Document Redmond_doc_daecf674e0

Printed on 30% recycled paper. C R I T I C A L A R E A S R E P O R T Emerald Heights Retirement Center– Redmond, WA Prepared for: Lisa Hardy, CEO Emerald Heights Redmond, WA 98052 Prepared by: February 16, 2017 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 161231 The Watershed Company Contact Person: Nell Lund, PWS Jasmine Palmer, Ecologist Cite this document as: The Watershed Company. February 2017. Critical Areas Report: Emerald Heights, Redmond, WA. Prepared for Lisa Hardy, CEO. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page # 1 General Information 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Description of Project Area 2 1.3 Project Assumptions & Recommendations 3 2 Stream Reconnaissance Report 4 2.1 Stream Attachments 4 2.2 Stream Assessment 4 2.3 Characterization of Riparian Corridor 5 2.4 Existing Stream Value for Fisheries Habitat 5 3 Wetland Delineation Report 6 3.1 Wetland Attachments 6 3.2 Methods 6 3.3 Wetland Assessment 7 3.4 Wetland Characterization and Functions Assessment 7 4 Regulations 7 4.1 Local Regulations 7 4.2 State and Federal Regulations 8 5 Limitations 8 6 Bibliography 9 Appendix A: Stream and Wetland Maps, Site Plan Appendix B: Wetland and Stream Summary Sheets Appendix C: Wetland Determination Field Data Sheets Appendix D: Wetland Rating Form and Figures L I S T O F E X H I B I T S Table 1. Critical Areas Report summary background information. 1 Figure 1: Vicinity map. Source: King County iMap. 2 Figure 2. The assessment area for this report includes undeveloped area within the parcel boundary (red) outside of the existing community area (yellow). 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii ---PAGE BREAK--- The Watershed Company February 2017 1 C R I T I C A L A R E A S R E P O R T EMERALD HEIGHTS RETIREMENT CENTER– REDMOND, WA 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Introduction Ecologists Jasmine Palmer and Anna Hoenig of The Watershed Company visited the site on January 16, 2017 to delineate and flag encumbering wetlands and streams in the forested portions of the Emerald Heights parcel (see Figure This document is prepared by ecologists Nell Lund, PWS, and Jasmine Palmer. Our report describes the findings of our wetland and stream study on the subject property to document critical area buffers and potential impacts to those buffers associated with the project. The subject property is located at 10901 176th Circle NE in the City of Redmond (parcel number [PHONE REDACTED]). Emerald Heights property is currently developed and contains parking lots, lawns, and residential and office buildings. The west portion of the parcel is forested along High School Creek and contains walking trails through this area. The developed areas are on a hilltop plateau and the stream and walking trails are located lower in elevation below a steep slope at the base of that hill. The site is located in the Sammamish River basin of the Cedar‐Sammamish Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA‐8). Table 1. Critical Areas Report summary background information. The current project includes construction of new multi‐family residence buildings near the east and west property boundaries (Site Plan, Appendix One wetland (Wetland A) and one stream (Stream A) were identified in the western portion of the parcel (Critical Areas Figure; Appendix This report includes an assessment of impacts associated with the project to the wetland and stream critical areas described here. The project locations are outside of the wetland and stream buffers and therefore will not incur impacts to these features. Therefore, mitigation is not proposed. (City of Redmond Municipal Code, Appendix Proposal title Emerald Heights Retirement Center Applicant Eastside Retirement Association City file number ---PAGE BREAK--- Critical Areas Report: Redmond Emerald Heights 2 1.2 Description of Project Area The 38‐acre property is located in the Education Hill neighborhood in Redmond, WA, (Figure The parcel permit history includes six new buildings, carport demolition, and eight remodeling projects during 2004 to 2015 (King County iMap, Property Detail). Aerial photographs indicate the parcel was first developed sometime between 1990 and 1998 (HistoricalAerials.com). The property currently contains a senior living community, consisting of multi‐family dwelling units, community facilities, and three detention ponds. A forested area with walking trails and a stream is also present on the property, downslope and west of the developed area. New buildings will be located in the southeast portion of the parcel (Site Plan; Appendix Figure 1: Vicinity map. Source: King County iMap. Emerald Heights ---PAGE BREAK--- The Watershed Company February 2017 3 Figure 2. The assessment area for this report includes undeveloped area within the parcel boundary (red) outside of the existing community area (yellow). 1.3 Project Assumptions & Recommendations Assumptions Our stream and wetland delineation assumes that conditions on the day of field work accurately reflect normal circumstances on the site. Climate conditions during the period prior to our site visit in January were normal (per the NRCS WETS Table, SeaTac Station). Our assessment area is the undeveloped vegetated areas outside of the current community area (Figure Therefore, the project assumes that critical areas are not present in the developed portion of the parcel. Recommendations This report includes information regarding impacts to wetlands and streams. If additional critical areas, such as steep slopes, are present on the property, those may require reporting which are not mentioned in this report. Because critical area impacts to the wetlands and streams described below are not planned, mitigation reporting is not necessary. 1.4 Mitigation Sequencing Mitigation sequencing seeks to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas in that order. The proposed project will avoid impacts to the features discussed in this report. Therefore, plans for mitigation is not necessary. Study area Existing community area ---PAGE BREAK--- Critical Areas Report: Redmond Emerald Heights 4 2 STREAM RECONNAISSANCE REPORT 2.1 Stream Attachments The city requires a stream reconnaissance report to determine appropriate stream buffers. The following attachments are included: x Streams Map (combined with the Wetlands Map) (Appendix A) x Site designated on City of Redmond Stream Inventory Map (Appendix A) x Stream Summary Sheet (Appendix B) 2.2 Stream Assessment Public‐domain information on the subject property were accessed for this stream study, listed in section 3.2 below. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the bank of Stream A was determined based on the definition provided by WDFW and WAC 220‐ 110‐020(69). The OHWM is located by examining the bed and bank physical characteristics and vegetation to ascertain the water elevation for mean annual floods. Areas meeting the definition were determined to be the OHWM. The encumbering boundary (the right bank of Stream A) is flagged with 34 blue‐ and white‐striped flags. Stream A is a permanently flowing stream called High School Creek. A steep gradient is located of the subject property, south of where Stream A crosses NE 111th Street. The gradient is expected to preclude fish use, making this reach of High School Creek a non‐fish bearing Type III stream. The City of Redmond Streams Classification Map reflects this finding, with High School Creek mapped as a Type III stream south of NE 111th Street (City of Redmond, Map 64.3 Streams Classification; Appendix The streambed includes sections of rock, sand, or silt. Portions of Stream A are undercut, and previous efforts to stabilize the bank have failed. Water quality issues are noted in vicinity of the property; High School Creek is on Ecology’s 303d list of the subject property and north of NE 111th Street. Common vegetation along the onsite stream bank include big leaf maple, salmonberry, and swordfern. Type III streams in the City of Redmond require a buffer of 100 feet. The City of Redmond may increase stream buffer widths based on other site characteristics, or may allow reduced stream buffer widths with buffer averaging. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Watershed Company February 2017 5 Figure 3. Upstream reach of Stream A on subject property. 2.3 Characterization of Riparian Corridor The riparian corridor (area within 100 feet of the OHWM) largely contains forested and shrub areas that contain walking paths. Emergent vegetation is also present in the understory in some areas. Small foot bridges are present in two places where the walking paths cross the stream. One small wetland is also present in this area (described in section 3.2 below). Habitat features in the corridor include snags containing woodpecker excavations and steep slopes which are present on the eastern edge of the buffer where the buffer extends to the edge of the developed portion of the parcel. The riparian corridor is generally shaded and some large woody debris is present. Although bank stabilization is compromised in some areas, the existing riparian corridor is expected to provide a moderate level of key functions. A 100‐foot stream buffer is expected to be sufficient to maintain existing buffer functions. 2.4 Existing Stream Value for Fisheries Habitat As mentioned above, Stream A is not expected to be used by fish, including anadromous fish due to a steep gradient of the subject property. Bank full widths in this area are approximately 5‐15 feet wide. The onsite stream gradient is approximately 7 percent on average. The size of contributing upstream areas are minimal since Stream A originates less than a half mile upstream of the subject property (City of Redmond, Map ---PAGE BREAK--- Critical Areas Report: Redmond Emerald Heights 6 64.3 Streams Classification; Appendix Fish passage obstructions are located within a half mile of the subject property. The gradient at the farthest upstream reach of Stream A on the subject property may also act as a barrier to fish passage if obstructions were removed (Figure 3 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT 3.1 Wetland Attachments The city requires a wetland delineation report to determine appropriate wetland buffers. The following attachments are included: x Wetlands Map (combined with the Streams Map) (Appendix A) x Site designated on National Wetlands Inventory map (Appendix A) x Site designated on City of Redmond Wetland Inventory Map (Appendix A) x Wetland Summary Sheet (Appendix B) x Wetland Determination Field Data Sheets (Appendix C) x Ecology’s 2014 wetland rating form and rating figures (Appendix D) 3.2 Methods Public‐domain information on the subject property was reviewed for this wetland and stream study. These sources include: x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps x City of Redmond wetland and stream inventory maps x USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil maps x Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web and SalmonScape) x WA DNR Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPARS). The study area was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Manual) (Washington Department of Ecology [Ecology] 1997) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Regional Supplement) (US Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] April 2008). The approach used was routine as defined in the Manual with onsite inspection. The wetland boundary was determined based on 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. Data points, which are marked with yellow‐ and black‐striped flags, were recorded at six of these locations. Wetland A is marked with 10 pink‐ and black‐striped flags. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Watershed Company February 2017 7 Wetland boundary determinations, including “close calls,” were decided based on conditions present at the time of the site visit. Areas not meeting all three criteria for wetland determinations were not considered to be wetland (see data sheets; Appendix Wetland A was rated using the 2014 Western Washington Wetland Rating System (Ecology publication 14‐06‐029) (2014 Rating System) and application of the criteria contained in the Redmond Municipal Code (20D. 140.30‐010). 3.3 Wetland Assessment Wetland A is a slope wetland with scrub‐shrub and emergent Cowardin vegetation classes. Wetland A is 0.041 acres in size. Dominant vegetation include salmonberry, lady fern and foam flower. The top inch of soil was a dark reddish brown (5YR 2.5/2). Soils below this to at least a 15‐inch depth were black (10YR 2/1) with a high organic content. Wetland areas typically contained a high‐water table (within 10 inches of the soil surface) or were shallowly inundated. Wetland A is a Category III wetland which has a 150‐ foot buffer (see local regulations section below). 3.4 Wetland Characterization and Functions Assessment Under Ecology’s 2014 Wetland Rating System, Wetland A has moderate scores for water quality functions (six points), hydrologic functions (5 points), and habitat functions (6 points). Wetland A is categorized based on wetland functions and has a total score of 17 points, making it a Category III wetland. Factors contributing to higher wetland functions include poor water quality downgradient of the wetland, existing development up gradient of the wetland, and priority habitat areas in the vicinity. 4 REGULATIONS 4.1 Local Regulations The City of Redmond regulates streams and wetlands under their Critical Areas Ordinance (RCDG 20D.140). Current site plans for the future buildings indicate the project will not incur impacts to the Wetland A,Stream A, or their associated buffers (described below). Therefore, measures to reduce the regulatory buffer widths of these features are not necessary. Streams are regulated as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, and are typed according to designation as “Shorelines of the State”, has fish use or the potential for fish use, or a connection to a stream with fish use or the potential for fish use. Stream A is presumed non‐fish bearing, but has a surface water connection to a stream that has salmonid fish use. Therefore, Stream A is a Type III stream with a 100‐foot buffer. ---PAGE BREAK--- Critical Areas Report: Redmond Emerald Heights 8 Wetlands are classified according to their characteristics, functions and values as scored on the Ecology rating form, and/or sensitivity to disturbance. Regulatory wetland buffer widths vary depending on the impact of land use, low, moderate or high. Residential land use at more than one dwelling unit per acre is deemed high impact. Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a moderate habitat score. Category III wetlands in Redmond require a 150‐foot buffer for high impact land uses. 4.2 State and Federal Regulations Wetlands are also regulated by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any filling of Waters of the U.S., including wetlands (except isolated wetlands), would require notification and permits from the Corps. 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. Fill or dredging of either Stream A or Wetland A would be regulated under the Clean Water Act. Federally permitted actions that could affect endangered species (i.e. salmon or bull trout) 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. In general, neither the Corps nor Ecology regulates stream or 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. 5 LIMITATIONS The information contained in this 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 this document. 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Watershed Company February 2017 9 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY City of Redmond Critical Areas Maps and online resources. Accessed February 2017. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS‐79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed February 2017. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14‐06‐029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). Web Soil Survey. Accessed February 2017. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y‐87‐1. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Electronic reference. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed February 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Electronic reference. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed February 2017. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers. Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). Section 303(d) list of impaired and threatened waterbodies. Accessed February 2017. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Electronic reference. PHS on the Web. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed February 2017. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Electronic reference. SalmonScape. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/. Accessed February 2017. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Watershed Company February 2017 A P P E N D I X A Stream and Wetland Maps, and Site Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ¹ Site Boundaries and Stream and Wetland Critical Areas Wetland A Stream A Property Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- DELINEATED STREAM DELINEATED WETLAND CRITICAL AREA BUFFER PARCEL BOUNDARY DATA POINT FLOW DIRECTION REDMOND EMERALD HEIGHTS PROJECT MANAGER: DESIGNED: DRAFTED: CHECKED: SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. BY © Copyright- The Watershed Company DATE PRINTED BY FILENAME THE WATERSHED COMPANY S c i e n c e & D e s i g n 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p [PHONE REDACTED] www.watershedco.com JOB NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION DATE NO. REDMOND EMERALD HEIGHTS WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATION FIGURE PREPARED FOR LISA HARDY PARCEL # [PHONE REDACTED] 10901 176TH CIRCLE NE REDMOND, WA 98052 NL - AJ JP 161231 OF 1 1 02-10-17 DELINEATION FIGURE AJ 2/10/2017 AMANDA JOBMANN REDMOND EMERALD HEIGHTS DELINEATION.DWG VICINITY MAPS NOTES 1. CRITICAL AREAS DELINEATED BY THE WATERSHED COMPANY ON JANUARY 16, 2017. 2. SURVEY RECEIVED FROM TRIAD ASSOCIATES. 20300 WOODINVILLE SNOHOMISH RD. WOODINVILLE, WA 98072 (425) 415-2000. 3. CONTOURS ARE AT 2FT INTERVALS. WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATION FIGURE - EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT LOCATION W1 400' 100' 50' 0 200' LEGEND COMBINED CRITICAL AREAS BUFFER STREAM A TYPE III 100FT BUFFER WETLAND A CATEGORY III 150FT BUFFER 176TH CIRCLE NE 179TH AVE NE 176TH CIRCLE NE 176TH CIRCLE NE FLOW FLOW FLOW EXISTING BUILDINGS DP-1 DP-2 DP-3 DP-5 DP-6 DP-4 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONTRACTOR BIDDING TRAIL SIDE BUILDING NEW FITNE FITNES S CENTE MAINTENAN CE BUILDING PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONTRACTOR BIDDING TRAIL SIDE BUILDING NEW FITNE FITNES S CENTE MAINTENAN CE BUILDING PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONTRACTOR BIDDING TRAIL SIDE BUILDING NEW FITNE FITNES S CENTE MAINTENAN CE BUILDING PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONTRACTOR BIDDING F C O TRAIL SIDE BUILDI NG NEW FITNE G G G G T T G G A FITNES S CENTE S MAINTE NANCE BUILDI NG G G G ---PAGE BREAK--- EMERALD HEIGHTS CAMPUS EXPANSION January 15, 2016 PROPOSED NEW PROJECTS NEW AL BUILDING CORWIN CENTER RENOVATIONS NEW IL BUILDING ---PAGE BREAK--- E N E V A h t 8 4 1 XX XX XXXX Vicinity of Subject Property York Creek Gun Club Trib. Peters Creek Lake Sammamish Mackey Creek NE 24th ST 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles City of Redmond Class I Stream Sources: City of Redmond Public Works, Natural Resources Division City of Redmond GIS Services Washington Trout / Wild Fish Conservancy King County GIS Note: This map shall be used as a general guide representing the approximate Critical Areas Map Effective: 3/12/2016 Stream Official USGS Stream Name Stream Informal Stream Name Class II Stream Class III Stream Class IV Stream location of streams, per RZC 21.64.010(E)(2). The map does not necessarily ensure the presence or absence of streams. In the event of a conflict between the map and the criteria of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), the criteria shall prevail. Consult the CAO (RZC 21.64) for reporting requirements Note: Gaps in illustrated streams may indicate culverts, pipes, etc. Map 64.3 Streams Classification Note: Informal stream names may not conform to USGS policies and may change in the future. 150th AVE NE 156th AVE NE 160th AVE NE 159th PL NE 162nd AVE NE 185th AVE NE \\redmond.man\FS\GISUser\Planning\COMPLAN & DEV GUIDE GRAPHICS\ArcGISMaps\ZoningCodeMaps\mxd\Map64_3_RZC_03122016.mxd ¹ NE 80th ST NE 80th ST NE 40th ST NE 20th ST ---PAGE BREAK--- " Sammamish Valley Community Park Northeast Redmond Neighborhood Park Vicinity of Subject Property Juel Community Park Meadow Park Farrel-McWhirter Park Hartman Community Park Reservoir Park Nike Neighborhood Park Conrad Olson Farm Perrigo Community Park NE 85th ST Municipal Campus Luke McRedmond Landing Anderson Park Bear NE 76th ST Creek Park Arthur Johnson Park Grass Lawn Community Park Town Center Open Space Spiritbrook Neighborhood Park SE Redmond Neighborhood Park Redmond West Wetlands Westside Neighborhood Park Marymoor Park Cascade View Neighborhood Park 0 400 800 1,600 2,400 Feet NE 24th ST Idylwood Beach Park Viewpoint Lake Sammamish Viewpoint Neighborhood Park City of Redmond Critical Areas Map Effective: April 16, 2011 Map 64.4 Wetlands Legend: Mixed Wetland/Upland Wetland Redmond City Limits Sources: USGS National Wetland Inventory Aerial Photo Interpretation SCS Soil Survey City of Redmond Note: This map shall be used as a general guide. It represents approximate locations. Consult the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) for reporting requirements. In the event there is a conflict between the map and the criteria or standards of the CAO, the criteria shall prevail. NE 20th ST NE 80th ST NE 40th ST NE 31st ST 150th AVE NE 156th AVE NE 154th PL NE 160th AVE NE 162nd AVE NE 171st AVE NE 172nd AVE NE 185th AVE NE AVONDALE RD 188th AVE NE G:\Planning\COMPLAN & DEV GUIDE GRAPHICS\ArcGISMaps\RCDG Rewrite\GIS\FinalDrafts\Map64_4_RZC.mxd ---PAGE BREAK--- BASEMAPS > AP LAYERS > Wetla!1ds 00 · pa rian 00 Ripa rian apping Areas 00 Data Source 00 0 So rce Type 0 'Tiage Scale 0 mage ear Areas ofln eres 0 SRefuges 00 isto ric Wetland Data 00 Vicinity of Subject Property ---PAGE BREAK--- The Watershed Company February 2017 A P P E N D I X B Wetland and Stream Summary Sheets ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- STREAM SUMMARY SHEET Stream Summary Buffer Summary Riparian Corridor Summary Label1 Type2 Linear Feet3 Required4 Proposed5 Averaging6 Disturbed Area7 Filled Area8 Mitigation Area9 A III 652.3 100 100 - - - - 1 Stream A, B, C, etc. 2 Stream type per City stream classification system. 3 Length of stream on the property. 4 Required buffer width in feet per RCDG. 5 Proposed buffer width in feet. 6 Note if buffer averaging is used. If so, identify minimum and maximum buffer widths in feet as well as area in square feet contained within the buffer prior to and after averaging. 7 Area of buffer that is disturbed in square feet. 8 Area of buffer to be filled in square feet, such as for a road crossing. 9 Location and size in square feet of riparian corridor mitigation. Print Form ---PAGE BREAK--- WETLAND SUMMARY SHEET Wetland Summary Buffer Summary Wetland Impacts Mitigation Summary Label1 Category2 Size3 Required4 Proposed5 Increase6 Reduce7 Averaging8 Fill9 Paper Fill10 Ratio11 Area12 Location13 A III 0.041 ac 150 150 - - - - - - - 1 Wetland A, B, C, etc. 2 Wetland category per City wetland classification system. 3 Area of wetland. 4 Required buffer width in feet per RCDG. 5 Proposed buffer width in feet. 6 Does the uniqueness of the wetland require an increased buffer? If so, what is the width in feet. 7 Is there a request to reduce the buffer width? If so, what is the width in feet. 8 Is buffer averaging being used? If so, what is the average buffer width in feet. 9 Amount of wetland fill. 10 Amount of paper fill. 11 Required ratio for wetland mitigation per RCDG. 12 Size of mitigation area. 13 Note location of mitigation area (keyed to the mitigation map). Print Form ---PAGE BREAK--- The Watershed Company February 2017 A P P E N D I X C Wetland Determination Field Data Sheets ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 Heights, Redmond Sampling Date: 1/16/2017 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Heights Sampling Point: DP- 1 Investigator: A. Hoenig, J. Palmer City/County: Redmond Sect., Township, Range: S 36 T 26N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Terrace Slope <5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 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: Near stream edge. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Acer (Upslope) 60 NA* FACU Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 4. 60 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Rubus spectabilis 40 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 = 40 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals 1. Tolmiea menziesii 15 Y FAC 2. Polystichum munitum 15 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. Athyrium cyclosorum 5 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. 35 = 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: * Trees rooted upslope of assessment area not included in dominance test DP- 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 0-14 10YR 2/2 100 Gravely sandy loam With cobble 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: ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 Heights, Redmond Sampling Date: 1/16/2017 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Heights Sampling Point: DP- 2 Investigator: A. Hoenig, J. Palmer City/County: Redmond Sect., Township, Range: S 36 T 26N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Slope ~15 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 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: Wetland A outpit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Tsuga 60 Y FACU Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 2. Alnus rubra 30 Y FAC 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 4. 90 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Alnus rubra 15 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 = 15 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals 1. Polystichum munitum 25 Y FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. Athyrium cyclosorum 10 Y 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. 45 = 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- 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 0-10 7.5YR 2.1/1 100 Loam 10-12 10YR 2/1 100 Loam w/small amount of organics 12-15 5YR 3/3 100 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: ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 Heights, Redmond Sampling Date: 1/16/2017 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Heights Sampling Point: DP- 3 Investigator: A. Hoenig, J. Palmer City/County: Redmond Sect., Township, Range: S 36 T 26N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Slope ~7 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 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: Wetland A, Inpit. Lots of hummocks in the vicinity. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Tsuga 30* Y FACU Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 4. 30 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Rubus spectabilis 60 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Sambucus racemosa 10 N FACU Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 70 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals 1. Athyrium cyclosorum 50 Y FAC 2. Polystichum munitum 40 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. Tiarella trifoliata 25 Y 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. 115 = 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: *Additional cover of hemlock rooted outside of wetland area is not included. DP- 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 0-1 5YR 2.5/2 100 Silt loam 1-15 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam High organics 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: Organics presumed to mask redoximorphic features in lower layer. 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): 10 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 0 (surface) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Surface water present near data point in the wetland area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 Heights, Redmond Sampling Date: 1/16/2017 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Heights Sampling Point: DP- 4 Investigator: A. Hoenig, J. Palmer City/County: Redmond Sect., Township, Range: S 36 T 26N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Slope ~15 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 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: Area upslope of Wetland A. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Alnus rubra 30 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 2. Acer 30 Y FACU 3. Tsuga 30 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 8 4. 90 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 38 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Ribes lacustre 15 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 = 15 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals 1. Rubus ursinus 60 Y FACU 2. Polystichum munitum 15 Y FACU 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. 75 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam. ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ 1. Rubus armeniacus 15 Y FAC 2. Hedera helix 10 Y FACU 25 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: DP- 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 0-4 10Y 3/2 25 Gravelly sandy clay loam Mixed matrix 0-4 2.5Y 5/2 72 7.5YR 4/6 3 C M Gravelly sandy clay loam Mixed matrix 4-15 2.5Y 5/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M Gravelly 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): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 Heights, Redmond Sampling Date: 1/16/2017 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Heights Sampling Point: DP- 5 Investigator: A. Hoenig, J. Palmer City/County: Redmond Sect., Township, Range: S 36 T 26N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Slope <5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 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: Marginal area; some hydrology from hillside seep and drainage pipe but the plants observed do not meet wetland criteria. 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: 2 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 4. 100 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Rubus armeniacus 10 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Prunus sp. 5 Y FACU Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species 10 x 2 = 20 5. FAC species 110 x 3 = 330 15 = Total Cover FACU species 80 x 4 = 320 UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals 200 670 1. Polystichum munitum 40 Y FACU 2. Rubus ursinus 30 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B / A = 3.35 3. Equisetum telmateia 10 N FACW 4. Geranium robertianum 5 N FACU 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. 85 = 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- 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 0-9 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy loam w/ cobble 9-14 2.5Y 4/1 90 5YR 4/6 10 C M Sandy loam w/ clay 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: Lower layer presumed to extend to a depth of at least 15”. 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): 9 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Observed seeps and drainage pipe draining to depression from adjacent hillslope. ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 Heights, Redmond Sampling Date: 1/16/2017 Applicant/Owner: Emerald Heights Sampling Point: DP- 6 Investigator: A. Hoenig, J. Palmer City/County: Redmond Sect., Township, Range: S 36 T 26N R 05E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Slope 5-10 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 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: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Pseudotsuga menziesii 40 Y FACU Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 2. Acer 20 Y FACU 3. Alnus rubra 10 N FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 4. 70 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 15 Y FACU Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 15 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals 1. Phalaris arundinacea 90 Y FACW 2. Rubus ursinus 15 N FACU 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. 105 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam. ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ 1. Rubus laciniatus 40 Y FACU 2. Rubus armeniacus 10 Y FAC 50 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: DP- 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 10YR 3/2 100 Loam 7-14 10YR 4/2 85 7.5YR 3/4 15 C M Gravelly sandy loam w/ some clay 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: Not saturated to depth of at least 14”. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- The Watershed Company February 2017 A P P E N D I X D Wetland Rating Form and Figures ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 Wetland A Date of site visit: 1/17/2017 Rated by: A. Hoenig, J. Palmer Trained by Ecology? ☒Y ☐N Date of training: 10/2015 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: GoogleEarth 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 6 5 6 17 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 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 ☒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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 Residential development just outside of 150 feet upslope, lawn maintenance and road pollutants ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☒1-2 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 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 2 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: ☒2-4 = H ☐1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 that have flooding problems: ☒ The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources houses or salmon redds) points = 2 ☐ Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 ☐ No flooding problems anywhere 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: ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 1 H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ☐ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ☐ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ☒ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 ☒ Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ☐ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ☐ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points 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 1 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 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 ☐ 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). 3 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 3 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] = 3 % + = 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 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2 = 10% + (20%/2) = 20% ☐ Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 ☒ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 ☐ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 ☐ Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 2 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If ☒ > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = 2) ☐ ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 -2 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐4-6 = H ☐1-3 = M 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 ☒ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) ☐ 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 2 Rating of Value If score is: ☒2 = H ☐1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 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? ☐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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Appendix — 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 - S3.3 Resources and Links: Google Earth ECY 303(d) list TMDL list ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 scrub-shrub Palustrine emergent ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Figure 2. Hydroperiods and 150ft buffer - 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 Occasionally flooded Saturated only Permanently flowing stream Approx. 150-foot area ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 and rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 Moderate/low intensity land use Relatively undisturbed Wetland unit Approx. 1-km area ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin - S3.1, S3.2 Approximate location of Wetland unit ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Figure 6. Screen-capture of TMDL list for WRIA in which unit is found - S3.3