Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetland Letter_Emerald Crest August 25, 2016 Emerald Crest HOA ℅ Angie Bringier Via email: emerald@ciramail.com Via phone: 206-508-6650 x3604 Re: Emerald Crest property, Wetland Delineation Report The Watershed Company Reference Number: 160707 Dear Angie: On August 8, 2016, ecologists, Katy Crandall and Anna Hoenig, visited the Emerald Crest residential development (parcel #2329780000) in Renton, Washington to screen for jurisdictional wetland and streams within a defined study area. The delineation study is being conducted after the City of Renton issued a violation for potential vegetation clearing in a wetland or buffer located adjacent to a cul-de-sac in the southeast corner of the property. This letter summarizes the findings of this study and details applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This letter also includes a discussion of necessary steps to restore impacts to the wetland and its buffers. The following attachments are included: • Wetland Delineation Sketch • Wetland Determination Data Forms • Ecology Rating Forms Methods Public-domain information on the subject properties was reviewed for this reconnaissance study. These sources include: • USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil maps (WebSoil); • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps; • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web); • Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS); • King County’s GIS mapping website (iMAP); and Wetland Delineation Report Bringier, A. August 25, 2016 Page 2 • City of Renton (COR) maps. The study area was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 (Regional Supplement) (US Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] May 2010). The wetland boundary was determined on the basis of an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Areas meeting the criteria set forth in the Regional Supplement were determined to be wetland. Soil, vegetation, and hydrologic parameters were sampled at several locations along the wetland boundary to make the determination. Identified wetlands within the property were classified using the 2014 Update to the Western Washington Wetland Rating System (Ecology publication no. 14-06-019) (Rating System). Findings The Emerald Crest residential development is located in the City of Renton (Section 23, Township 23N, Range 05E) and is zoned as RMH-Residential Manufactured Homes. It is located south of the Cedar River within the Lower Cedar River drainage basin of the Cedar-Sammamish Watershed Resource Inventory Area 8. The southern third of the parcel is undeveloped and located on a steep slope that slopes downward to the north (see description below). It has been identified as a terrestrial habitat by PHS as part of a Biodiversity Area and Corridor, named the Cedar River Valley Open Space Area. Starting approximately at the base of the steep slope, the northern two-thirds of the parcel flattens out and is developed as a dense neighborhood of manufactured homes. The City of Renton issued a Warning of Violation notice (Code Case No: CODE16- 000369, June 13, 2016,) to Emerald Crest for unauthorized clearing of vegetation in a wetland in the south side of the property. This study focuses on the area adjacent to the cul-de-sac on the southeastern corner of the developed area (Figure 1). Wetland Delineation Report Bringier, A. August 25, 2016 Page 3 Figure 1. Approximate study area (blue) and location of the clearing violation. One wetland, Wetland A, was identified and delineated. Only the encumbering wetland edge of the cited areas was delineated; Wetland A is marked with 17 pink- and black- striped flags. Data were recorded at eight locations in the study area and are marked on- site with yellow- and black-striped flags. Wetland A and its buffer appear to have been impacted by both clearing and grading (Figure 2) and gravel fill (Figure 3). Additionally, some of the excavated soils were deposited further upslope within the wetland. Within a portion of the fill area, a black tarp underlays approximately four inches of gravel. The rest of the fill area (no tarp) contains an uneven mixture of gravel and asphalt (Figure 4). According to a personal communication at an on-site meeting with Tom and Adele from the HOA Board of Directors (August 8, 2016), the impacts were created as a result of trying to relieve flooding in the parking lot. Emerald Crest Study Area Wetland Delineation Report Bringier, A. August 25, 2016 Page 4 Figure 2. Wetland and wetland buffer were cleared and graded. The excavated soil was deposited further in the wetland. The red line denotes the delineated wetland boundary. Figure 3. Wetland A near the road was covered with a black tarp/fabric and covered with gravel. The rock pile is located on the paved parking lot and not within the wetland. Wetland A Wetland A buffer Dirt pile Wetland Delineation Report Bringier, A. August 25, 2016 Page 5 Figure 4. The area between tarped, gravel fill and the cleared/graded area contains gravel and chunks of asphalt (red circle). Wetland A Wetland A is a slope-type wetland with scrub-shrub and forested Cowardin classes. It is located at the toe of the steep slope. Wetland A has both saturated and occasionally flooded water regimes and is supported by groundwater seeps from the hillside. The wetland approaches the southeastern-most house on the parcel; at the house, surface runoff from the wetland moves westward around the house where it drains back into the wetland unit. A small, permanently flooded pond is located at the northern portion of the wetland near the westerly cul-de-sac. Wetland A is located within an area mapped as a Biodiversity Area and Corridor by PHS. Undisturbed wetland Common vegetation within undisturbed areas of Wetland A includes red alder, Oregon ash, Pacific willow, and western red cedar in the canopy with salmonberry, red-osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, giant horsetail, soft rush, small-fruited bulrush, skunk cabbage, creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, mannagrass, lady fern, willowherb, watercress, and hardstem bulrush in the understory. Soils located just outside of the recent disturbance (DP-4) are characterized as a low chroma (≤1) mixed matrix sandy loam and sandy clay loam with redoximorphic features (RMF) in the upper layer and a low chroma (≤1) sandy clay loam with RMF along pore linings in the lower layer. Hydric soil determination is supported by the indicator, Redox Dark Surface (F6) and by presence of hydrogen sulfide (hydric soil indicator A4 and wetland hydrology indicator C1). Wetland hydrology is also supported by presence of a high water table (Indicator A2) at 12 inches below ground surface (BGS) and saturation (A3) to the surface. Soils Wetland Delineation Report Bringier, A. August 25, 2016 Page 6 further upslope of the disturbance (DP-1) are supported by the hydric soil indicator, Depleted Matrix (F3), and are characterized as a sandy clay loam within the upper layer and a low chroma (≤2) gravelly loamy sand with RMF in the lower layer. These soils were saturated to the surface (A3) at the time of the inspection, confirming wetland hydrology. Disturbed wetland and buffer areas Within disturbed areas, normal circumstances were not present and problematic procedures for determining wetland vegetation, soil and hydrology were used according to the Regional Supplement. All wetland determinations within the area where the violation occurred are consistent with the wetland’s landscape position at the toe of a steep slope. Vegetation, soils and hydrology were disturbed at several locations in the wetland and are considered problematic. At the time of the visit, vegetation, consisting of giant horsetail and field grasses, was sparse and just beginning to sprout. Nearby, undisturbed vegetation within the wetland, consisting of giant horsetail, reed canarygrass, creeping buttercup, and lady fern, was used a reference to support determination of hydrophytic vegetation at these locations (DP-2 and DP-6). Excavation and compaction by machinery have disturbed the soils; as a result, soil horizons were indistinct and somewhat jumbled. At DP-2 and DP-6, a high percentage of RMF were observed within soils layers with low chroma matrices, supporting components of the hydric soil indicators, Redox Dark Surface (F6) and Depleted Matrix (F3); however, as depths of soils layers are unreliable, exact conformance to the hydric soil indicators was not possible to determine. In comparison, soils within nearby, undisturbed, non-wetland areas, at both lower and higher elevations than DP-2 and DP- 6, contain brightly colored soils with no RMFs (DP-3 and DP-8). This stark contrast provided by non-wetland soils in addition to use of a reference soil pit (see DP-4) supports the conclusion of presence of hydric soils in the impacted area. Hydrology was also likely disturbed due to soil excavation and compaction. To determine the wetland edge within the disturbed area, several soils pits were dug on a line perpendicular to the slope to determine a gradient of soil saturation; areas that showed saturation within approximately 12 inches of the surface, after adding the estimated depth of excavated material, were determined to have wetland hydrology. Additionally, within several feet of the wetland edge, surface flow was observed and water was ponding within depressions created by machinery; tadpoles were observed within these depressions, suggesting prolonged inundation. Within a portion of the fill areas, vegetative growth is suppressed by the tarp. Near the edge of the tarp, common vegetation includes red alder in the canopy with hardstem bulrush, Himalayan blackberry, and giant horsetail in the understory (DP-5). Despite Wetland Delineation Report Bringier, A. August 25, 2016 Page 7 lacking hydrophytic vegetation within the fill, wetland conditions were supported by the strong presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Hydric soils are a clay loam with low chroma and RMF, supporting hydric soil indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6). Soils were saturated to the surface of the soil at the time of the visit (wetland hydrology indicator, A3). Additionally, the presence of hydrogen sulfide supports both hydric soils (A4) and wetland hydrology (C1). The fill area without a tarp has an uneven soil surface and contains gravel and chunks of asphalt. Common vegetation includes giant horsetail, lady fern, creeping buttercup and field grasses. Although a data point was not recorded in this area, wetland hydrology was evident through soil surface saturation at the time of the visit. Non-wetland areas Upslope of Wetland A on the steep hillside, a mixed coniferous-deciduous forest is dominated by bigleaf maple, western red cedar and Douglas-fir. Non-wetland areas near the house contain bigleaf maple, English ivy, and ornamental trees and shrubs. Non-wetland areas between the cul-de-sac and the north side Wetland A (DP-7) include bigleaf maple, western red cedar, and quaking aspen in the canopy with Himalayan blackberry, ornamental vegetation and rose in the understory. Soils were a low chroma (≤2) gravelly sandy loam and gravelly loamy sand with no RMF and were dry at the time of the visit. Local Regulations Critical areas are regulated by the City of Renton in Section 4-3-050 the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). According to the 2014 Rating System, Wetland A is a Category IV wetland with a total of 15 points; it received four water quality points, five hydrologic points and six habitat points. According to RMC 4-3-050-G.9, wetland buffers are measured from the wetland edge and are based upon the wetland rating, associated habitat score, and impact of land use. The adjacent land use would not be considered low intensity, therefore the buffer width for “all other land uses” applies. Per RMC 4-3-050(G)(2), all Category IV wetlands require a standard buffer width of 50 feet (Table 1). Table 2. Summary of 2014 Rating System scores and standard buffer widths. Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Total Category Standard Buffer Width (ft) Wetland A 4 5 6 16 IV 50 Wetland A is also considered a habitat conservation area, as it is mapped as a Biodiversity Area and Corridor by PHS [RMC 4-3-050(G)(6)]. Wetland Delineation Report Bringier, A. August 25, 2016 Page 8 Restoration of Wetland and Buffer Impacts Per RMC 4-3-050(N), a restoration plan for unauthorized impacts to wetlands and buffers is required. Restoration of impacted wetland and buffers areas require the following minimum performance standards to be fulfilled: i. The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions; ii. The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; and iii. The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration. As a portion of Wetland A and its buffer have been temporarily impacted, they should be restored to historic conditions to replace lost water quality, hydrology and habitat functions. This would involve removing all fill material (gravel, tarps, asphalt, soil) and restoring the original grade of the slope with historic soil types. The large pile of gravel that was placed on the parking lot next to the wetland should also be removed to prevent further sedimentation. Impacted wetland and buffer areas should be enhanced through removal of invasive plant species (e.g. Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, yellow archangel, reed canarygrass) and revegetated with native plants. The affected wetland and buffer areas should be restored to a forest, as surrounding wetland areas consist of forested vegetation, including both shrub and herbaceous strata. Appropriate restoration plantings for the wetland area include Sitka willow, Pacific willow, Oregon ash, western red cedar, red-osier dogwood, and salmonberry. Appropriate restoration plantings for the buffer areas include snowberry, Nootka rose and osoberry. For restoration of impacted areas, a mitigation plan should be created according to provisions outlined in RMC 4-3-50(L), including a planting plan, detailed goals and performance standards, a monitoring plan for a duration of at least five years, and submittal of a performance bond determined by the King County Critical Areas Mitigation Bond Quantity Worksheet. State and Federal Regulations Wetlands are also regulated by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any proposed filling or other direct impacts to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands (except isolated wetlands), would require notification and permits from the Corps. Wetland A may not be considered isolated; a formal isolated status inquiry can be requested from the Corps through the Jurisdictional Determination process. Note that a new Clean Water Rule for wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. went into effect in August 2015; however, the rule was recently “stayed” nationwide by the 6th Circuit Court due to pending litigation. Therefore, the prior rule is in effect until further notice. Wetland Delineation Report Bringier, A. August 25, 2016 Page 9 Federally permitted actions that could affect endangered species may also require a biological assessment study and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Application for Corps permits may also require an individual 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency determination from Ecology and a cultural resource study in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In general, neither the Corps nor Ecology regulates wetland buffers, unless direct impacts are proposed. When direct impacts are proposed, mitigated wetlands may be required to employ buffers based on Corps and Ecology joint regulatory guidance. Disclaimer The information contained in this letter or report is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria outlined in the methods section. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available to us at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, State and Federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Anna Hoenig, WPIT Ecologist Enclosures Wetland Delineation Sketch 15400 SE 155th PL, Renton Site visit: August 9, 2016 Parcel No. 2329780000 TWC Ref. No. 160707 Prepared for: Emerald Crest HOA, c/o Angie Bringier 1 of 2 N DP-1 Note: Aerial from King County iMAP. Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. Wetland boundary is marked with pink and black-striped flags. Data Points are marked with yellow- and black-striped fl LEGEND Wetland Approx. delineated wetland boundary Approx. non-delineated wetland boundary Parcel boundary Data point DP-7 Wetland A 2 of 2 DP-3 N Wetland A A-1 Start DP-2 DP-6 DP-8 DP-7 Note: Aerial from King County iMAP. Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. Wetland boundary is marked with pink and black-striped flags. Data Points are marked with yellow- and black-striped flags. LEGEND Wetland Approx. delineated wetland boundary Approx. non-delineated wetland boundary Data point DP-4 Wetland A A-17 Last DP-5 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Emerald Crest Sampling Date: 8/9/2016 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Crest HOA Sampling Point: DP- 1 Investigator: K. Crandall, A. Hoenig City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 23 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Slope (%): 15 Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Puyallup fine sandy loam NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☒ No ☐ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: In-pit, uphill of house at western property boundary. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Rubus spectabilis 10 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 10 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Ranunculus repens 100 Y FAC 2. Equisetum telmateia 50 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. Phalaris arundinacea 30 N FACW 4. Glyceria sp. 15 N OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☒ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 195 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: DP- 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-1 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy clay loam 4-14 2.5YR 4/2 85 5YR 3/4 15 C M Gravely loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☒ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators 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): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☒ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☒ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Emerald Crest Sampling Date: 8/9/2016 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Crest HOA Sampling Point: DP- 2 Investigator: K. Crandall, A. Hoenig City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 23 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Toe of hillslope Slope (%): ~5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Puyallup fine sandy loam NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☐ Yes ☒ No Cleared and graded area (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☒, Soil ☒, or Hydrology ☒ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☒ No ☐ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Disturbed area: soil, vegetation, hydrology disturbed. Top layer excavated. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Alnus rubra 20 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Equisetum telmateia 10 Y FACW 2. Small/young grass 5 Y FAC* Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☒ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 15 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: *Presumed FAC; Vegetation cleared recently. DP- 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-2 HYDROLOGY 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 7.5YR 2.5/3 100 Loamy sand 11-18 10YR 3/4 10 Loamy sand Mixed matrix 11-18 10YR 4/1 70 5YR 3/4 20 C M, PL Loamy sand Mixed matrix 18-23 10YR 3/2 80 10YR 4/2 5 D M Loamy sand 18-23 7.5Y 3/4 15 C M Loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☒ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators 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): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Soil jumbled from recent earthwork, therefore difficult to determine if layer depths are representative. However, strong redox and depleted soils indicate wetland soils. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☒ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☒ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 12” BGS Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Saturation was observed at 12” below ground surface; but it appears that approximately 5” of soil was excavated from the top. Due to presence of flowing surface water within a wetland about 4ft west of pit, its position relative to known wetland, this area likely qualifies for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Emerald Crest Sampling Date: 8/9/2016 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Crest HOA Sampling Point: DP- 3 Investigator: K. Crandall, A. Hoenig City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 23 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Slope (%): 10 Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Puyallup fine sandy loam NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: At edge of cleared area. Ground covered in gravel - not disturbed from recent actions. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Ornamental evergreen shrub 25 NA NI Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 25 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Equisetum telmateia 100 Y FACW 2. Lamium galeobdolon Trace N NI Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. Ranunculus repens Trace N FAC 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☒ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 100 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: DP- 3 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-3 HYDROLOGY 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 3/2 100 Loamy sand 10-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 Gravelly sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators 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): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Damp, not saturated. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Emerald Crest Sampling Date: 8/9/2016 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Crest HOA Sampling Point: DP- 4 Investigator: K. Crandall, A. Hoenig City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 23 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Slope (%): 0 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Puyallup fine sandy loam NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☒ No ☐ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: In-pit in undisturbed area. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Alnus rubra 20 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Rubus armeniacus 25 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 25 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Athyrium cyclosorum 20 N FAC 2. Ranunculus repens 100 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. Equisetum telmateia 10 N FACW 4. Epilobium ciliatum 30 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☒ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 160 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: DP- 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-4 HYDROLOGY 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 2/1 43 7.5YR 3/4 14 C M Sandy clay loam Mixed matrix 0-9 5Y 3/1 43 Redox features in both matrix colors “ “ Loamy sand Mixed matrix 9-16 5Y 2.5/1 93 7.5YR 3/4 7 C PL Sandy clay loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☒ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☒ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators 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): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☒ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☒ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☒ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☒ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☒ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 12 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Emerald Crest Sampling Date: 8/9/2016 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Crest HOA Sampling Point: DP- 5 Investigator: K. Crandall, A. Hoenig City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 23 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Toe of slope Slope (%): 0 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Puyallup fine sandy loam NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☐ Yes ☒ No Fill area, soil and vegetation disturbed. (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☒, Soil ☒, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☒ No ☐ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: In disturbed area. 4-5” of gravel fill over black tarp/fabric. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Alnus rubra 5 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. 5 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Rubus armeniacus 5 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 5 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Schoenoplectus acutus 10 Y OBL 2. Equisetum telmateia 15 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. Epilobium ciliatum Trace N FACW 4. Galium sp. Trace N NI Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☒ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 25 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 80% fill Remarks: Two-thirds of area is disturbed/cleared. DP- 5 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-5 HYDROLOGY 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 0-7 10YR 3/1 93 5YR 3/4 7 C M Clay loam 7-14 5Y 2.5/1 100 Loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☒ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☒ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators 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): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: 4-5” of gravel fill over black tarp/fabric. Soil profile starts below fill and fabric. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☒ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☒ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☒ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Emerald Crest Sampling Date: 8/9/2016 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Crest HOA Sampling Point: DP- 6 Investigator: K. Crandall, A. Hoenig City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 23 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): hillslope Slope (%): 7 Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Puyallup fine sandy loam NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☐ Yes ☒ No Cleared and graded area (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☒, Soil ☒, or Hydrology ☒ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☒ No ☐ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Disturbed area – excavated VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Equisetum telmateia 5 Y FACW 2. Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☐ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☒ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 5 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: Landscape position and nearby reference sites support hydrophytic vegetation. DP- 6 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-6 HYDROLOGY 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 0-7 2.5Y 4/2 80 5YR 3/4 20 C M, PL Loamy sand 7-15 10YR 4/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M Loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☒ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators 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): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☒ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☒ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 14” BGS Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 7” BGS Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 6 feet east of DP-6: water table at depth of 18 inches, saturation at depth of 12 inches, vegetation and soils disturbed, similar soils, ~12 inches excavated from top. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Emerald Crest Sampling Date: 8/9/2016 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Crest HOA Sampling Point: DP- 7 Investigator: K. Crandall, A. Hoenig City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 23 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Top of hillslope Slope (%): <5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Puyallup fine sandy loam NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Out-pit in north portion of study area VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Alnus rubra 100 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Malus fusca 10 N FACW 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 110 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Thuja plicata (sapling) 5 N FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Rubus armeniacus 60 Y FAC Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. Rosa sp. 40 Y FAC OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 105 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☒ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: DP- 7 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-7 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/2 100 Gravely sandy loam 8-14 10YR 3/2 100 Gravely sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators 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): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dry US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Emerald Crest Sampling Date: 8/9/2016 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Crest HOA Sampling Point: DP- 8 Investigator: K. Crandall, A. Hoenig City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 23 T 23N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Slope (%): 10 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Puyallup fine sandy loam NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Just at south edge of gravel/excavation VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Cornus alba 7 Y FACW Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Rubus spectabilis 15 Y FAC Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 22 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Field grasses 100 Y FAC* 2. Ranunculus repens 25 N FAC Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. Epilobium ciliatum 5 N FACW 4. Equisetum telmateia 30 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☒ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 160 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: *Presumed DP- 8 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-8 HYDROLOGY 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 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 Sandy loam 12-15 10YR 3/6 100 Loamy sand 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators 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): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Damp, not saturated. Wetland Name: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 1 RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Emerald Crest – Wetland A Date of site visit: 8/9/2016 Rated by: K. Crandall, A. Hoenig Trained by Ecology? ☒Y ☐N Date of training: 9/14, 10/15 HGM Class used for rating: Slope 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: COR maps, Google Earth (8/22/16) 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 4 5 6 15 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above ☒ Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland Name: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 2 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 1 Hydroperiods H 1.2 2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 3 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 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 4 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 5 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 6 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 3 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 A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 4 ☐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 A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 11 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 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 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 2 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 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 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 0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 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 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 1 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 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 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 A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 12 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 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 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 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 downstream 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 2 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 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 2 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 A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 13 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 2 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 (due to undersized culvert and sheetflow) 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 (<10%) ☐ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ☐ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points 1 H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: ☒ > 19 species points = 2 ☐ 5 - 19 species points = 1 ☐ < 5 species points = 0 2 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. ☐ None = 0 points ☐ Low = 1 point ☒ Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are ☐ HIGH = 3points 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 14 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). 2 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9 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] = 18.6% + (0%/2) = 18.6% 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 1 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2 = 25% + (14%/2) = 32% ☐ 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 1 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 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 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 1 Rating of Value If score is: ☐2 = H ☒1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 15 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 A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 16 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 A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 17 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 NA Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 18 This page left blank intentionally 1 Appendix [A] — ECY 2014 Wetland Rating Form: Slope figures Figure 1. Cowardin plant classes - H1.1, H1.4 Figure 2. Hydroperiods and 150ft buffer - H1.2, S2.1, S5.1 Figure 3. Plant cover of dense and rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants- S1.3, S4.1 Figure 4. Accessible and undisturbed habitat 1km from wetland edge - H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin - S3.1, S3.2 Figure 6. Screen-capture of TMDL list for WRIA 8 - S3.3 Resources and Links: City of Renton maps King County iMAP Google Earth ECY 303(d) list TMDL list 2 Figure 1. Cowardin plant classes - H1.1, H1.4 Note: Boundaries depicted may not be to scale. They are sketches based on available data and best professional judgment. LEGEND Palustrine forested Palustrine scrub-shrub Wetland boundary 3 Figure 2. Hydroperiods and 150ft radius - H1.2, S2.1, S5.1 Note: Boundaries depicted may not be to scale. They are sketches based on available data and best professional judgment LEGEND Permanently flooded (<10%) Occasionally flooded Saturated only Approx. 150-foot radius 4 Figure 3. Plant cover of dense and rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants- S1.3, S4.1 Note: Boundaries depicted may not be to scale. They are sketches based on available data and best professional judgment. LEGEND Dense trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation Dense and rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation Wetland boundary 5 Figure 4. Accessible and undisturbed habitat 1km from wetland edge - H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 Note: Boundaries depicted may not be to scale. They are sketches based on available data and best professional judgment. LEGEND Accessible and undisturbed habitat Relatively undisturbed Moderate/low intensity land use Wetland units Approx. 1-km buffer 6 Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin - S3.1, S3.2 Wetland Unit 7 Figure 6. Screen-capture of TMDL list for WRIA in which unit is found - S3.3