wetland delineation report for the little hanaford road

Prepared for:

City of CentraliaPublic Works Department1100 N. Tower Avenue

Centralia, Washington 98531-5044(206) 330-7512

Prepared by:

Ecological Land Services, Inc.1157 3rd Avenue, Suite 220

Longview, Washington 98632(360) 578-1371

Project Number 1547.01

February 2015

Wetland Delineation Reportfor the

Little Hanaford Road PropertyCentralia, Washington

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc.Wetland Delineation Report i February 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1

METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................................1

SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................................2

VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................2

SOILS................................................................................................................................................3

HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................................3

NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY .................................................................................................4

LEWIS COUNTY WETLAND MAPPING .............................................................................................4

CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................4

WETLAND CATEGORIZATION ..................................................................................................... 4WATER TYPING........................................................................................................................... 4WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 4

LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................................6

REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................7

FIGURES & PHOTOPLATES

Figure 1 Vicinity MapFigure 2 Site MapFigure 3 Soil Survey MapFigure 4 National Wetlands Inventory MapFigure 5 Lewis County Wetland Inventory MapFigure 6 Wetland Rating Form 1Figure 7 Wetland Rating Form 2Figure 8 Wetland Rating Form 3Figure 9 Wetland Rating Form 4Photoplates Site Photos

APPENDIX AWetland Determination Data Forms

APPENDIX BWestern Washington Wetland Rating Form

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc.Wetland Delineation Report ii February 2015

SIGNATURE PAGE

The information and data in this report were compiled and prepared under the supervision anddirection of the undersigned.

_______________________Joanne Bartlett, PWSProfessional Biologist

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc.Wetland Delineation Report 1 February 2015

INTRODUCTION

Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS) was contracted by the City of Centralia, Public WorksDepartment to complete a wetland delineation and report for the Little Hanaford Road properties,parcel numbers 20965002000 and 02096200000, within a portion of Section 4, Township 14North, Range 2 West of the Willamette Meridian, near Centralia, Washington (Figure 1). Thisreport summarizes findings of the wetland delineation according to the Lewis County Code (LCC),Title 17 Land Use and Development Regulations, Chapter 17.35A Critical Areas, Article IV (A)Wetlands and Article IV (B) Aquatic Habitats.

METHODOLOGY

The wetland delineation followed the Routine Determination Method according to the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and theRegional 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,2010).

The Routine Determination Method examines three parameters—vegetation, soils, andhydrology—to determine if wetlands exist in a given area. Hydrology is critical in determiningwhat is wetland, but is often difficult to assess because hydrologic conditions can changeperiodically (hourly, daily, or seasonally). Consequently, it is necessary to determine ifhydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils are present, which would indicate that water is present forlong enough duration to support a wetland plant community. By definition, wetlands are thoseareas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and durationsufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetationtypically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are regulated as “Waters of theUnited States” by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as “Waters of the State” by theWashington Department of Ecology (DOE), and locally by Lewis County.

To determine the presence or absence of wetlands on this property, ELS biologists collected dataon vegetation, hydrology, and soils. During three site visits conducted November 14, 2014,December 18, 2014, and January 30, 2015, one wetland was identified across the northern ¾’s ofthe property extending from the toe of slope at the south end to China Creek, which runs along thenorth edge of the properties. Because most of these properties is composed of wetland, only thesouthern boundary of the wetland was delineated. Three areas of upland were identified in thewetland and were delineated to document the locations of the upland. The wetland boundary wasdelineated using consecutively numbered fluorescent flagging labeled “WETLANDDELINEATION” and pink and orange pin flags. Eleven test plots were conducted to verify thewetland boundary delineation but they were not marked in the field to reduce the overall number ofwire pin flags within the mowed pasture area. Wetland boundaries were determined throughbreaks in topography, changes in vegetation, and evidence of surface hydrology. Vegetation,hydrology, and soil data was collected to verify the wetland boundary delineations (Appendix A).The wetland boundary flags and test plots were located using a Magellan Handheld GPS unit toshow the wetland on the site map (Figure 2). The ditches in the wetland are visible on the aerialphotos so were identified using aerial photo interpretation and during field delineation.


SITE DESCRIPTION

The City of Centralia properties are located south of Little Hanaford Road just outside the easternlimits of the city (Figure 1). They are each composed of rectangles with the irregular property linesaround the western property. The north edge of the properties is defined by Little Hanaford Road,a small residential development on Creekside Court, and a larger formerly farmed property west ofthe residential development (Figure 2). Additional residential development is located south, east,and west of the properties. Lundberg Road lies along the east edge of the properties and a mixeddeciduous and coniferous forest lays along the south edge of the eastern property (Photoplates 1and 2). The property itself is composed of mowed pasture, which is mostly at the base of themoderately steep slopes down from the south (Photoplates 3 through 6). The mowed pastureextends to the south bank of China Creek (Type F water), which runs along the north edge of theproperty (Photoplates 8 and 11).

The property is composed mostly of wetland that lies within the low pasture but there are areaswhere the wetland extends a short distance up the south slope (Figure 2). There are upland islandslocated on the west half of the property and at the north edge along China Creek (Photoplates 6 and9). Wetland extends to the adjacent north properties (Photoplate 8) and Little Hanaford Road andincludes a roadside ditch at the north edge (Photoplate 11). Because the wetland extends to theproperties and road to the north, the north boundary was not flagged as part of the delineation. Thesouthern boundary was flagged and the upland islands were flagged to identify their locationswithin the wetland.

The wetland appears to be partially fed by flood waters from China Creek through breaks in thelow berm that lies along the north edge. A farm ditch crosses the south half of the wetland andconveys water from wetlands upslope into China Creek (Figure 2). This ditch curves to the northnear the middle of the property and drains directly into China Creek. The wetland extends east toLundberg Road (Figures 2 and 6). It is separated from wetlands east of Lundberg Road by the roaditself and by a deep ditch along the west side of the road. There is no culvert under the road toconnect the wetlands but there is a culvert under Lundberg Road for China Creek. The wetlandextends a short distance onto a developed property to the north (north of the stream) and extendswest along China Creek to Gold Road.

VEGETATION

The mowed pasture wetland was sampled at Test Plots 2, 5, 8, and 12. Each of the test plots isdominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW) with lower percentages of mowedNootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC) and soft rush (Juncus effusus, FACW) present at Test Plot 8(Photoplate 5). Unidentified sedge (Carex sp. FACW to OBL) were observed in several locationsin the wetland. The species was not identified because of mowed conditions.

The upland areas lie mostly on the slopes to the south and on the upland islands (Photoplates 3, 4,5, 7, 9 and 10). The uplands on the slope are dominated by reed canarygrass, tall fescue(Schedonorus phoenix, FAC), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata, FACU), Kentucky bluegrass(Poa pratensis, FAC), and soft rush. Lower percentages of mowed Himalayan blackberry (Rubusarmeniacus, FACU), hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata, FACU), dandelion (Taraxacum


officinale, FACU), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata, FACU), and bracken fern (Pteridiumaquilinum, FACU) are present in the partially un-mowed area where Test Plot 2 was conducted(Photoplate 2).

The dominant vegetation found onsite is recorded on the attached wetland determination dataforms (Appendix A). The indicator status, following the common and scientific names, indicateshow likely a species is to be found in wetlands. Listed from most likely to least likely to be foundin wetlands, the indicator status categories are:

OBL (obligate wetland) – Almost always occur in wetlands. FACW (facultative wetland) – Usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands. FAC (facultative) – Occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. FACU (facultative upland) – Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands. UPL (obligate upland) – Almost never occur in wetlands. NI (no indicator) – Status not yet determined.

SOILS

As referenced on the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2014) website,Lacamas silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (119) is mapped in a narrow strip along the south edge ofthe property and Reed silty clay loam (172) is mapped across the remainder of the property (Figure3). The mapped Lacamas and Reed soils are classified as hydric (NRCS 2014). The mapped limitsof the Reed soil lies in close proximity to the delineated wetland boundary. Areas mapped as non-hydric soils do not necessarily mean that an area is or is not a wetland—hydrology, hydrophyticvegetation, and hydric soils must all be present to classify an area as a wetland.

The evaluated wetland soils were composed of silt loam to silty clay loam profiles that exhibitedblack to grayish (10YR 4/1 to 5Y 4/1) soil matrix colors in both soil layers. There wereredoximorphic concentrations in the subsurface layers that cover 5 to 20 percent of the matrix (10YR 4/4 to 10YR 4/6). These profiles were determined to meet hydric soil indicators DepletedBelow Dard Surface (A11) and Depleted Matrix (F3). The evaluated upland soils were primarilydark brown (10YR 4/2 to 2.5Y 5/2) silt loam and silty clay loam. Some of the upland soil holesrevealed depleted matrix chromas in the subsurface layers and were determined to meet the hydricsoil indicator F3. The areas in which these profiles were conducted are determined to be non-wetland because they lack positive indicators for wetland hydrology.

HYDROLOGY

Hydrology was present throughout the wetland as standing water and saturation during each of thesite visits. The level of standing water varied from several inches within the wetland to at least 1-foot in the ditch along the south edge. Each of the wetland test plots exhibited water tables at andto within 12 inches of the soil surface. Areas with the water table at 12 inches exhibited saturationwithin 6 inches of the soil surface. None of the wetland test plots were conducted on the slopingportion of the wetland but it appears that water was present within 6 inches of the soil surfacebased on squishy conditions. The wetland drains north to China Creek via surface flows andthrough the ditch. The source of water includes floodwaters from China Creek, surface water


runoff, groundwater discharge from the south slope, and direct precipitation. Evidence of floodingwas observed to the south edge of the wetland during the January 30, 2015 site visit indicating thatmuch of the wetland is seasonally flooded due to riverine flooding. Therefore, the wetland isdetermined to be a Riverine system. Hydrology was not present in any of the upland test plots andthere was no evidence of wetland hydrology.

NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps wetland across most of the property (Figure 4). Thewetland is mapped as palustrine emergent seasonally flooded (PEMC). ELS biologists agree withthe NWI mapping because during the field visit, wetland was identified within the mapped area.ELS biologists disagree with the extent of wetland to the east across Lundberg Road because theroad and roadside ditch on the west side does not provide continuation of wetland conditions. Thewetland offsite to the west is also now a forested community and not a scrub shrub community(PSSC) as mapped. The NWI maps should be used with discretion because they are used to gathergeneral wetland information about a regional area and therefore are limited in accuracy for smallerareas because of their large scale.

LEWIS COUNTY WETLAND MAPPING

The Lewis County GIS identifies both properties as composed entirely of wetlands based on thewetland and soil mapping sources (Figure 5). ELS agrees with the presence of wetlands on most ofthe site however, biologists determined that the southern portion of the site is composed of upland.

CONCLUSIONS

WETLAND CATEGORIZATION

A single wetland was identified and delineated on these properties. It was rated according to theWashington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington-2014 Update (rating form;Hruby 2014) (Appendix B). The wetland system is composed of emergent and forestedcommunities that lie along a stream that floods the wetland at least twice per year. It includessloping areas along the south edge. The wetland was rated using the riverine section of the ratingform per the guidance. The wetland is a Category II Riverine wetland based on functions. Itscored a total of 20 points on the 2014 update rating form and rates Moderate for habitat functions.

WATER TYPING

China Creek is a permanently flowing stream that runs along the north edge of the site. It flowswithin a defined channel with a band of pine trees on a low berm along the north side and a lowmowed berm on the south side. A separate roadside ditch runs along the very north edge of theproperty between the line of pine trees and Little Hanaford Road. China Creek is mapped as aType F Water because it is not a Type S water that contains fish habitat and is greater than 10 feetin width.

WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS

The LCC Chapter 17.35A.610 specifies wetland buffer widths based on the wetland category alongwith the score for habitat functions and intensity of the proposed land use. The buffer widths


required for the wetland per the LCC have not be adapted for the 2014 updated wetland ratingsystem. The wetland received a moderate rating for habitat functions, which is consistent withscoring less than 20 points for the 2004 wetland rating system. Therefore, buffers for wetlandsscoring less than 20 points for habitat was used for this wetland system. The buffers for Type FWaters are greater for Water A types per LCC Chapter 17.35A.680(1). The buffers for the onsitewetland and China Creek per the LCC are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Wetland Classification, Water Type, and Buffer Requirements.

CriticalArea

CowardinClass

WetlandCategory orWater Type

HabitatScore

Wetland Buffer Widths

LowIntensity

ModerateIntensity

HighIntensity

Wetland PEMB/CPFOC

II Moderate 75 feet* 80 feet** 110 feet**

ChinaCreek

-- Type FWater A

-- 150 feet from the ordinary high waterline

* per LCC 17.35A.610(1)(a)** per LCC 17.35A.610(2)


LIMITATIONS

The conclusions listed above are based on standard scientific methodology and best professionaljudgment. In our opinion, local, state, and federal regulatory agencies should agree with ourconclusions; however, this should be considered a preliminary jurisdictional determination andshould be used at your own risk until it has been reviewed and approved in writing by theappropriate regulatory agencies.


REFERENCES

Cowardin, L.M., C. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands andDeepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-78/31. U.S. Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington D.C.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, TechnicalReport Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,Mississippi.

Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014Update (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology

Lewis County Code. Title 17-Critical Areas, Chapter 17.35A Critical Areas, Article IV (A)Wetlands and Article IV (B) Aquatic Habitats. 2008. Lewis County, Washington.

Lewis County Parcel Search website. http://parcels.lewiscountywa.gov/003475009007. Websiteaccessed November 2014.

Lewis County Web Maps. http://ims.lewiscountywa.gov/webmaps/composite2/viewer.htm.Website accessed November 2014.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of EngineersWetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0),ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S.Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2014. National Wetlands Inventory. Online document<http:www.wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html>. Website accessed November 2014.

U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014. Lewis County Area. Onlinedocument <http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/wa_reports.html>. Website accessedNovember 2014.

FIGURES AND PHOTOPLATES

NOTE:

USGS topographic quadrangle map reproduced using

MAPTECH Inc., Terrain Navigator Pro software.

LOCATION MAP

WASHINGTON

46.7270° Latitude

-122.9372° Longitude

SITE

PROJECT

VICINITY MAP

SCALE IN MILES

30150

CAMAS

QUILCENE

QUEETS

NEAH BAY

CLALLAM BAY

5

20

9

LOPEZ

FRIDAY HARBOR

ORCAS

ANACORTES

LAKE

ROSS

ROCKPORT

BELLINGHAM

FERNDALE

LYNDEN

BLAINE

SEDRO WOOLLEY

MOUNT VERNON

OAK HARBOR

STANWOOD

DARRINGTON

ARLINGTON

EVERETT

MUKILTEO

9

MONROE

PORT

TOWNSEND

SEQUIM

ANGELES

PORT

FORKS

MORTON

KELSOLONGVIEW

HOQUIAM

ABERDEEN

MONTESANO

OCEAN

SHORES

WESTPORT

RAYMOND

CENTRALIA

CHEHALIS

WINLOCK

CASTLE

ROCK

CATHLAMET

WOODLAND

5

12

12

6

504

4

12

PACIFIC

BEACH

GRAYS

HARBOR

PACIFIC

LEWIS

COWLITZ

KALAMA

ELMA

5

BATTLE

GROUND

VANCOUVER

NORTH BONNEVILLE

STEVENSON

CARSON

MT. ST.

HELENS

MOSSYROCK

RANDLE

PACKWOOD

EATONVILLE

MT.

RAINIER

ROY

ORTING

BUCKLEY

ENUMCLAW

PUYALLUP

DUPONT

TENINO

YELM

OLYMPIA

SHELTON

HOODSPORT

GIG

TACOMA

AUBURN

KENT

NORTH BEND

SEATTLE

DUVALL

BOTHELL

SKYKOMISH

14

LA

CENTER

503

5

SKAMANIA

CLARK

MASON

KING

THURSTON

PIERCE

KITSAP

505

127

123

410

161

3

3

18

2

WAY

ILWACO

OCEAN

PARK

LONG

BEACH

COPALIS

BEACH

JEFFERSON

CLALLAM

SNOHOMISH

SKAGIT

WHATCOM

ISLAND

SAN JUAN

AMANDA

PARK

SOUTH

BEND

KIRKLAND

REDMOND

BELLEVUE

HARBOR

FEDERAL

PORT

ORCHARD

BREMERTON

POULSBO

STEILACOOM

RIDGEFIELD

WASHOUGAL

2/10/2015 10:50 A

M C

:\U

sers\Jack\D

esktop\1547.01-F

igures\1547.01 D

L.dw

g Jack

DA

TE

:

DW

N:

RE

Q. B

Y:

PR

J. M

GR

:

CH

K:

PR

OJE

CT

N

O:

Figure 1

VIC

IN

IT

Y M

AP

2/10/15

1547.01

Little

H

an

afo

rd

R

oa

d W

etla

nd

D

elin

ea

tio

n

City o

f C

en

tra

lia

Se

ctio

n 4

, T

ow

nsh

ip

1

4N

, R

an

ge

2

W, W

.M

.

Ce

ntra

lia

, L

ew

is C

ou

nty, W

A

JLL

JB

SC

ALE

IN

F

EE

T

02000

4000

SITE

SITE

TP4

China Creek

42

2/10/2015 10:50 AM C:\Users\Jack\Desktop\1547.01-Figures\1547.01 DL.dwg Jack

NOTE(S):

1. Aerial from Google Earth.

LEGEND:

Site Boundary

Wetland Boundary

Stream with Flow Direction

Test Plot Location

Wetland Flag

DATE:

DWN:

REQ. BY:

PRJ. MGR:

CHK:

PROJECT NO:

Figure 2

SITE MAP

2/10/15

1547.01

Little Hanaford Road Wetland Delineation

City of Centralia

Section 4, Township 14N, Range 2W, W.M.

Centralia, Lewis County, WA

JLL

JB

SCALE IN FEET

0 200 400

NOTE(S):

1. Map provided on-line by NRCS at web address:

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

LEGEND:

27 Buckpeak silt loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes. Not hydric.

119 Lacamas silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes. Hydric.

172 Reed silty clay loam. Hydric.

2/10/2015 10:50 A

M C

:\U

sers\Jack\D

esktop\1547.01-F

igures\1547.01 D

L.dw

g Jack

DA

TE

:

DW

N:

RE

Q. B

Y:

PR

J. M

GR

:

CH

K:

PR

OJE

CT

N

O:

Figure 3

SO

IL S

UR

VE

Y M

AP

2/10/15

1547.01

Little

H

an

afo

rd

R

oa

d W

etla

nd

D

elin

ea

tio

n

City o

f C

en

tra

lia

Se

ctio

n 4

, T

ow

nsh

ip

1

4N

, R

an

ge

2

W, W

.M

.

Ce

ntra

lia

, L

ew

is C

ou

nty, W

A

JLL

JB

SC

ALE

IN

F

EE

T

0400

800

SITE

NOTE(S):

1. Map provided on-line by US Fish & Wildlife Service at web address:

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/index.html

PEMC Palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded.

PSSC Palustrine, scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded.

2/10/2015 10:50 A

M C

:\U

sers\Jack\D

esktop\1547.01-F

igures\1547.01 D

L.dw

g Jack

LEGEND:

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

DA

TE

:

DW

N:

RE

Q. B

Y:

PR

J. M

GR

:

CH

K:

PR

OJE

CT

N

O:

Figure 4

NT

IO

NA

L W

ET

LA

ND

S IN

VE

NT

OR

Y

2/10/15

1547.01

Little

H

an

afo

rd

R

oa

d W

etla

nd

D

elin

ea

tio

n

City o

f C

en

tra

lia

Se

ctio

n 4

, T

ow

nsh

ip

1

4N

, R

an

ge

2

W, W

.M

.

Ce

ntra

lia

, L

ew

is C

ou

nty, W

A

JLL

JB

SC

ALE

IN

F

EE

T

0400

800

SITE

NOTE(S):

1. Map provided on-line by Lewis County GIS at web address:

http://ims.lewiscountywa.gov/webmaps/composite2/viewer.htm

2/10/2015 10:50 A

M C

:\U

sers\Jack\D

esktop\1547.01-F

igures\1547.01 D

L.dw

g Jack

LEGEND:

Wetlands

Hydric Soils

DA

TE

:

DW

N:

RE

Q. B

Y:

PR

J. M

GR

:

CH

K:

PR

OJE

CT

N

O:

Figure 5

LE

WIS

C

OU

NT

Y W

ET

LA

ND

M

AP

PIN

G

2/10/15

1547.01

Little

H

an

afo

rd

R

oa

d W

etla

nd

D

elin

ea

tio

n

City o

f C

en

tra

lia

Se

ctio

n 4

, T

ow

nsh

ip

1

4N

, R

an

ge

2

W, W

.M

.

Ce

ntra

lia

, L

ew

is C

ou

nty, W

A

JLL

JB

SC

ALE

IN

F

EE

T

0400

800

SITE

Farm Ditch

(Seasonally

Flowing)

Seasonally Flooded

Saturated

UPL

UPL

Permanently

Flowing Stream

China Creek

(Permanently

Flowing)

Palustrine Emergent

Palustrine Forested

Seasonally Flooded

G

o

l

d

S

t

r

e

e

t

Lundberg R

oad

Roadside

Ditch

UPL


DATE:

DWN:

REQ. BY:

PRJ. MGR:

CHK:

PROJECT NO:

2/10/15

1547.01


City of Centralia



JLL

JB

SCALE IN FEET

0 500 1000

SITE

LEGEND:

Site Boundary

Wetland Unit Boundary

Hydrologic Unit Division

150' Wetland Offset

Riverine, Forested & Emergent

R1.1 - Depressions cover > 1/2 the

area of wetland (seasonally flooded

area).

R1.2 Herbaceous plants (>6" high) >

2/3 area of the wetland.

R2.4 - Greater than 10% within 150

feet of wetland in land uses that

generate pollutants.

R4.1 - The ratio of wetland width is 10

to 20 (seasonally flooded area).

R4.2 - Emergent plants > 2/3 area.

H1.1 - Emergent, Forested, Forested

areas have 3 out of 5 strata.

H1.2 - Seasonally flooded, saturated,

permanently flowing stream,

seasonally flowing stream.

H1.4 - Low interspersion of habitats.

NOTE(S):

1. Aerial photograph from Google Earth.

Figure 6

WETLAND RATING FORM 1


DATE:

DWN:

REQ. BY:

PRJ. MGR:

CHK:

PROJECT NO:

2/10/15

1547.01


City of Centralia



JLL

JB

SCALE IN FEET

0 2000 4000

NOTE(S):


LEGEND:

Site Boundary


Contributing Basin

R2.2 - Contributing basin of

wetland includes UGA or

incorporated area.

R2.3 - At least 10% of contributing

basin contains tilled fields and

pastures.

R5.2 - Up-gradient watershed

does not include a UGA or

incorporated area.

City of Centralia

Figure 7 WETLAND RATING FORM 2

H

H

H

H

H

M/L

M/L

M/L

M/L


DATE:

DWN:

REQ. BY:

PRJ. MGR:

CHK:

PROJECT NO:

2/10/15

1547.01


City of Centralia



JLL

JB

SCALE IN FEET

0 1500 3000

NOTE(S):


LEGEND:

Site Boundary


(1.83%)

Accessible Habitat (4.28%)

Undisturbed Habitat (32.47%)

High Intensity Land Uses

(42.63%)

Moderate/Low Intensity

Land Uses (18.52%)

H

M/L

H2.1 - Accessible habitat 10-19% of

1km polygon.

H2.2 - Undisturbed habitat 10-50%

and in 1-3 patches.

H2.3 - < 50% of 1km polygon is high

intensity.

Figure 8

WETLAND RATING FORM 3

Figure 3a-303(d) Map: Multiple listings for Chehalis River. The wetland along China Creek is greater than 1mile from the Chehalis River.

Figure 3b: TMDL List for Lewis County and the Chehalis River. China Creek is not listed as one of thetributaries with TMDLs.

1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632(360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305

DATE: 2/9/15DWN: JBPRJ. MGR JBPROJ.#: 1574.01

Figure 9Wetland Rating Form 4

←Rated Wetland


DATE: 1/30/15DWN: JBPRJ. MGR: JBPROJ.#: 1547.01

Photoplate #1Project Name: Little

Hanaford Road PropertyClient: City of Centralia

Lewis County, Washington

Photo 1 is taken from the eastend of the property at the start ofthe wetland delineation. It lookswest along the south edge of theproperty. The wetland is mostlyin the low area on the right edgeof the photo but extends up theslope in several locationscrossing to the tree line on theleft edge.

Photo 3 is taken from the samelocation as Photos 1 and 2. Itlooks north along the east edgeof the property. This onsitewetland extends to LundbergRoad, which is just visible on theright edge of the photo (beyondthe utility pole).

Photo 2 is taken from the samelocation as Photo 1 and looks northalong the trail. The area beyondthe maple tree on the right is ahistoric clearing that is nowdominated by blackberry thickets.

Photo 2 is taken from the samelocation as Photo 1 and looksnorthwesterly across the east endof the wetland.






Photo 4 shows the area ofwetland where Test Plot 1 wasconducted. This area isdominated by reed canarygrassand hydrology was present asstanding water and a shallowwater table.

Photo 6 is taken from theexisting farm road that providesaccess to these city ownedproperties from Little HanafordRoad. This photo looks westalong the south edge of theeastern property with wetlandsbeginning along the tree line tothe left.


Photo 5 shows the area whereTest Plot 2 is located. This areais composed of sloping uplandthat is dominated by a mixture ofgrasses.






Photo 7 shows the area whereTest Plot 3 was completed. Thisarea is located on the uplandslope south of the delineatedwetland. It is dominated bygrasses that are partially mowed(the upper half of the test plotarea is not mowed).

Photo 9 shows the area ofwetland where Test Plot 5 islocated. It is located about 25feet south of the ditch thatcrosses the south half of thewetland. The ditch is visible asthe tall grasses in the rightbackground.


Photo 8 shows the area whereTest Plot 4 was completeddownslope of Test Plot 3. Thisarea is composed of regularlymowed upland.






Photo 10 is taken from nearWetland Boundary (WB) flag 36and looks south up the slope.There is an upland ravine thatbegins at the top of the slope. Nowater flow was observed comingdown through the swale althoughthere is a shallow ditch part of theway up the slope delineated atWB flag 38.

Photo 12 shows the area whereTest Plot 7 is located. It issituated downslope of Test Plot 6and upslope of the wetland assampled at Test Plot 8 This areais determined to be uplandbecause it lacks positiveindicators of wetland hydrology.


Photo 11 is taken of the areawhere Test Plot 6 is located.This test plot lies in the area ofun-mowed grasses visible inPhoto 10. This area isdetermined to be non-wetlandbecause it lacks positiveindicators for wetland hydrology.






Photo 13 shows the area ofwetland where Test Plot87 wasconducted. It is situated justoutside the area of standing watersouth of the ditch where thevegetation is dominated bymowed reed canarygrass.

Photo 15 is taken from the samelocation as Photo 14. It looksnorthwest across the slopingupland pasture that occupiesmost of the southwestern portionof the property. The residentialproperties offsite to the north arevisible across the rightbackground.


Photo 14 is taken from the southproperty line and looks westacross the west half of theproperty. The property line isdemarcated by the fence on theleft edge of the photo.






Photo 16 is taken from the samelocation as Photos 14 and 15. Itlooks north across propertytoward the residentialdevelopments that lie along LittleHanaford Road north of ChinaCreek.

Photo 18 is taken from the samelocation as Photos 14 through 17.It looks easterly along the southedge of the property, which isdemarcated by the fence on theright side of the photo. Photo 2 is taken from the same

location as Photo 1 and looks northalong the trail. The area beyondthe maple tree on the right is ahistoric clearing that is nowdominated by blackberry thickets.

Photo 17 is taken from the samelocation as Photos 14 through 16.It looks northeasterly across thefinger of wetland that extends tothe south property line and isdelineated with WB flags 40through 46. The portion of theslope in the foreground of thisphoto is composed of wetland.






Photo 19 is at the north end ofthe upland island that lies in thenorthwestern portion of theproperty. This photo looks eastalong the north side of the uplandisland with wetland to the left(darkened grasses) and the islandis on the right. WB flag 61 isvisible at the lower right edge ofthe photo.

Photo 21 is taken from the samelocation as Photos 19 and 20. Itlooks southerly across thewetland that lies south of theupland island. This photo alsoshows the slope south of thewetland.


Photo 20 is taken from the samelocation as Photo 19 and lookssoutheasterly across the uplandisland. WB flag 61 is visible inthe lower left corner of thisphoto.






Photo 22 is taken from near thenorth property line and lookswest along China Creek. ChinaCreek lies along the entire northedge of the property and was atleast 10 feet wide in this location.

Photo 24 is taken from the samelocation as Photos 22 and 23. Itlooks easterly along ChinaCreek.


Photo 23 is taken from the samelocation as Photo 22 and looksnorth across China Creek to theoffsite portion of the wetland.






Photo 25 is taken of the uplandin the northeastern portion of theproperty. This upland area slopesgradually up from the delineatedwetland, which lies on the leftside, and ends at the top of thebank above China Creek (to theright in the un-mowed area).

Photo 27 is taken from the samelocation as Photos 25 and 26. Itlooks north along the east end ofthe upland area toward LittleHanaford Road, which liesbeyond the line of pine trees inthe background.


Photo 26 is taken from the samelocation as Photo 25 and looksnorthwesterly across this uplandarea. China Creek lies in adefined channel between the tallgrasses and line of pine treesacross the background.






Photo 28 shows the area whereTest Plot 11 was conducted. It islocated on the upland area alongthe north edge of the property.China Creek is the right and thewetland is to the left.


Photo 29 shows the area whereTest Plot 12 was conducted. Thisarea is part of the delineatedwetland, which like the rest ofthe wetland, is dominated bymowed reed canarygrass.

Photo 30 shows the areas whereTest Plots 9 and 10 werecompleted. This area isdominated by tall fescue andorchard grass with lowpercentages of soft rush.






Photo 31 looks east along thenorth edge of the wetland whereit abuts the fill along the southside of Little Hanaford Road.China Creek flows in a welldefined channel just beyond theline of pine trees.

Photo 33 looks west along LittleHanaford Road to document thecontinuation of wetlandconditions up to the road fill.


Photo 32 looks south across thewetland along Little HanafordRoad into the property.

APPENDIX A

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plantsTree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute

% CoverDominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus Dominance Test Worksheet:

1. Number of Dominant SpeciesThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)

2.

3. Total Number of DominantSpecies Across All Strata: 3 (B)

4.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant SpeciesThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B)

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. UPL Prevalence Index worksheet:

2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

3. OBL species x1 =

4. FACW species x2 =

5. FAC species x3 =

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 =

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' diameter) UPL species x5 =

1. Schedonorus phoenix 30 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. Dactylis glomerata 30 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =

3. Poa pratensis 30 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. Phalaris arundinacea 10 no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01

7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supportingdata in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.

9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)11.

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology mustbe present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1.HydrophyticVegetationPresent?

Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Remarks: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FAC species.

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 1-30-15

Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 1

Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10

Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: UPL

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Areawithin a Wetland? Yes NoHydric Soil Present? Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Remarks: Test Plot 1 is located in an upland section upslope of the delineated wetland. The area is composed of mowed pasture with a mixture of dominant grasses.


SOIL Sampling Point: TP 1Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

0-11 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam

11-16" 2.5Y 5/2 80 10YR 4/4 20 C M clay

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)

Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)

Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)

3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation andwetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic.

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Hydric Soils Present? Yes NoType:

Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets none of the hydric soil indicators because the matrix chroma in the surface layer is too high.

HYDROLOGYWetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):


Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present?(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches):

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: Hydrology was not present during the field visit and there is no evidence of wetland hydrology.

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road







2.


4.



1. Prevalence Index worksheet:


3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =



1. Phalaris arundinacea 90 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. Prevalence Index = B/A =

3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation









Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10

Remarks: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FACW species.




Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10

Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: Long: Datum: Magellan

Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: PEM







Remarks: Test Plot 2 is located in the wetland where there was standing water and soil saturation during the 1-30-15 field visit.





0-11" 10YR 2/1 100 silt loam

11-16" 2.5Y 3/1 80 10YR 4/4 20 C M clay














Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator A12 due to the dark surface and subsurface layers.














Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4"


Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): at surface



Remarks: Hydrology was present during the field delineation as standing water with the water table at the surface of the soil hole.








2.


4.


Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' diameter)

1. Rubus armeniacus 10 yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:


3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =

50% = 5, 20% = 2 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =




3. Poa pratensis 25 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. Hypochaeris radicata 15 no FACU 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

5. Taraxacum officinale 10 no FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. Pteridium aquilinum 10 no FACU 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01

7. Plantago lanceolata 10 no FACU 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supportingdata in Remarks or on a separate sheet)8.






Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover


Remarks: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is not met because there is less than 50% dominance by FAC species.




Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10

Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.72624 Long: -122.93472 Datum: Magellan








Remarks: Test Plot 3 is located on the slope south of the wetland. Partially mowed-upper limits of slope not mowed perhaps due to the steepness of the slope.





0-16" 2.5Y 3/3 100 silt loam














Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets none of the hydric soil indicators because the matrix chroma is too high.














Field Observations:














2.


4.





3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =





3. Phalaris arundinacea 15 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. Juncus effusus 5 no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

5. Rubus laciniatus 5 no FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. Rosa nutkana 5 no FAC 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01







Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover


Remarks: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is not met because there is not greater than 50% dominance by FAC species.













Remarks: Test Plot 4 is located on the slope just outside the southern delineated wetland boundary. This area is composed of mowed pasture with starts of evergreenblackberry and Nootka rose present. The blackberry and rose are included in the herb stratum because they do not form a shrub layer due to regularmowing.





0-6" 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam no redoximorphic features

6-16" 2.5Y4/2 100 silty clayloam

no redoximorphic features














Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets none of the hydric soil indicators because the matrix chroma is too high and there are no redoximorphic features to accompany the4/2 soil matrix chroma.














Field Observations:














2.


4.





3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =















Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover















Remarks: Test Plot 5 is located within the wetland area at the base of the southern slope. It is composed of mowed emergent vegetation dominated by reedcanarygrass.





0-6" 2.5Y 3/2 95 10YR 4/4 5 C M silt loam

6-16" 5Y 4/1 85 10YR 4/4 15 C M silty clayloam














Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator A11 because of low matrix chroma over a depleted matrix with redoximorphic features present.














Field Observations:



Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12

Saturation Present?(includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): 6


Remarks: Hydrology present during the field visit as a shallow water table with evidence of soil saturation during the growing season (oxidized rhizospheres alongliving roots).








2.


4.





3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =




2. Juncus effusus 25 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =

3. Juncus sp. 15 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:







1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology mustbe present, unless disturbed or problematic.50% = 57.5, 20% = 23 115 = Total Cover



Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover






Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10









Remarks: Test Plot 6 is located halfway up the slope south of the wetland. There is an upland swale upslope that is dominated by blackberry with unmowed grassesin the test plot area. This area is located beneath the power lines that run north to south across the property. This area has positive indicators forhydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils but is not wetland because there are no positive indicators for wetland hydrology.





0-6" 10YR 4/2 100 silty clayloam

6-16" 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M silty clayloam














Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3 because of low matrix chroma over a depleted matrix with redoximorphic features present.














Field Observations:






Remarks: Hydrology was not present during the field visit and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.








2.


4.





3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =

50% = 5, 20% = 2 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 =



2. Rosa nutkana starts 10 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =











Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover


Remarks: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FACW and FAC species.




Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10









Remarks: Test Plot 7 is located in the mowed portion of the upland pasture below the power lines and downslope from Test Plot 6. This area is dominated by mowedreed canarygrass with low cover by Nootka rose starts that are included in the herb stratum because they do not form a shrub layer. This area isdetermined to be non-wetland despite the presence of positive indicators of hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation because there are no positive indicatorsof wetland hydrology.




















Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3 because of low matrix chroma over a depleted matrix with redoximorphic features present.














Field Observations:






Remarks: Hydrology was not present during the field visit and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.








2.


4.





3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =




2. Rosa nutkana starts 20 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =

3. Juncus effusus 10 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:










Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover


Remarks: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met because there is greater than 50% dominance by FACW and FAC species.




Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0









Remarks: Test Plot 8 is located in the mowed wetland area beginning at the toe of the moderate slopes down from the south. This mowed area of wetland isdominated by reed canarygrass with Nootka rose starts. The Nootka rose starts are included in the herb stratum because they are low in stature and do notform a shrub layer.



















Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3 because of low matrix chroma with redoximorphic features present.














Field Observations:



Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface



Remarks: Hydrology was present during field visit with a water table at the surface of the soil. Standing water was present nearby to a depth of 6 inches.








2.


4.





3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =






4. Cirsium arvense 5 no FAC 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation









Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover


Remarks: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is not met because there is not greater than 50% dominance by FAC and FACW species.




Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0


Soil Map Unit Name: 119 Lacamas silt loam, 3 to 8% slopes NWI classification: UPL







Remarks: Test Plot 9 is located on the slope in the southwestern portion of the property and upslope of TP 10. Area of soft rush extends up the slope but is notwetland due to the absence of wetland hydrology indicators. Soft rush continues upslope from TP 9 with increasing cover by trailing blackberry.





0-10" 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam

10-16" 5Y 3/2 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M clay loam














Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator A11 due to low matrix chroma at 10 inches with low chroma in the upper layer.














Field Observations:



Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 15"



Remarks: Water table was below 12 inches during field visit and water in hole only because the surface soils were damp due to recent heavy rains. There was noevidence of wetland hydrology in the soil profile (no oxidized rhizospheres) and no evidence of regular surface water inundation or flow.








2.


4.





3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =















Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover


Remarks: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is not met because there is not greater than 50% dominance by FAC and FACW species.




Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0


Soil Map Unit Name: 119 Lacamas silt loam, 3 to 8% slopes NWI classification: UPL







Remarks: Test Plot 10 is located on the slope in the southwestern portion of the property. Area of soft rush extends up the slope but is not wetland due to theabsence of wetland hydrology indicators.





0-10" 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam

10-16" 2.5Y 3/3 80 10YR 4/6 20 C M clay loam














Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets none of the hydric soil indicators because of the high matrix chromas.














Field Observations:






Remarks: Water table was below 12 inches during field visit and water in hole only because the surface soils were damp due to recent heavy rains. There was noevidence of wetland hydrology in the soil profile (no oxidized rhizospheres) and no evidence of regular surface water inundation or flow.








2.


4.





3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =















Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover















Remarks: Test Plot 11 is located on the low raised upland area along the north edge of the wetland. China Creek lies to the north of this raised area.





0-4" 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam

4-12" 10YR 4/1 50 silt loam















Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil appears to have an old fill appearance due to the compacted condition at 12 inches and mixture of matrix chromas and soil textures. It meetshydric soil indicator F3 because of the low matrix chroma beginning within 6 inches of the soil surface and at least 6 inches thick.














Field Observations:






Remarks: Water table present at 14 inches and there is no evidence of long term soil saturation to indicate this area is influenced by hydrology of the wetland to thesouth and China Creek to the north.








2.


4.





3. OBL species x1 =


5. FAC species x3 =















Yes No2.

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover















Remarks: Test Plot 12 is located in the wetland just south of the low raised area along the north edge.





0-8" 10YR 5/1 100 gr loam















Depth (inches):

Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3 because of the low matrix chromas in both layers and the presence of redoximorphic features in thesubsurface layer.














Field Observations:



Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface



Remarks: Water table present to surface of the soil and sulfidic odor emitted when the soil hole dug.


APPENDIX B

Wetland name or number

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 UpdateRating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 1

RATING SUMMARY – Western WashingtonName of wetland (or ID #): China Creek Date of site visit: 1-30-15Rated by J. Bartlett Trained by Ecology? X Yes No Date of training Nov. 2014HGM Class used for rating Riverine Wetland has multiple HGM classes? X_Y N

NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth

OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics _)

1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONSCategory I – Total score = 23 - 27

X Category II – Total score = 20 - 22Category III – Total score = 16 - 19Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15

FUNCTION ImprovingWater Quality

Hydrologic Habitat

Circle the appropriate ratingsSite Potential H M L H M L H M LLandscape Potential H M L H M L H M LValue H M L H M L H M L TOTAL

Score Based onRatings

6 8 6 20

2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland

Score for eachfunction basedon threeratings(order of ratingsis notimportant)

9 = H,H,H8 = H,H,M7 = H,H,L7 = H,M,M6 = H,M,L6 = M,M,M5 = H,L,L5 = M,M,L4 = M,L,L3 = L,L,L

CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY

Estuarine I IIWetland of High Conservation Value IBog IMature Forest IOld Growth Forest I

Coastal Lagoon I II

Interdunal I II III IV

None of the above X



Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly forWestern WashingtonDepressional WetlandsMap of: To answer questions: Figure #Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.31 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - includingpolygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat

H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3

Riverine Wetlands

Map of: To answer questions: Figure #Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 6Hydroperiods H 1.2 6Ponded depressions R 1.1 6Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 6Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 6Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 6Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 71 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - includingpolygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat

H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 8

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 9Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 9

Lake Fringe Wetlands

Map of: To answer questions: Figure #Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.21 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - includingpolygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat

H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3

Slope Wetlands

Map of: To answer questions: Figure #Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4Hydroperiods H 1.2Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants(can be added to figure above)

S 4.1

Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.11 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - includingpolygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat

H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3



HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington

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, youprobably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria inquestions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.1. 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 1.11.1 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 FringeIf your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If itis Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used toscore functions for estuarine wetlands.2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwaterand surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.

NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is FlatsIf 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 anyplants 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 fromseeps. 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 SlopeNOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small andshallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ftdeep).5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?X The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from thatstream or river,X The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.



NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is RiverineNOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is notflooding6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to thesurface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interiorof the wetland.NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbankflooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to bemaintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious naturaloutlet.NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGMclasses. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a smallstream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFYWHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENTAREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify theappropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within thewetland unit being scored.NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% ormore of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of thetotal area.

HGM classes within the wetland unitbeing rated

HGM class touse in rating

Slope + Riverine RiverineSlope + Depressional DepressionalSlope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe

Depressional + Riverine along streamwithin boundary of depression

Depressional

Depressional + Lake Fringe DepressionalRiverine + Lake Fringe Riverine

Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any otherclass of freshwater wetland

Treat asESTUARINE

If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you havemore than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for therating.



RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDSWater Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality

R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event:

Depressions cover >3/ area of wetland points = 84

Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2No depressions present points = 0

4

R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes)Trees or shrubs > 2/ area of the wetland points = 83

Trees or shrubs > 1/ area of the wetland points = 63

Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/ area of the wetland points = 63

Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/ area of the wetland points = 33

Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/ area of the wetland points = 03

6

Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10

Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H X 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page

R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?

R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 0

R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1

R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcutwithin the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0

1

R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1

R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4Other sources Yes = 1 No = 0

0


Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi?

Yes = 1 No = 0R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens?

Yes = 1 No = 0

0

0

R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answerYES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0

0

Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above 0Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M X 0 = L Record the rating on the first page



RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDSHydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion

R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides:

Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of thestream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(averagewidth of stream between banks).If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9If the ratio is 10-20 points = 6If the ratio is 5-<10 points = 4If the ratio is 1-<5 points = 2If the ratio is < 1 points = 1

6

R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest orshrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at personheight. These are NOT Cowardin classes).Forest or shrub for >1/ area OR emergent plants > 2/ area points = 73 3

Forest or shrub for > 1/ area OR emergent plants > 1/ area points = 410 3

Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0

7


Rating of Site Potential If score is: X 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page

R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?

R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 1

R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 0

R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 0


Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H X 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?

R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems?Choose the description that best fits the site.The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage tohuman or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0

1

R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?Yes = 2 No = 0

2


Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page



These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitatH 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 thresholdof 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 = 4X Emergent 3 structures: points = 2

Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0

If the unit has a Forested class, check if:X 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. HydroperiodsCheck the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to covermore 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 = 3X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2

Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1X Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0X Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetlandX Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland

Lake Fringe wetland 2 pointsFreshwater tidal wetland 2 points

3

H 1.3. Richness of plant speciesCount 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 namethe species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistleIf you counted: > 19 species points = 2

5 - 19 species points = 1< 5 species points = 0

1

H 1.4. Interspersion of habitatsDecide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), orthe classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If youhave 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 diagramsin this roware HIGH = 3points

1



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 wetlandUndercut 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)

X Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degreeslope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weatheredwhere wood is exposed)

X At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that arepermanently 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 ofstrata)

2

Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9

Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H X 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 4.28 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 9.26 = 13.54%If total accessible habitat is:> 1/ (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 33

20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 210-19% 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 32.74+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 9.26 = 42.00% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1Undisturbed 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

0

Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3

Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H X 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 scorethat 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 planSite 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 = 0Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H X 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page



WDFW Priority HabitatsPriority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they canbe 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 isindependent 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 andwildlife (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 > 200years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be lessthan 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than thatfound 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 oakcomponent 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 andterrestrial 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 wetprairie (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 providefunctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, andPuget 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 toenable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in westernWashington 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 addressedelsewhere.



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 wetlandsDoes 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 AreaPreserve, 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 2.3SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?

Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCVSC 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.pdfYes – 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 ontheir website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV

Cat. I

SC 3.0. BogsDoes the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the keybelow. 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 ormore 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 deepover bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake orpond? 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 3.4NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion bymeasuring 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 theplant 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 thespecies (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

CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS



SC 4.0. Forested WetlandsDoes the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WADepartment of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to ratethe 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 ofage 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 thespecies 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 LagoonsDoes 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/ ac (4350 ft2)10

Yes = Category I No = Category II

Cat. I

Cat. II

SC 6.0. Interdunal WetlandsIs the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? Ifyou 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,Mfor 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 CharacteristicsIf you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form


Wetland name or numberThis page left blank intentionally

wetland delineation report for the little hanaford road

Documents