21-101955-SE Critical Areas Report - 10-11-2020-V1CRITICAL AREAS STUDY
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Federal Way, WA
Puyallup Tribe Cemetery Access Road
Prepared for:
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
3009 Portland Avenue East
Tacoma, WA 98404
and
Momentum Civil Engineering Consultants
Drew Harris, P.E., Principal
1145 Broadway, Suite 115
Tacoma, WA 98402
PTOI0000-0023
Prepared by:
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
14432 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98007
_________________________
Gray Rand, PWS
Senior Biologist
November 2020
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page i
SUMMARY
David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) prepared this Critical Areas Study for the proposed
Puyallup Tribe Cemetery Access Road (project) in Federal Way, WA. The proposed project would
construct a local access road for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians to access their property, parcel no.
322104-9134, which will connect to the existing two-way intersection of South 376th Street and 8th
Avenue South and form a three-way intersection. The road would have an approximate overall
length of 1,300 feet and would be located on City of Federal Way right-of-way for the first 450
feet, with the remainder situated on private property within an existing 60-foot recorded access
easement (record number 9504100629) prior to its termination on the subject parcel. The proposed
project would provide on-site stormwater management for the roadway through the inclusion of
pavement and a collection and conveyance system from the impervious pavement portion of the
roadway.
Critical areas located in the project study area include three freshwater wetlands (Wetland 1,
Wetland 2, and Wetland 3), a Type F stream (West Hylebos Creek), and erosion hazard areas. All
wetlands and streams are on the subject parcel. No wetlands and streams were identified on or
adjacent to the proposed access road easement. No impacts to wetlands and streams or fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas are proposed.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ i
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................. v
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Need ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Report limitations ................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Preliminary Research ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Field Investigation .................................................................................................................. 3
2.2.1 Wetland Delineation, Classification, and Functional Assessment ............................. 3
2.2.2 Streams ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.3 Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 6
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Regional and Local Setting .................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Project Limits ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Topography ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.4 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 8
3.5 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 8
3.6 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 CRITICAL AREAS ...................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas ............................................................................................. 13
4.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ..................................................................... 14
4.3 Streams ................................................................................................................................. 15
4.3.1 City of Federal Way Stream Regulation .................................................................. 15
4.3.2 Stream Field Survey Results.................................................................................... 15
4.4 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 16
4.4.1 City of Federal Way Wetland Regulation ................................................................ 17
4.4.2 Existing Wetland Information ................................................................................. 19
4.4.3 Wetland Field Survey Results ................................................................................. 19
4.4.4 Wetland Functional Assessment .............................................................................. 22
5.0 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ....................................................................................................... 24
5.1 General Habitat Conditions .................................................................................................. 24
5.2 Wildlife Use ......................................................................................................................... 24
5.2.1 Priority Habitats and Species ................................................................................... 24
5.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 25
6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS .................................................................................................................. 26
6.1 Geologically hazardous Areas .............................................................................................. 26
6.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ..................................................................... 26
6.3 Streams ................................................................................................................................. 26
6.4 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 26
7.0 MITIGATION .............................................................................................................................. 27
7.1 Avoidance and Minimization ............................................................................................... 27
7.2 Compensatory Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 27
8.0 Code Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 28
9.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Puyallup Cemetery Road Vicinity Map ....................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Site Map ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Soil Map .................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4. City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map ................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Erosion Hazard Areas ................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 6. WDFW Priority Habitat ............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 7: Wetland and Stream Map .......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 8. NWI Wetlands Map ................................................................................................................... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Wetland Scoring Criteria under Ecology’s Revised Wetland Rating System ................................ 4
Table 2. FWMC 19.145.270 – Stream Buffer Widths. .............................................................................. 15
Table 3. FWMC 19.145.420(2)(Table 1) Buffer Widths ........................................................................... 18
Table 4. PTOI Wetland Buffer Widths ..................................................................................................... 18
Table 5. Project Wetlands Rating Summary ............................................................................................. 22
Table 6. Federal Listed Fish and Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring near the Proposed Project ........ 25
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Site Plans
Appendix B: Wetland Data Forms and Rating Forms
Appendix C: Photographs
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page v
ACRONYMS
asl above sea level
BMP Best Management Practice
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CSPPP Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
DP Data point
ESA Endangered Species Act
FAC Facultative
FACW Facultative Wetland
FACU Facultative Upland
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FWHCA Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
FWMC Federal Way Municipal Code
HGM Hydrogeomorphic
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NWI National Wetland Inventory
OBL Obligate
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
PHS Priority Habitats and Species
PTOI Puyallup Tribe of Indians
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page vi
This page intentionally left blank.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA)
prepared this Critical Areas Study for the proposed Cemetery Access Road (project).
The Puyallup Tribe of Indians proposes to construct a local access road for their
property (parcel no. 322104-9134), which will connect to the existing two-way
intersection of South 376th Street and 8th Ave South and form a three-way
intersection. This road would have an approximate overall length of 1,300 feet and
would be located on City of Federal Way right-of-way for the first 450 feet, with
the remainder situated on private property within an existing 60-foot recorded
access easement (record number 9504100629) prior to its termination on the subject
parcel. The project site, King County Tax Parcel 322104-9134, is bounded by
Interstate 5 (I-5) to the east and forested (undeveloped) properties to the north, west
and south. The subject parcel is approximately 17.0 acres in size and is located to
the south of 376th Street.
This project would provide stormwater management for the roadway which would
include permeable pavement and a collection and conveyance system for the
impervious pavement portion. Proposed road improvements are outlined in
Appendix A.
No other site improvements are proposed at this time, but future use of the site for burials is
being considered/planned.
The proposed project would provide vehicular access to 400 South 376th Street in Federal Way,
Washington. The project site, King County Tax Parcel 322104-9134, is located in a portion of
the SW ¼ Section 32, Township 21 North, Range 4 East and is approximately 17.0 acres.
1.1 PROJECT NEED
The Puyallup Tribe of Indians has developed the proposed project to provide access to their
property at 400 South 376th Street, Federal Way, Washington, parcel no. 322104-9134.
1.2 REPORT LIMITATIONS
This report is intended to document the presence of critical areas as defined in the City of
Federal Way code (Chapter 19.145), including wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, geologic hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, and critical aquifer
recharge areas.
The wetland, stream, and ditch boundaries described here in are the professional opinion of
DEA staff based on the circumstances and site conditions at the time of this study. Local,
state, and federal jurisdictions make final determinations of jurisdictional bounda ries.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 2
Figure 1. Puyallup Cemetery Road Vicinity Map
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
Published information about local critical areas was reviewed for evidence of wetlands,
streams, fish and wildlife, and other critical areas located in the project vicinity. Information
reviewed included the following:
▪ King County IMAP website, including information on critical areas such as Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FE MA) floodplains and regulated flood hazard
areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, streams and fish and wildlife habitat
areas (https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/imap.aspx). Accessed August
2020.
▪ National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data downloaded from the NWI Wetland Mapper,
August 2020.
(http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ Data/Mapper.html).
▪ NRCS Web Soil Survey. August 2020.
▪ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) – Priority Habitats and
Species (PHS) online mapper. Accessed August 2020.
▪ Washington Department of Fisheries (Williams et al. 1975) – A Catalog of
Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region.
▪ WDFW Salmonscape database website accessed August 2020.
(http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape).
▪ Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) – Natural Heritage
Program. Sections that Contain Natural Heritage Features. Olympia, Washington.
August 2020.
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION
On-site investigations of the project area were conducted on July 8 and July 29, 2019 to
document critical areas, species presence, and fish and wildlife habitat in the project vicinity.
2.2.1 Wetland Delineation, Classification, and Functional Assessment
Wetlands found on the project site were delineated, and wetland and upland conditions were
documented. Wetland and stream boundaries were based on field conditions present at the
time of verification and the biologists’ best professional judgement regardi ng wetland
hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. The boundaries of all wetlands and
streams in the impact areas were flagged with surveyor flagging, which was subsequently
recorded and mapped with handheld GPS units.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 4
Wetlands were identified using the routine approach described in the Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Lab 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers [Corps] 2010). Wetland delineation data sheets are included in Appendix
B. Site conditions were photographed and are located in Appendix C. Wetland boundaries and
data plot sites were marked with flagging and mapped by land surveyors. The wetland area was
calculated digitally. All wetland boundaries are subject to verification by the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Wetlands were classified using the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Plant species were identified according to the revised National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar
2016) as well as Cooke (1997), Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), and Hitchcock and Cronquist
(1973). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic (adapted to wetland conditions) when over 50
percent of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative
wetland (FACW), or obligate (OBL) wetland. Vegetation was also considered hydrophytic
when facultative upland (FACU) species were directly observed in saturated soil conditions
during the growing season. In accordance with the methodology, site investigators documented
soils at all data plots and examined them for the following indicators of hydric conditions: thick
organic layers, gleying, depleted matrix, and/or redoximorphic features. Site investigators
evaluated site hydrology through observation of surface water, soil saturation, groundwater
level, and evidence of drainage patterns or sediment deposits.
A qualitative functional assessment was also conducted for the wetlands based on the Ecology
Rating System (Hruby 2014). Under the revised Ecology Rating System (Hruby 2014), the
water quality, hydrology and habitat functions are broken into low, moderate and high
categories based on the following point breakdown as shown in Table 1. Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) recognizes four categories of wetlands based on sensitivity
to disturbance, rarity, the functions they provide, and difficulty to replace.
Table 1. Wetland Scoring Criteria under Ecology’s Revised Wetland Rating System
Function
Water Quality Hydrology Habitat
High Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low
Site
Potential 12-16 6-11 0-5 12-16 6-11 0-5 15-18 7-14 0-6
Landscape
Potential 3-6 1-2 0 3 1-2 0 4-6 1-3 <1
Value 2-4 1 0 2-4 1 0 2 1 0
2.2.2 Streams
The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream encountered within the project area
was delineated with flagging and surveyed by DEA. General data collected during stre am
investigations included substrate, riparian vegetation, gradient, and the presence of pools
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 5
and/or large woody debris. The edge of the stream in the project site was mapped according
to the location of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the waterbod y. OHWM is
defined by the Corps and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Corps guidance
defines the OHWM as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and
indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank,
shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of
litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the
surrounding areas.” Ecology’s guidance defines the OHWM for state waters. Typical
characteristics used to identify the OHWM include t he following::
• Natural line impressed on the bank
• Shelving changes in the character of soil
• Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
• Presence of litter and debris wracking
• Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
• Sediment sorting
• Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
• Scour
• Deposition
• Multiple observed flow events
• Bed and banks
• Water staining
• Change in plant community
To the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable, these physical
characteristics are used when making an OHWM determination. Ditches may also be
considered jurisdictional when they transport relatively permanent flow (continuous flow for
at least three months) directly or indirectly into waters of the United States. All ditches within
the study area were reviewed to determine if they meet the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and Corps guidance for being jurisdictional waters. In most situations, it is not
possible to document whether a ditch or channel within the project area has relatively
permanent flows. The presence of an OHWM should be used as a baseline to establish the
potential of relatively permanent flows. The OHWM and relatively permanent flow can be
indicated by the following physical characteristics:
• Presence of a defined channel with bed and bank
• Areas exhibiting scour marks
• Debris wracks
• Shelving
• Water staining
• Areas of flowing or standing water
• Clear areas of gravel with no vegetation.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 6
2.2.3 Fish and Wildlife
Field observations of fish and wildlife species were recorded in field notes. Fish and wildlife
use has been established using field observations and information from existing literature.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTING
This project is in Western Washington within the City of Federal Way and is located along the
western edge of Interstate 5 (I-5), just north of the Pierce County/King County boundary on
property owned by the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The West Fork of Hylebos Creek originates
approximately 3.5 miles from the project site; consisting of three subbasins: the West Fork,
East Fork, and Lower Hylebos. The West Fork of Hylebos Creek runs directly through the
project site. Hylebos Creek drains directly into Commencement Bay and is located within the
Puyallup/White River Basin, WRIA 10.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road August 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 7
Figure 2: Site Map
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 8
3.2 PROJECT LIMITS
Project limits consist of the parcel boundaries on which the project site is located, the recorded
roadway easement, and City of Federal Way right-of-way through which the access road would
be constructed. (Figure 2).
3.3 TOPOGRAPHY
Moderate slopes (5%-15%) are present throughout the project area, with several steeper slopes
(in excess of 20%) present on the subject parcel. The topography is flatter in the recessional
areas near West Hylebos Creek and the identified wetlands. The topographic and geological
conditions of the site include a continuous slope along the road alignment ranging from 3 to 11
percent. Study area elevations range from 105 feet to 30 feet above sea level (asl). The built-up
roadway for I-5 consists of the only steep gradient on-site, ranging from 105 feet asl down to
75 asl at the base of the roadway prism.
3.4 HYDROLOGY
West Hylebos Creek transects the study area from north to south in roughly equivalent halves.
This Type F stream flows through a mostly forested portion of the study area with a meander
halfway through the parcel. Wetland 2 surrounds West Hylebos Creek in the entirety of its
length through the study area. The West Fork of Hylebos Creek originates approximately 3.5
miles from the study area. Approximately 3,000 feet south of the study area, West Hylebos
Creek joins with East Hylebos Creek, forming the Lower Hylebos Creek, which then drains to
Commencement Bay approximately 13,000 feet from the confluence of the two forks.
Based on a review of FWMC 19.145.260(2)(b), this waterway would be classified as a Type F
stream. Type F streams are those streams that contain fish habitat. Additionally, West Hylebos
Creek provides habitat for federally designated endangered and threatened species. The
proposed project will have no effect on the stream.
3.5 VEGETATION
Development within the project vicinity consists of Interstate Highway 5 (I-5), warehouses,
roads, the Gethsamane Catholic Cemetery to the west, and residential housing. Forested areas
occur to the north, east and south of the project site and along the West Hylebos Creek riparian
corridor. The vegetation within the project study area consists of a mix of native and non-
native forest and wetland species. The western half of the study area is largely forested, with
wetland species extending through Wetland 2 along the West Hylebos Creek riparian corridor.
Orchard trees are located in the central and northeastern portion of the study area; remnants
from past farming activities.
Vegetation on site is limited to a mix of non-native and native species. The road easement is
characterized by typical upland forest species such as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 9
bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), western hePmlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Indian plum
(Oemlaria cerasiformis), ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), salal (Gaultheria shallon),
hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) , Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), swordfern (Polystichum
munitum), and various non-native species, including common periwinkle (Vinca minor) and
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). This forested habitat was relatively consistent until
it reaches the edge of the cemetery parcel, where historic farming has cleared out an area in the
center of the parcel that is dominated by a variety of domesticated fruit trees, including apple,
pear, and plum, and cherry, along with a variety of species common to disturbed agricultural
areas, such as Douglas hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii), reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), tansy ragwort (Jacobaea vulgaris),
Himalayan blackberry, Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius), and various pasture grasses. Native
forest also exists in the southern corner of the property closest to I-5. Wetland and riparian
vegetation dominates the western half of the parcel and the two interior wetlands. This
vegetation is described in more detail below.
3.6 SOILS
According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the soils within the project limits were categorized
as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC 8-15% slopes, rating B), Alderwood gravelly sandy
loam (AgD 15-30% slopes, rating B), and Kitsap silt loam (KpB 2-8% slopes, rating C). This
information suggests that the Hydrologic Soils Group for the project site is a combination of
Soil Hydrologic Groups B and C. The geotechnical engineering study prepared by South
Sound Geotechnical Consulting, dated January 7, 2020, describes the soils as approximately 6
inches to 1 foot of topsoil underlain by 1.5 feet to 4 feet of native silty sand with occasional
gravel, which is representative of weathered native soil. Below this layer is silty sand with
gravel in a medium dense to dense condition, which is representative of sandy glacial til up to
the termination depth of the test pits. The test pits were fairly uniform cross the sampled
alignment; however, no test pits were located in the vicinity of the wetlands or creak (see the
geotechnical engineering study under Appendix D for further enumeration on soil
characteristics).
Within the study area, Bellingham silt loam 0 to 2 percent slopes is located along the alignment
of West Hylebos Creek; Kitsap silt loam 2 to 8 percent slopes is located within the majority of
the area to the east and west of West Hylebos Creek on the subject parcel; Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes is located in the City of Federal Way right-of-way; and
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes is located in the recorded access
easement. Locations of each soil type are shown below in Figure 3. Descriptions of each soil
type are below:
Bellingham silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. The NRCS Soil Survey describes this soil as poorly
drained soil formed from alluvium. Bellingham silt loam soils are associated with depressions
and drainageways and can support prime farmland if drained. This soil is listed as a hydric soil.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 10
Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes. The NRCS Soil Survey describes this soil as moderately
well drained soil formed from lacustrine deposits with a minor amount of volcanic ash. Kitsap
silt loam 2 to 8 percent slopes is associated with terraces and is considered prime farmland.
This soil is not listed as a hydric soil.
Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes. The NRCS Soil Survey describes this soil as
moderately well drained soil formed from lacustrine deposits with a minor amount of volcanic
ash. Kitsap silt loam 15 to 30 percent slopes is associated with terraces and is considered
farmland of statewide importance. This soil is not listed as a hydric soil.
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes. The NRCS Soil Survey describes this
soil as moderately well drained soil formed from glacial drift and/or glacial outwash over dense
glaciomarine deposits. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes is associated
with hills, shoulders, nose slope, and talf. It is considered prime farmland if irrigated and is not
considered a hydric soil.
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes. The NRCS Soil Survey describes this
soil as moderately well drained soil formed from glacial drift and/or glacial outwash over dense
glaciomarine deposits. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 15 to 30 percent slopes is associated
with hills, backslope, side slope, nose slope, and talf. It is considered farmland of statewide
importance and is not considered a hydric soil.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 11
Figure 3. Soil Map
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 12
4.0 CRITICAL AREAS
Critical areas occurring on or adjacent to the proposed project include geologically hazardous
areas, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCA), and wetlands.
Critical areas identified by the City of Federal Way are shown below in Figure 4.
Figure 4. City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map
Source: City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan – Critical Areas Map
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 13
4.1 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, seismic, or
other geological events (FWMC 19.145.220). The King County iMap site provides information
on elevation contours, potential landslide hazard areas, potential steep slope hazard areas,
erosion hazards, and seismic hazard areas.
The project study area has a narrow strip of land, approximately 150 feet across, that is
considered an erosion hazard located on the northwestern corner of the subject parcel. Erosion
hazard areas also extend in a roughly north-south orientation across the recorded access
easement.
Geologically hazardous areas within the project site are limited to the erosion hazard area
located in the recorded access easement, as shown below in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Erosion Hazard Areas
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 14
4.2 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION A REAS
FW MC 19.145.260 defines FWHCA as those habitat areas that meet any of the criteria listed
below.
a. Streams;
b. Regulated lakes;
c. Areas with state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species
have a primary association;
d. State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species; and
e. Habitats and species of local importance.
FWHCAs within the immediate project vicinity include West Hylebos Creek and its associated
wetland, Wetland 2 (Figure 6). A review of WDFW-PHS and Salmonscape data identifies
West Hylebos Creek as priority habitat for various fish species, including fall chinook, coho,
fall chum, chum, winter steelhead, and pink salmon (odd years).
Priority habitat identified consists of a freshwater forested/shrub wetland in the forested area
along West Hylebos Creek. No other PHS resources are identified in the project vicinity
(WDFW 2020b).
Figure 6. WDFW Priority Habitat
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 15
4.3 STREAMS
4.3.1 City of Federal Way Stream Regulation
The Federal Way Municipal Code utilizes the Washington State Water Typing System set forth
in WAC 222-16-030. Streams meeting the designation criteria below and all associated riparian
habitat areas, identified as stream buffers, are subject to provisions of Federal Way critical
areas code. FWMC 19.145.260 designates stream classifications as the following:
a) Type S: streams inventoried as “shorelines on the state” under Chapter 90.58 RCW and
the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW;
b) Type F: streams that contain fish habitat;
c) Type Np: perennial non-fish habitat streams; and
d) Type Ns: seasonal non-fish habitat streams.
Stream buffer requirements are determined by stream type, as shown in the table below.
Table 2. FWMC 19.145.270 – Stream Buffer Widths.
Stream Type Standard Buffer Width
S --
F 100 feet
Np 50 feet
Ns 35 feet
West Hylebos Creek is a Type F stream, and as such would have a 100 foot buffer. There are
no shorelines of the state associated with rivers or streams in the City.
4.3.2 Stream Field Survey Results
DEA identified West Hylebos Creek as the only stream in the project study area. No streams
cross or are adjacent to the proposed access road alignment. West Hylebos Creek flows from
north to south across the western side of the subject parcel. The stream flows in a natural
stream channel through a mostly forested portion of the study area. Wetland 2 surrounds West
Hylebos Creek for the entirety of its length through the study area. Based on a review of City
of Federal Way municipal code, this stream is classified as a Type F stream.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 16
Within the study area, the stream is approximately 15 feet wide, with a wetted width of
approximately 20 feet. However, in some locations the stream channel is braided through the
forested wetland. Substrate is dominated by silt, gravel, and cobble. Approximately 3,000 feet
south of the study area, West Hylebos Creek joins with East Hylebos Creek, forming the
Lower Hylebos Creek, which then drains to Commencement Bay approximately 13,000 feet
from the confluence of the two forks. West Hylebos Creek is a fish bearing stream that
provides habitat for salmonids.
4.4 WETLANDS
Three wetlands (Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and Wetland 3) were delineated on the property. No
wetlands were identified on or adjacent to the road easement. The locations of these wetlands
are depicted in Figure 7 and discussed in detail below. The data sheets and rating forms are
located in Appendix B and photographs are located in Appendix C.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 17
Figure 7: Wetland and Stream Map
4.4.1 City of Federal Way Wetland Regulation
The City of Federal Way regulates wetlands through FWMC 19.145.410. FWMC evaluates
wetlands according to the current version of the Department of Ecology Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). This rating system results in a
total score based on the sum of scores for water quality functions, hydrology functions, and
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 18
habitat functions. The score for a Category I wetland is 23 points or more; the score for a
Category II wetland is between 20 to 22 points; the score of a Category III wetland is between
16-19 points; and the score of a Category IV wetland is 15 points or less (FWMC
19.145.420(1). Other classification criteria can also influence the rating, particularly for
Category I wetlands.
Buffer widths depend on wetland category, habitat score, intensity of adjacent land use, and
local significance. Buffer widths generally range from 50 to 300 feet (FWMC 19.145.420(2),
Table 1 Wetland Buffer Widths).
Table 3. FWMC 19.145.420(2)(Table 1) Buffer Widths
Wetland Category Buffer Width (wetland
scores 3-5 habitat points)
Buffer Width (wetland
scores 6-7 habitat points)
Buffer Width (wetland
scores 8-9 habitat points)
Category I: Bogs and
wetlands of high
conservation value
250 feet 250 feet 300 feet
Category I: Forested and
based on function score
100 feet 150 feet 300 feet
Category II 100 feet 150 feet 300 feet
Category III 80 feet 150 feet 300 feet
Category IV 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Based on the above table, study area wetlands would have the following buffers: Wetland 1 -
150 feet; Wetland 2 - 150 feet; and Wetland 3 – 50 feet.
However, the subject parcel (Parcel 3221049134) is under jurisdiction of the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians, which has separate independent regulations governing critical areas on their properties.
Table 4 below lists wetland buffers as stipulated by Puyallup Tribe of Indians (PTOI).
Table 4. PTOI Wetland Buffer Widths
Wetland Category Required Buffer (feet)
1 III 50
2 II 100
3 IV 25
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 19
4.4.2 Existing Wetland Information
A review of WDFW-PHS and USFWS NWI data identifies freshwater forested/shrub wetlands
in the study area surrounding West Hylebos Creek (Wetland 2) and in the unforested area in
the middle of the site (Wetland 3), as shown in Figure 7. A site visit by DEA biologists
confirmed the presence of these wetlands. An additional wetland, Wetland 1, was delineated
within the study area to the east of Wetland 3.
Figure 8. NWI Wetlands Map
4.4.3 Wetland Field Survey Results
Three wetlands were identified and surveyed within the project study area. These are shown on
Figure 7. See Appendix B and below for a complete description of surveyed wetlands. All
three wetlands are on the subject parcel. No wetlands were located on or adjacent to the road
easement.
Wetland 1 is a depressional wetland that may have been historically excavated to create a pond.
Wetland 2 is a large riverine wetland complex directly associated with the West Tributary of
Hylebos Creek. Wetland 3 is a slope wetland that is directly connected to Wetland 2 by
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 20
shallow ditches. Wetland 1 is visible on the 1936 historic aerial imagery in King County (King
County 2019) so it has been established for a long period of time. The entire site was used for
agriculture and pasture at various times in the past. Hydrology in Wetlands 1 and 3 is
characterized by a combination of high seasonal groundwater table and precipitation that is
unable to percolate due to a shallow impervious layer within the top 12 inches of the soil
profile, leading to a perched water table. Hydrology in Wetland 2 is supported by West
Hylebos Creek.
The only ditches observed on the property were small, shallow ditches connecting Wetland 3 to
Wetland 2. No ditches were observed connecting Wetland 1 to any other waterbodies.
Wetland 1
Wetland 1 is an approximately 0.7 acre wetland located within the project site. This Category
III palustrine emergent (PEM)/palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetland consists of a depressional
area located to the east of Wetland 3. Wetland conditions were represented by data points DP-1
and DP-3. Upland conditions were represented by DP-2.
Soils. Soils in DP1 consisted of dark gray (5Y 4/1) silty clay with dark yellowish-brown
(10YR3/6) concentrations in the matrix in the upper ten inches and black organic soil (7.5YR
2.5/1) in the lower layer. Soils in DP-3 consisted of a very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1) silt loam in the
upper ten inches and a grayish brown (10YR 5/2) clay loam in the lower layer. Soils in the
wetland met the Histosol (A1) and Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) hydric soil indicators.
Vegetation. The dominant plant species were reed canarygrass, Douglas spirea, mild water
pepper, cattail, and spike rush. More than 50 percent of these species are facultative (FAC) or
facultative wetland (FACW) species. Therefore, hydrophytic vegetation was present.
Hydrology. The hydrology indicator was deemed present based on the presence of saturation
in the upper twelve inches during the growing season and the presence of a high water table.
Ground saturation was reached at 8 inches depth, and groundwater was encountered at 10
inches depth.
Wetland Classification. According to the Federal Way Municipal Code, Wetland 1 is a
Category III wetland (FWMC 19.145.410). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Classification System (Cowardin et. al., 1979), Wetland 1 is a PEM/PSS wetland.
The buffer for Wetland 1 in the City of Federal Way is 150 feet, as established by FWMC
19.145.420(2) for a Category III wetland with 6 habitat points.
Wetland 2
Wetland 2 is an approximately 8-acre wetland located in the western half of the project parcel.
This Category II palustrine forested (PFO)/PSS riverine wetland complex is directly associated
with West Hylebos Creek, extending approximately 200 to 500 feet in width along the stream
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 21
corridor. Wetland conditions were represented by DP-1 and DP-3. Upland conditions were
represented by DP-2.
Soils. Soils in DP1 consisted of black 10YR 2/1 organic muck without visible concentrations.
This dark surface layer extended down to 10 inches. The lower layer consisted of very dark
gray (2.5Y 3/1) sandy soil mixed with gravel. Soils in DP-3 consisted of very dark grayish
brown (10YR 3/2) clay loam in the upper three inches underlain by a thicker layer of very dark
gray (10YR 3/1) clay loam with visible concentrations. Soils met the hydric indictors Redox
Dark Surface (F6), Histosol (A1) and Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11).
Vegetation. The dominant species were jewelweed, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry,
red alder, salmonberry western touch-me-not, horsetail, skunk cabbage, and lady fern. black
cottonwood, Pacific willow, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, and snowberry. More
than 50 percent of these species are facultative (FAC) or facultative wetland (FACW) species.
Therefore, hydrophytic vegetation was present.
Hydrology. The hydrology indicator was deemed present based on the presence of saturation
at the surface and presence of surface water.
Wetland Classification. According to the Federal Way Municipal Code, Wetland 2 is a
Category II wetland (FWMC 19.145.410). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Classification System (Cowardin et. al., 1979), Wetland 2 is a PFO/PSS wetland.
The buffer for Wetland 2 in the City of Federal Way is 150 feet, as established by FWMC
19.145.420(2) for a Category II wetland with 7 habitat points.
Wetland 3
Wetland 3 is an approximately 1.6-acre wetland located between Wetland 1 and 2. This
Category IV PEM/PSS wetland is a slope wetland that is directly connected to Wetland 2 by
shallow ditches. Wetland conditions were represented by DP-1. Upland conditions were
represented by DP-2.
Soils. Soils in DP1 consisted of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam in the top 5
inches, with dark gray (10YR 4/1) clay loam between five and 12 inches, and gray (10YR 5/1)
clay loam in the lower layer. All three layers had visible concentrations. Soils met the hydric
soils indicator of Depl eted Below Dark Surface (A11).
Vegetation. The dominant species were creeping buttercup and field fescue. Other species
present included bird’s-foot trefoil, redtop, and soft rush. More than 50 percent of these species
were FAC or FACW. Therefore, hydrophytic vegetation was present.
Hydrology. No saturation or surface water was observed during the site visit in Wetland 3.
However, the hydrology indicator was deemed present based on the presence of secondary
hydrologic indicators such as geomorphic position and drainage patterns.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 22
Wetland Classification. According to the Federal Way Municipal Code, Wetland 3 is a
Category IV wetland (FWMC 19.145.410). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Classification System (Cowardin et. al., 1979), Wetland 3 is a PEM/PSS wetland.
The buffer for Wetland 3 in the City of Federal Way is 50 feet, as established by FWMC
19.145.420(2) for a Category IV wetland with 6 habitat points.
4.4.4 Wetland Functional Assessment
Wetland functional value was assessed utilizing the Ecology Rating System (Hruby 2014).
This rating method evaluates wetlands based on three categories of function which include
water quality, hydrologic function, hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class, and habitat value. Table 5
provides a summary of wetland ratings and functional scores. Appendix B contains the
individual rating forms for Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and Wetland 3 using the 2014 rating system.
Table 5. Project Wetlands Rating Summary
Wetland HGM Class Water Quality
Score
Hydrologic
Score
Habitat
Score
Total Ecology
Rating
1 Depressional 6 7 6 19 III
2 Riverine 7 7 7 21 II
3 Slope 5 4 6 15 IV
Water Quality Function. Water quality function is assessed by characterizing the amount and
type of vegetation present within the wetland. Plants enhance sedimentation by acting like a
filter, causing sediment particles to drop out of the water column. Other variables include the
surface depressions in riverine wetlands that can trap sediment, the degree of slope for slope
wetlands, and the amount of seasonal ponding within depressional wetlands. Additionally, the
opportunity to improve water quality is important. This is based on the presence of potential
pollutants coming into the wetland (i.e., stormwater discharge , grazing, residential) that would
otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes, or groundwater down gradient from the
wetland.
Wetland 1 provides moderate water quality function due to surrounding land uses that produce
stormwater runoff (including I-5), and presence of vegetation that can treat pollutants.
Wetland 2 provides important water quality treatment for West Hylebos Creek, moderate water
quality function due to surrounding land uses that produce stormwater runoff, and presence of
vegetation that can treat pollutants.
Wetland 3 provides moderate water quality function due to surrounding land uses that produce
stormwater runoff, and presence of vegetation that can treat pollutants.
Hydrologic Function. Wetlands have the ability to reduce flooding and stream erosion in
downstream areas. This is accomplished through the entrainment, storage, and slow release of
water, which act to moderate flood pulses following storm events. Characteristics of this
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 23
function include the vegetation characteristics (reduction of water velocity in riverine and slope
wetlands), outlet type, and depth of storage for depressional wetlands. Additionally, the
opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion is important. The wetland must be in a location in
the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity it provides, helps protect
downstream property and aquatic resources.
Wetlands 1 and 3 provide moderate hydrologic function because they have dense vegetation
and some depressions that can slow down water velocities. There is also some downstream
development that can be affected by flooding.
Wetland 3 provides low hydrologic function because it lacks depressions and because water
flows directly into Wetland 2.
Habitat Function. Wetlands can provide habitat value to a variety of wildlife species by
providing a variety of habitat types, water regimes, habitat features (such as snags and downed
logs), and a number of plant species. Additionally, the opportunity to provide habitat is
important, as characterized by buffer condition, corridors and connections, position in the
landscape, and proximity to other priority habitats.
Wetlands 1, 2, and 3 provide moderate habitat value by presence of shrub and forest vegetation
layers, presence of nearby wildlife habitat, and proximity to priority habitats.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 24
5.0 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT
5.1 GENERAL HABITAT CONDITIONS
The project occurs in the Puget Lowland Ecoregion of Washington State, which is described as
the flat, low valley of the Puget Sound formed by the weight and scouring of glaciers during
the last ice age (Cassidy 1997). The dominant vegetation zone within the Puget Sound
Ecoregion is Puget Sound Douglas-fir (Cassidy 1997); however, intensive land use changes
have extensively altered the historic vegetation of the Puget Sound Ecoregion across the
landscape.
The presence of wildlife within and near the project area is partially dependent upon the type
and quantity of habitat in the general project vicinity. Wildlife habitat in the project study area
consists of secondary and mature forest along the road easement, as well as the forested
riparian corridor and wetland complex associated with West Hylebos Creek, Wetland 1 and
Wetland 2, and forested areas along the edges of the study area. The quality of habitat provided
by Wetland 1 is lessened by the presence of invasive Himalayan blackberry. West Hylebos
Creek provides an important wildlife habitat corridor for salmonids and terrestrial animals. The
forested area along the northern edge of the study area provides important raptor nesting
habitat. The limited access to the property and its isolated setting between I-5 and the Catholic
cemetery have protected the wildlife habitat to some degree.
The Washington State Natural Heritage Program provides the sections that contain natural
heritage features documented as containing rare plant and animal species. This list was
consulted to determine rare species and ecosystems potentially present within the project
vicinity and no matches were found (WDNR 2020).
5.2 WILDLIFE USE
Wildlife use within the project area was determined using data provided by WDFW–PHS,
WDFW’s Salmonscape mapping system, and field observations. Field observations did not
result in the identification of priority species.
5.2.1 Priority Habitats and Species
PHS data obtained from the WDFW provided information on species and habitat locations that
have been documented or are considered sensitive by the State (WDFW 2020a). West Hylebos
Creek was identified as priority habitat for various fish species, including fall chinook, coho,
fall chum, chum, winter steelhead, and pink salmon (odd years).
Priority habitat identified in the PHS consists of a freshwater forested/shrub wetland in the
forested area surrounding West Hylebos Creek. DEA biologists verified the presence of this
wetland (Wetland 3) and the presence of two additional wetlands (Wetland 1, and Wetland 2)
during site visits in July 2019. No other PHS resources are identified in the project vicinity.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 25
5.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
A review of threatened and endangered species locations was conducted through the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service’s IPAC website for the proposed project. Table 6 below lists all fish and
wildlife species federally listed as threatened and endangered through the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) by the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries.
Table 6. Federal Listed Fish and Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring near the Proposed Project
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Gr ay wolf Canis lupus Proposed Endangered
North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Proposed Threatened
Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Federal Threatened
Streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris strigata Federal Threatened
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Federal Threatened
Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Federal Threatened
Steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Federal Threatened
Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha Federal Threatened
Of these species, chinook salmon and steelhead trout are likely to occur within the project
study area (West Hylebos Creek). The remaining species are not likely to occur in the project
area due to lack of suitable habitat (e.g., marbled murrelet, streaked horned lark) or outside
known range (e.g., gray wolf and wolverine). Yellow-billed cuckoo is considered extirpated in
Washington, and only occurs as an occasional transient. West Hylebos Creek is not listed as
supporting populations of bull trout.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 26
6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS
6.1 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
The project study area has a narrow tip of land, approximately 150 feet across, that is
considered erosion hazard located on the northwestern corner of the subject parcel. Erosion
hazard areas also extend in a roughly north-south orientation across the recorded access
easement.
Geologically hazardous areas within the project site are limited to the erosion hazard area
located in the recorded access easement, as shown in Figure 5.
A geotechnical report has been prepared for the project and is provided in Appendix D.
Potential project impacts to geologically hazardous areas will be mitigated. The project will
implement Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures appropriate to the site to minimize
the potential for transport of sediment and other impacts related to land disturbing activities.
The use of temporary silt fencing, check dams, and sediment traps will be used to contain
sediment erosion.
6.2 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
The proposed project will have minor impacts to identified fish and wildlife conservation areas.
The proposed access road will end at the edge of the cemetery parcel. A linear gravel dispersal
trench will be constructed just outside the regulated buffer of Wetland 1. This trench will
receive and disperse stormwater runoff from a portion of the proposed access road. This
stormwater may introduce pollutants to Wetland 1 that are associated with automobiles,
including heavy metals and hydrocarbons. However, this new road will be access-controlled by
the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and will not be accessible by the public. Very limited traffic is
anticipated to use this road and thus only a minor amount of stormwater pollutants will be
introduced to the buffer of Wetland 1. These pollutants are anticipated to be dispersed and
infiltrated in the buffer before reaching Wetland 1.
6.3 STREAMS
The proposed project will have no impacts to streams.
6.4 WETLANDS
There will be no wetland impacts from the proposed project. Some indirect stormwater
impacts to Wetland 1 are possible, which are discussed below. The proposed roadway would
be constructed with permeable pavement from approximately stations 20+90 to station
24+35. The geotechnical investigation for this site determined that infiltrativ e pavements
would be feasible along this portion of the roadway alignment. From stations 11+77 to
station 20+90 the roadway surfaces will be collected and treated to an enhanced water quality
standard prior to being fully dispersed adjacent to the wetland buffer. This stormwater
methodology will maintain the existing hydrology to the wetland.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 27
7.0 MITIGATION
7.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
This project has been designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the natural
environment. In order to avoid impacts, critical areas were identified and mapped during the
design stage of the project. This enabled the project to avoid direct impacts to all wetlands
and West Hylebos Creek while still addressing the needs of the project.
During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices
(BMPs) will be implemented to minimize impacts t o critical areas. These measures would
include the installation of silt fences to prevent silt-laden runoff from leaving the
construction site, protection of storm drains and drainage ways, stabilization of exposed soil
to prevent erosion, and the seeding of exposed soils with a non-invasive seed mix. This is not
an inclusive list. Specific measures and construction plan protection details will be outlined
in a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSPPP).
7.2 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
No compensatory mitigation is required because there will be no impacts to aquatic resources
from the proposed project.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 28
8.0 CODE REQUIREMENTS
This report has been prepared according to submittal requirements in FWMC 19.145.080 and
other pertinent sections of the critical areas code. Please note that any work inside Parcel
322104-9134 is within the jurisdiction of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and not subject to City
of Federal Way Regulations.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 29
9.0 REFERENCES
Cassidy, K.M. 1997. Land cover of Washington State: Description and management. Volume 1
in Washington State GAP Analysis Project Final report. Washington Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, 260 pp.
Cooke, Sarah Spear. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western
Washington & Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Way, City of. 2015. Comprehensive Plan. Available at:
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/content/comprehensive-plan. Accessed July 2020.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
Hruby, Thomas. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington.
Publication No. 14-06-029. Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
King County, 2020. King County IMAP website.
https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/imap.aspx. Accessed July 2020.
Lichvar, R. 2016. National Wetland Plant List. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hanover, New
Hampshire. http://wetland-
plants.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/data/DOC/lists_2016/National/National_2016v2.pdf
National Wetland Inventory (NWI). 2020. NWI Wetland Mapper.
(http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ Data/Mapper.html). Accessed July 2020.
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service.
Web Soil Survey website. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
Accessed July 2020.
Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. B.C. Ministry of
Forests and Lone Pine Publishing. Redmond, Washington.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region.
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-
Permits/reg_supp/.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Page 30
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. IPaC Information for Planning and
Consultation online mapping service. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/index. Accessed
July 2020.
WDFW. 2020a. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species
(PHS) online mapper. https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/phs/maps. Accessed
July 2020.
———. 2020b. Salmonscape database website. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape.
Accessed July 2020.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2020. Sections that Contain Natural
Heritage Features. Accessed July 2020. Washington Natural Heritage Program (NHP).
Olympia, Washington.
Williams, R, R. Laramie, and J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon
Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington State Department of Fisheries.
Olympia, Washington.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study
APPENDICES
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix A
APPENDIX A
Site Plans
S59°38'40"E524.65'S59°36'38"E60.50'N
3
7
°
5
5
'
4
7
"
E
2
4
2
.
4
6
'
N
3
7
°
5
5
'
4
7
"
E
3
1
0
.
3
0
'S52°04'13"E75.00'S52°04'13"E75.00'N
3
7
°
5
5
'
4
7
"
E
4
5
7
.
3
2
'
N
3
7
°
5
5
'
4
7
"
E
6
8
6
.
1
1
'
N2
6
°
1
1
'
4
3
"
E
5
3
2
.
4
7
'
N01°23'40"E
2626.72'(M)S30°22'04"W49.86'N59°37'56"W6.62'S
3
7
°
5
5
'
4
7
"
W
2
2
7
.
0
5
'
5'N59°37'56"W578.33'295
.
0
0
'
237
.
4
7
'S30°22'04"W0.14'20.00'20.00'6T
H
A
V
E
.
S
.
/
K
.
C
.
R
D
.
2
0
0
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
5
8TH AVE. S. S. 376TH ST.WETWET WET WETWET5'
C
L
F??PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 1:42 PM9/3/2020 2:04 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-CV-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.CEMETERY ROAD50% ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE PLANSA PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C1.01OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
CIVIL COVER
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 1:42 PM9/3/2020 2:04 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-CV-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.” ’” ’A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C1.12OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
GENERAL NOTES
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
XXXXXXXXXXXXLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITXXXXXXXXXXXXxx
x
x
x x x x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx4' BWF4' BWF4' BWF4' BWF INDISREPAIR?XXXXXXXXXXXXLIM
ITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMITLIMIT LIMITxx
xxxOPOPOPOP6TH AVE. S. / K.C. RD. 2008TH AVE
.
S
.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx5' CLF4' BWFxxxxxxxxxxxxBARNx6' WDF4' BWFx4' BWF3' BWFSHED3' BWF NE, 4' BWF SW5' CLF NE , 4' BWF SWGATEGATEGATEAWNINGXXLIMITPROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 1:46 PM9/3/2020 2:04 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-DEMO-TESC-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C2.04OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
DEMOLITION AND TESC PLAN
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
6TH AVE. S. / K.C. RD. 200INTERSTATE 58TH AVE
.
S
.
S. 376TH ST.x
x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWETWET5' CLF4' BWFxxxxxBARN6' WDF4' BWF4' BWF4' BWF3' BWF4' BWF4' BWFSHED3' BWF NE, 4' BWF SW5' CLF NE , 4' BWF SWGATEGATEGATEAWNING4' BWF INDISREPAIRWETWETWETWETWETWET?????L1L2L3L4L5C1C2C3C4L
6L1L2L3L4L5L6C4C3C2C1
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 1:51 PM9/3/2020 2:04 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-RD-OVERALL-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C3.05OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OVERALL ROAD AND DRAINAGE PLAN
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
WETWETWETWET WET WETWETWETWET??L5PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 2:02 PM9/3/2020 2:05 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-RD-PP-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C3.16OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
ROAD AND DRAINAGE PLAN AND PROFILE
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
xxx x x x x x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx4' BWF4' BWF4' BWF4' BWF INDISREPAIRL1L2C1C3L6
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 2:02 PM9/3/2020 2:05 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-RD-PP-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C3.27OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
ROAD AND DRAINAGE PLAN AND PROFILE
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
xx
xx
x
OPOPOPOP6TH AVE. S. / K.C. RD. 2008TH AVE
.
S
.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxBARNx6' WDF4' BWFx4' BWF3' BWFSHED3' BWF NE, 4' BWF SW5' CLF NE , 4' BWF SWGATEGATEGATEAWNINGL3L4C2C4x xxxxxxxxxxL4C4
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 2:02 PM9/3/2020 2:05 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-RD-PP-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C3.38OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
ROAD AND DRAINAGE PLAN AND PROFILE
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 2:02 PM9/3/2020 2:05 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-RD-PP-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C3.49OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
ROAD AND DRAINAGE DETAILS
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 10:24 AM9/3/2020 2:05 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-TESC-DET-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C4.010OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
TESC NOTES AND DETAILS
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 10:24 AM9/3/2020 2:05 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-TESC-DET-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C4.111OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
TESC NOTES AND DETAILS
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 1:18 PM9/3/2020 2:05 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-DET-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C4.213OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
CIVIL DETAILS
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATENO.REVISION DESCRIPTION CKBYFIRST SUBMITTAL:SHEET NO.Save Date: Plot Date: 9/3/2020 1:18 PM9/3/2020 2:05 PM By: KyleMurphy P:\P\PTOI0023\0400CAD\Sheets\50 Percent\EC-DET-PTOI000023.dwgKyle MurphyBy: File:CHECKED BY:1145 BROADWAY, SUITE 115TACOMA, WA 98402PHONE: 253.405.4474VERT. DATUM:HORZ. DATUM:REFERENCE NO.A PORTION OF THE SW QUADRANT OF SECTION 32, T21N, R4E OF W.M.50 PERCENTPTOI000023C4.314OF 12FEDERAL WAY, WAKYLE MKYLE MDREW HX/XX/20PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
CIVIL DETAILS
CEMETERY ROAD
D
R
A
F
THORZ. DATUMVERT. DATUM
6"18"ASPHALTIC CONCRETEPAVEMENT, VARIABLE DEPTHWEDGE CURBHMA WEDGE CURB DOWNHILL SIDE OF STREET CROSS SLOPE3"12"ASPHALTIC CONCRETEPAVEMENT, VARIABLE DEPTHWEDGE CURBFLOWLINEFLOWLINEHMA WEDGE CURB STANDARD
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix A
This page intentionally left blank.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix B
APPENDIX B
Wetland Data Sheets and Rating Forms
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix B
This page intentionally left blank.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Puyallup Cemetery - Wetland 1 City/County: King Sampling Date:8-July-2019
Applicant/Owner: Puyallup Tribe of Indians State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): R. Pratt / O. G. Rand Section, Township, Range: SW S32 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.26138° Long: -122.32814° Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: PEM/PSS
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland is likely old excavated pond, but present since before 1936.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
20 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) 50 D FACW
2. Cattail (Typha latifolia) 20 OBL
3. Water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica) 5 OBL
4. Spike rush (Eleocharis palustris) 20 OBL
5. Mild water-pepper (Persicaria hydroopiper) 25 D OBL
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
120 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: s
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: W1-DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-10 5Y 4/1 85 10YR 3/6 15 C M SC
10-15"+ 7.5 YR 2.5/1 100 organic
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 10 inches
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 8 inches
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: All three parameters present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Puyallup Cemetery - Wetland 1 City/County: King Sampling Date:8-July-2019
Applicant/Owner: Puyallup Tribe of Indians State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): R. Pratt / O. G. Rand Section, Township, Range: SW S32 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.26138° Long: -122.32814° Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Plot located about 20 feet north of wetland boundary
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) 5 D FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
5 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) 30 D FACU
2. Swordfern (Polystichum munitum) 20 D FACU
3. Tansy (Jacobaea vulgaris) 20 D FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
70 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Rubus armerniacus 60 D FAC
2.
60 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: W1-DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 3/3 100 SL very dense
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Couldn't dig below six inches
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Above topo break outside wetland
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Puyallup Cemetery - Wetland 1 City/County: King Sampling Date:8-July-2019
Applicant/Owner: Puyallup Tribe of Indians State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3
Investigator(s): R. Pratt / O. G. Rand Section, Township, Range: SW S32 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.26138° Long: -122.32814° Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: PSS
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Plot located just inside north wetland boundary
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Douglas spirea (Spirea douglasii) 90 D FACW
2.
3.
4.
5.
90 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: W1-DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-10 2.5Y 3/1 100 SL
10-16 10YR 5/2 80 5YR 5/4 20 C M CL
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Puyallup Cemetery - Wetland 2 City/County: King Sampling Date:25-07-2019
Applicant/Owner: Puyallup Tribe of Indians State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): R. Pratt / O. G. Rand Section, Township, Range: SW S32 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Stream bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.26206° Long: -122.33082° Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: PSS/PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Data plot is located at edge of stream near north edge of property.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) 60 D FACW
2. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) 10 D FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
70 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) 5 D FAC
2.
5 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: W2-DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-10 10YR 2/1 100 Muck organic
10-14"+ 2.5Y 3/1 100 gravel/sand
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Surface
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: All three parameters present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Puyallup Cemetery - Wetland 2 City/County: King Sampling Date:25-July-2019
Applicant/Owner: Puyallup Tribe of Indians State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): R. Pratt / O. G. Rand Section, Township, Range: SW S32 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.26206° Long: -122.33082° Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Data plot is located in transition zone adjacent to wetland near north property boundary.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Douglas hawthorne (Crataegus douglasii) 100 D FAC
2. Indian plum (Oemlaria cerasiformis) 5 FACU
3.
4.
5.
105 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) 50 D FACW
2. Swordfern (Polystichum munitum) 50 D FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) 10 D FAC
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Transition area to upland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: W2-DP-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-11 2.5Y 4/2 100 SL
11-13"+ 2.5Y 5/2 95 2.5Y 6/6 5 C M SCL
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks: Layer close to meeting requirements for Indicator F3.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Plot on terrace above wetland. No indicators.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Puyallup Cemetery - Wetland 2 City/County: King Sampling Date:25-July-2019
Applicant/Owner: Puyallup Tribe of Indians State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3
Investigator(s): R. Pratt / O. G. Rand Section, Township, Range: SW S32 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): stream bottom Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.26206° Long: -122.33082° Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Plot located in forested portion of wetland near southern property boundary near creek.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. Red alder (Alnus rubra) 90 D FAC
2.
3.
4.
90 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 30 D FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
30 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Western touch-me-not (Impatiens noli-tangere) 30 D FACW
2. Giant horsetail (Equisetum telmeteia) 20 D FACW
3. Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum) 20 D OBL
4. Lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina) 20 D FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
90 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: W2-DP-3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/2 100 CL
3-12 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 4/4 5 C M CL
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Surface
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Puyallup Cemetery - Wetland 3 City/County: King Sampling Date:25-July-2019
Applicant/Owner: Puyallup Tribe of Indians State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): R. Pratt / O. G. Rand Section, Township, Range: SW S32 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1-3
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.26127° Long: -122.32951° Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Plot is located near the center of the wetland. Wetland has been grazed within the last few years, but not recently.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) 60 D FACW
2. Fescue (Frestuca rubra) 25 D FAC
3. Bird's foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) 15 FAC
4. Redtop (Agrostis tenuis) 10 FAC
5. Juncus effusus 5 FACW
6. Sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) 5 FACU
7. Unidentified sedge (Carex sp.) 5
8.
9.
10.
11.
125 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: W3 - DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-5 10YR 3/2 98 7.5YR 3/4 2 C M SL
5-12 10YR 4/1 93 7.5 YR 4/6 7 C M CL
12-15 10 YR 5/1 90 7.5 YR 4/6 10 C M CL
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Wetland has deep ruts (10 inches +) from grazing animals, indicating that wetland was highly saturated in the recent past. Wetland is
connected to Wetland 2 by shallow ditches indicating drainage.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: Puyallup Cemetery - Wetland 3 City/County: King Sampling Date:25-July-2019
Applicant/Owner: Puyallup Tribe of Indians State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): R. Pratt / O. G. Rand Section, Township, Range: SW S32 T21N R04E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1-3
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.26127° Long: -122.32951° Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Plot is located between Wetland 1 and 3, not far from flag point 7 on Wetland 3 boundary
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. Domestic apple (Malus sp.) 50 D NI
2.
3.
4.
50 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) 50 D FACW
2. Redtop (Agrostis tenuis) 60 D FAC
3. Herb robert (Geranium robertiana) 5 FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
115 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Rubus armeniacus 20 D FAC
2.
20 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: Field is old orchard with domesticated apples.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: W3 - DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-9 10YR 3/2 100 SL
9-12" 10YR 4/1 96 10YR 6/4 4 C M CL
12"+ gravel/clay restrictive layer
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION
Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic
Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).Yes = 4 No = 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation :
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 -D 2.3?
Source_______________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4
Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2
Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1
Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands
with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7
Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5
Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3
The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3
Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1
Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5
The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3
The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0
Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met .
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1
Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1
The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the
water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why _____________ points = 0
There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
Cat. I
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
Cat. I
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat I
Cat. II
Cat. III
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION
Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic
Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 7
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
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 > ½ area of wetland points = 4
Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2
No depressions present points = 0
R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes)
Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8
Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6
Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3
Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0
Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0
R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut
within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1 -R 2.4
Other sources ____________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens?
Yes = 1 No = 0
R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality ? (answer
YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 8
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides:
Estimate the average width of the wetland 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 wetland)/(average
width of stream between banks).
If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9
If the ratio is 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
R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or
shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person
height. These are NOT Cowardin classes).
Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7
Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4
Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0
Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1
R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0
R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1
Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems?
Choose the description that best fits the site.
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to
human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
Cat. I
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
Cat. I
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat I
Cat. II
Cat. III
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION
Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic
Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources ________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows .
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = _______%
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
Cat. I
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
Cat. I
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat I
Cat. II
Cat. III
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
Wetland Rating Figure 3a. Ecology 303(d) Listed Waterbodies
Wetland Rating Figure 3b. TMDLs near Project.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix C
APPENDIX C
Photographs
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix C
This page intentionally left blank.
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix C
Photograph 1. View looking at north end of access road (July 8, 2019)
Photograph 2. View near midpoint of access road (July 8, 2019).
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix C
Photograph 3. View near southern terminus of access road (July 8, 2019).
Photograph 4. View looking north toward terminus of access road from buffer of
Wetland 1 (July 8, 2019).
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix C
Photograph 5. View of West Fork Hylebos Creek within Wetland 2 (July 8, 2019).
Photograph 6. View of West Fork Hylebos Creek within Wetland 2 (July 8, 2019).
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix C
Photograph 7. View of Wetland 1 (July 8, 2019).
Photograph 8. View looking east across Wetland 1; Interstate 5 in the background
(July 8, 2019).
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix C
Photograph 9. View looking south at Wetland 3 (July 8, 2019).
Photograph 10. Upland area between Wetland 1 and Wetland 3 (July 25, 2019).
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix D
APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Puyallup Cemetery Access Road November 2020
Critical Areas Study Appendix D
This page intentionally left blank.
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting
P.O. Box 39500, Lakewood, WA 98496 (253) 973-0515
January 7, 2020
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 400
Tacoma, Washington 98402
Attention: Mr. Andrew Harris, P.E.
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Puyallup Tribal Cemetery Road
Federal Way, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
Mr. Harris,
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting (SSGC) has completed a geotechnical assessment for the planned
Cemetery Road extension along the 8th Avenue Road alignment in Federal Way (King County),
Washington. Our services have been completed in general conformance with our proposal (P19045,
dated May 23, 2019) and authorized per David Evans and Associates Subconsultant agreement. Our scope
of services included completion of ten test pits and one infiltration test, laboratory testing, engineering
analyses, and preparation of this report.
PROJECT INFORMATION
A new road is planned that would extend from the intersection of South 376th Street and 8th Avenue South
to the south for access to the existing Puyallup Tribal cemetery. Overall length of the new road is on the
order of 1,700 (+/-) feet. Cut and fill areas will be required to establish final road grades.
SITE CONDITIONS
Beginning at the southern end of 8th Avenue South (at the intersection with South 376th Street), the new
alignment extends southwesterly approximately 400 feet along relatively flat ground. This portion of the
alignment is covered with an existing grass trail and brush with some trees. The alignment then traverses
forested west-facing sloping ground with inclinations of about 20 percent or shallower for an additional
400 (+/-) feet to a relatively level bench area extending another 300 (+/-) feet. The alignment continues
down a southerly facing forested slope with inclinations of about 20 percent or less to a flatter lower area
where the alignment ends. The southern portion of the alignment is in (or near) designated wetlands.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions were characterized by completing ten test pits and one infiltration test on
December 4, 2019. Approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 1, Exploration Plan.
No explorations were completed in the designated wetland areas near the southern end of the alignment.
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
2
A summary description of observed subgrade conditions is provided below. Logs of the test pits are
provided in Appendix A.
Soil Conditions
Subgrade conditions north of the lower (southern) wetland were fairly uniform across the
alignment (all test pits exclusive of test pit TP-8). A surface topsoil layer extended to between
about 6 inches and 1 foot in the test pits. Native silty sand with occasional gravel and variable
roots was below the surface and extended to depths ranging from about 1.5 to 4 feet. This soil
was in a loose to medium dense condition. It is interpreted to represent weather native soil.
Below this layer was silty sand with gravel in a medium dense to dense condition. This soil is
interpreted to represent sandy glacial till and extended to the termination depth of the test pits,
with the exception of test pit TP-8.
Test pit TP-8 was located near the base of the steeper south-facing slope, above the wetlands.
Minor debris (burnt wood and cans) was mixed with the topsoil layer to a depth of about 1.5 feet.
Native soil consisting of sandy silt in a stiff condition was observed below the fill and extended to
the termination depth of the test pit.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not observed in the test pits at the time of excavation. However, denser glacial
till can form a barrier to vertical groundwater flow and create seasonal perched groundwater
conditions. This results in mostly lateral flow through the upper weathered portion of till. In
addition, the sandy silt observed in test pit TP-8 and presence of wetlands in the southern portion
of the alignment suggests shallow groundwater levels should be anticipated in this area.
Groundwater levels should be anticipated to vary throughout the year due to season al
precipitation and on- and off-site drainage patterns.
Geologic Setting
Native soils over the higher elevated portions of the alignment are mapped as Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam per the USDA Soil Conservation Service map of King County, Washington.
Alderwood soils are reportedly formed in glacial till. Soils below the slopes in the wetland area
are mapped as Kitsap silt loam, formed in glacial lake deposits. Both soils are generally
considered impermeable to vertical groundwater flow. Soils in the test pits appeared to conform
to the mapped soil types.
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The planned road extension is considered feasible based on observed soil conditions in the test pits.
Native soils can be used for support of new pavements. Limited infiltration in the upper till soils above
the wetland area may be feasible for shallow infiltration facilities depending on final grades. Infiltration
is not considered feasible in the silt soils in the lower portion of the align ment, near or in the wetland
areas.
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
3
Recommendations presented in the following sections should be considered general and may require
modifications when earthwork and grading occur. They are based upon the subsurface conditions
observed in the test pits and may require modifications depending on final grades. It should be noted
subsurface conditions across the site may vary from those depicted on the exploration logs and can
change with time. Therefore, proper site preparation will depend upon the weather and soil conditions
encountered at the time of construction. We recommend SSGC review final plans and assess subgrade
conditions at the time of construction.
General Site Preparation
Site grading and earthwork should include procedures to control surface water runoff. Grading without
adequate drainage control measures may negatively impact site soils, resulting in increased export of
impacted soil and import of fill materials, potentially increasing the cost of earthwork and subgrade
preparation phases of the project.
Site grading should include removal of topsoil, fill, or upper soils having roots with diameters over 2-
inches. Subgrades should consist of firm native till soils following stripping in the alignment north of the
wetland areas. In the lower southern portion of the alignment stripping depth should include removal of
the upper silt to at least 2 feet below the design grade of the pavement section (base course and
pavement). Although stripping depths are estimated to range from about 1 to 2 feet on average, they will
vary and final stripping depths can only be determined at the time of construction.
General Subgrade Preparation
Subgrades in pavement areas should consist of firm native soils. We recommend exposed subgrades in
pavement and shoulder areas where native till is present are proofrolled using a large roller, loaded dump
truck, or other mechanical equipment to assess subgrade conditions following stripping. Proofrolling
efforts should result in the upper 1 foot of subgrade soils achieving a compaction level of at least 95
percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) per the ASTM D1557 test method. Wet, loose, or soft
subgrades that cannot achieve this compaction level should be removed (over-excavated) and replaced
with structural fill.
Where native silt subgrades are present in the lower southern portion, we recommend proofrolling consist
of a smooth drum compactor in static mode. Soft or excessively wet soils should be removed an
additional 1 foot. The depth of over-excavation should be based on soil conditions at the time of
construction. A representative of SSGC should be present to assess subgrade conditions during
proofrolling.
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
4
Grading and Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the
development. Allowing surface water into cut or fill areas and utility trenches should be prevented.
Structural Fill Materials
The suitability of soil for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the
soil when it is placed. Soils with higher fines content (soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) will
become sensitive with higher moisture content. It is often difficult to achieve adequate compaction if soil
moisture is outside of optimum ranges for soils that contain more than about 5 percent fines.
Site Soils: Topsoil is not suitable for use as structural fill. Native silt in the lower southern
portion is not considered suitable for structural fill. Native glacial till is considered suitable for
use as structural fill provided it can also be moisture conditioned to within optimal ranges.
Optimum moisture is considered within about +/- 2 percent of the moisture content required to
achieve the maximum density per the ASTM D-1557 test method. If moisture content is higher
or lower than optimum, soils would need to be dried or wetted prior to placement as structural
fill. Note the use of glacial till is often seasonal dependent. This soil contains sufficient fines that
make it moisture sensitive and difficult to properly compact outside of the drier summer months.
Import Fill Materials: We recommend import structural fill placed during dry weather periods
consist of material which meets the specifications for Gravel Borrow as described in Section 9-
03.14(1) of the 2018 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Specifications
for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (Publication M 41-10). Gravel Borrow should be
protected from disturbance if exposed to wet conditions after placement.
During wet weather, or for backfill on wet subgrades, import soil suitable for compaction in
wetter conditions should be provided. Imported fill for use in wet conditions should generally
conform to specifications for Select Borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(2), or Crushed
Surfacing per Section 9-03.9(3) of the 2018 WSDOT M-41 manual, with the modification that a
maximum of 5 percent by weight shall pass the U.S. No. 200 sieve for these soil types.
It should be noted that structural fill placement and compaction is weather-dependent. Delays due
to inclement weather are common, even when using select granular fill. We recommend site
grading and earthwork be scheduled for the drier months of the year. Structural fill should not
consist of frozen material.
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
5
Structural Fill Placement
We recommend structural fill is placed in lifts not exceeding about 10 inches in loose measure. It may be
necessary to adjust lift thickness based on site and fill conditions during placement and compaction. Finer
grained soil used as structural fill and/or lighter weight compaction equipment may require significantly
thinner lifts to attain required compaction levels. Coarser granular soil with lower fines contents could
potentially be placed in thicker lifts if they can be adequately compacted. Structural fill should be
compacted to attain the recommended levels presented in Table 1, Compaction Criteria.
Table 1. Compaction Criteria
Fill Application Compaction Criteria*
Footing areas (below structures and retaining walls) 95 %
Upper 2 feet in pavement areas, slabs and sidewalks, and utility trenches 95 %
Below 2 feet in pavement areas, slabs and sidewalks, and utility trenches 92 %
Utility trenches or general fill in non-paved or -building areas 90 %
*Per the ASTM D 1557 test method.
Trench backfill within about 2 feet of utility lines should not be over-compacted to reduce the risk of
damage to the line. In some instances the top of the utility line may be within 2 feet of the surface.
Backfill in these circumstances should be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition.
We recommend fill procedures include maintaining grades that promote drainage and do not allow
ponding of water within the fill area. The contractor should protect compacted fill subgrades from
disturbance during wet weather. In the event of rain during structural fill placement, the exposed fill
surface should be allowed to dry prior to placement of additional fill. Alternatively, the wet soil can be
removed. We recommend consideration be given to protecting haul routes and other high traffic areas
with free-draining granular fill material (i.e. sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines) or
quarry spalls to reduce the potential for disturbance to the subgrade during inclement weather.
Earthwork Procedures
Conventional earthmoving equipment should be suitable for earthwork at this site. Earthwork may be
difficult during periods of wet weather or if elevated soil moisture is present. Excavated site soils may
not be suitable as structural fill depending on the soil moisture content and weather conditions at the time
of earthwork. If soils are stockpiled and wet weather is anticipated, the stockpile should be protected with
securely anchored plastic sheeting. If stockpiled soils become unusable, it may become necessary to
import clean, granular soils to complete wet weather site work. Observed native soils contain enough
fines (silt and clay) that they can become easily disturbed when wet.
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
6
Wet or disturbed subgrade soils should be over-excavated to expose firm, non-yielding, non-organic soils
and backfilled with compacted structural fill. We recommend the earthwork portion of this project be
completed during extended periods of dry weather. If earthwork is completed during the wet season
(typically late October through May) it may be necessary to take extra measures to protect subgrade soils.
If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend the exposed subgrade be allowed to
thaw and be re-compacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill. Alternatively, the frozen soil
can be removed to unfrozen soil and replaced with structural fill.
The contractor is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations (including
utility trenches) as required to maintain stability of excavation sides and bottoms. Excavations should be
sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA
excavation and trench safety standards. Temporary excavation cuts should be sloped at inclinations of
1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter, unless the contractor can demonstrate the safety of steeper
inclinations. Permanent cut and fill slopes should have final inclinations of 2H:1V, or flatter.
Grading for the alignment will require cuts and fills, especially in the sloped portions. Structural or
embankment fill placed on slopes should be benched into firm (dense) native glacial till. Benches should
be excavated level (or with a slight incline into the hillside). Benches should be a maximum of 2 feet
high and wide enough to accommodate a conventional vibratory smooth-drum roller capable of
compacting fill to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per the ASTM D 1557 test method.
A geotechnical engineer and accredited testing material laboratory should be retained during the
construction phase of the project to observe earthwork operations and to perform necessary tests and
observations during subgrade preparation, placement and compaction of structural fill, and backfilling of
excavations.
Conventional Asphalt Pavement Sections
Subgrades for conventional pavement areas should be prepared as described in the “Subgrade
Preparation” and “Structural Fill” sections of this report. Subgrades below pavement sections should be
graded or crowned to promote drainage and not allow for ponding of water beneath the section. If
drainage is not provided and ponding occurs, subgrade soils could become saturated, lose strength, and
result in premature distress or failure of the pavement. In addition, the pavement surfacing should also be
graded to promote drainage and reduce the potential for ponding of water on the pavement surface.
We recommend a separation geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 160N, or equivalent) is used on native silt
subgrade soils below planned pavement sections in the lower southern (wetland) areas. This fabric should
be placed on the prepared subgrade prior to placement of granular pavement section fill. The purpose of
the fabric is to maintain separation of the coarser section fill materials and the moisture sensitive finer
grained native soils, which will reduce the risk of migration of the coarser fill into native soils. The fabric
will improve the overall performance of the section over time.
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
7
Pavement section designs have been prepared and are based on AASHTO design guidelines and the
following assumed design parameters:
30-year life span;
Estimated design life Equivalent Single Axle Loads (18 kips) of 50,000;
Estimated subgrade CBR of 6 (native soil);
Terminal serviceability of 2.0; and,
Level of reliability 85 percent.
Minimum recommended pavement sections for conventional asphalt pavements are presented in Table 2.
We should be notified if actual traffic (ESAL) loads will be greater than those assumed to verify or
modify the pavement sections. Pavement sections in city right-of-ways should conform to City of Federal
Way requirements for the designated road type.
Table 2. Preliminary Pavement Sections
Traffic Area
Minimum Recommended Pavement Section Thickness (inches)
Asphalt
Concrete
Surface1
Portland
Cement
Concrete
Aggregate
Base
Course2
Subbase
Aggregate3
Car Parking Areas 2 - 4 12
Road Section over
Glacial Till Subgrade 3 - 6 12
Road Section over
Native Silt Subgrade 3 - 6 24
1 1/2 –inch nominal aggregate hot-mix asphalt (HMA) per WSDOT 9-03.8(1)
2 Crushed Surfacing Base Course per WSDOT 9-03.9(3)
3 95% compacted native outwash subgrade or Gravel Borrow per WSDOT 9-03.14(1) or Crushed
Surfacing Base Course WSDOT 9-03.9(3) over native silt
Conventional Pavement Maintenance
The performance and lifespan of pavements can be significantly impacted by future maintenance.
The above pavement sections represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such, periodic
maintenance should be completed. Proper maintenance will slow the rate of pavement
deterioration, and will improve pavement performance and life. Preventive maintenance consists of
both localized maintenance (crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (surface
sealing). Added maintenance measures and reduced pavement life should be anticipated over the
lifetime of pavements if any existing fill or topsoil is left in-place beneath pavement sections.
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
8
Infiltration Characteristics
We understand infiltration facilities to assist in stormwater control will be used, if feasible. Assessment
of infiltration potential in the upper weathered till was completed per the 2016 King County Surface
Water Design Manual. One small-scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PIT) was completed in the upper
weathered glacial till. Approximate location of the test is shown on Figure 1. Result of the infiltration
test is provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Infiltration Rates
Test Site and Depth Soil Type
Field
Infiltration Rate
(in/hr)
Corrected
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
Correction
Factors*
(CFg/CFt/CFp)
PIT-1, 2.5 ft Weathered Till 4.5 1.26 (0.7/0.5/0.8)
*Correction Factors from the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
The calculated and corrected infiltration rate is considered appropriate for the upper soils tested and is
similar to rates in weathered till throughout the region. The soil profile along the alignment above the
wetland area appeared fairly uniform. A long-term design rate of 1.25 in/hr is considered appropriate for
the upper weathered till with the assigned correction factors. Infiltration is not considered feasible in the
native silt observed near the wetland area.
It should be noted infiltrated water will migrate down to denser till and then flow laterally. If cuts (grade
lowering) over 3 feet of existing grades are planned, infiltration may not be feasible.
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and organic content tests were completed on a soil sample from the
bottom of the infiltration test hole. Test results are summarized in the Table 4.
Table 4. CEC and Organic Content Results
Test Location, Sample
Number
CEC Results
(milliequivalents)
CEC Required*
(milliequivalents)
Organic
Content
Results (%)
Organic
Content
Required* (%)
PIT-1, S-1 4.1 ≥ 5 1.46 ≥1.0
* Per the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
Organic content results satisfy county requirements at the PIT site. The CEC value was slightly lower
than required levels, which is not uncommon for glacial till. Additional tests could be considered once
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
9
final infiltration facility locations have been established to assess treatment characteristics in those areas
and the need for remedial measures.
Critical Areas
The alignment traverses ground with overall gentle slopes that are less than 15 percent and would not be
classified as landslide hazard areas per Chapter 21A.06.680 of the King County Municipal Code
(KCMC). Locally steeper slopes are present along two areas of the alignment with maximum slope
inclinations on the order of 20 (+/-) percent. However, evidence of hillside seepage or a soil profile of
permeable granular soil over impermeable soil was not observed on these slopes. Evidence of recent or
historic slope movement was not observed. The trunks of mature fir and cedar trees on steeper slopes
were generally straight. As such, site slopes are not considered landslide hazard areas. Construction of
the road on site slopes should not adversely impact stability with proper construction techniques and
drainage control.
Site soils have a low to moderate potential for erosion. Construction on sloping ground will increase the
potential for erosion and added erosion control measures may be necessary. It is our opinion that Best
Management Practices (BMP) for erosion control (silt fencing, straw bales, etc) can be utilized such that
the risk of off-site transport of sediment is limited during construction on this site. Additional erosion
control measures may be necessary if earthwork is scheduled during the wet ter seasons. All erosion
control provisions should be in compliance with City of Federal Way (or King County) regulations to
reduce the risk of off-site transport of sediments. Exposed soils following all construction should be
vegetated as soon as possible. Irrigation should not be allowed on or near site slopes. Temporary and
permanent stormwater control measures should prevent concentrated flow onto site slopes.
REPORT CONDITIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of David Evans and Associates, and the Puyallup
Tribe for specific application to the project discussed, and has been prepared in accordance with generally
accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. No warranties, either express or implied, are
intended or made. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based on observed soil
conditions and test results at the indicated locations, and from other geologic information discussed. This
report does not reflect variations that may occur across the sites, or due to the modifying effects of
construction, or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during
or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation
and supplemental recommendations can be provided.
This report was prepared for the planned type of development of the site as discussed herein. It is not
valid for third party entities or alternate types of development on the site without the express written
consent of SSGC. If development plans change we should be notified to review those changes and modify
our recommendations as necessary.
N
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting
P.O. Box 39500
Lakewood, WA 98496
(253) 973-0515
Figure 1 – Exploration Plan
Puyallup Tribe Cemetery Road
King County, WA SSGC Project #19100
Approximate Test Pit Location
PIT - 1
TP - 1
PIT - 1
Approximate Infiltration Test
Location
Scale: NTS
Base map from drawing provided by David
Evans and Associates, Inc..
TP-1
Legend
TP-2
TP-3
PIT-1
TP-1
TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
TP-10
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
NOA Parking Expansion
3424 Burwell Street
Bremerton, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19012
March 14, 2019
Appendix A
Field Exploration Procedures and Test Pit Logs
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
A-1
Field Exploration Procedures
Our field exploration for this project included ten test pits and one infiltration test completed on
December 4, 2019. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 1, Exploration
Plan. Test pit locations were determined by pacing from site features. Ground surface elevations
referenced on the logs were inferred from topographic information completed by David Evans and
Associates. Test pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
means and methods used.
A private excavation contractor subcontracted to SSGC dug the test pits and infiltration test hole. Soil
samples were collected and stored in moisture tight containers for further assessment and laboratory
testing. Explorations were backfilled with excavated soils and tamped when completed. Please note
backfill in the explorations may settle with time. Backfill material located in pavement or building areas
should be re-excavated and recompacted, or replaced with structural fill.
The following logs indicate the observed lithology of soils and other materials observed in the
explorations at the time of excavation. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our log
indicates the average contact depth. Our logs also indicate the approximate depth to groundwater (where
observed at the time of excavation), along with sample numbers and approximate sample depths. Soil
descriptions on the logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification System.
Project: Cemetery Road SSGC Job # 19100 TEST PIT LOGS PAGE 1 OF 4
Location: Federal Way, WA
TEST PIT LOGS FIGURE A-1
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting TP-1 TO TP-10 Logged by: THR
Test Pit TP-1
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 0.5
0.5 – 1.5
1.5 – 4
Topsoil
Silty SAND with occasional gravel and roots: Loose to
medium dense, moist, brown.
Silty SAND with gravel and occasional cobble: Medium
dense, moist, grayish brown. (Sandy Glacial Till)
Test pit completed at approximately feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 154 feet
Test Pit TP-2
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 0.5
0.5 – 2
2 - 5
Topsoil
Silty SAND with occasional gravel: Medium dense, moist,
brown.
SAND with silt, gravel and occasional cobble: Medium
dense to dense, moist, gray. (Sample S-1 @ 3.5 feet)(Sandy
Glacial Till)
Test pit completed at approximately 5 feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 150 feet
Test Pit TP-3
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 1
1 – 3.5
3.5 – 5
Topsoil
Silty SAND with occasional gravel: Loose, damp, light
brown.
Silty SAND with gravel: Medium dense to dense, moist,
gray. (Sandy Glacial Till)
Test pit completed at approximately 5 feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 140 feet
Project: Cemetery Road SSGC Job # 19100 TEST PIT LOGS PAGE 2 OF 4
Location: Federal Way, WA
TEST PIT LOGS FIGURE A-1
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting TP-1 TO TP-10 Logged by: THR
Test Pit TP-4
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 1
1 – 3
3 – 4
4 – 5
Topsoil
SAND with silt, roots, and occasional gravel: Loose, damp,
light brown.
Silty SAND with gravel and occasional cobble: Medium
dense, moist, light brown.
Silty SAND with gravel: Dense, moist, gray. (Sandy Glacial
Till)
Test pit completed at approximately 5 feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 132 feet
Test Pit TP-5
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 0.5
0.5 – 1.5
1.5 – 2.5
2.5 – 5
Topsoil
Silty SAND with occasional gravel: Loose, moist, mottled
orange-brown.
Silty SAND with gravel and occasional cobble: Medium
dense, moist, light brown.
SAND with silt, gravel, cobbles and boulder: Medium dense
to dense, moist, gray. (Sandy Glacial Till)
Test pit completed at approximately 5 feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 120 feet
Project: Cemetery Road SSGC Job # 19100 TEST PIT LOGS PAGE 3 OF 4
Location: Federal Way, WA
TEST PIT LOGS FIGURE A-1
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting TP-1 TO TP-10 Logged by: THR
Test Pit TP-6
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 1
1 – 3
3 – 5
Topsoil
Silty SAND with gravel: Loose, moist, brown.
SAND with silt, gravel, and occasional cobble: Medium
dense to dense, moist, gray. (Sandy Glacial Till)
Test pit completed at approximately 5 feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 116 feet
Test Pit TP-7
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 0.5
0.5 – 3
3 – 4
Topsoil
Silty SAND with occasional gravel: Loose, moist, grayish
brown.
SAND with silt, gravel, and occasional cobble: Medium
dense to dense, moist, gray. (Sandy Glacial Till)
Test pit completed at approximately 4 feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 104 feet
Test Pit TP-8
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 1.5
1.5 – 4
Fill over Topsoil
Sandy SILT with occasional gravel: Stiff, moist, light brown.
Test pit completed at approximately 4 feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 54 feet
Project: Cemetery Road SSGC Job # 19100 TEST PIT LOGS PAGE 4 OF 4
Location: Federal Way, WA
TEST PIT LOGS FIGURE A-1
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting TP-1 TO TP-10 Logged by: THR
Test Pit TP-9
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 1
1 – 2.5
2.5 – 4
Topsoil
Silty SAND with occasional gravel: Loose to medium dense,
moist, grayish brown.
Silty SAND with gravel and occasional cobble: Dense to
very dense, moist, gray. (Sandy Glacial Till)
Test pit completed at approximately 4 feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 110 feet
Test Pit TP-10
Depth (feet)
Material Description
0 – 1
1 – 3
3 – 5
Topsoil
Sandy SILT with occasional gravel: Stiff, moist, light brown.
Silty SAND with gravel and occasional cobble: Dense to
very dense, moist, gray. (Sandy Glacial Till)
Test pit completed at approximately 5 feet on 12/4/19.
Groundwater not observed at time of excavation.
Approximate surface elevation: 112 feet
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
NOA Parking Expansion
3424 Burwell Street
Bremerton, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19012
March 14, 2019
Appendix B
Laboratory Testing and Results
Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
Cemetery Road
King County, Washington
SSGC Project No. 19100
January 7, 2020
B-1
Laboratory Testing
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and organic content tests were completed by Northwest Agriculture
Consultants of Kennewick, Washington on samples from the PIT test site. Results of the laboratory testing
are included in this appendix.
2545 W Falls Avenue
Kennewick, WA 99336
509.783.7450
www.nwag.com
lab@nwag.com
Sample ID Organic Matter Cation Exchange Capacity
PIT-1, S-1 1.46% 4.1 meq/100g
Method ASTM D2974 EPA 9081
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting
PO Box 39500
Lakewood, WA 98496
Report: 50142-1-1
Date: December 10, 2019
Project No: 19100
Project Name: Cemetery Road
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification
Group
Symbol
Group NameB
Coarse Grained Soils
More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve
Gravels
More than 50% of coarse
fraction retained on
No. 4 sieve
Clean Gravels
Less than 5% finesC
Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3E GW Well-graded gravelF
Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3E GP Poorly graded gravelF
Gravels with Fines
More than 12% finesC
Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF,G, H
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF,G,H
Sands
50% or more of coarse
fraction passes
No. 4 sieve
Clean Sands
Less than 5% finesD
Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3E SW Well-graded sandI
Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3E SP Poorly graded sandI
Sands with Fines
More than 12% finesD
Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG,H,I
Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG,H,I
Fine-Grained Soils
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit less than 50
inorganic PI 7 and plots on or above “A” lineJ CL Lean clayK,L,M
PI 4 or plots below “A” lineJ ML SiltK,L,M
organic Liquid limit - oven dried 0.75 OL Organic clayK,L,M,N
Liquid limit - not dried Organic siltK,L,M,O
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit 50 or more
inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK,L,M
PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic SiltK,L,M
organic Liquid limit - oven dried 0.75 OH Organic clayK,L,M,P
Liquid limit - not dried Organic siltK,L,M,Q
Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve
B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles
or boulders, or both” to group name.
C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well-graded
gravel with silt, GW -GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well-graded
sand with silt, SW -SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =
6010
2
30
DxD
)(D
F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.
HIf fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with
gravel,” whichever is predominant.
L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add
“sandy” to group name.
M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel,
add “gravelly” to group name.
N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.
P PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q PI plots below “A” line.