elimination and wetland buffer modification/reduction is subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner following a public South 3201h Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / n«. I n 45677 Process IV Staff Report Page 2 hearing. An analysis of the applicable Process IV decisional criteria, findings, and recommendations, is provided under sections III, IV, V, and VI of this report. B. Background Information The applicant, Quadrant Homes, has made an application for a 115-lot preliminary plat on a 19.2-acre vacant parcel located north of 320th Street at the intersection of South 320`h and Weyerhaeuser Way South. The Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan for the South 320`h Place Plat prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated revised May 19, 2008 (Exhibit A-1), indicates that four regulated wetlands exist on the subject site. The applicant has proposed the following impacts to regulated wetlands associated with site development: (1) Request to fill Wetland AA, for roadway and lot development. (2) Request to fill a portion of Wetland U for stormwater pond and plat improvements. The applicant has proposed to fill and eliminate a total of 8,979 square feet of regulated wetland (fill 5,596 square feet of Wetland AA and fill 3,383 square feet of Wetland U). The applicant has proposed mitigation of the filled wetland by creating 13,506 square feet of new wetland creation area around existing Wetland U. Pursuant to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1358(d), these requests require a Hearing Examiner review and approval under the provisions of Use Process IV. The applicant has also requested the following wetland buffer modification/reduction: Reduce the required 50 foot wetland buffer to a 25 foot buffer around created Wetland U. The applicant has also proposed to fill/eliminate two additional wetlands on site (Wetland A - 462 square feet, and Wetland S - 1,144 square feet), which are both under 2,500 square feet and are therefore not regulated by the Federal Way Critical Areas code. There are also portions of two other wetlands identified as Wetland C and D, located in the northeasterly portion of the site. Wetlands C and D are Category II wetlands with 100-foot buffers. Wetlands C and D and their 100-foot buffers are not impacted by the proposed development. C. Other Agency Regulations The Talasaea Critical Area Report makes several references to Washington State Department of Ecology and US Army Corps of Engineers regulatory standards for wetland fill, mitigation, and enhancement standards of these agencies. For the purposes of the City review and decision, the Talasaea plan is being evaluated for the purposes of compliance with Federal Way City Code regulations. Compliance with other agency regulations is the responsibility of the applicant. If the applicant conducts any land surface modification within a regulated wetland or wetland buffer in order to fulfill other agency regulations, then the procedural and technical requirements of the FWCC will apply. This report and recommendation does not include any technical or procedural review of mitigation proposed to fulfill other agency regulations. Any work proposed within the off -site Wetland X referenced in the Talasaea report must be reviewed under FWCC standards. No evaluation of any work or land surface modification within Wetland X is contemplated in this report and analysis. South 320`" Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / Doc.I n 45677 Process 1V Staff Report Page 3 !I. .iLd1 II. SUMMARY OF THE REQUESTS The applicant's wetland biologist, working in conjunction with the City's wetland biologist, identified a total of six wetlands on site, four of which are regulated by the City of Federal Way. Two of the wetlands are not regulated as they are Category III wetlands under 2,500 square feet in size, and meet the exemption in FWCC. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1357(b)(3), the standard buffer for Category III wetlands in excess of 10,000 SF is 50 feet, while the buffer for Category III wetlands that are 2,500 to 10,000 SF is 25 feet. Category III wetlands less than 2,500 SF are not regulated under the FWCC. #1) Request to fill Wetland AA, and fill a portion of Wetland U for road construction and lot development, and stormwater pond construction. Located in the western portion of the site, Wetland AA (5,596 SF) is proposed to be filled for roadway construction and lot development. The applicant has also proposed to fill 3,383 square feet of Wetland U, which is located in the southeastern corner of the site. In order to mitigate the filling of regulated wetlands, 13,506 square feet of created wetland is proposed at the expanded Wetland U creation area. This proposed wetland elimination and wetland creation mitigation requires review under the provisions of FWCC Section 22-1358(d). A discussion of each request follows. Wetland AA — The Critical Areas Report notes that Wetland AA is a palustrine scrub -shrub seasonally flooded wetland, with vegetation consisting of mainly salmonberry, red alder, and black cottonwood trees. Hydrology for the wetland is supported by shallow groundwater and surface runoff. Wetland AA meets the City of Federal Way Category III criteria, and requires a 25-foot wetland buffer. The Critical Areas Report identifies Wetland AA rated low for overall wetland functions and values. Wetland U— The Critical Areas Report notes that Wetland U is a palustrine emergent scrub shrub seasonally saturated wetland. The report identifies the vegetation as disturbed and consists of black cottonwood, Douglas spirea, schouler willow, soft rush, and creeping buttercup. According to the Talasaea report, hydrology is from surface waters resulting from dense soils from fill material placed on the site approximately 20 years ago. Wetland U meets the City of Federal Way Category III criteria, and requires a 25-foot wetland buffer. The Critical Areas Report identifies that Wetland U is rated low for overall wetland functions and values. In order to mitigate the filling of Wetlands AA and U, wetland creation is proposed along the eastern side of Wetland U as depicted on sheet W 1.1 prepared by Talasaea Consultants (Exhibit B- 2). In summary, Wetland U creation/expansion (post -mitigation) consists of significantly enlarging its size, creating a controlled outfall to the existing Wetland C, planting a variety of native herbs, shrubs and trees, and placement of new habitat features such as snags, downed large woody debris, bird nesting boxes and bat boxes. The new Wetland U buffer will also be enhanced and planted with native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. The conceptual mitigation plan anticipates increases in the following functions of the existing Wetland U: floodwater and stormwater control function; groundwater support function; water quality improvement; greater area of vegetation cover; natural biological support, and cultural and socioeconomic values. The Critical Area Report proposes monitoring the improvements for a period of five years. On behalf of the City, ESA Adolfson, the City's wetland consultant, has reviewed the proposal and the Critical Area Report. As identified in the ESA Adolfson review letter, dated May 28, South 3201h Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / Doc I.D. 45677 Process IV Staff Report Page 4 2008 (Exhibit C-1), the conceptual mitigation plan must be revised and amended to provide detailed information on the soil conditions, at and below the lowest proposed grade in the wetland creation area to demonstrate that adequate water will be available to maintain a created wetland. In addition, ESA Adolfson recommends that data regarding groundwater levels and soil saturation levels at several locations in the wetland creation area be provided to the City. #2) Request to reduce the wetland buffer around recreated Wetland U from the required 50- foot buffer to a 25-foot-wide buffer. As proposed on the conceptual mitigation plan, the applicant proposes to expand Wetland U, via wetland creation. The created portion of Wetland U is proposed to be a total of 13,506 square feet in size, would be classified as a Category III wetland, and would require a 50-foot buffer. The applicant has requested to reduce the required 50-foot buffer to 25 feet, for proposed wetland creation area U. As proposed in the conceptual wetland creation and mitigation plan, the expanded and created Wetland U would be located adjacent to the proposed stormwater pond, and be abutting South 320th Street and the South King Fire station. As identified in the ESA Adolfson review letter dated May 28, 2008, the conceptual mitigation plan must be revised to show all wetland buffers around created Wetland U being a minimum width of 25 feet as required by FWCC Section 22-1359(f). The current plan does not provide a 25-foot-wide buffer around all of created Wetland U. III. PROCESS IV DECISIONAL CRITERIA Separate decisional criteria are required to consider displacement of regulated wetland area and intrusions or displacement/reduction of regulated wetland buffer areas. Impacts to regulated wetland areas are considered under FWCC Section 22-1358, and intrusions to setback (buffer) areas from regulated wetlands are considered under FWCC Section 22-1359. Each required decisional criteria is evaluated below. A) Analysis of decisional criteria for FWCC Section 22-1358, "Structures, Improvements and Land Surface Modifications within Regulated Wetlands." The following is an analysis of required decisional criteria outlined in FWCC Section 22- 1358(d). This criterion applies to the portions of the project that propose to displace wetland areas as discussed above. The request to locate an improvement or engage in a land surface modification in a regulated wetland can only be approved if the following criteria are met. The nine criteria to be met in order to allow the filling of Wetlands AA and Wetland U are listed below, with each criterion being followed by staff discussion as to how the criterion has been or will be met. The City's wetland consultant, ESA Adolfson Associates Inc., has reviewed the wetland reports, maps, and delineations submitted prior to June 4, 2008. ESA Adolfson Associates Inc. technical comments are identified in a May 28, 2008 Review Memorandum (Exhibit C-1), and which serves as the basis for recommendations to the Hearing Examiner. Criterion No. 1 — It will not adversely affect water quality. Staff Response: This criterion will be met. The filling of Wetlands AA and a portion of Wetland U eliminates 8,979 square feet of regulated wetland. According to the Talasaea Report, these two wetlands have low water quality improvement value. The Talasaea Report notes that the South 320`" Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / Doc I D. 45677 Process IV Staff Report Page 5 13,506 square feet of wetland creation area adjacent to the remaining wetland U is anticipated to have increased water quality improvement functions. Criterion No. 2 — It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. Staff Response: This criterion will be met provided the recommended conditions of approval are adopted. The filling of Wetlands AA and a portion of Wetland U eliminates 8,979 square feet of regulated wetland. According to the Talasaea Report, these two wetlands have low and low - moderate overall habitat function. There is no significant habitat existing within Wetland AA or Wetland U. The Talasaea Report notes that the 13,506 square feet of wetland creation area adjacent to the remaining Wetland U is anticipated to have an increase in overall habitat function. The proposed project will increase the acreage of habitat of Wetland U and augment the habitat capacity of Wetland U through the addition of native vegetation and habitat features such as stumps, snags, downed logs, and bat nests, in conjunction with the removal of non-native and invasive plant species. Enhancement to habitat provided by creation of a new wetland area and through the re -vegetation of disturbed areas will significantly improve the overall ecological and habitat quality of the site. Criterion No. 3 — It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. Staff Response: This criterion will be met. Currently Wetlands AA and U have very limited stormwater retention capabilities. Following construction of the stormwater detention pond near Wetland U, the stormwater retention capability of the Wetland U mitigation area will be greatly increased. The expansion of Wetland U will improve the quality of the wetland area that presently provides low functions for stormwater drainage. The enhanced wetland and associated buffer will increase retention of stormwater and is expected to increase base flow and groundwater support functions. Criterion No. 4 — It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. Staff Response: This criterion will be met. According to the Talasaea Report (Exhibit B-1), the proposed grades in the new Wetland U complex and buffer will be 5:1 slope or shallower in the wetland and 3:I or shallower in the buffers. The potential for erosion hazards will be mitigated by the implementation of a Temporary Erosion Control Plan (TESC), which will be submitted and reviewed by the City in conjunction with engineering approval prior to the start of any clearing or grading of the site_ Criterion No. 5 It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the City as a whole, including the loss of significant open space or scenic vista. Staff Response: This criterion will be met provided the recommended conditions of approval are adopted. No property other than that which is owned by the applicant is proposed to be modified. According to the wetland report, both Wetlands AA and U have been disturbed by past modification and no scenic vista opportunities are provided. The elimination of these wetlands will not be materially detrimental to any other property. Creation of the new Wetland U complex at a minimum ratio of 1.5:1 will benefit the subject property and the City as well by improving the overall ecological and habitat quality of Wetland U. South 320'h Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / Dm. I n 45677 Process IV Staff Report Page 6 Criterion No. 6 — It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function, or value. Staff Response.• This criterion will be met provided the recommended conditions of approval are adopted. The applicant will create 13,506 square feet of wetland in the new Wetland U complex, resulting in a replacement factor of a minimum 1.5:1 ratio as required pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1358(e)(3), for Category III scrub/shrub wetland. The report notes that all functions and values of the new Wetland U complex are expected to increase post -mitigation. No net loss of wetland area, function, or value is anticipated if mitigation measures are successfully incorporated. Criterion No. 7 — The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff Response: This criterion will be met provided the recommended conditions of approval are adopted. Reviewed cumulatively, the various components of the proposal are found to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, or welfare. Wetland creation proposed to mitigate the eliminated wetlands establishes a higher value wetland. The wetland enhancement in and around Wetland U is in the best interest of public health, safety, or welfare because it increases the Wetland U functions and values. Criterion No. 8 — The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project. Staff Response: This criterion will be met. As noted in the Talasaea report, the applicant and their wetland consultant have performed numerous wetland mitigation and restoration projects. Criterion No. 9 — The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to make corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. Staff Response: This criterion will be met. A monitoring program and contingency plan, as required under FWCC Section 22-1358, is proposed in the wetland report. The five-year monitoring would commence following successful installation of the proposed mitigation. A qualified firm retained by the applicant would conduct monitoring of the wetland and wetland buffer areas based on guidelines and goals identified in the FWCC and Talasaea wetland report. Monitoring would be reviewed by the City's wetland consultant at the expense of the applicant. The final wetland creation and mitigation report must also include a contingency plan, which shall be implemented if any portion of the project fails to meet projected goals. The City's wetland consultant, ESA Adolfson will review the final monitoring and contingency plans prior to final plan approval by the City. B) Analysis of Minimum Acreage Replacement Ratio FWCC Section 22-1358(e)(3) requires a minimum acreage replacement ratio of 1.5 to 1 for scrub/shrub wetlands. This replacement ratio pertains to the proposal for the filling/elimination of 8,979 square feet of Wetland AA and Wetland U. In order to compensate for the loss of 8,979 square feet of Wetlands AA and U acreage, the minimum amount of wetland creation area required by FWCC is 13,468 square feet (8,979 X 1.5 = 13,468). The applicant's conceptual plan shows the creation of 13,506 square feet of wetland creation area in the Wetland U complex. South 3201h Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / Doc 1 D 45677 Process IV Staff Report Page 7 C) Analysis of decisional criteria for FWCC Section 22-1359, "Structures, Improvements and Land Surface Modifications within the Setback Areas from Regulated Wetlands." The following is an analysis of required decisional criteria outlined in FWCC Section 22-1359(f). These criteria apply to the portions of the project that: (1) reduce the required 50-foot buffer to a 25- foot-wide buffer for the created Wetland U complex. The Hearing Examiner can only approve a request to locate an improvement or engage in a land surface modification in the setback area of the regulated wetland if the following criteria are met. The five criteria to be met in order to allow structures, improvements, and land surface modifications within the setback of regulated wetlands are listed below, with each criterion being followed by staff discussion as to how the criterion has been or will be met. Criterion No. 1 — It will not adversely affect water quality. Staff Response: This criterion will be met. The reduction of the wetland buffer width is planned and designed in conjunction with the Wetland U creation area. The Wetland U complex and the adjacent on -site stormwater drainage facility must be designed to meet best management practices and all applicable adopted City of Federal Way standards such as the King County Surface Water Design Manual. During construction, compliance with a City -approved TESC plan will adequately address any temporary erosion impacts. After construction, any disturbed areas will be re -vegetated and/or mitigated in compliance with the recommendations in the conceptual Wetland Mitigation plan sheets (Exhibits B-1 — B-4). Criterion No. 2 — It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat. Staff Response: This criterion will be met provided the recommended conditions of approval are adopted. The proposed reduction of the wetland buffer will not destroy nor damage significant habitat areas. The existing Wetland U and buffer are currently in a degraded condition. The proposed expansion of Wetland complex and proposed 25-foot-wide buffer is intended to increase the diversity and overall quality of Wetland complex U wildlife habitat, which currently has a low function. As discussed, water quality and overall habitat values of the expanded Wetland U complex will be improved. The conceptual mitigation plan identifies wetland buffer enhancement areas between Wetlands U and C, outside the Wetland D buffer, and within the 100-foot buffer of Wetland C. In addition, the report proposes wetland enhancement within a small portion of Wetland C. These proposed actions are a part of the proposal, as mitigation for the reduction of the Wetland U buffer. Modification and enhancement of these areas is permissible based upon documentation that invasive weeds dominate these areas. Areas with native vegetation shall be left undisturbed. The proposed 25-foot buffer, coupled with the proposed buffer enhancement outside regulated buffers of Wetlands C and D will subsequently increase habitat area for the overall wetland complex. Criterion No. 3 — It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. StaffResponse: This criterion will be met. The reduction of the wetland buffer width is planned and designed in conjunction with the Wetland U creation area. The Wetland U complex and the South 320"' Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / noc 1 D 45677 Process IV Staff Report Page 8 adjacent on -site stormwater drainage facility must be designed to meet best management practices and all requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). There will be no adverse affect to drainage as a result of the wetland buffer width reduction. Criterion No. 4 — It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. Staff Response: This criterion will be met. The proposed reduction of the wetland buffer width area will not create unstable earth conditions or erosion hazards. Areas proposed for wetland creation and wetland buffer have fairly flat topography. As part of engineering approval, a TESC plan will be submitted and approved by the City prior to the start of any clearing or grading of the site. Furthermore, all areas of the proposed 25-foot-wide buffer will be re -vegetated. Criterion No. 5 — It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the City as a whole, including the loss of open space. Staff Response: The proposed reduction of the wetland buffer width will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property, nor to the City as a whole. No scenic areas are around the Wetland U complex due to the nature of the development around the wetland area. Enhancement of the entire Wetland U complex results in an overall net increase in wetland functions and values. IV. HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONAL CRITERIA In addition to the above decisional criteria, pursuant to FWCC Section 22-445(c)(1-5), the Hearing Examiner may approve the requested wetland intrusions and buffer reduction only if the following Process IV decisional criteria are met. Decisional criteria and staff comments are provided below. (1) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff Comment: The comprehensive plan is used, among other documents, as a basis for implementing regulations such as zoning and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The larger proposal, of which these wetland intrusion and buffer reduction are a component, has undergone SEPA review and must be found to be in compliance with pertinent subdivision zoning regulations in order to be approved by the City Council. The 19.2-acre site is designated multi -family residential under the comprehensive plan. These designations are intended to provide areas to be used for residential and other compatible uses. The requested encroachments into critical areas will enable development of the subject site consistent with the comprehensive plan. (2) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this chapter and all other applicable laws. Staff Comment: The development of the preliminary plat will be consistent with all applicable provisions of FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning," and Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," RCW 58.17.030, and all other applicable codes and development standards through implementation of SEPA and conditions of preliminary plat approval, and if the Process IV wetland elimination mitigation and wetland buffer reduction requests are conditionally approved by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-1358(d) and 22-1359(f). The Process IV requests meet all the decisional criteria of FWCC Section 22-445(c)(1)-(5). (3) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. South 320" Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / Doc ] D 45677 Process IV Staff Report Page 9 I , ll I I . . Aill 1. Staff Comment: The proposed wetland buffer reduction is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. The wetland elimination and buffer reduction is mitigated by the compensatory mitigation provided by the wetland creation and enhancement proposed, and there is no net loss of wetland or wetland buffer associated with project development. The overall wetland mitigation plan results in the Wetland U complex providing wetland with higher overall wetland functions and values than presently exists in Wetland AA and Wetland U. (4) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. Staff Comment: The streets and utilities in the area have been evaluated in accordance with all applicable codes, policies, and regulations, and determined to be adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal, provided all recommended conditions of preliminary plat approval are met. (5) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access. Staff Comment: The access to the subject property is provided at optimal locations and configurations, as determined through the City's SEPA and preliminary plat review of the proposed subdivision. V. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on an analysis of the proposed actions, the environmental record, and related decisional criteria, the Department of Community Development Services finds the following. The applicant has proposed to fill/eliminate two regulated wetlands in conjunction with design and construction of the South 320`h Place preliminary plat. The applicant has also requested to reduce a required 50-foot-wide wetland buffer around Wetland U to 25 feet in width. Both the wetland elimination and wetland buffer reduction require Process IV Hearing Examiner review and approval. 2. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposed action was issued on April 9, 2008. There were no appeals received on the City's determination and the Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, Federal Way Application No. 08-100556-00-SE, is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. The applicant has submitted a revised May 19, 2008 "Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan for the South 320`h Place Plat ", by Talasaea Consultants. The City's wetland consultant ESA Adolfson has reviewed the applicant's Critical Area Report for compliance with applicable FWCC standards and has provided a review letter dated May 28, 2008 (Exhibit C-1). The May 28, 2008, review letter provides recommendations and identifies revisions to be made to the Critical Areas Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan. The recommendations and analysis of the May 28, 2008, ESA Adolfson letter are hereby incorporated by reference. There are two regulated Category III wetlands (AA and U), two non -regulated Category III wetlands (A and S), and two Category II wetlands (C and D) at the subject site. Wetlands AA South 32Vb Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation Process IV Staff Report File 08-100557-00-UP / Doc t D 45677 Page 10 and U have 25-foot buffers, while Wetlands A and S have no buffer requirement, and Wetland C and D have 100-foot buffers as defined under the FWCC. Development of public roadway improvements, construction of utilities, and construction of building lots as proposed, would result in permanent displacement and filling of Wetland AA and a portion of Wetland U. In order to construct required public roadway improvements, plat improvements and building lots as proposed on the preliminary plat map, the applicant has proposed to displace/fill all of Wetland AA totaling 5,596 square feet and fill a portion of Wetland U totaling 3,383 square feet. A total of 8,979 square feet of wetland is proposed to be filled. In order to compensate for the loss of 8,979 square feet of Wetlands AA and U, the minimum amount of wetland creation area required by FWCC is 13,468 square feet (8,979 X 1.5 = 13,468). The applicant's conceptual wetland creation plan shows the creation of 13,506 square feet of wetland creation area in the Wetland U complex. The wetland creation area is proposed on site, mainly adjacent to the east side of the existing Wetland U. This replacement meets the required 1.5:1 wetland creation ratio amount of wetland replacement, and there is no net loss of wetland area. New wetland buffer will be established adjacent to the new Wetland U area. As identified in the ESA Adolfson letter dated May 28, 2008, the applicant must provide additional technical information and data regarding groundwater levels and detailed soils information at and below the proposed grade of the proposed Wetland U creation area, prior to City review and approval of the final wetland mitigation and creation plan. The conceptual wetland plan does not presently provide adequate information to determine the viability of creating a successful wetland at the Wetland U complex. Modifications to the preliminary plat design, lot count, and roadway and utility designs may be necessary if the applicant is unable to provide detailed information identifying that hydrologic and geologic conditions in and around the proposed wetland creation area U will ultimately result in wetland conditions. A final wetland creation and mitigation plan must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any filling and grading ofregulated wetlands and buffers on site. 9. The applicant has requested to reduce the required 50-foot buffer to 25 feet, for proposed wetland creation area U. As proposed on the conceptual mitigation plan, the applicant proposes to expand Wetland U, via wetland creation. As proposed in the conceptual wetland creation and mitigation plan, the expanded and created Wetland U would be located adjacent to the proposed stormwater pond, and be abutting South 320`h Street and the South King Fire station. 10. The current conceptual mitigation plan does not provide a 25-foot-wide buffer around all of created Wetland U. As identified in the ESA Adolfson review letter dated May 28, 2008, the conceptual mitigation plan must be revised to show all wetland buffers around created Wetland U being a minimum width of 25 feet per FWCC Section 22-1359(f). Modifications to the preliminary plat design, lot count, and roadway and utility designs may be necessary in order for the applicant to provide a minimum 25-foot-wide buffer around the Wetland U creation area. A final wetland creation and mitigation plan must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any filling and grading of regulated wetlands and buffers on site. South 320'h Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / Doc I D 45677 Process IV Staff Report Page I 1 I I 1 ; ... JAL -- 1 I. Improvements proposed to intrude into regulated wetlands (wetland fill and elimination) require Process IV approval pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1358, and also require review in a public hearing conducted by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner. As required by the FWCC, the Process IV wetland intrusion analysis prepared by City staff incorporates extensive discussion and analysis of decisional criteria and mitigation as proposed in the May 19, 2008 Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan for South 320'h Place Plat, by Talasaea Consultants. 12. Proposed reduction of the required 50-foot wetland buffer to a minimum of 25 feet requires Process IV approval pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1359(f), and also requires review in a public hearing conducted by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner. As required by the FWCC, the Process IV wetland buffer reduction analysis prepared by City staff incorporates extensive discussion and analysis of decisional criteria and mitigation as proposed in the May 19, 2008 Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan for South 320'h Place Plat, by Talasaea Consultants. The proposal meets the five decisional criteria of FWCC Section 22-1359(t) for structures, improvements, and land surface modifications within regulated wetlands setback areas (buffers), if the recommended conditions of approval are met. 13. The May 19, 2008 Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan for South 32e Place Plat, by Talasaea Consultants identifies wetland buffer enhancement areas between Wetlands U and C, outside the Wetland D buffer, and within the 100-foot buffer of Wetland C. In addition, the report proposes wetland enhancement within a small portion of Wetland C. These proposed actions are a part of the proposal, as mitigation for the reduction of the Wetland U buffer, and are permissible based upon documentation that invasive weeds dominate these areas. Areas with native vegetation shall be left undisturbed. In order to preserve the areas around Wetland U, C, and D, which expand beyond the minimum FWCC required wetland buffer widths, all of the area proposed for wetland buffer enhancement as depicted on Talasaea plan sheet W 1.1 shall be preserved in perpetuity as a Wetland Buffer/Critical Area and shall be noted as such on the final plat map. 14. The May 19, 2008, ESA Adolfson review letter provides the basis for recommended conditions of approval for intrusion into regulated wetlands and wetland buffer reduction associated with the Process IV request. The proposal meets the nine decisional criteria of FWCC Section 22- 1358(d) for structures, improvements, and land surface modifications within regulated wetlands, if recommendations in the May 19, 2008, ESA Adolfson letter are met. Further, the project also meets the five decisional criteria of FWCC Section 22-1359(f) for modifications within wetland buffers if recommended conditions identified in the May 28, 2008, ESA Adolfson letter are met. 15. For the purposes of the City review and decision, the Talasaea Critical Area Report and Conceptual Mitigation plan has been evaluated for the purposes of compliance with Federal Way City Code regulations. Compliance with other agency regulations is the responsibility of the applicant. Should the applicant conduct any land surface modification within a regulated wetland or wetland buffer either on -site or off -site in order to fulfill other agency regulations, then the procedural and technical requirements of the FWCC will apply. This report and recommendation does not include any technical or procedural review of mitigation proposed to fulfill other agency regulations. South 320`h Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation File 08-100557-00-UP / Doc ] D 45677 Process 1V Staff Report Page 12 Any work proposed within the off -site Wetland X referenced in the Talasaea report must be reviewed under FWCC standards. No evaluation of any work or land surface modification within Wetland X is contemplated in this report, analysis, and recommendation. 16. The proposal is found to meet the Process IV decisional criteria of the FWCC Section 22445(c). VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, the Department of Community Development Services recommends approval of the requested wetland fill/elimination, and wetland buffer reduction, subject to the conditions listed below: Prior to issuance of construction permits related to any work associated with this application, the applicant shall adequately address all the recommendations in the May 28, 2008, ESA Adolfson review letter. All recommendations and design requirements must be incorporated into applicable construction plans and the final wetland mitigation and creation plan for review and approval by City staff, and include verification by the City's wetland consultant, which must be fully funded by the applicant. 2. In order to preserve the areas around Wetland U, C, and D, which expand beyond the minimum FWCC wetland buffer widths, all of the area proposed for wetland buffer enhancement as depicted on Talasaea plan sheet W 1.1 shall be preserved in perpetuity as a Wetland Buffer/Critical Area tract and shall be noted as such on the final plat map. VII. EXHIBITS A-1 Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan for the South 320'h Place Plat prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated revised May 19, 2008 B-1 Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Existing Conditions Plan, sheet W1.0 by Talasaea Consultants, dated revised May 19, 2008 B-2 Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Proposed Site Plan, Impacts and Mitigation, sheet W 1.1 by Talasaea Consultants, dated revised May 19, 2008 B-3 Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Grading Plan Details, sheet W2.0 by Talasaea Consultants, dated revised May 19, 2008 B-4 Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Planting Plan and Plant Schedule, sheet W3.0 by Talasaea Consultants, dated revised May 19, 2008 C-1 Technical Review Letter by ESA Adolfson, May 28, 2008 TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES LISTED HEREAFTER Federal Way Hearing Examiner Applicant — Quadrant Homes, George Cook Project Wetland Biologist — Ann Olsen, Talasaea Consultants Federal Way Staff— Jim Hams, Kevin Peterson City's Critical Areas Consultant — Lizzie Zemke, ESA Adolfson South 320"' Place Preliminary Plat Wetland Elimination and Mitigation Process IV Staff Report File 08-100557-00-UP / D«. LD 45677 Page 13 I LIN K4t: I s op 00 0 000 09 II 1Slav AE I-AiZ6 A a SW 1/4 OF 10 lo iA'.4 f } 46? 5F' yI I I I / EXEMPT, — a .� g — t-- _ - — — — WETLANP AA = — �� CATEGORY III ^� --&sab SF IKdETL 4NU . S 1 i G,nl1 �•l -. R-01 t?�G [OiY_!2fI tJ �44 SF (OFF 51 f r CITY ;r7� � l•`.a� w 77=1L - — — — — — -- �_ _.. ---'� I JIIII EXISTINS CONDITIONS PLAN 64;ZAPHIG SCALE ( IN FEET) �t 1� 0 30 60 mo SCALE, I"=60' PLAN LES ENf7 — _PROPERTY LINE EXISTING WETLAND -EXEII T HETWS75 IPEt7. FEDERAL K&Y GITY GODS SECTION 22, M1(OM) — — — — —EXISTING WETLAND BUFFER — —- —EXISTING GONTOUR FX15TINO TREES IWE ' AND W ' e�"fFGOPY li�"1b 5F ( SITE) 1; _ 0 `{ I WF_ GA i2Y 11 - 1, 3a SF WETLAND G J II CATEGORY 11 1.. I KINS GO. FIRE STATION NO. 30 ! - 1 I WETLAND rM / ' O 1 ': fA a SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE V41.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN WI.I PROPOSED 51TE PLAN, IMPACTS $ MITIGATION kg2.0 SRAP'NG PLAN & DETAILS W3.0 PLANTINO PLAN ff PLANT 5GHEDULE VIQINIT•r MAP NT5 5OURGE 4.KKMAPGW5T.04O KIN -COUNTY CONTACTS NAME QUADRANT HOMES ADDRESS: PO BOX 130 BELLEVUE, HA PHONE: (425) 455-2400 GONTAGT: ,6EOR6E GOOK, MIKE BEHN SURVEYOR NAME: E5M GONSULTING ADORE55: 33915 FIRST HAY 5., 5TE 200 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 PHONE: (253) 538-6113 GONTAGT: SURVEYOR'S CONTACT ENGINEER NAME, PAGE ENGINEER5 ADDRESS: 1601 214D AVE. 5TE. 1000 SEATTLE, WA 95101 PHONE: (20b) 441-1555 GONTAGT: KEN NILSEN, JOEY BULLOGK �RONI-�Eh YAL CCf.4�,U1, TANC NAME, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, ING. ADDRESS, 15020 BEAR GREEK RD. NE HOODINVILLE, WA 98077 PHONE, (425) 5b1-1550 GONTAGT: ANN OLSEN EXII HS IT 9 - L PAGE_LdF_L T OR CONS GTION THESE: PLANS HAVE BEEN 2. SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE A MENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, 3, THESE PLANS ARE, 131 z TO REV1510N 4. Allbl dam: reeseaev rnx dao� IOTES SURVEY PROVIDED BY E5M GONSULTIN6, X5 FIRST WAY 5., STE 200 FEDERAL , WA 95003 , (253) 838-b115. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY PAGE ENGINEER5, 1601 2NO AVE. STE. 1000 SEATTLE-, WA 98101 , (20b) 441-1855. SOURCE DRAWING HA5 MODIFIED BY TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANGEMENT. THIS PLAN I5 AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICAL AREAS REPORT and DETAILED GONGEPTUAL k4ETLAN D MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED BY TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS IN MAY 2006. 40 gut FUG O k TZ ZjFLw l u o } vv0� w m J Z W wXOw n lu 0- Ql 00 �ry Ln A� k F c O U Yo. U J Date I-15-05 Scale AS NOTED Demgnrd Ao Drawn AG Checked AO Approaed 55 Project $03'^0 Sheet # 'w1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN, IMPACTS, 4 MITIGAtTION GRAPHO 50ALE I'uRT" ( IN FEET) PLAN LEGEND_ —PROPERTY LINE 5GALE: 1'=60' EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY ' —CREATED VIETLAND BOUNDARY — — — — —EXISTING WETLANDS G C D BUFFER IMPACT LEGEND D--�FILLED WETLAND WELAND'AA 5$96 5F WETLAt•ID U 3303 5F WETLAND 5• 1,144 5F TOTAL FILLED WETLAND 10,123 5F FILLED WETLAND A -ExE)" T PER FWX-22.135-F(a)(3) -CORPS J RISDEGTiONAL 462 5F DETERMINATION = 150LATED •WETiAND 5 15 EXEMPT PER CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, BUT 15 REGULATED BY THE CORPS lfyRTE1' FID rl � - 21 a c6 I I Q �. �Q6i I GC 1 Q) r WETLAND G GP.TEGpRY i I HETLAND CATEGORY II - KIN& COUNTY FIRE STATION NO- 39 �. RING COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NLL 39 SFi'i1C TANI( 9RNNFEID f RECORDING NO. 8705DIO598 _I rti0AL.5 4 05JEG7IVE5 Tho prhnmry goal OF the Mitlaat Vh1 15 co replace the fi,r,etloms and mawos lost Ulro'�gn parmcnently krpdCl4lq IO,IZ3 sF of wetlondz, The shearxkry goal of the MItKj-1= protect Is to provide a high Fvnctlonhg buffer around the wetland creation area and the enhanced portion of Wetland U and preserve the existing Forested adjacent b-iffers To accomplish these goals, the proposed project will: Create 13,506 sF of new wetland contiguous with Wetland U Enhance 4,555 sf of Wetland U. • Enhance 721 sF OF Wetland C, • Rehabilitate and enhance 19,39b 9F of Wetland X located OHSItp adjacent to North LakzT, • Provide a high Functi—ing ipiffor area totaling 35636 sF around the new mltlgated Watland U complex_ Preserve and enhance the existing Forested buffers ossoclated with Wetlands G and D_ • Total buffer enhancement is 39500 sF. Kitgottw actions will be evaluated through the following olljactivas and performance standards. A. FoIlc%4" construction, the created and d r+ntlard areas must exhibit wetland Nok9logy. In these wetland areas, wetland conditions will be verified by the presence of Field Indicators. PorF27mwwp 7tarvtard A. After constrvalm the soils of the compensatory mitigation site shall remain Inundated or saturated to tip —Face For a minimum of 45 tm during the growing season for at least 3 out of 5 years of the monitoring parlod, i�7jec !; Create structural and plant species diversity In the ratt[gat,on areas. 81, At least 15 specles of deslrable native plpnte will be present In ilia N1ltkjotlOn watlard and buffer orom at the and of Yea�S� 5 atTd 1O. Flarbmuous Eovuayo OF vegouimn In the wattard oroos Shall br. at Wast 3m t74 the end aF Yaar I, 50% py the end of Year 2, and "t py lha end of Years 5. 7. and $0. ax kw" tho" crass of tho 51bs ghat may 11ovP spathe f arbaceau5 vegatoWn are to donee shade tram woody epee es caverage" Percent w-Avai of planted woody apaclag rwyt be at Idam 90-Jft. at %ne wO OF Ye0^ I {per GatTldLlaf` warranty), and at least 75% For each 5t,b5aetuent year of the monitoring period. total percent aarlal woody plant cavaraw must be at lees[ 0 ty Yoar 1, 'JDlG ro. 3. 50% ty raar 5, 55% 6y raar 7, 65% by Year 10. Woody careroV may bO can —d Of bath plantad end recolonized native SptLM1er.; llaraCvCr, to rnolfitpin spncEcs d1vet slty. at " tknc shall a rCcolprJ2sd spaalas ¢.r.., rod older) wmpri5a mare thdni 35% of the total Napdy covei'7gd. Thcro wu->t tka of least ttT'ea natNd vec,Ias providing at tvo9t 20% ea';h. ar Few• native 5pa4165 provic" at least is% each, tar f>-n ra"V spule5 provTopig at bast F071y of the Wtoi oCrtol *" midi! envaraga. Q2Id6tive G, Increase the overall habitat Functlons of the mitigation National and bvFFer areas by Incorporating habitat Features (I.e", bird nest boxes, snags, down logs, stumps, and boulder piles, as appropriate) Into the wetland and buFfer rode mnneAfter —51:t ctlon and For the Pnt" of the rAQM1: r:ng period, the rdt4atlon area will contain at least D habitat Features per acre (I plece15J700 sH Ir4wk g down wOpdy rtiutcrtal i". rootwods, atoJ fJd Snags. Dam IV!l Shall in a minhmmr a20 teat In length and 15' afomatar at breaAt height, with Or without rctot5. stvmps to L'a ATOW wall-da"ad ralo ated 6t7,rnpo, or Lvt. Ilya rooWdda with a MIAWM af 3 fedt a tYynl` skimps wl tl ba placed l7Oth uprkpt and N dnwri. Ad4100nol habitat fGopl Lan be piy_ed wUhln tt14 mlt". Ion area} only at ter SpaalFlcd 4ZIUMVtioS and 914as have bacn mat. There w111 also ba a Gerd ftaet t7Ox Instill" on eoch 5ntlg. Q4JWIvcLlmlt the amount of Invaslve and exotic species within the miticydb On area. ParFonrlarica-dgnQgcd.2L After construction and for the anttraty of tha monikar," pdrlod, axed[: &%d lnva's7va plant i1o5 NISI be mpinlpN,e pe6d A ICvdip batow 20% total cova' tWaughout tha mitigation Grape, fia5r 4pc4le'S InCkm16 Scots txooni, i1wialayerl and everq•'eaen btacidmirry, reed c7-1•y 1:1 p'vrpia loa$e$trira. hedge lt;v ad, and WCtpIO j MghN.tlada. MITIQA►TION LEGEND EsuFFER MODIPICA\T ON M71-AND U FNFWLB4ENF 5F STANDARD 50-FOOT BWPER. FOR 41,6N2 SF WE}L41ND G ENHANGEhFHr 721 se L WETLAND U OPIPLEX OFF -SITE WETLAND X REHABILITATION/ 19,346 5F PROP05ED 44-FOOT AV PEAC" �g38 5F ENHANCEMENT (PROVIDED AT WETLANDS BUFFER FOA t•✓gnAhe7 u comm" ADJACENT TO NORTH LAM BUFFER MODIFICATION RECdl1E5TED TO TOTAL WETLAND ENHANGEt1EHT 24,672 5F REDUCE THE BUFFER FOR WETLAND U b,054 5F COMPLEX (F{-K.G-22-135VO WETLAND GREATION 15,506 5F BUFFER ENHANCEMENT' 39;500 5F -INCLUDES 6,242 sF OF WETLAND G BUFFER NOT FOR GONSTRUCTION THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGtTIGIE5 FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVED, TIErE PLANS ARE: SU5.J7=G TO REV1510N tXH1B1T-1:L- P 339E5 FIRST WAY S„ STE 200 FEDERAL WAY, WA 95003 , (253) 4336-610. 2. 51TE PLAN PROVIDED BY PAGE ENGINEERS, 1601 2ND AVE. 5TE. 1000 5EATTLE, WA SWOT , (206) 441-1655" 3_ SOURCE DRAWING WA5 MODIFIED BY TALA5AEA GON5ULTANT5 FOR 1/15UAL ENHANCEMENT. THI5 PLAN 15 AN ATTAGHMENT TO THE a'wrenTnr CRITICAL AREA5 REPORT and DETAILED CONCEPTUAL 4•IETLAND MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED BY TALA5AEA GON5ULTANT5 IN AM /7-- MAY 200a. rill mLSrFi (�eeLA' Rb"ifl eWl�" VtiH z Q n�n z O d O a� 4 W Z iU 0 a- -A z } uN~� Cl W N J Q IL IU w OC O lU 00-1AV I nW aPr12� ,e +5 77i1TT77 .ignr:l r_ U uw7r �` Checked - Approved r.,I' el wwm: � T21N R4E SECT 5W 1/4 OF 10 Ali C I 9�p C, I 1 1 0-)0 •VW14a e ON5TR LKTIOK IF IT INEQ ZT7f:a L- Y N HE ETR2r!'$'NfAL 0 ExT AFFECTS r7A FpFiPANQ 121:7'AItfE#] J ITAT iN ` r �-- SHALE / — —— SAtY.PILL SIsALN_ M CA•PA[.T� TO A HK O! np 5OY-5 HAIL V" VEN ITT PER AOTND , off 5PEGFTCAnOFF HATWE SUB6R/.DE SN�C WITH NEST BOX TYP . ._ A'_E•'Ni7 QKAVIN6 PLAN PLAN LEsSEND C- RAi'W1G 5GALE wxz111 — PFZOPEERTT LINT: { IH F y � POST GOhTION ETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING TREE RE£ T TO WREMAIN TAFBAFO NOTGa'J' DEEP. NVrCH To aE .N HOC oN wsrRbn 51W OF LD6 AND 3b' WIDE ON DOWNSTRPJJI SIDE OF L06. 5ECURE 20. FVC LINER TO LOS WITH - I'K2' CEDAR LATH BOARD. ATTACH TO LOS WRH Bd GALVANIZED NAILS EVERY 6'. Kgf LU19R INTO WN5RNADE A MRL DP IY AID BAfi.Elii KTH STOCKPILED HYDRIC 501L 55 5ECTION r, �1 i r � U •� 1 ` 'a NT5 NOTCH eLCVA"EI N (a 5ECTI0N VIEIAI A;�D NOTCH DETAIL 0_�FO(5 'AEIFZ I7ET, ,'L 5E&LftE LOG INFO BANK AND ANCHOR YUTH 1-2 MER50N ROCK L�- 14\11. FLAC.E 13'ROUND ROCK ON DOWN- 511WAM SIDE OF NOR TO DI OF 6-O'. IIATNE 9UB6RADE U UY` 25oN NLASIC� �` I �, 1r lf( oP LOM HIGH FLOFI Re711 ELEVATION VIEW FROM DOWNSTREAM NOTES. 1. HI,SH FLOH NOTCH SHOULD BE 1-V2' DE>, 36- WIOE ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LO5 AM 2V HIDE ON OOHNSTREAHI SIDE OF LO& 2 LOW FLOK NOTCH SHOULD VIE 1-" DEEP 247 WIDE ON UPSTRFAK SM OF IDS AND 12- WIDE ON OO"WREAH SIDE OF LOG. "KT5 IN FILTET. FABRIG d*W4 BE SFUCED AY P,7S1S. N5E STAPLI3. NTRE inw-.51 OR =WALY,I.T TO ATTACH FABRIC TO e0sPS. 2'x2' BY 14 GA WIRE OR EOUIVALEM_ IF ST STRENGTH FABRIC USED I IVI � FILTER FABRIC-- 11I I TRENCH — VIE J(—/f BAG5 TRENCH YiTH NATISOIL POST 5FA61H6 MAY BE IWAW,LdF0 TD a' IF WIRE 2 w4' HOOD POST* 5Tffi. B^G"i* is taEa � � VZWR 09 GRO55 SECTION E-17VATION 3 9— NENC � FE IN PLACE I -n, .Wj 3/4' AR FLAeW AT 12- FROM Loa. NOTES. 1. Lai h Las I'vZ1 Be Abz+NOR'D ""a VA36RADE A MINIHN DEMN of -W)% OF THE LOG OIPf1=TER MUNIK" 15' OIA. LOFT SHALL BE USED,- 2. LOG TO BE ANCHORED A MINIMUM OF 3-FEET OF EACH 51DE AND 5ECARED HIT" 3r� REBA'. 3. L05 SHALL BE LAID FLAT AND NOTCH TO BE OUT TO ENSURE EVEN FLOW OF HATER OVER LOG SURFACE. 4. IN AREAS OF FILL PLACEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL COFPACT SOIL IN 6-12' LIFTS. A 6150MCHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL APPROVE C-OFB'ACT,ON AFTER PLACMENT OF EVERY OTHER LIFT- PUCTA•I TO HIM, SOL-5 7 TO A MUL Ca' 5C OF sDa�s IiAN1INa1M DRY 0E17NY A6rFL� [eee speclTlcanore,- VE SIBeRAOE ND6 IN PLACE NTH TT+ FOA M I L AT O OF Loa, 12' 7.d1'T PLAN VIEW SILT FENCE MAINTENANCE STANDARDS, M 1 AHY OAKiHAL SHALL 1'NE REPNREO mM XATL'LT- Z IF sr1NC@TTF.AT® FLoHr ARE EVWMF (K-AOFE Oe THE Fe CE Tmf'Y m Sr BE N� AND COM'ET'>� TO A r®1r@NY NTOtD. 3, fHIE FV WTOR SHALL CMCC TIE Id'5 " 9JD OF 4# FACE FOR SIGHS OF 5 PA OtL AND �WP- tF THIS Ocr is t% FL9)'LS PAF/11.F1 ND 21K FAY.[. TF SMCFeD $1 M' /VDAOR RD'IT7. THE TgU ff 51 SmINeTT. i 5rD1r'PIT SIWLL BE f@MOYLO'e" ALlJ1FT.LATICN t•j�,�p$ d' IN D�TN• 5R,601N15 LEGEND N(:)Tr=5 LIMIT OF P6TURBANCMILT FEMGE � D"a t. gWvEY PRO\Avw 13Y E5M CQWAufl -" EXI5TING CONTOUR a5 FIRST WAYS. 5TE 200 FEDERAL � C- I- PROP05OMTOAZ EXHIB1 Y, w, 40003 , i25W 638-6113. LOG WEIR - Sf pETAIL 2. SrTE PLAN PRpVIOfv BY PAGE �:NCER , G0 ISIX r AVP- STE. i000 5PhTTLE. WA SNAG W/ SWALLOW iiiT BOX - SEE DETAIL gb101 . {�O(.1 Mil-1855, WOODY PE5RI5 TALP5AEA co"suI. ANT T5 Pa7R Aw.\L ENWANGEMENT. 4. TH15 PLAN 15 AN ATTACHMENT TO THE GRITIGAL AREA5 REPORT and DETAILED CONGEFTUAL WETLAND MIT16ATION PLAN NOT FOR GON5TRUG7ION PREPARED BY TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS IN MAY 2008. xA1C 0' THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN NAwq afW lmaswNaT 9UBMIT1F17 TO THE APPROPRIATE �I A&ENGIE5OVA FOR REAPER AND qpl-'ROYAL. UNTIL APPRO'`rm, TI-E5E PLANS ARE: c mn("'iaewm an T TO �.EV1510N evnreT vlrce Z Z O W J � A w Q lu luck OQT� w -1ek lu zm do�wW Date 1-I15-061 Scale .&- Designed AO Drawn AG Checked A0 Approved F55 Project # CJ3fJ Sheet # Y .O • Irr a_r 1r.. wr r. � r--� .I I ; �all f ✓l��/lA if� �� 12m ' �1 ME■..��l�.s■1��4■..it R`1 !• fit! 1 � .� it . J � r � ■, ' a v oan � � a .. E � 4� ■ � r { ►I 1■ GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH ( IN FEET) 7 I 30 6❑ I GIIY RYI- 7Ct�1 �Iry 1/�H Vr 1V AN LT FENCE f _ Lflfs FV�i IKf+ GDN�.�TRUGTION, IF iT lNEO THAT FILL 5W, BE RENTAL TO EXI TN7E AFFECTET7 TITS NiA TOP�ANII REYAl'D FpR ITAT r PLAN LEGEND — — — —) PROPERTY LINE - �� POST CONSTRUCTION WETLAND BOUNDARY CO1[,`--�) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN 6RAV I NE LEGEND .—+—LUNT OF 015TUIRSAWG"LLT PELAGE Q.0 _ _ _ _ • FX15TIN6 GONTOUR IQ2 PP-OP05M CONTOUR �-� LOG WEIR - SEE DETAIL SNAG I-V SWAIJ_OW NEST BOX - SEE DETAIL � yc' WOODY OEBR15 �U STUMP PL T SCHEDULE TREES 5YMHOL �.'_IPHTWIC NAME 0Ob7'Q7N NAME WLSTATUS 5PAGINs @YY, SIZE (MIN] N*TES AGER MALF0PI1rLLU4 816 LI=AF MAPLE FAGUU A5 5HOM n 4' HT. Sgw7LE TRUNK, I-'F L BRAHCHEi BETUL4 PAPYRIFERA CORMUS NUTTALLII PAPER BIRCH PACIFIC DOGWOOD FAG NL AS SHOWN AS 5HOHN 35 Iq 4' 11T. 4' HT- SINGLE TRUNK, YELL BRANCHED SINGLE TRUNK, WELL BRANCHED f -i— FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA ORE60N ASH FAGH A5 5HOHN 16 4' HT. SINGLE TRUNK, PILL BRANCHED PIGEA SITCHEN515 SITKA SPRUCE FAG A5 5HOHN II 4-5' HT. FULL / BUSHY (, PIGEA 51TGHEN515 51TKA SPRUCE FAG AS 5HOM 11 2-3' HT. FILL I BUSHY PSEUPOT5U6A MENZIE511 DOUGLA5 FIR FACU A5 5WHR 30 23' HT. FILL t BUSHY P5RVOT5U6A MENZIE511 DOUGLA5 FIR FAGU A5 5HOHN 41 43' HT- RILL E BUSHY THUJA PLIGATA NESTERN RED G®AR FAL AS SHORN 43 2-3' HT. FULL a BU5HY THUJA PLIGATA NESTERN RED CEDAR FAG AS SHORN 44 4-5' HT- RILL t BUSHY TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK FAGV- AS SHOWN q 4-51 NY. RILL N BUSHY �----- T5U6A HETEROPHYLLA FESTERN HEMLOCK FACU AS SHOWN T 23' HT_ FULL [ BUSHY SMALL TREES $ SHRUBS SYMBOL Sf'IENTIFUG NAME C.4HR4oN NAM@ WLSTATUS AG CfTY. 512E (NAND NCrI'E5 AGER GIRCINAfUM VINE MAPLE FALL AS SHOW 25 4' HT, MULTI-5TEM (3 MINJ AMELANGHIER ALNIFOLIA 5ERVIGE5ERRY FAGU 5' O.G. q 24' HT, 511,16LE TRUNK, HELL BRANCHED 0--- HOLODISGU5 U15COLOP OCEAN SPRAY NL 5' O.G. -14 24" HT. MULTILANE (3 MINJ GMALU5 FU51-A WESTERN GRABAPPLE FAGS A5 5HOHN 13 4' HT. 51N61LE TRUNK, WELL BRANCHED OD-ILE94JA CERA5IFORMI5 INDIAN PLUM FAGU 5' O.G. 6q 24" HE MULTI -LANE (3 MINJ 6 RHAMHI3 FUR5HIANA CASCARA FAG- AS SHOWN 6 4' HT- 51NGLE TRUNK, HELL BRANCHED �]----- RIBES 5AN6UINBUM RED CURRANT 14_ 5' O.G. 6 24' HT. MULTILANE (3 MIN) SA IBUGU5 RAGEM05A RED ELDERBERRY FACU V O,G. 33 24. 11i, MULTI -CANE (3 MIN) 5OREU5 51TOA3515 SITKA MOUNTAIN ASH NL AS 5HOHN q 4' HT. SINGLE TRUNK, HELL BRANCHED VIBURNUM EDULE H16H-BU5H CRANBERRY FAGH 5' O.G. 2T 24' HT. MULTILANE (3 MIN) MASSING SHRUBS SYMBOL 51-IENTIFIC NAME CO+� NAME W, STXM5 SPAGU0 QTY. SIZE (HIN) NOTES 0--GORNUS SERIGEA RED-051FR DOGWOOD FAGH 3' OL. IB Ib" HT. MULTILANE (3 MINJ o GAULTHERIA 5HALLON SALAL FACU 24' O.G_ 528 1 GAL FULL R BUSHY - --�-- LONIGERA INVOLUGRATA BLACK THIN -BERRY FAU 3' OL_ 86 18, HT. MULTILANE (3 MIN) 0-- MANONIA AGUIFOLIUH TALL ORE60N6RAPE NL 3' O.G. IIT 1 GAL FULL RILL b BUSHY POLYSTIGHUM "ITUM SWORD FERN NL 3' O.G. 586 1 GAL. FULL 6 BUSHY ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA R05E FAG 3' oz. 188 IS' HT. MULTILANE (3 MIN) RUBU5 PARVIFLORUS THIMBL EBERRY FAG- 3' OL_ 44 lb- HT, MULTILANE (3 MINJ 0-----RUBU5 SPEGTABILI5 SALMON13ERRY FAG- 3. OL. 51 Ib' HT. MULTILANE 0 MINJ (D — 5YMPHORICARP05 ALBU5 COMMON 5NOWBERRY FAGU I.,, RI w HT. MULTI -CANE (3 MIN.) GROUNDGOVER -- NOTE: TALA5AEA SHALL DESIONATE PLANTIN6 AREAS FOR DULL ORWOIASRAPE. SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME G04MI90N NAME NHL 5TATU5 SPAGIt15 OYY. SIZE (MINJ NOTES MAHONIA HERV05A DULL ORE60N6RAPE NL 4' O.G• 1,500 1 6AL- FULL B BUSHY EMERGENT5' SYMBOL 5GtEHTIFI6 NAME GOMMON NAME HC. 5TATU5 5PAGIN6 AFT', 51ZE (MINJ C639W A: PL ANT AT W TO -6' --- CAREX OBNUPTA SLOUGH SE06E OBL 21" O,G_ 415 4" HT_ CLUMP DIV. - .. GAREX 5TIPATA 5AHBEAK SEDGE HL 21" O.G. 415 4' HT CLUMP DIV. ELEOGHARI5 PALU5TRI5 COMMON 5PIKERUSH OBL 21' O.G, 415 RHIZOME SPAROANIUM EURYCARPUM LL'=_ BROAD -FRUITED BURREED OBL 21" O.C. 415 BARE -ROOT 5GIRPU5 MIGROGARPU5 5MALL-FRUITED BULRUSH OBL 21" OL, 415 BARE -ROOT GROUP 9, PLAN7 AT -6• TO -Ib' — 5AGITTARIA LATIFOLIA ARROWHEAD OBL 24' O.G. bO3 TUBER 5GIRPU5 AGUTU5 HARD5TEM BULRUSH DEL 24' O.C. 8O3 TUBER ' NOTE: EMER61ENT5 TO BE PLANTED AT ELEVATIONS INDICATED BY 6RO1P (WATER SURFACE ELEVATION = 0). POND HATER TO BE DRAINED PRIOR TO PLANTING FOR A MIN OF 2 WEFK5 AFTER PLANTING TO ALLOW EMER&ENT5 TO BEGONE ESTABLISHED. PAGE__L_0F_A-- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THESE PLAN& HAVE BEEN r SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UNTIL APPROVE, . THESE PLANS ARE: SUB T TCJ R�/� ION NOTES L SURVEY PROVIDED BY E5M GON5ULTING, 33g15 FIRST HAY 5, 5TE 200 FEDERAL WAY, WA gbO03 , (253) 03"113. 2_ 51TE PLAN PROVIDED BY PAGE ENGINEERS, 1601 2NO AVE. STE. 1000 SEATTLE, WA gb101 , (206) 441-M5. 3- SOURCE DRAHIN6 HA5 MODIFIED BY TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 4. TH15 PLAN 15 AN ATTACHMENT TO THE CRITICAL AREA5 REPORT and DETAILED CONCEPTUAL HETL4NO MIT16ATION PLAN PREPARED BY TALASAEA 6ON9ULTANT5 IN MAY 2008. Z JU Z lu JU X zW V 9Z iu�Oa] CkILNIL Date I-Ib_l715 Scale AS WHOM Deaigned AO Drawn AG Checked AO Approved B5 Project jI �03�I�0{ Sheet # l`S 'f 'i( ,g _ 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW •,;ww.a;lolison.com 3.4 d Suite 200 Seattle. WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 sax May 13, 2008 Mr. Jim Harris City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Subject: Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan Review, S. 320"' Small Lot Demonstration Project, Wetland Status (File #07-106736-00-AD), Federal Way, Washington Dear Jim: ESA Adolfson (Adolfson) is pleased to present our review of the revised Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea Consultants and submitted to the City of Federal Way (City) for Quadrant Homes. The 19.12-acre site is located north of S. 320" St., east of I-5, and west of Military Rd. S. in the City of Federal Way, Washington. The property is undeveloped, with a majority of the site covered in forest. A grass field with scattered shrubs is located on the southeastern portion of the site. Quadrant Homes is proposing the development of a small lot subdivision on the property. Adolfson reviewed earlier submittals for this project, including a Critical Areas Report (dated November 30, 2007) and two versions of the Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Mitigation Plan (revised Jan 30, 2008 and April 14, 2008). We provided comments based on the original Critical Areas Report (November 30, 2007) in a draft letter to the City dated March 7, 2008. This draft letter was not finalized and the information presented here includes the earlier review. At that time we recommended the following: • Wetland T appears to be connected to Wetland U; data plots should be provided for this area, and the boundaries of these wetlands should be amended as necessary. • Further explanation should be provided to support the determination of Wetland A. • Boundaries of additional wetland areas delineated by flag lines Y and Z should be professionally surveyed and discussed in the report and on site plans. • The area north-northwest of Wetland S should be revisited for a wetland determination. A wetland delineation should be conducted if wetland conditions exist. • The wetland report and site plan should be revised to reflect these additions. Adolfson was in the process of reviewing the first version of the Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Mitigation Plan (revised Jan 30, 2008) when the report was updated (April 14, 2008) to include comments from an on -site meeting with an Army Corps of Engineer representative. r ESA J S. 320`" Small Lot Development Wetland Mitigation Review May 13, 2008 Page 2 of 7 For this critical area review, Adolfson evaluated the following materials received from the City on April 17, 2008: • Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan (Talasaea Consultants, revised April 14, 2008) Review comments included in this letter are based on regulatory requirements presented in the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22 - Critical Areas Regulations, a review of materials submitted by the applicant, and a site visit conducted in February 2008. The scope of this review is limited to an evaluation of critical areas and proposed mitigation activities on -site. Site Visit Adolfson biologists Michael Muscari and Laura Brock previously conducted a site visit on February 21, 2008 to verify the boundary and classification of the on -site wetlands presented in an earlier submittal. During our site visit, we observed that the majority of the site consists of forested slopes, with a small grass field located on the southeastern portion of the site. Document Review The following discussion includes comments from the February 21, 2008 site visit, the March 7, 2008 draft review letter, and a review of the April 14, 2008 Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan: Wetland Boundaries and Rating The Talasaea Consultants report identifies five wetlands on the property (Wetlands A, AA, C, D, and U), and one wetland (Wetland S) just off -site within the night -of -way of South 320'h Street. Wetland ❑ extends offsite to the east and Wetland AA extends south into the road right-of-way. Talasaea rated the wetlands using Federal Way City Code (FWCC 22-1357). Wetlands C and D were rated as Category II wetlands, and Wetlands AA and U were rated as a Category III wetlands. Talasaea rated Wetlands A and S Category III wetlands, but these wetlands would be exempt under FWCC because they are each smaller than 2,500 square feet. Buffer requirements are correctly described in the Talasaea Report as being 100 feet for Category II wetlands and 25 feet for Category III wetlands under 10,000 square feet. E SLA J S. 320`h Small Lot Development Wetland Mitigation Review May 13, 2008 Page 3 of 7 During the February 21, 2008 site visit, Adolfson verified the approximate locations of Wetlands C, D, S, and U delineated by Talasaea. Wetland A was not accessed during the site visit for safety reasons, as a vagrant camp was located in the area of the wetland. Wetland AA had not been flagged at the time of the site visit, nor was it described in the earlier version of the report. Adolfson had recommended in our March 7, 2008 review letter that data be collected and a wetland determination made in this area. Follow-up meetings between the Corps and Talasaea led to Wetland AA being delineated as shown on Figure 4 of the revised Talasaea Consultants report. Based on our site review the boundaries shown on Figure 4 for Wetlands AA and A appear to include the areas where we observed wetland indicators. Based on the conditions we observed during the site visit and from information provided in the revised Talasaea report (April 14, 2008), we agree with the wetland boundaries and classifications for Wetlands A, AA, C, D, S, and U as shown on Figure 4. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology will likely regulate impacts to any of the six wetlands identified on the site. Rating forms for the Washington Wetland Rating System for Wester Washington (Hruby 2004) were also included in the report in Appendix B. However, because these ratings are not required under FWCC, were conducted to satisfy Corps and Ecology requirements, and were not presented as an assessment of functions, Adolfson did not review the rating forms. Function Assessment The functions of the on -site wetlands were assessed by Talasaea, as required by FWCC 12-1356 (b)(7). The Talasaea Consultants report provides function assessments using the Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology (Cooke 2000). The results of the function assessment were summarized in Table 3 of the Talasaea report. The summary shows that Wetlands A, AA, S, and U provide functions at a low level for most functions assessed. Wetlands AA and A rated low -moderate or moderate for a few functions: flood/stormwater control, baseflow/groundwater support, and overall habitat. Wetlands C and D rated moderate, moderate -high, or high for most functions. The results of the function assessment are consistent with the conditions we observed in the wetlands while on site February 21, 2008. Wetland Impacts/Proposed Mitigation According to Talasaea, the proposed project will impact Wetlands A, AA, S, and U. Mitigation sequencing is presented in the report as avoidance of impacts to the higher quality wetlands (Wetland C and D) and their required 100-foot buffers. Impacts to Wetlands AA and S are proposed for site development reasons and required improvements to S. 320`h Street. Impacts to part of Wetland U would be related to construction of the proposed stormwater detention facility. PAGE L- r- ESA S. 3200' Small Lot Development Wetland Mitigation Review May 13, 2008 Page 4 of 7 Mitigation is proposed in the form of wetland creation and enhancement on -site, and wetland enhancement at a site south of 320t' Street near North Lake. The total area of proposed wetland impact regulated by the City is 8,979 square feet. Mitigation ratios cited in the report are consistent with FWCC 22-1358.e.3. Using Federal Way mitigation ratios for creation, mitigation for impacts to wetlands regulated under FWCC (Wetlands AA and U) would need to total 13,469 square feet. Total wetland creation proposed for this project is 13,506 square feet, which exceeds the acreage required by Federal Way. However, the acreage calculation for wetlands regulated by the Corps and Ecology does not appear to include Wetland A. Calculations for impacts to Corps and Ecology regulated wetlands are not within Federal Way jurisdiction, but are noted here so that the mitigation plan is consistent. Table 4 shows 10,123 square feet of impacts, but total wetland impacts including Wetland A should total 10,585 square feet. Text and tables in the report should be updated to include Wetland A in the total impacts. The conceptual mitigation plan proposes an excavation to depths approximately two and a half feet below the existing grade of Wetland U. No information regarding the geologic and hydrologic conditions at this depth is provided in the conceptual plan. The final mitigation plan should include geologic and hydrologic information for the proposed excavation and mitigation activities. This plan should also discuss whether conditions will be sufficient to support wetland hydrology and result in successful mitigation within Wetland U. Existing groundwater and saturated soil levels should be measured throughout the planned excavation area. Sufficient groundwater or soil saturation levels will need to be demonstrated at the elevations expected to be wetland (as shown on Plan Sheet W2) during the growing season. The conceptual plan also outlines goals, objectives, and performance standards for the project, as well as grading, planting, monitoring, and maintenance specifications. We agreed with these details, which fulfill the requirements of FWCC 22-1358.d.1. Table 5 of the conceptual plan provides a summary of existing and predicted post -mitigation functions and values for Wetland U. The existing conditions in Wetland U are shown to be low for all functions and all functions are expected to increase following implementation of the mitigation plan. The hydrologic functions are expected to increase to low -moderate, the habitat functions are expected to increase to moderate -high and high, and cultural functions are expected to increase to low -moderate. We agree with the conclusion that the mitigation plan as proposed is likely to result in an increase in all assessed functions over time. However, we do not necessarily agree with all details in the predicted post -mitigation function assessment. For example high habitat diversity is not likely to develop in created wetland less than 1/2 acre in size. Never -the -less, the plan is thorough, and if constructed and �a� CF r ESA J S. 320'h Small Lot Development Wetland Mitigation Review May 13, 2008 Page 5 of 7 maintained as described in the report, the proposed mitigation should, at a minimum, result in no net loss of wetland area or function as required by FWCC 22-1358.d. Buffer Averaging According to the mitigation plan, the applicant proposes buffer averaging for the Wetland U complex. The justification for buffer averaging made in the Talasaea report is that the existing conditions of the buffer area are degraded due to past land use and that the buffer has low function. Although the existing condition of the buffer is degraded, the disturbance is not permanent and therefore does not meet the standards described in FWCC 22-1359(b); "...contains habitat types which have been so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions." It is our understanding that the City interprets "permanently impacted" to mean alterations such as roadways, paved parking lots, or permanent structures. Because the existing buffer does not contain any of these structures, proposed buffer width reduction should be considered following the process described in FWCC 22-1359(f) Modification. Since the new Wetland U complex will total 18,061 square feet and will therefore be considered a Category III vcretland, it will need to be provided with a 50 foot buffer under FWCC 22-1357.b.3. In this instance, buffer averaging or reduction can not result in buffers less than 25 feet at any point around the wetland. According to plan sheet W1.1, the buffer along the eastern edge of Wetland U, adjacent to the fire station property, appears to be less than 25 feet in width for approximately 70 feet, which does not satisfy the requirements in FWCC 22-1359.b.4. Buffer enhancements are proposed for the slopes inside the detention pond facility. From telephone conversations with Jim Harris we learned that the Federal Way Surface Water Management (FW SWM) department will take ownership of the pond after construction and that maintenance requirements dictate that no plantings will be installed along the slopes of the detention pond. The plans should be modified to show no plantings in this area, and wetland buffer enhancement area should be re -measured to be sure sufficient area is available for buffer averaging if the detention pond slopes are not included in the calculations. The detention pond access road is included as a trail feature inside the wetland buffer. Because the FW SWM department will be taking ownership of the detention pond, the primary use for the road will be to provide maintenance vehicle access to the detention pond. Use as a public walkway would only be a secondary use. For this reason the roadway does not appear to meet the FWCC definition of a minor improvement FWCC 22-1359(4)(d). The design drawings should be modified to show the access road outside of wetland buffers. PAOL-2- ESA J S. 320te Small Lot Development Wetland Mitigation Review May 13, 2008 Page 6 of 7 Off -site Mitigation Area The off -site mitigation proposed to satisfy Corps and Washington Department of Ecology requirements was described only briefly in the revised Talasaea report. Adolfson has not conducted a site visit to the off -site mitigation area, which is located at a site south of 324s' Street near North Lake. The site is located within the shoreline of North Lake. The figures and photographs provided in the report show that there is potential for wetland and buffer enhancement on the proposed site. When more detailed plans are completed for the off -site mitigation the City will need to review and approve the plans for consistency with FWCC 22-1358.c (wetland rehabilitation) and compliance with the shoreline management act. Recommendations Based on the above findings, we recommend that the applicant complete the following tasks: • Revise text and tables in the report to include Wetland A in the total impacts. • Revise the mitigation plan and figures to satisfy buffer averaging requirements. Once the mitigation is completed buffers for Wetland U are a minimum of 25 feet wide, as required by FWCC 22-1359.b.4. • Revise the mitigation plan to include geologic and hydrologic information and a discussion of sufficient hydrology for the proposed Wetland U creation and enhancement. This information is crucial to determining the viability of the wetland creation, and sufficient hydrologic support should be demonstrated conclusively before final plans are accepted. • The planting plans should be modified to exclude plantings within the detention pond facility. • If proposed buffer width reduction is necessary for this project, the process described in FWCC 22-1359(f) Modification should be considered. • The plans should be modified to exclude the maintenance access road from the wetland buffer. • A final mitigation plan should be provided as described in FWCC 22-1358.e.1 during the final plat approval process. Limitations Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope -of -work, we warrant that this review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the authors' best professional judgment, based upon information r ESA S. 320'' Small Lot Development Wetland Mitigation Review May 13, 2008 Page 7 of 7 provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this review. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this material for you. If you have any questions or comments, please call Laura Brock or Michael Muscari at 206-789-9658. Sincerely, ESA Adolfson Laura Brock Project Scientist cc: Lizzie Zemke, Project Manager Michael Muscari Senior Wetland Ecologist s _4If �-` April 25, 2008 Mr. James Harris Senior Planner City of Federal Way P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RESUBMITTED APR 2 5 2003 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. Re: South 320th Place CFW Files # 08-100556-00-SE & #08-100555-00-SU Dear Mr. Harris: Here are the responses to the two most recent City of Federal Way sets of South 320t" Place preliminary plat review comments. The two sets of review comments are contained in your letter of March 25, 2008 and an email from Kevin Peterson dated April 10, 2008. In the interest of providing a more consolidated response to these two sets of preliminary plat comments I have addressed both the review comments contained in the March 25, 2008 letter and the April 10, 2008 email from Kevin Peterson in this letter. Some of the comments contained in the March 25t" letter and the April 10t" email are similar, however I have responded to all comments in each set. I have also referenced all supporting documents, plans and reports as specific attachments and have enclosed all of the referenced attachments to this letter. I have first addressed the preliminary plat review comments contained in your letter of March 25, 2008 and then the April 10, 2008 email from Kevin Peterson. 1) Quadrant Home response to the Jim Harris comment letter of March 25, 2008 March 25, 2008 Mr. George Cook Quadrant Homes PO Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 george.cook@quadranthomes.com Re: Files #08-100556-00-SE & #08-100555-00-SU; PLANNING DIVISION SECOND TECHNICAL REVIEW South 320tb Place Subdivision, 31800 32°d Place South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Cook: The following comments represent the Planning Division's technical comments in response to your March 5, 2008 letter and subsequent comments. In order to identify the status of each item from my February 28, 2008 letter, the comments below are in the same order of the February 28, 2008 letter, and the current status and City review of your comments are in bold below each item. 1. Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 20-179 states, "All natural vegetation shall be retained on the site to be subdivided except that which will be removed for improvements or grading as shown on the approved engineering plans." The preliminary grading plan proposes clearing and grading approximately 90 percent of the site. The Federal Way City Council has been reviewing and deciding upon mass grading of preliminary plats on a case -by -case basis. Based on the City Council's previous decisions for mass grading residential plats, City staff can provide you some direction that we anticipate the City Council will consider in reviewing your proposal for mass clearing and grading. Factors the City Council have considered include, but are not limited to, the following: public comment, proximity to existing residences, visibility of the site from public areas and rights -of -way, construction traffic impacts, site topography, existing vegetation, and duration of time from clearing to home construction. Your project narrative discusses the importance of the need to conduct the clearing and grading in a unified effort. Your request for a unified clearing and grading of the site is based on a balanced cut/ fill quantity for the site and in order to reduce construction traffic impacts at the site. The City Council has previously cited reduced truck traffic (construction impacts) as a factor to support mass clearing and grading; however, balanced grading on site has not been an important factor considered by the City Council. In order to gain staff support for the proposed mass clearing and grading, we will need you to provide staff with some additional information, in order to evaluate the mass clearing and grading for consistency with previous City Council direction. In general, the City Council has approved mass clearing and grading for a plat, provided a defined and reasonable duration of time is met between the time of clearing and time of home construction, and penalties are defined for failure to meet the anticipated development schedule. Therefore, in order to develop a condition of approval for the proposed mass clearing and grading, please provide the following for City staff evaluation: a. Value of timber proposed for removal at the site. The City Council's penalty for failure to meet the development schedule would be based on a percentage of the value of the timber proportionately in violation of any stipulations. b. Development schedule, guaranteed duration of time from unified clearing grading of the site, to the time of construction of the homes. March 25, 2008: The City has reviewed your March 7, 2008, e-mail addressing this comment. This item will be further addressed through the preliminary plat review process and staff report. We may need further information on this item as the project proceeds through the preliminary plat process. At a minimum, you will need to provide some technical documentation of how you derived the stated estimated value of the timber beyond what you provided in the March 7, 2008, e-mail. April 25, 2008: Attached is a Timber Value Appraisal provided by CC Edwards. The \ estimated market value of the timber is $36,000. The appraised market value is based upon the estimated standing timber value less logging and delivery cost to the point of sale of the timber. The Timber Value appraisal is attached as Attachment "A". The duration of time between site clearing and grading and when road and utility improvements and required landscaping is completed is expected to be about 4 to 6 months. Model home construction is expected to begin in October of 2008, about 3 months after commencement of plat improvements. The first production home sale is expected to occur in early 2009. Our first home resident is expected to move into their newly completed home sometime in June of 2009. We anticipate a sales pace of about 8 homes per month. At this sales pace we expect that South 320°h Place will be fully built out by June of 2009. 2. The proposed retaining wall up to ten feet in height along the exterior property line in the northeast portion of the site adjacent to lots 22-29 and 33-35 does not meet several requirements of the City including: condition number 3 of the January 22, 2008, Conditional Approval of the Small Lot Demonstration Development; applicable FWCC Section 22- 1133(6) regarding setbacks; and FWCC policy relating to aesthetics. Please revise the plans to eliminate and/or substantially reduce the walls and minimize the aesthetic impacts. March 25, 2008: The City has reviewed your March 6, 2008, revised grading plan. In summary, the height of the proposed wall behind lots 22 — 29 has been reduced; however, the revised grading plan has resulted in the addition of a new four foot tall wall along the property line adjacent to lots 36 — 47. At this time, submit renderings of the proposed wall materials and wall design. City staff encourages you to concentrate on the design of the walls on the rear of lots 22 — 26 and 33 — 35, as these walls are adjacent to off -site properties and their appearance must be mitigated. Consider design alternatives to reduce the height of these walls. If the heights cannot be reduced, explain why. April 25, 2008: Please see the attached Attachment `B" response to this issue. Design alternatives that might reduce wall heights were found to increase the number and height of side yard walls. The attached response responds to this question in more detail. Aesthetic treatment and screening of the proposed eight -foot -tall retaining wall in the stormwater tract is required, as this wall will be visible from public rights -of -way and public areas. A combination of wall treatment and vegetation screening is recommended. Please provide a written description and visual depictions of proposed methods to screen and treat this wall. March 25, 2008: The City has reviewed your March 6, 2008, revised grading plan. In _ summary, the height of the proposed wall within the stormwater tract h 20F WAGE / height from eight feet on the February 5, 2008, plans to a maximum height of ten feet on the March 6, 2008, plan. The Public Works Department will be commenting on the maximum allowed wall height for City stormwater facilities. In addition, the landscaping proposed within the stormwater tract will likely not be allowed by the City's Public Works Department due to maintenance requirements. To further address this comment, contact the Public Works Department to determine the maximum allowed wall height and planting allowances, provide aesthetic treatment of the wall, and provide plans for visual treatment of the wall. In addition, for City staff to further evaluate this comment, please submit three full size sets of the graphic sections of the wail visibility from the South 320th Street vicinity, which were e-mailed to the City. City staff will hold further comment on this item for additional review. Apri125, 2008: We have completed a coordinated set of project landscaping plans prepared by the Weisman Design Group that show required public landscaping including street trees, active park improvements and landscaping, Type III buffer landscaping along South 320th Street together with wetland mitigation landscaping and storm water pond landscaping. A full size view shed analysis of the architectural walls from South 320th Street will be submitted under separate cover on or before April 30, 2008. The view shed analysis plan will demonstrate that the storm water pond wall will not be visible from South 320th Street. A set of plans showing the proposed Redi-rock architectural wall material is enclosed. Engineering detail of the Redi-rock wall installation is shown on Pages W 1.1,1.2 & 1.3 of the South 320th Place engineering construction plans. I will submit three copies of the landscaping plan directly to Adolphson & Associates and three copies to the City using the green re -submittal form. All of the above drawings and plans are contained in Attachment "C" except for the view analysis which will be submitted under a separate submittal. 4. The nine -foot -tall wall adjacent to lots 20 and 21 and the cul-de-sac bulb must also be screened and visually treated. Please provide a written description and visual depictions of proposed methods to screen and treat this wall. Also, identify the construction method for this wall to avoid critical area impacts, as the wall is directly adjacent to the wetland buffer. March 25, 2008: We are not supportive of deferring review of the design of the retaining walls up to nine feet in height until review of the engineering plans. Large retaining wall location and design has been a factor the City Council has reviewed and commented on during the preliminary plat process in several instances. I concur that the trees and vegetation will provide some screening of the walls in this area; however, for the preliminary plat review, please provide information as to the type and design of the walls in this area. Consider design alternatives to reduce the height of these walls. If the heights cannot be reduced, explain why. April 25, 2008: The walls directly behind lots 20 and 21 have been removed as a result of moving the cul-de-sac to be moved further west as requested by the Public Works Department. Please see attachment "B" for further response to this comment. 5. The following provides a cursory review of preliminary landscape plans for compliance with applicable FWCC standards. As previously identified by Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer, the landscape tract adjacent to South 320'h Street must be in a separate tract, as identified in FWCC Section 20-178 as follows: 20-178 Buffers. Land divisions, except for commercial binding site plans, should provide a 10-foot-wide Type III landscape strip along all arterial streets to shield new residences from arterial streets (see FWCC 22-1565[c]). Said landscape strip shall be provided in a separate tract to be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The preliminary plat needs to be revised to include the 10-foot buffer as a separate tract, not right-of-way. March 25, 2008: Your March 5, 2008, comment is acknowledged regarding submittal of a formal right-of-way vacation request. This comment will be further addressed with the preliminary plat review. April 25, 2008: Attachment "F" contains a map and legal description of the requested R/W Vacation area. The easement and map describes a 10 foot wide strip of land lying adjacent to and south of the South property line of South 320th Place. The vacation request was expanded adjacent to and east of the South 320th Place entrance road (Weyerhaeuser Way S.) to include additional area that would enable a landscaped entrance monument to be constructed at this location. A formal request for Vacation of the area described in the map and legal description will be submitted to the City under a separate submittal on or before April 25, 2008. The Vacation submittal request will include the following: 1) The legal description of the requested vacation ( the same legal in attachment "F") 2) A map of the requested Vacation area corresponding to the legal description ( the same map contained in attachment "F") 3) A completed City of Federal Way application for R/W Vacation 4) A MIA market value appraisal of the requested vacation area Prior to Vacation of the R/ W we expect to enter into a temporary easement agreement with the City that would enable the installation of the Type III landscaping within the proposed R/W Vacation area. Upon completion of the R/W Vacation the temporary easement would become void. We are currently working with the Public Works Department to implement the easement. 6. The Type III landscaping proposed along South 320th Street needs to have additional trees, shrubs, and groundcover to meet the Type III landscape requirement. Specifically, trees must be planted in a density to be a maximum of 25 feet on center maximum, large shrubs at maximum 3 — 5 feet on center, and groundcover throughout the planter strip at 18 — 24 inches on center. Irrigation of the landscape strip is strongly encouraged in the southern facing landscape strip. March 25, 2008: Your March 5, 2008, comment is acknowledged. April 25, 2008: So noted. In order to consider providing double credit for trees with overlapping canopies, as proposed on the significant tree plan, additional information must be provided to the City. Specifically, provide detailed information of how each of the trees slated for double credit meets the standard of FWCC Section 22-1568(c)(3) regarding being located with a grouping of at least five trees and having overlapping canopies. March 25, 2008: Your March 5, 2008, comment identifies that the areas of overlapping tree canopy exists throughout the whole extent of Tract A. However, your comment does not address the additional code requirement regarding groupings of at least five trees and having overlapping canopies. The information provided does not address the groupings of at least five trees code requirement. To further evaluate the request to receive double credit, please address how each of the 44 trees proposed to receive double credit meets the groupings of at least five trees code requirement. April 25, 2008: I have attached a letter from the Weisman Design Group that addresses the 5 tree cluster question. The March 26, 2008 letter and pictures of the overhead tree canopy are attached as Attachment "D" together with the March 8, 2008 PACE Engineering drawing of the overlapping tree canopy area. 8. Several of the preserved significant trees proposed for retention are located in close proximity to retaining walls of up to nine feet in height. It appears that some of these trees may not be capable of being retained and preserved without damaging the critical root zones of the tress. Please evaluate these trees and the proposed retaining wall construction and respond. Use of an arborist would be appropriate. March 25, 2008: Your March 5, 2008, letter proposes to address this at engineering plan review stage. Since the engineering plans have been submitted, please address this comment now. During the preliminary plat review stage, we will need to have a solid count of significant tree retention and replacement requirements. April 25, 2008: We will attempt to retain as many of the significant trees in the vicinity of the Redi-rock wall as possible. However for the purpose of determining the number of required replacement trees we have assumed that all significant trees within a distance of 10 feet from the face of the Redi-rock wall will be replaced. An assessment of the effected trees will be made at the time the Redi-rock wall is surveyed and staked for construction. The Redi-rock wall in the north east corner of the site was relocated to the west to accommodate a road C/L alignment with the adjoining property line to the north. At this time appears that all significant trees are located at least 10 feet east of the Redi-rock wall. If any significant trees are found to be located within 10 feet of the Redi-rock wall after the wall has been staked for construction then additional replacement trees will be added to replacement count. 9. Please address how staff -recommended conditions 7 — 9 of the January 22, 2008, Small Lot Demonstration Project Conditional Approval have been incorporated into the project design. The February 1, 2008, project narrative identifies that these modifications have been incorporated into the design; however, that does not appear to be the case on the submitted plans. March 25, 2008: Your March 5, 2008, letter addresses these comments. No further response is necessary at this time. These items will be further addressed with the preliminary plat review. April 25, 2008: So noted. 10. The wetland delineation, report, and conceptual mitigation plan are currently being reviewed by the City's consulting wetland experts. At this time, we will withhold providing any technical comments regarding wetlands intrusions, impacts, and mitigation. I will forward the comments on the wetland report upon receipt from our consultant, which I anticipate in about one week. March 25, 2008: The City's wetland consultant (ESA Adolfson) provided preliminary comments to the City staff on March 7, 2008. However, upon receipt of the ESA Adolfson comments, it was found that ESA Adolfson's review was based on the November 30, 2007, Talasea Associates Critical Area Report. Quadrant funded the ESA Adolfson scope of work and review of the November 30, 2007, wetland report on February 5, 2008, based on a December 28, 2007, scope of work and cost estimate. However, on February 5, 2008, Quadrant submitted a revised Critical Area Report and Detailed Conceptual Mitigation Plan. On March 11, 2008, I requested ESA Adolfson to prepare an expanded review scope and cost estimate (if necessary) to review the expanded report. At this time, please provide an additional deposit of $1,495.00 to fund review of the expanded January 30, 2008, Critical Area Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan. A copy of ESA Adolfson's March 7, 2008, review of the November 30, 2007, Critical Area Report has been forwarded to Talasea. I requested Talasea to not respond to the ESA-Adolfson review until the updated Critical Area Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan is completed. Therefore, there are no comments on the critical areas report at this time. April 25, 2008: So noted. Three copies of an updated Critical Areas Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan is attached to this response under Attachment "G" 11. The City PARCS Department is currently reviewing the open space and recreation area plans. I will follow up and provide comments regarding the open space and recreation area plans upon receipt from the PARCS Department. March 25, 2008: The City PARCS Department is requesting an easement or dedication of the BPA corridor portion of the site, for future use as a City park for multi -modal trail purposes. The PARCS Department will be providing further details about this request in the next few days. In addition, PARCS has provided the following comments which must be addressed for the preliminary plat review: a. Since the City does not own the adjoining property, a trail connection that ends at the property line is not suggested. Staff recommends either showing a loop at the end for a turnaround (such as at Madrona Park), or just leave off the spur for now. b. Mounding: These should not be so high as to obscure from view persons inside the open space. One thing PARCS hears from users is that they can feel isolated or vulnerable on trails. Also, there should be sufficient space for about a 20-foot wide trail corridor for future improvements. Therefore, the topography should allow for this space so that future trail development does not need to do large scale grading again. In addition, the City planning staff would like to see some of the mounded areas revised to be flat grassy open play areas, which would allow for usable recreation area, as a component of the demonstration project. April 25, 2008: We would prefer dedication of the BPA corridor open space area, shown as Tract PT-2 Active Open space, to the City of Federal Way upon recording of the South 320th place final plat. We have revised the landscaping and grading plan to show a 20 foot corridor near preliminary plat lot 52 for a future connection to the BPA corridor as requested. The grading plan for Active Open Space Tracts PT-2 and PT-3 have been re -graded to flat grassy open plan areas as requested and to allow for full visibility along the trail corridor. 12. Provide a pedestrian connection in the vicinity of Lot 48 to the BPA easement, as required in condition number 5 of the January 22, 2008, Small Lot Demonstration Project Conditional Approval letter. March 25, 2008: The March 5, 2008, response does not adequately address this requirement. The referenced pedestrian connection is a requirement of the January 22, 2008, Demonstration Project Approval. The condition states in the vicinity of lot 48, and therefore, the pedestrian connection could be accommodated in the area, not just on lot 48. A good location for the pedestrian connection is in the vicinity of lots 44 — 47, as this area is visible and centrally located, and adjoining the on -site park facility. The City's pedestrian corridor standard is a 20-foot wide tract. April 25, 2008: We continue to believe that the best location for the trail connection is near lot 52, within Active Open Space Tract PT-2. A trail connection at this location would better provide access to and from Tract PT-2 which is the largest of the Active Open Space tract along the BPA corridor. The predominate users of Open Space Tract PT-1 will be small children and parents. To improve user safety, it would be better not to provide a direct access to Active Park PT-1 from the BPA trail corridor. 13. Please identify the status of the existing septic drainfield easement within proposed Tract A. How and when does the applicant propose to relinquish/eliminate the easement as the elimination of this easement will be critical to success of any critical areas mitigation? March 25, 2008: Provide the documentation as noted in your March 5, 2008, letter. April 25, 2008: Attachment "E" contains a copy of the drainfield easement with reversionary language highlighted in yellow. I have also attached documentation demonstrating that the Federal Way Fire station has been connected to the Lakehaven Utility District server system. Also included in Attachement "D" is a copy of Original South 320th Place Title Report # 208162070 prepared by Stewart Title Co dated January 2, 2008. Supplemental #1 to this report dated March 7, 2008 has removed the septic tank drainfield easement in favor of King County Fire District # 39 from the Title Report restrictions. 14. I will provide comments on the schedule included in the application packet on February 5, 2008, under separate cover in the next couple days. However, it is important to note that the schedule is very aggressive. In addition, the entitlement schedule prepared by Quadrant eliminated and did not account for the 14-day comment period on the notice of application. The Quadrant schedule had issuance of the SEPA determination on March 3, 2008, which is not feasible procedurally. The earliest the SEPA determination could be issued is March 15, 2008, after the City collects and evaluates any comments received on the February 27, 2008, Notice of Application. Therefore, due to the elimination of the 14-day notice of application comment period, all of the anticipated target dates must be revised to be at least 14 days later than what is shown on your schedule, to meet minimum procedural requirements. Please note the aggressive schedule does not provide any time for any required revisions and/or submittal of information to review and forward the preliminary plat to the Hearing Examiner. The schedule assumes that Quadrant and your consultants will provide any necessary information and revisions in an extremely quick turn -around to the City. March 25, 2008: As previously noted, the schedule is very aggressive and there are several items needing resolution. In order for the City to issue the SEPA determination, submit the information requested in the March 13, 2008, e-mail from Kevin Peterson, which states in summary: As per the City's February 281h letter, responding to your variance request to allow the single flow control facility (combining two on -site discharge areas to one), we asked for a conveyance capacity analysis of the downstream drainage system. As you'll recall, we asked that the entire upstream basin served by this system be modeled as if fully developed, in order to determine whether this system will contain all future flows, as well this projects flows. Prior to issuance of a SEPA determination; however, prior to doing so, we would like to have some feel for whether or not the downstream system either can convey all future flows. Provide a'quick and -dirty,' and fairly conservative, analysis of that system. April 25, 2008: A supplemental downstream analysis was prepared by PACE Engineers and submitted to the CFW for review. The downstream analysis has been approved and a SEPA Environmental Threshold Determination was issued on April 8, 2008. 15. Please provide three copies of the AESI Geotechnical Engineering report identified on page 2, item 8, of the SEPA checklist. March 25, 2008: These reports have not yet been submitted, please submit as requested. April 25, 2008: These reports were sent to Kevin Peterson in early March. We are revising our submittal procedures as requested to include the CFW "Submittal Information" form. 16. Public Works Development Services Division's February 26, 2008, comments from Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer, are enclosed for your review and response. March 25, 2008: On -going review. April 25, 2008: So noted. 17. Public Works Traffic Division's comments are forthcoming. March 25, 2008: Traffic Division comments will be forthcoming. April 25, 2008: So noted. 18. Lakehaven Utility District's February 21, 2008, comments are enclosed for your convenience; no response is necessary. March 25, 2008: No response necessary. April 25, 2008: So noted. 19. No comments have been received from Federal Way Public Schools. I will forward school district comments upon receipt. March 25, 2008: No comments have been received from the school district. April 25, 2008: So noted. Additional March 18, 2008, Comments: The City has received several comment letters in response to the February 27, 2008, Notice of Application. A copy of each of the following letters is enclosed for your review and response as necessary. ■ March 11, 2008, e-mail from King County Metro, Gary Kriedt. Please address comments. April 25, 2008: We have addressed the King County Metro request and have added a concrete landing pad as noted in the KC email of March 11, 2008. • March 7, 2008, e-mail from Pierce Transit, Jean Stilwell. No response necessary. April 25, 2008: So noted. ■ March 11, 2007, e-mail from BPA. Please address how proposal complies with BPA comments. April 25, 2008: Please see Attachment "H" • February 27, 2008, e-mail from John Roden and January 29, 2008, Harris reply. For your information, no response necessary. April 25, 2008: So noted. • March 14, 2008, e-mail from WSDOT, Felix Palisco. No response necessary at this time. City staff is addressing this request with WSDOT. April 25, 2008: So noted. Please address the comments contained above. Please contact me at jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions or need any assistance. Sincerely, Jim Harris Senior Planner enc: March 11, 2008, E-Mail from King County Metro, Gary Kriedt March 7, 2008, E-Mail from Pierce Transit, Jean Stilwell March 11, 2007, E-Mail from BPA February 27, 2008, E-Mail from John Roden and January 29, 2008, Harris Reply March 14, 2008, E-Mail from WSDOT, Felix Palisco Resubmittal Form Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Review Sanjeev Tandle, Traffic Analyst II) Quadrant Homes responses to the Kevin Peterson email of April 25, 2008 George, This e-mail is to follow-up on items that the City feels are of the highest importance in getting resolved, regarding the S 320th Place project. As you know, many of these items are moving toward resolution, while the status of others are still unknown at this time. Community Development (CD) Services has identified the following as items of importance that require resolution: 1) Several retaining walls are proposed within the plat, as well as along portions of the plat boundaries - CD has requested that the height of walls and aesthetic treatment and screening be addressed. April 10, 2009: This issue is addressed in attachment "B". 2) Mass clearing and grading of the site - CD has requested additional information that would help gain City staff support for mass clearing and grading. However, the ultimate decision to allow this lies with the City Council. April 25, 2008: The justification for the wall heights and architectural treatment of the wall surface is addressed in the attachment "B". 3) Wetlands disturbance and mitigation - CD will provide additional comments at a future date. April 25, 2008: So noted. 4) 10-foot landscape buffer/tract along S 320th St - Please see Public Works item #1, below. April 25, 2008: See comments to PW Item # 1 below. I have also attached a copy of the City's March 25, 2008 letter, that further details these items. As for the Public Works Department, there have been several a -mails recently that individually addressed some of the items that Public Works view as having a higher degree of importance as they relate to the plat. I know that you are aware of these items as well, but I wanted to just follow-up and provide a brief summary and status of those issues, just to make sure we're all on the same page. 1) Easement/right of way vacation along S 320th St, to accommodate the 10- foot landscape tract/buffer - The city has agreed to allow the 10-foot landscape buffer in an easement in the existing right of way, with the understanding that Quadrant will pursue the right of way vacation along that strip. The City is currently working to provide the easement document, with Quadrant to provide a legal description and exhibit drawing to attach to the easement. Quadrant will pursue the vacation process, including a formal appraisal to determine valuation of that strip of land. If Council does not approve this vacation/easement it would probably affect the number of lots in the plat. April 25, 2008: Attachment "F" contains a map and legal description of the requested R/W Vacation area. The easement and map describes a 10 foot wide strip of land lying adjacent to and south of the South property line of South 32Oth Place. The vacation request was expanded adjacent to and east of the South 32Oth Place entrance road (Weyerhaeuser Way S.) to include additional area that would enable a landscaped entrance monument to be constructed at this location. A formal request for Vacation of the area described in the map and legal description will be submitted to the City under a separate submittal on or before April 25, 2008. The Vacation submittal request will include the following: 5) The legal description of the requested vacation ( The same legal in Attachment "F") 6) A map of the requested Vacation area corresponding to the legal description ( the same map contained in Attachment "F") 7) A completed City of Federal Way application for R/W Vacation 8) A MIA market value appraisal of the requested vacation area 2) Tacoma Waterline Pipeline V Easement and locating City street improvements within that easement - The first part of this issue is the dedication of right -of-way to the City over a portion the existing Tacoma easement. The City requires those areas that are to be dedicated to us to have 'clear title'. This means the City would want to have Tacoma Water vacate or extinguish that portion of their easement that would be within the new City right of way. April 25, 2008: We have been meeting with the City of Tacoma and expect to be able to discuss this issue in more detail with the City of Federal Way in the near future. 3) Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities along S 320th St - The improvements along S 320th trigger the City code requirement to re -locate existing overhead utilities (other than 115kv lines) underground, if those improvements necessitate the re -location of 3-spans (or 500-feet) or more of those existing overhead lines. The City, Quadrant and PSE are working on a solution, the agreement was approved at the April 7, 2008 LUTC Meeting and will be going to the April 15, 2008 Council for approval. April 25, 2008: So noted. 4) Surface Water Design Adjustment to Core Requirement #1 (combing 2 natural discharge areas into 1 discharge area) - As you know, this issue was resolved and addressed in the SEPA determination findings. Since you had requested this adjustment separately, would you prefer a formal, separate response regarding ? April 25, 2008: We would like to have a separate approval response to the request for an adjustment of Core Requirement #1. 5) King County review of 32nd Ave S Improvements - The City has contacted King County review staff in order to seek jurisdiction in becoming the lead review agency for the entire 32nd Ave S improvements, since the street is to be constructed to City standards. At this time King County is unwilling to allow that, however, the City does plan on reviewing those plans and providing comments. It has yet to be determined how that will be coordinated and we will be meeting with King County to discuss this. April 25, 2008: We are working to set up a joint meeting between King County, the City of Federal Way and Quadrant Homes to discuss and resolve the 32nd Ave South construction plan review and construction inspection procedure for the roadway improvements to 32nd Ave South. These are the responses to your South 320t" Place comment letter of March 25, 2008 and the Email comments transmitted by Kevin Peterson on April 25, 2008. If you have any questions or would like to discuss our responses in more detail, please let me know. Sincerely, /LLa George E. Cook, E. Cc: Bonnie Geers w/encl. Wally Costello Mike Behn Paul Lymberis Ken Nilsen ATTACHMENT "A" Merchantable Timber Value 1) DESCRIPTION Market based timber valuation of the merchantable timber that will be removed during clearing of the South 320th Place Property 11) ATTACHMENTS 1) Letter dated April 16, 2008 from CC Edwards containing an estimate of the net timber value to be removed during development of the South 320t" Place site. April 16, 2008 C.C. Edwards Construction Company PO BOX 1600 Orting, WA 98360 RE: Net Timber Value Estimate for 320th Parcel Dear Mr. Burton, After being contacted by C. C. Edwards Construction Company, I made several visits to the 320th site. After walking the site and reviewing the plans as well as the aerials, I made an experienced assumption on how many acres of timber were on that site, how many board feet per acre of marketable timber that can be recovered from the site, and what the average selling price would be for the marketable timber. As part of my review of the site I also estimated logging costs, and with considerable knowledge of local markets, decided which mills the timber would be sold to. After reviewing all the information, I generated gross timber sales, logging and trucking costs, and net timber value. The following are my conclusions: Total Site Acres Total acres with merchantable timber Average merchantable mbf/acre Total merchantable timber Gross Timber Value Logging costs* Net 18 12 20 240 mbf $525/mbf $126,000.00 $350/mbf $ 84,000.00 $175/mbf $42,000.00 (timber credit) *Includes cut, yard, process, load, and haul Feel free to contact me with any questions. Respectfully, Justin Vanhulle, President Cherry Valley Logging Company'DBA CVL PO BOX 597 Duvall, WA 98019 Office: 425-788-5871 Mobile: 206-396-0967 ATTACHMENT "B" Site Grading and Redi-rock Walls 1) DESCRIPTION Attachment "B" is a text description of the relationship between internal wall heights and locations, lot grading and house design. The attachment also includes pictorial examples of the proposed wall material in applications similar to South 320th place. 11) ATTACHMENTS 1) A text description of the relationship between internal wall heights and locations, lot grading and house design. The text description describes the trade-off between reducing perimeter wall heights and increasing the number and height of side yard rock walls. 2) Five pictorial examples of the Redi-rock wall material that we are proposing to use at South 320th place. The Red i-rock wall system was selected to provide an architectural material that was compatible and complementary to a residential neighborhood. The use of the Redi- rock wall along exterior wall along the northeast portion of the site will produce an attractive perimeter where retaining walls are necessary. The use of Redi-wall will also produce an attractive addition to the landscaping proposed within the storm water control pond. ATTACHMENT "B" The consistent focus of Quadrant Homes at South 320th Place has been to build single family homes of compelling value that can be purchased by first time home buyers and young families while creating a Small Lot Demonstration neighborhood addition to the City of Federal Way that meets or exceeds the expectation of the City Council. The Small Lot Demonstration project of South 320th Place has been designed to deliver homes that can be purchased for less than $300,000. We believe that the current design of the South 320th Place project will enable Quadrant Homes at South 320th Place to begin pricing of homes below $300,000.00. In order to achieve this goal Quadrant needs to control lot development costs and home building costs. Small lot development requires careful attention to grading. Grading is the single most expensive cost of lot development. Controlling grading not only reduces the cost to develop lots, but enables the cost of home construction to be reduced. Our goal with the proposed integrated clearing and grading plan is to build an attractive and desirable community while achieving the cost control required to make the project economically viable. To achieve the desired density, work with the existing site constraints and control development costs we have graded the site to minimize wall construction where feasible and address the impacts of wall heights through grading, screening and the use of architectural wall materials. The grades along the perimeter are fixed with additional grade constraints at the BPA and Olympic Pipeline crossings. Since the grades are fixed along the perimeter we must grade and or install walls between those points in such a way that houses and roads can be constructed in compliance with acceptable engineering standards. The most problematic area is the area to the Northeast between the two cul-de-sacs. The distance between them is approximately 300 feet with a vertical drop of approximately 34-feet. In order to create flat building pads in these areas there must be walls. If you shorten the walls on one side you create higher walls on the other side. We believe the proposed plan minimizes the visual impacts to the wall height with largest wall near the wetland buffer which also provides extensive screening. In working with the grades and maintaining the required number of lots the only other alternative to reduce the wall height between the cul-de-sacs would be to raise the road elevation of the temporary cul-de-sac. This would create an elevated road grade at the north end of the cul-de-sac and higher walls adjacent to the wetland. Stepped foundations could be used to reduce some of the exterior wall heights, but would not reduce the need for additional grading walls between lots. The use of stepped foundations significantly adds to both the foundation cost and the cost of building the home. Quadrant Homes is committed to creating a Small Lot Demonstration project that will be an attractive addition to the City of Federal Way community while at the same time providing an opportunity of first time home buyers and young families to own a well built and attractive home of their own. An integrated clearing and grading plan that balances site grading while achieving buildable lots is critical to meeting this goal. "AMI. 1p qr 44' e'r oil IL pp.YiF - r al. F A. 14Y r � L i ,r ' Y f R Aw LS 1 I IP L _ f w •�� , r ice. � y- • + �� ! � - � -+ V��i � � }. � ` � � �''�' �• + r T .,iqvi —Tr r. 7 � t a 1 ,-+ r r - • - -. .fir i� ;'y� ^}• �• r pp UL 5 100 OW 4 � y' 4 - - 7 Po7• r yy Ar ATTACHMENT "C" Site Landscaping Plan 1) DESCRIPTION Attachment "C" is the landscaping plan for South 320th Place. The landscaping plan shows both the required landscaping for roads, active open space tracts and perimeter buffer areas and the wetland mitigation and landscaping associated with the storm water retention pond. The plan was prepared by the Weisman Design Group in association with Talasaea, the Wetland Consultant to Quadrant and PACE Engineering. II) ATTACHMENTS a. South 320th Place plan sheets W1.0, W1.1 and W 1.2. ATTACHMENT "D" Overlapping Tree Canopy 1) DESCRIPTION Attachment "D" contains supporting materials that verify the overlapping tree canopy within a portion of Tract T-1. 11) ATTACHMENTS Attachment "D" contains: 1) A letter dated March 26, 2008 from the Weisman Design Group that verifies the overlapping tree canopy of a portion of Open Space Tract T-1. 2) 5 pictures of a portion of Tract T-1 showing the evergreen trees with overlapping tree canopy. The pictures were taken by the Weisman Design Group 3) A survey drawing by PACE Engineering titled "South 320tn Place Significant Tree Plan" dated March 2008 that shows the area with Tract T-1 that contains overlapping tree canopy. WEISMAN DESIGN ou t March 26, 2008 Mr. Paul Lymberis Quadrant Homes 14725 SE 36" Street LANDSCAPE Suite #200 ARCHITECTURE Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: Existing Tree Canopies South 320'h Street Project Federal Way, Washington Dear Paul, I visited the S. 320"` Street project today to observe the canopy cover -provided by the existing significant trees proposed to be saved. These trees occur in the SE corner of the site, adjacent the existing fire station. The trees that are proposed to be saved are primarily mature Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar, with a range in caliper sizes, some as high as 48". The trees are all quite large and have broad canopies. The entire canopy consisted of clusters comprised of at least five or more trees. The 44 significant trees observed, taken as a whole, create one continuous, overlapping canopy. Please feel free to contact me to discuss further if necessary. S incerel Nick Hagan, ASL.A(((JJJ�= WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC., P.S. WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP INC, PS . 2329 EAST MADISON STREET, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112-5416 • PHONE 206.322.1732 • FAX 206.322.17901 - W'4`R1.WDGINC.COf4 v-w 0 ATTACHMENT "E" Release of Drainfield Easement 1) DESCRIPTION Attachment "E" contains supporting documents that verify the release of the King County Fire District #39 drainfield easement on a portion of Tract T-1 II) ATTACHMENTS Attachment "E" contains: i. A copy of the drainfield easement granted by Weyerhaeuser on April 27, 1987 to King County Fire District # 39. The easement contains language in exhibit "A" that terminates the easement rights as soon as sewer service becomes available to the Fire Station site. The termination language has been highlighted in yellow. ii. A copy of the Lakehaven Utiltiy District side sewer permit that certifies that a sewer connection has been completed and the Fire Station is now connected to the Lakehaven sewer system. The certification language has been highlighted in yellow. The Lakehaven side sewer document is the basis for termination of the 1987 Weyerhaeuser easement. iii. A copy of the Subdivision Title report for South 320th Place dated January 2, 2008 together with Supplemental #1 dated March 7, 2008 that removes the King County Fire District # 39 drainfield easement from the list of South 320th Place title restrictions r Fl E D for rRecord at Request of Rah Lk2 IZ L4 L4U Y87-0266 FILED RERUESF Q/EECD T THEWEYE A PANYBoxTA W7 87/05r01 i10696 D RECD F 6.00 EASBOi' CRSHSL THE GRANTOR, WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, a Washington corporation, for and In consideration of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration In hand paid, grants to ICING COUNTY lIRE DISTRICT #39. GRANTEE, the right to use. as a septic tank dralnfleld, the following described real property. situate In the County of King, State of Washington: See EXHIBIT A attached. Incorporated by reference herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this Instrument to be executed by Its proper officers and Its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this Z7th day of Apr1_ 1 1987. WEYERM SM COMPANY j Vice President J Attest: tip slstant acre y T STATE OF WASHINGTONI COUNTY OF KING1 On this E!L day of RPTil i987, before me Rerd appeared Rdhcrt C, Isllyxle and Robert N. Mo arLscn 7on known to be the Vice President and Assistant Sacret ary ~�. to and respectively, of WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, the corporation that executed the within and foregoing Instrument. and acknowledged said Instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and c:i oath stated that they were authorl2ed to execute said Instrument and that the seal affixed Is the corporate seal of said corporation. N WITNESS WHEREOF. i I have hereunto set my hand 0ffIcal seal a ay and �N1rA. and affixed my year fiiD rst above It, an, � �•_ r�ti�lor �+ %i NOTARY PURL 1 C My appo) ntment f a I res: til i 1989 Y87-0266 EM BIT A IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON: The SOUTH 250 feet of the EAST 80 feet of Lot 6 of Plat ofP1 Midway Suburban Tracts, as filed In Volume 38 of Plats. Page 40. records of King County Washington. Said EASEMENT to be used until such time as sanitary sewer service Is avalable to that certain tract of land described In a Deed recorded under King County Auditor's Flle No.: 8107070494. SUBJECT TO: All matters of public record or which an Inspection of the premises would reveal. -EXAREX 6/20/88 �LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT SEWER PERMI�TSTA�TUS.APPLICATIO SIDE SEWER PERMIT SIDE SEWER PERMIT NUMBER 23446 S/N 25083 ROUTE 330 SEWER PERMIT DATE I/27/03 SUPERSEDES 4 OWNER IFEDERAL WAY FIRE DEPT CONTRACTOR JPON OLSON CONSTRUCTION OWN. BLDR PHONE (2531839-6234 ext. r� CONTACT LEE GRILLEY - - PHONE 253 52 -72 7 ext. PROPERTY House # Dir. Street Name Street Type Dir. ID City State Zip Code ADDRESS 37-�0 S 03 THSr � FEDERAL WAY_ -_ -JIWA BILLING House # Dir. Street Name Street Type Dir. ID City State Zip Code ADDRESS 31617 L 1ST _ _ - _ AVE Q FEDERAL WAY A 8 - 2U LOT NO. BLOCK E PLAT NAME CLASSIFICATION: PITSLIC ALxTHORITY TAX PARCEL NO. 551560037 .., ERU NUMBER OF UNITS SIC GROUP 2� TEMPORARY SEWER SERVICE ❑ IN DISTRICT SEWER.ULID TREATMENT PLANT I L AKOTA _ — LIFT STATIONS) [JE[7f7 1/4 SEC M-$ ** ANY MODIFICATION TO SEWER SYSTEM MUST HAVE APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT ** FEES AND CHARGES IN LIEU OF ASSESSMENT FRONT FOOTAGE _ - 14,484.00 I ES7rAAA76b LA(7Eic0,MfvP r ECC.p,Z PUMPSTATION LATECOMER CHG. $0.00 jALk-�--r- STUB FEE $� f10_, CONNECTION FEES CFC $8.163.00 CIC so.00l AREA CHARGE PERMIT L297.00 PRETREATMENT $ l 10.00 PPS AGREEMENT 0.00 TOTAL: $23,054.00 1 DATE PA@ RECEIPT # � i 042c 6pDe(�- IBCo�S IN PLACE PIPE TEST: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TESTING HAS BEEN IX WATER EXFII TRATION APPROVED AND THE ABOVE CONNECTION HAS BEEN 1 ; NO TEST MADE AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN. BOOK/PAGE NUMBER Z 32- J S BY DATE N(* STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY Subdivision Guarantee Guarantee No.: SG-2631- Effective Date: January 2, 2008 at 12:00 AM Fee: $350.00 Order Number: 208162070 The County of KING and any City within which said subdivision is located in a sum not exceeding $1,000.00 That, according to those public records which, under the recording laws, impart constructive notice of matters affecting the title to the land included within the exterior boundary of said Subdivision Guarantee, the only parties having any record title interest in said land whose signatures are necessary, under the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, on the certificates consenting to the recordation of said map and offering for dedication any streets, roads, avenues and other easements offered for dedication as shown in Subdivision Guarantee. Signed under seal for the Company, but this Guarantee is to be valid only when it bears an authorized countersignature. Countersigned by: Authorized Countersignature STEWART TITLE Company SEATAC, Washington City, State LSteWart VUQ guaranty company Senior Chairman of the Board Y Chairman of the Board President Guarantee Serial No. SG-2631- In writing this company please address it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252, and refer to the printed Serial Number. SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE Guarantee No.: SG-2631- Order Number: 208162070 Subdivision Guarantee: $350.00 Reference Number: QUADRANT CORPORATION Sales Tax: $31.15 Effective Date: January 2, 2008 at 12:00 AM Total: $ 381.15 OWNERS: THE QUADRANT CORPORATON, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TRACTS 1, 2 AND 3, EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR ROAD BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 4998517 AND 4998539; TRACT 4, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 40 FEET THEREOF; THE EAST 100 FEET OF TRACT 5; THE WEST 100 FEET OF TRACT 5, EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 4998520; ALL OF TRACT 6; TRACT 7, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 250 FEET THEREOF; THAT PORTION OF TRACT 17 LYING SOUTHERLY OF POWER LINE EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF TRACT 18 LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION RIGHT OF WAY AS ESTABLISHED BY AN EASEMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 3347081. ALL IN MIDWAY SUBURBAN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 38 OF PLATS, PAGE(S) 40, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO: 1. RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS, DEDICATIONS, NOTES, EASEMENTS AND PROVISIONS DELINEATED AND/OR DESCRIBED ON THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 38 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 40 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Guarantee No: SG-2631'- E � jje ` art title guaranty company SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE 2. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: DECEMBER 2, 1943 RECORDING NO.: 3337694, 3347079 AND 3352244 IN FAVOR OF: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR: TRANSMISSION LINE AFFECTS: A 100 FOOT WIDE STRIP 3. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: MAY 11, 1955 RECORDING NO.: 3697070 AND 4571768 IN FAVOR OF: KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 64 FOR: STEEL WATER MAIN AFFECTS: TRACTS 1 AND 2 4. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDING NO.: 3483275 AND 348587 IN FAVOR OF: PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION FOR: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AFFECTS: - TRACTS 2 AND 3 5. RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDING NO.: 4962114, 4972635 AND 4995872, IN FAVOR OF: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR: TRANSMISSION LINE AFFECTS: A 62.5 FOOT WIDE STRIP 6. EASEMENT, INCLUDING. TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDING NO.: 5884208 IN FAVOR OF: OLYMPIC PIPELINE COMPANY FOR: PIPELINE AFFECTS: TRACTS 1 AND 2 7. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDING NO.: 7304170295, 7305210273, 7305210274, 7306260407, 7403210228, 7403210229 AND 7607090440 IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF TACOMA FOR: WATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE(S) AFFECTS: A 100 FOOT WIDE STRIP SOUTHERLY OF AND ADJACENT TO POWER LINE 8. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CROSSING PERMIT FOR WATER PIPELINE: RECORDING NO.: 7502190281 AND 7502190282 Guarantee No: SG-2637- r-rt title guaranty company �3lM- R N6-1Is] `►[rl1l_L'7ff a, 14:4 9. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDING NO.: 8705010696 IN FAVOR OF: KING COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #39 FOR: SEPTIC TANK DRAINFIELD AFFECTS: TRACT 6 10. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDING NO.: 8901300649 IN FAVOR OF: KING COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR: RIGHT OF WAY FOR WATER FACILITIES AFFECTS: TRACT 7 11. RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, INCLUDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF CONTAINED IN DEED: RESERVING: MINERALS RESERVED BY: WEYERHAUSER COMNAY RECORDED: MAY 21, 1996 RECORDING NO.: 9605210281 12. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9007259007,9009179002 AND 9704029001,. 13. SELLER'S NOTICE OF ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF:. RECORDED: JANUARY 20, 2004 RECORDING NO. 20040120001118 (AS TO LOT 2) GENERAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, IF ANY, FOR THE YEAR 2008, IN AN AMOUNT NOT YET AVAILABLE, WHICH CANNOT BE PAID UNTIL FEBRUARY 15, 2008. LEVY CODE: 1207 TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 551560-0005-09 LOT 1 551560-0010-02 551560-0015-07 551560-0020-00 551560-0025-05 551560-0026-04 551560-0030-08 551560-0035-03 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 EAST 100 FEET LOT 5 LOT 5 LESS EAST 100 FEET LOT 6 LOT 7 LESS SOUTH 250 FEET NOTE: TAXES AND CHARGES FOR 2007 WERE PAID IN FULL FOR THE ABOVE PARCEL NUMBERS Guarantee No: SG-2631- Eitewa rt title guaranty company SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE The Company's liability for this report is limited to the compensation received. This report is based on the Company's property records, and no liability is assumed for items misindexed or not indexed in the public records, or for matters which would be disclosed by an inquiry of parties in possession or by an accurate survey or inspection of the premises. This report and the legal description given herein are based upon information supplied by the applicant as to the location and identification of the premises in question, and no liability is assumed for any discrepancies resulting therefrom. This report does not represent either a commitment to insure title, an examination of or opinion as to the sufficiency or effect of the matters shown, or an opinion as to the marketability of title to the subject premises. I certify this is a true accurate reflection of those documents on file at the King County Court House, Seattle, Washington as of the date and time referenced above. Don Peters Ac Guarantee No: SG-2631- rte title guaranty company _ r• E �t ftj ®. 1r, ORDER NO. o2081 62 0 7 0 Section Township Range Short Plat Rec. No. Volume Page ,. TI 1151 4 N /. 3�BIN RA r1e � OOp 3 5 i i,i KY f N Ali a f$. N Y 0® NNr WD Yf]J / CGfm Y F 'f mn[i, 1 _ ° •_�N KI'KK,xNt ,t [tlu'IYNNHI ■g �CRiS r'e :IkrN10 m-Ssli`+�•"3-i (OLD P.S.H DO 5 P,C.'Ck1CD fl ODtt�Y 6-1i- y) ulle6 J1h985 sr �n-, ------------ .-1- . r S]2OTM sf {•�[rd� �((�• III.IFIIF IA [WF'• i-I' if! This sketch is provided without charge for 3,war infration. It is not intended to show all matters related to the property- including, but. not limited to area, dimensions, easements, encroachments or location of boundaries. It is not a part of, nor does it modify, the commitment or policy to which it is attached. The company assumes NO LIABU lTY for any matter related to this sketch. Reference shouil-I s,e made to an accurate survey for further information. E sjewart title *O18000 International Boulevard South, Suite 510 O Y SeaTac, Washington 98188 ■t 206-770-8700 ♦ 888-896-1443 fax 206-770-8703 ♦ 253-882-2033 COPIES OF DOCUMENTS ORDER NUMBER: 208162070 FOR PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320TH, FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 N �� rt oyC Pr title - commercial division 18000 International Blvd. South, Suite 510 SeaTac, WA 98188 206-770-8700 ♦ 888-896-1443 Title Officer: Robert B. Jackson Phone: 206-770-8860 Fax: 206-802-9344 Title Officer: Don Peters Phone: 206-770-8858 Fax: 206-802-9343 Your Reference: 208162070 To: THE QUADRANT CORPORATION 14725 SE 36TH STREET, #200 BELLEVUE, WA 98006 ATTENTION: MIKE BEHN SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 1 E-mail: rjackson@stewart.com E-mail: dpeters@stewart.com Order Number: 208162070 The following information affects the title to the property covered by our report, but is not intended to represent a complete report to date: PARAGRAPH NUMBER(S) 9 OF OUR REPORT HAS(HAVE) BEEN ELIMINATED. DATED: MARCH 7, 2008/DP BY: Don Peters Page 1 Order Number: 208162070 ATTACHMENT "F" R/W Vacation 1) DESCRIPTION Attachment "F" contains a map and legal description that describe the area of the proposed South 320t" Street R/W vacation. These two exhibits will become the basis of a formal R/W vacation request that is scheduled to be submitted to the City of Federal Way by April 25, 2008. 11) ATTACHMENTS Attachment "F" contains: i. A map prepared by PACE Engineers, dated April 15, 2008 showing the area and location of the proposed South 320th Street R/W vacation. ii. A legal description of the proposed R/W vacation area dated April 15, 2008 — — —1 _32nd--- 'AVE S. L_ i i i f ' 70' 25' ,115 I ! o � n 150 130� 1 EXHIBIT MAP RIGHT—OF—WAY VACA11ON ! i w _ L� ` WRO AL4CE 10' TO BE VACATED s 150 9QI 34THAVE. SOUTH 00 80� ---- ��T-TT� \' Ln.o I I I I I \ ' 1 = 35TH AVE. SOUTH �cnl I w Cn --- ----✓ i _� I I I ! m WEYERHAEUSER f I A Y S. WEYERHAUSER WAYS. -- (32nd DR. S.} I T T T 7— T T I I I --- I 601 50 I L_L—L— v 1- — — — — — — — — 11255 Kirkland Way, Suite 300 QUADRANT HOMESKirkland, WA98033 SOUTH 320TH PLACE Civil p. 425.827.2014 1 f. 425.827.5043 (FP%J%CPE ..........Structur............. a..l .............. Planning .............. Survey . RIGHT -OF- WA Y An Engineering Services Company paceengrs.com VA CA TION SCALE: 1" = 150' FILE: \5809—ROW—VAC DATE: 4/10/2008 JRD/BLE PROJ. NO.: 05809.14 RIGHTS -OF -WAY VACATION DESCRIPTION STRIPS OF LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M, BEING A PORTION OF TRACTS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5 CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR ROAD BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 4998517, 4998539, 534586 AND 4998520, ALL IN MIDWAY SUBURBAN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 38 OF PLATS, PAGE 40, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 10; THENCE, NORTH 02°05'03" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 125.06 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 89°44'38" EAST, 41.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 75.00 FEET OF TRACT 1 OF SAID PLAT AND POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, SOUTH 89°44'38" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 75.00 FEET, 188.99 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 75.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 1; THENCE, SOUTH 02°05'01" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, 35.02 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 40.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT; THENCE, SOUTH 89°44'38" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 40.00 FEET OF TRACTS 2, 3 AND 4, A DISTANCE OF 570.15 FEET TO POINT HEREINAFTER CALLED "POINT A"; THENCE, ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 68013'57" WEST 43.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15-18'16", FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 11.49 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 89°44'38" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET OF TRACTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, A DISTANCE OF 574.90 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 02005'01" EAST ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 10.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 1, A DISTANCE OF 35.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 65.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 1; THENCE, NORTH 89°44'38" WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 178.47 FEET; THENCE, ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 82033'59" EAST 38.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9-31-03", FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 6.31 FEET THENCE, NORTH 02°05'01" EAST 3.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO, COMMENCING AT SAID "POINT A; THENCE, SOUTH 89-44-38" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 40.00 FEET OF TRACTS 4 AND 5, A DISTANCE OF 66.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, CONTINUING SOUTH 89°44'38" EAST, 63.80 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 100.00 FEET OF TRACT 5; THENCE, SOUTH 02-05-01 "WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 30.02 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF SAID TRACT 5; THENCE, NORTH 89023'56" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 21.89 FEET; THENCE, ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 0001612" EAST 43.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 72013'15", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 54.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ATTACHMENT "G" Critical Areas Report 1) DESCRIPTION Attachment "G" contains the Critical Areas Report and Detailed Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan for South 320'" Place as revised on April 14, 2008 II) ATTACHMENTS i. Three copies of the April 14't', 2008 Critical Areas Report. The three copies are all attached to the original response letter delivered to Jim Harris. Two copies of this report were delivered separately to ESA Adolfson. The April 14, 2008 report addresses the additional offsite wetland mitigation area adjacent to North Lake. 3 F= w w W Cb 00 Ln 0 J 5 W x 0 Q i z Q 0 Q d 0 z 0 x oM N Q o C-4 ONOx ii:IM-M ejL;jejw .MMIEa zFFz J aON LLfn�O SIGNIFICANT TREE LEGEND _��r FIR %�f1 - — — -- — -- TREE CANOPY 0 CEDAR HEMLOCK r f 1 Z err 5" 18"/26 1 7„ % 1 J r 0 TREE PROTECTION FENCE 0i� • . I � � +►r 0 25 50 100 Scale In Feet M WETLAND $1D" o„ ' �.r *15?' g 8' �t I SIGNIFICANT TREES (014" 4" 5 TO REMAIN (TYP) 13�3rr 0 n L rr 9 r, 10" arr / ✓ 1 j 0" "/44" , 7> • �On as ` *6. n W7 r I 4-364F }tr 7" r, 1 r » 0 b. on 7" C ` �... WETL Nt /C" �...... / 1 ► WETLAND „E„ WOO 61 DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE 3 08 SCALE SOUTH 320TH PLACE I JOB NUMBER SIGNIFICANT TREE PLAN An Enginaedng Sendooa Company 1601 2nd Avenue Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 p. 206.441.1855 1 1.206.448.7167 ................. Civil I Structural I Planning I Survey paceengrs.com SHEET NAME EXH SHEET 1 OF 1 op 0 r �� '�yy- � • �' ti: , r '��• �;' - t_' •"' •,' � `ems lot- W rr i • K ti + �r ` �4q a . kkkkk ti so •'# , • _ -. .•ice-� � + �Yi � 2 �--��-�� -�■� , , - • s- ' r -. .i-t+. ' 'a'� - - h - AFT - - • ,� •� + VON jr VIP If Ak 4 de IW CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY HALL 33325 8TH AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA. 98003 Reg# #/Rcpt#: 004-00001770 [ RB Accounting Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2009 Date/Time: Mon, Mar 16, 2009 4:35 PM 9060\CD ADMIN BOND 001-0000-000-239-10-000 09-100931/SOUTH 320TH PLACE FEE AMOUNT: $1,295.10 ---------------------- -RECEIPT TOTAL = $1,295.10 Payment Data: °mt# :1 Payer: QUADRANT CORP Method: CK • Ref#: 14413 AMOUNT = ($1D,295.10 RECEIPT SUMMARY TOTAL TENDERED = $1,295.10 RECEIPT TOTAL = $1,295.10 CHANGE DUE _ $0.00 HAVE A NICE DAY! -