HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Wetland Report_Neilson short plat_201021_v1.pdfPrepared for
Kris Nielsen
Renton, WA
Prepared by
Land Services Northwest
120 State Avenue NE #190
Olympia, WA 98501
May 18, 2020
Nielsen Short Plat
Renton , WA
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 1-Vicinity Map, Parcel -#3345570-0130 ......................................................................................... 2
2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE ........................................................................................... 3
2.1 Historical and Current Land Use ........................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 - Current Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 4
3.1 Existing Information Review ................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Analysis of Existing Information ........................................................................................................ 4
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map ............................................................................................................... 4
NRCS Soils Map ................................................................................................................................................... 4
USGS 7.5 Minute Topo Map ................................................................................................................................. 7
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Inventory ................................................................................................... 7
NOAA NOW Precipitation Data ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Field Investigation ................................................................................................................. 8
Determination Guidelines ...................................................................................................................................... 8
General Field Guidelines ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 1 Indicator Status Ratings ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.4 Wetland Study ....................................................................................................................... 9
Field Survey ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 – Test Pit Locations ............................................................................................................................... 10
4.0 RESULTS........................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 11
4.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 11
Wetland A ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUES .................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Wetland Functional Analysis Methodology ........................................................................ 11
5.2 Wetland Functions ............................................................................................................. 12
Wetland A ............................................................................................................................................................ 12
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................... 13
ii
6.1 City of Renton Regulations ................................................................................................................ 13
Wetland A ............................................................................................................................................................ 13
Insert Figure 4 /Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 2 - Summary of Wetlands and Streams on or in the Vicinity of the Subject Property ............................... 16
6.2 Corps Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 16
6.3 Department of Ecology Regulations ................................................................................................. 16
7.0 WILDLIFE ......................................................................................................................................... 16
8.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................................................ 16
8.1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 16
8.2 Development Impacts ......................................................................................................... 17
8.3 Impact Avoidance and Minimization .................................................................................. 17
8.4 Minimization of Water Quality Impacts .............................................................................. 17
9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 17
10.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 17
11.0 REFERENCE ...................................................................................................................................... 18
iii
Executive Summary
Site Name: Nielsen Short Plat
Site Location, Acreage: 3835 Lincoln Ave NE, 0.926777 acres
Parcel Number and Legal Description: 3345570-0130, HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN # 7 LOT 1
OF KC SHORT PLAT #586039 REC #8702110422 SD SP DAF - LOT 6 OF SD SUBD
Project Staff: Alex Callender, MS, PWS
Field Survey Conducted: January 17, 2020
Project Description: The project proposes a short plat to divide the site into two separate parcels
Findings: Wetland A was discovered on and offsite. Wetland A is a Shrub -scrub slope wetland. In
accordance with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050.G.9.c. Wetland Categorization or Categorization
System. Wetland A was rated using the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014)
as a Category IV wetland with an overall score of 14 and a habitat score of four (LLM). The project will
create a residential lot which will not be a low impact land use intensity. The wetland buffer for a
Category IV wetland (All Other Uses) would be 50 feet with a fifteen-foot setback. A native growth area
protection area via a protected tract and deed restriction will be established for the wetland and its
associated buffer in accordance with RMC 4-3-050G.3.e.i
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
1
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is the result of a critical areas study of the 0.926777acre parcel #3345570-0130 with the
legal description of HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN # 7 LOT 1 OF KC SHORT PLAT
#586039 REC #8702110422 SD SP DAF - LOT 6 OF SD SUBD in Renton, Washington (Figure 1).
The purpose of this report is to 1) identify and describe the wetlands or other critical areas on-site and
within 315 ft off-site of the property 2) identify impacts to wetlands or critical areas and their buffers,
and 3) apply mitigation and conservation measures to off-set any critical areas or buffer impacts.
This report was prepared to satisfy the critical areas review process required by the Renton Municipal
Code Area 4-3-050-F.
The City of Renton and possibly other agencies that may evaluate impacts to critical areas from the
proposed project will be able to utilize information in this report.
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
2
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Figure 1-Vicinity Map, Parcel -#3345570-0130
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
3
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE
2.1 Historical and Current Land Use
Historically, the property has been a residential lot has a single-family residence and a separate garage
with a driveway for ingress and egress. The property has Lincoln Avenue NE to the east, single-family
residences to the north and south, and a vacant lot to the west (Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Current Conditions
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
4
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Existing Information Review
Background information on possible wetlands and other critical areas was reviewed prior to field
investigations and included the following:
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map, USFWS Shapefile Data (Appendix B)
King County Area Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973) National
Resource Conservation Service Shapefiles (NRCS Soils Data Mart, 2006) (Appendix C)
USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Maps (Appendix D)
Washington Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Mapping Tool (Appendix E)
King County and City of Renton Critical Areas Shapefiles (Appendix F)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database (Appendix G)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Salmonscape (Appendix G)
NOAA NOW Precipitation Data (Appendix H)
Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Database
United States Hydric Soils List (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991)
City of Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050
3.2 Analysis of Existing Information
An analysis of the above information follows.
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map (Appendix B), developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), shows a riverine unconsolidated bed wetland located to the west of Jones Ave NE over
three hundred feet from the subject property.
NRCS Soils Map
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the site (Appendix C) as containing:
•Alderwood Kitsap Complex
•Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
5
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Everett Series
Landscape--glacial drift plains
Landform--outwash terraces and escarpment
ts, kames, moraines, eskers
Slope--0 to 65 percent
Parent material--glacial outwash
Mean annual precipitation--about 1050 mm
Mean annual temperature--about 10 degrees C
Depth class--very deep
Drainage class--somewhat excessively drained
Soil moisture regime--xeric
Soil temperature regime--mesic
Soil moisture subclass--typic
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Sandy-skeletal, isotic, mesic Humic Dystroxerepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Everett very gravelly sandy loam on a forested north-facing slope of 3 percent at 150
meters elevation. When described on October 21, 2009, the soil was slightly moist throughout.
TYPE LOCATION: Thurston County, Washington; Joint Base Lewis-McChord; about 629m east and 566m
south of NW corner of sec. 3, T. 17 N., R. 1 E., Willamette Meridian; Tenalquot Prairie, Washington, U.S.
Geological Survey quadrangle; latitude: 46.99097 north, longitude: 122.66686 degrees west, WGS84
(coordinates estimated from PLSS details)
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
*Mean annual soil temperature--9 to 12 degrees C
*Soil Moisture control section--dry 60 to 75 days following the summer solstice
*Reaction (pH)-- 4.5 to 6.0
*Base Saturation (by NH4OAc)--less than 60 percent in all horizons at a depth between 25 and 75 cm
from the mineral soil surface
Particle size control section (weighted average):
* Clay content--2 to 10 percent
*Rock fragments:
*Total--35 to 85 percent
DRAINAGE AND SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY:
*Drainage class--somewhat excessively drained
*Flooding--none
*Ponding--none
*Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat)--high in the A horizon and high to very high in the Bw and C
horizons
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
6
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
USE AND VEGETATION:
*Use--livestock grazing, timber production, urban development
*Potential natural vegetation-- bigleaf maple, red alder, Douglas-fir, western redcedar, western
hemlock, salal, hairy brackenfern, red huckleberry, Nootka rose, oceanspray, Cascade Oregongrape, and
orange honeysuckle
Alderwood Series
Landscape--glacial drift plains
Landform--glacially modified hills and ridges
Slope--0 to 65 percent
Parent material-- glacial drift and outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits
Mean annual precipitation--about 1000 mm
Mean annual temperature--about 10 degrees C
Depth class--moderately deep to densic contact
Drainage class--moderately well drained
Soil moisture regime--xeric
Soil temperature regime--mesic
Soil moisture subclass--aquic
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, isotic, mesic Aquic Dystroxerepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, forested
TYPE LOCATION: Snohomish County, Washington; about 8 km east of Lynnwood on Maltby road;
61 m south and 122 m east of the center of sec. 28, T. 27 N., R. 5 E., Willamette Meridian;
Bothell, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle; latitude: 47.798000, longitude:
122.176000 degrees west, WGS84 (coordinates estimated from PLSS details)
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
*Mean annual soil temperature--10 to 12 degrees C
*Soil moisture control section--dry 60 to 75 consecutive days following the summer solstice
*Depth to densic contact--50 to 100 cm
*Depth to redoximorphic features with chroma of 2 or less--45 to 75 cm
*Reaction (pH)--5.1 to 6.5
Particle-size control section (weighted average):
*Clay content: 5 to 15 percent
*Rock fragments: 35 to 65 percent
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING:
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
7
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Elevation--0 to 250 m
Mean annual precipitation--410 to 1500 mm
Mean annual air temperature--9 to 11 C
Frost free period--180 to 240
DRAINAGE AND SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY:
*Drainage class--moderately well drained
*Depth to perched seasonal water table--30 to 90 cm at times in December through April
*Flooding--none
*Ponding--none
*Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat)--high saturated hydraulic conductivity above the densic
contact and low saturated hydraulic conductivity in the densic material
USE AND VEGETATION:
*Use--timber production, crop production, wildlife habitat, watershed
*Potential natural vegetation-- Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, red alder with
an understory of salal, Oregon-grape, western brackenfern, western swordfern, Pacific
rhododendron, red huckleberry, evergreen huckleberry, and orange honeysuckle
USGS 7.5 Minute Topo Map
The USGS has topographical maps that depict natural and artificial features on the landscape including
wetlands. This map shows. (Appendix D).
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Inventory
The Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains an inventory of priority habitats and species information
(Appendix G). This database does not show any priority habitats or species. No threatened or
endangered species polygons or points are located within 300 feet of the subject property.
The WDFW Salmonscape data was viewed to determine the status of fish use in the area. No stream or
fish use is found on site or within 300 feet of the property.
WADNR Forest Practices and Stream Type Map
The WADNR has a map of stream types for forest practices. This map does not show any streams onsite
or within 300feet of the property.
NOAA NOW Precipitation Data
NOAA maintains a database that graphs the current precipitation against the wettest, driest, and normal
accumulations of record. This data shows that the precipitation since December 20, 2019 has been
wetter than normal. This is measured at the Seatac Airport (Appendix H).
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
8
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
3.3 Field Investigation
Determination Guidelines
Land Services Northwest based its wetland identification and delineation upon the 1987 Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the regional specificity
found in Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Generally, as outlined in the
manuals, wetlands are distinguished from other landforms by three criteria: 1) hydrophytic vegetation,
2) hydric soils, and 3) wetland hydrology.
General Field Guidelines
Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy in Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and
Cronquist, 1973), and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to: The National
Wetland Plant List: 2016 (Lichvar, 2016). Wetland classes were determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s system of wetland classification (FGDC, 2013). The wetland determination was based mainly
on soils, vegetation, and hydrology characteristics indicative of wetland conditions.
The Corps Manual and Supplement describes soil, vegetation, and hydrological indicators of wetlands. A
hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper par (National Technical Committee for
Hydric Soils, 1994). Anaerobic conditions cause redoximorphic features to develop, which can be
evidenced through the observation of mottling or gleying in the soil. Soils are hydric if they match the
indicators in the supplement or meet the technical definition.
A soils evaluation was performed to determine if the area contained hydric soils. Additional test plots
were sampled to gage possible wetland indicators and characteristics. Soils are normally excavated to
18 inches or more below the surface within a test pit to evaluate soil characteristics and hydrological
conditions in both wetland and upland areas. Soil chroma (color) is evaluated using the Munsell Color
Chart (Munsell Color, 1988).
The COE describe a wetland rating system for plants. Each plant species is assigned a probability of
occurrence within wetlands, which is referred to as its wetland status. The wetland plant indicator
system is as follows:
Table 1 Indicator Status Ratings
Indicator Status Abrv. Definitions - Short Version ( ERDC/CRREL TN-12-1 )
Obligate OBL Almost always occur in wetlands.
Facultative Wetland FACW Usually occur in wetlands but may occur in non-wetlands.
Facultative FAC Occur in wetlands and nonwetlands.
Facultative Upland FACU Usually occur in non-wetlands but may occur in wetlands.
Upland UPL Almost never occur in wetlands.
(USACE, 2016)
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
9
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
In general, under the Federal methodology, more than 50 percent of the predominant plant species
within a test plot must be rated FAC or wetter (i.e., FACW, OBL) to satisfy the wetland criteria for
hydrophytic vegetation. Dominant species are those when ranked comprise 50% of the total or those
that have a percent cover greater or equal to 20 percent within the test plot. Only dominant plant
species were considered in the data analysis.
If wetland hydrology, including pooling, ponding, and soil saturation, is not clearly evident, hydrological
conditions may be observed through surface or soil indicators. Indicators of hydrological conditions
include drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, historic records, visual
observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation.
3.4 Wetland Study
Field Survey
A wetland reconnaissance was performed December 14, 2019 to identify wetlands present on the
subject property. Observations were made of the general plant communities, wildlife habitats, and the
locations of potential streams and wetland areas. Present and past land-use practices were also noted,
as were significant geological and hydrological features
Once likely wetland areas were located, the Routine Onsite Determination Method was used to identify
the presence of wetland parameters and to delineate the outer edge of the wetlands using the
procedures outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). The Routine Onsite Determination Method was used in areas that maintained normal
circumstances, were not significantly disturbed, and were not potential problem areas. A formal
wetland delineation was performed on August 24, 2019 to flag and document on-site wetlands and to
identify and map off-site wetlands within 315 feet of the subject property as we are able.
Test pits were dug on January 17, 2020 (Figure 3) to develop a better understanding of soil profiles
onsite. Soils were excavated to 18 inches or more below the surface within a test pit to evaluate soil
characteristics and hydrological conditions throughout the site. Soil chroma (color) is evaluated using
the Munsell Color Chart (Munsell Color, 1988). These results were entered in wetland data sheets
(Appendix G).
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
10
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Figure 3 – Test Pit Locations
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
11
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Existing Conditions
The subject property is a relatively flat residential lot in the east along Lincoln Avenue NE. The property
has a slope to the west on the western portion of the slope.
4.2 Wetlands
One wetland, labeled Wetland A were identified during a reconnaissance and formally investigated on
January 17, 2020.
Wetland A
The wetland is a slope wetland that starts at a relatively consistent elevation along the hillside. It
appears that the wetland flows to a depressional wetland at the base of the slope. Because the wetland
A has a separate source of hydrology and has significantly different functions, the wetlands was rated as
a slope wetland and not a depressional wetland.
Plants
Red alder (Alnus rubra; FAC), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata; FAC), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus
armeniacus; FAC), and horsetail (Equisetum arvense; FAC).
Soils
Soils were the secondary indicator of wetlands on the site. Soils in Wetland A are gravelly loam 10YR
3/1 mineral silt loam with a dark grayish brown (10YR 5/2) with many dark yellowish brown
redoximorphic features (10YR 5/6) below the A horizon. The delineation of the wetland area closely
follows the topography of the site where the hydric soils are limited to the lower portion of the hillslope.
Hydrology
It was the rainy season, so hydrology was directly observed at the edge. There was a break in slope at
the point where hydrology was found.
5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUES
5.1 Wetland Functional Analysis Methodology
Wetlands, in general, provide many valuable ecological and social functions, including:
1) stormwater storage, 2) groundwater recharge, 3) erosion control, 4) water quality improvement, 5)
natural biological support, 6) overall habitat functions, 7) specific habitat functions, and 8) cultural and
socioeconomic value.
Several procedures have been developed for assessing the importance and magnitude of functions and
include the Washington Functional Assessment Method (WAFAM) Wetland Evaluation Technique, the
Hydrogeomorphic Assessment Method the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), and numerous regional
and/or local procedures. However, none of these methods were consistent with the needs of this
project.
Wetland functions were also semi-quantitatively assessed using information gathered while performing
the ECY Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). The scores from the analysis of
the wetland are found in Appendix H. This method is a comprehensive approach requiring substantial
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
12
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
data input and assessment of onsite and landscape functions. The descriptions of wetland functions and
the factors and parameters considered by that method are very helpful in interpreting the functioning of
the subject wetlands and buffer areas. The methodology is scientifically based, in that its application
requires a prior understanding of how wetlands function. Advanced experience, training and scientific
objectivity of a wetland scientist applying the method is essential for an accurate assessment. Alex
Callender has attended and received credit for the training in this method.
5.2 Wetland Functions
Wetland A
Wetland A is an approximately 2 acre on and offsite slope wetland. Wetland A extends off site to the
north.
Water Quality Functions
Wetland A has steep slope, but it does not have dense herbaceous vegetation. The slope has a
lot of invasive Himalyan blackberry and some Bohemian knotweed. It has development above it
within 150 feet, so it has the opportunity to filter out contaminants and silt. No stormwater is
directed to the wetland and there is more than 10% of the overall land use within 150 feet.
There are 303d listed waters in the area and it appears that there is a TMDL in the Basin.
Hydrologic Functions
Generally, slope wetlands do not perform many hydrologic functions as they are limited by their
slope nature. This wetland slope lacks dense vegetation for half of its area so probably does not
attenuate the flood pulse. It is not named as important in the basin for these functions.
Habitat Functions
Wetland A has two vegetation classes Forested and emergent, and one hydroperiod as it is
seasonally flooded. The wetland is not very diverse, and it has a simple shrub scrub structure.
There are high intensity developments in the area, so it rates low for its position in the
landscape for this function. There are snags and logs, so the wetland has moderate habitat
functions.
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
13
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 City of Renton Regulations
Wetland A
Wetland A was rated using the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014) in
accordance with RMC 4-3-050.G.9.c as Category IV wetland with an overall score of 14, and a score of
4(LLM) for Habitat. According to the Table 2 uses the land use intensity for the subject property and the
habitat score to determine buffers. The subject property is less than one unit per acre and would not be
considered low intensity so it would be all other land use and Category IV wetland.
Therefore, the wetland will carry a 50-foot Category IV buffer with a fifteen-foot building setback.
Critical Area Category or
Type Critical Area Buffer Width Structure Setback
beyond Buffer1
Flood Hazard Areas
Flood Hazard Areas None None
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Steep Slopes:2
Sensitive Slopes None3 None3, 4
Protected Slopes5 None3 15 ft.1
Landslide Hazards:2
Low None3 None3, 4
Medium None3 None3, 4
High None3 None3, 4
Very High5 50 ft. 15 ft.1
Erosion Hazards:
Low None None
High None None
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
14
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Critical Area Category or
Type Critical Area Buffer Width Structure Setback
beyond Buffer1
Seismic Hazards:
Low None None
High None None
Coal Mine Hazards:
Low None3 None3
Medium None3 None3
High None3 None3
Habitat Conservation Areas
Critical Habitats Established by Administrator per RMC 4-3-050G 15 ft.1
Streams and Lakes5
Type F 115 ft. 15 ft.1
Type Np 75 ft. 15 ft.1
Type Ns 50 ft. 15 ft.1
Wellhead Protection Areas
Zones 1 and 2 None None
Wetlands6
Low Impact Land Uses:7
High
Habitat
Function
(8-9 points)
Moderate
Habitat
Function
(5-7 points)
Low
Habitat
Function
(3-4 points)
All Other
Scores 15 ft.1
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
15
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Critical Area Category or
Type Critical Area Buffer Width Structure Setback
beyond Buffer1
Category I – Bogs &
Natural Heritage
Wetlands
175 ft.
Category I – All Others 175 ft. 125 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft.
Category II 150 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. n/a
Category III 100 ft. 75 ft. 50 ft. n/a
Category IV 40 ft. n/a
All Other Land Uses:
High
Habitat
Function
(8-9 points)
Moderate
Habitat
Function
(5-7 points)
Low
Habitat
Function
(3-4 points)
All Other
Scores
15 ft.1
Category I – Bogs &
Natural Heritage
Wetlands
200 ft.
Category I – All Others 200 ft. 150 ft. 115 ft. 115 ft.
Category II 175 ft. 150 ft. 100 ft. n/a
Category III 125 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. n/a
Category IV 50 ft. n/a
Insert Figure 4 /Site Plan
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
16
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Table 2 - Summary of Wetlands and Streams on or in the Vicinity of the Subject Property
Wetla
nd
Size Category Base Buffer Width (feet) Building setback (feet) Mitigation Ratio Cowardin Class Comments On-site Off-site (estimated) Lewis County DOE Create Enhance Wetla
nd A1 ~3 acres ∼.1
acre IV IV 50 15 None
needed N/A PSSC
No
wetland
impacts
1. Palustrine Shrub Scrub Seasonally Flooded
6.2 Corps Regulations
Wetland A flows off site and into the creek below and finally eventually to the Puget Sound, therefore, it
would be maintained as a Water of the US and regulated under the Clean Water Act. No impacts are
proposed to Wetland A
6.3 Department of Ecology Regulations
Under RCW 90.48, the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) reserves regulatory authority to
regulate “waters of the state” under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. No wetland impacts are
proposed.
7.0 WILDLIFE
Wildlife observed during the field investigations are typical of urban/suburban adapted species (Table
2). The European starling, American crow, opossum, and other species adapted to urbanization may
inhabit or visit the site for food and shelter.
No other Federally listed, or priority species was observed on the subject property or near the site based
on the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and field observations during the reconnaissance and
delineation. During the limited duration of the site reconnaissance and delineation, no evidence of the
Federally listed Bald Eagle, Marbled Murrelet, or Spotted Owl was observed on-site.
No Federally listed salmonid species are known to occur on-site, based on the WDFW SalmonScape
database, the WDFW PHS database, and site reconnaissance (Appendix H).
No wildlife was observed on site during site visit.
8.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
8.1 Description
The project consists of a short plat for the purpose of creating a new residential lot. (See Site Plan)
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
17
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
8.2 Development Impacts
No direct or indirect impacts to the wetland is expected.
8.3 Impact Avoidance and Minimization
The newly created property is currently vacant land. No buffers or building setbacks will encumber this
lot as the 50-foot steep slope buffer falls on the existing remaining lot.
8.4 Minimization of Water Quality Impacts
This is a non-project action and plans to build or develop on the newly created lot will implement the
mitigation sequence of avoidance and minimization to protect critical areas functions and values. No
impacts are proposed at this time.
9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
One wetland was identified on and within 315 feet of the subject property. Wetland A is a Category IV
wetland maintaining a 50-foot buffer with a fifteen-foot building setback. The project will create a new
residential lot that will result in a sustainable developable lot that will co-exist with the natural resources
of the City of Renton.
10.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was created with care and best professional judgment using the current best available science,
but the report is subject to interpretation by local state and federal regulators who have the final
regulatory authority on wetlands and other boundary determinations. No outcomes are warranted by
this report.
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
18
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
11.0 REFERENCE
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data
Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press.
730 pp.
Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
(Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.
Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service. December 5.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016.
The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings.
Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X
Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland.
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). 2015. The hydric soil technical
standard. Hydric Soils Technical Note 11. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_
DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051608.pdf (accessed 19 September 2016).
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. G.W.
Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.). USDA,NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R.
W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
USDA, NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 5/28/2017).
National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
19
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
http://plants.usda.gov
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Lacey Quadrangle.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington. Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. August.2014
Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. Water Quality Assessment for Washington. Accessed April
30, 2017. http//fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wqamapviewer/default.aspx?res-1280x720
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive
Vascular Plants of Washington.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. Species of concern: State candidate species.
WDFW. Olympia, WA.
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
20
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Appendix A
Photographs
NEAR TP1
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
21
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
22
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
SLOPE BREAK
WETLAND AREA WITH HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
23
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
24
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
LOOKING TO THE WEST
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
25
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
26
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Appendix B
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
NWI MAP
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
27
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
28
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Appendix C
King County NRCS
Soil Survey Map
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
29
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
30
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
31
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
32
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
APPENDIX D
USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
33
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Appendix E
Forest Practices Stream Type Map
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
34
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
35
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Appendix F
City of Renton and King County Wetland and Stream
Shapefiles
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
36
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
37
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Appendix G
WDFW PHS and Salmonscape Data
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
38
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
39
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
40
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
41
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Appendix H
NOAA NOW Precipitation Data
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
42
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
43
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
Appendix I
WETLAND DATA SHEETS
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: Nielsen
City/County: Renton King Sampling Date: 12.23.2019
Applicant/Owner: Kris Neilsen State: WA Sampling Point: TP1
Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): 2 Lat: Long: Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Kitsap NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X 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 x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No x
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks: No hydrology found. Or Indicators of hydrology
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1. Alnus rubra
25 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
25 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Rubus spectabilis 55 Yes FAC
2. Rubus armeniacus
5 No FAC
3.
4.
5.
60 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Polysticum munitum 65
Yes FACU
2. Rubus ursinus 5 No FACU
3.
4.
5.
6. I
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
70 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - 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 X No
Above slope break
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: tp1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10yr3/2 100 C M Siloam
8-20
10yr4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M
Ggravelly
loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) x Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches):
F3 Hydric Soil indicator found
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 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: hydro at 14
NO HYDRO Dug 20 inches after period of rain. Returned in January still no hydro.
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: Nielsen
City/County: Renton King Sampling Date: 12,23.2019
Applicant/Owner: Kris Nielsen State: WA Sampling Point: Tp2
Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): 2 Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood/Kitsap NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X 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 x
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No x
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1. Acer macrophyllum
25 Yes FACU
2.
3.
4.
25 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Rubus spectabilis 30 Yes FAC
2. Oemleria cerasiformis
30 Yes FACU
3.
4.
5.
60 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Polysticum munitum 25
Yes FACU
2. Rubus ursinus 25 Yes FACU
3.
4.
5.
6. I
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 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:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - 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 x
Inside of trees
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: tp2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10yr4/2 100 C M gravelly loam
6-18
10yr5/3 100 Gravelly loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches):
No hydric soils indicators
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 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
No hydrology or indicators of hydrology found.
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: Nielsen
City/County: Renton King Sampling Date: 12,23.2019
Applicant/Owner: Kris Neilsen State: WA Sampling Point: TP3
Investigator(s): Alex Callender Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 15-50
Subregion (LRR): 2 Lat: Long: Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x N
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X 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 x No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:Right at slope break. Obvious change in vegetation, after rains, hydrology found
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Rubus spectabilis 5 No FAC
2. Rubus armeniacus
70 Yes FAC
3.
4.
5.
75 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Equisetum arvense 55
Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. I
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
55 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - 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 X No
Inside of trees
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: tp3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features
Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 3/1 100 C M Gavelly loam
6-18
10YR 5/2 80 10YR 5/8 20 Gravelly loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) x Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches):
F3 Indicator found
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 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
High Water Table (A2) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living
Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled
Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe) Yes X No Depth (inches): 3
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Hydro at 4
Hydrology found within 12 inches of the surface
Wetland Delineation and Assessment Report Nielsen Short Plat
44
Land Services Northwest May 18, 2020
APPENDIX J
ECY WETLAND RATING FORMS FOR WESTERN
WASHINGTON
ACRES PERCENTAGE
Land Use Intensity 1KM
1KM 946
High Intensity 494 0.522198732
Low Moderate Intensity 278 0.293868922
Relatively Undisturbed 174 0.183932347
Accessible Habitat 112 0.118393235
Relatively Undisturbed 40 0.042283298
High Intensity 2 0.002114165
Low Intensity 70 0.073995772
Wetland name or number
Name of wetland (or ID #):Date of site visit:1/17/2020
Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training Dec-13
HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No
NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ).
Source of base aerial photo/map
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions or special characteristics )
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each
Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based
Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three
X Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important )
L L 9 = H, H, H
M L 8 = H, H, M
L M Total 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
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
X
King Co 2017 Aerial
Wetland A
Alex Callender
Coastal Lagoon
Interdunal
Value
Score Based on
Ratings 6 4 4 14
H
Improving
Water Quality
LSite Potential
Landscape Potential M
FUNCTION
None of the above
CHARACTERISTIC Category
Estuarine
Wetland of High Conservation Value
Bog
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
Habitat
Slope
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
List appropriate rating (H, M, L)
Hydrologic
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
Hydroperiods
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods )
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )
Map of the contributing basin
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
Hydroperiods
Ponded depressions
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure )
Map of the contributing basin
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
Slope Wetlands
Map of: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes Cowardin
Hydroperiods Hydro
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants N/A
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to another figure )
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure )150FT
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
N/A
1km
To answer questions:
D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
D 1.4, H 1.2
D 1.1, D 4.1
D 2.2, D 5.2
D 4.3, D 5.3
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
D 3.1, D 3.2
D 3.3
To answer questions:
H 1.1, H 1.4
H 1.2
R 1.1
R 2.4
R 1.2, R 4.2
R 4.1
R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
L 1.2
L 2.2
L 3.1, L 3.2
L 3.3
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
R 3.1
R 3.2, R 3.3
To answer questions:
L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
S 4.1
S 2.1, S 5.1
To answer questions:
H 1.1, H 1.4
H 1.2
S 1.3
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website)303D
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web)
1km
S 3.1, S 3.2
S 3.3
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
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
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?
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 leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.
If 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.
HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington
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.
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;
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.
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).
The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding
from that stream or river,
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.
At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional
NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional
Riverine
ESTUARINE
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
Slope + Riverine
Slope + Depressional
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.
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
HGM class to
use in rating
Riverine
Depressional
Lake Fringe
Depressional
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.
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.
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.
Treat as
Slope + Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional + Lake Fringe
Riverine + Lake Fringe
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
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
Yes = 3 No = 0
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 2
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page
Yes = 1 No = 0
Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 - 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Yes = 1 No = 0
Yes = 1 No = 0
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3
Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
SLOPE WETLANDS
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are
not listed in question S 2.1?0
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 )
0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic
(use NRCS definitions ):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.
2
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?1
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
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?0
1
2
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.
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 the unit is found ?
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
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
Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:
points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
SLOPE WETLANDS
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)0
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
1
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood
conveyance in a regional flood control plan?0
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.0
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support 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?
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
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 :
H 1.2. 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 types 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
If you counted:> 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
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
1
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.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row are
HIGH = 3 points
1
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 ).
0
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do
not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple
loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1
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.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 12 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long)
Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6
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 function of the site?
H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit ).
Calculate:
4 % undisturbed habitat + (8 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 8%
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:
18 % undisturbed habitat + (29 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 32.5%
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 1km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -1
Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: 4 - 6 = H 1 - 3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
Site meets ANY of the following criteria:points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see
H 1.1 for list of strata )
3
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the
Department of Natural Resources
1
0
1
-2
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 .
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant
or animal on the state or federal lists)
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 )
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or
regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number
of points.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m 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
watershed plan
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 14 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
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 ).
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 >
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.
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.
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.
WDFW Priority Habitats
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.
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 ).
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/
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.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
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 Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Wetland Type Category
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
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.
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1.
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 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 to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCV
SC 2.4.
Yes = Category I No = Not WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
SC 3.1.
Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2.
Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3.
Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4
SC 3.4.
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
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?
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.
Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation
Value and listed it on their website?
Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list
of Wetlands of High Conservation Value?
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 .
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?
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?
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?
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.
Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir,
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 17 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
p ( ) p , p ,
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?
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 18 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015
Wetland name or number
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
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 larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
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.
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.
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
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).
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 )
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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?
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).
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 19 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015