final wetland and stream assessment report · 2020-05-18 · final wetland and stream assessment...

FINAL WETLAND AND STREAM ASSESSMENT REPORT

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd - Remove Fish Barrier

Clallam & Jefferson Counties, Washington

Work Order: XL5220 WIN: C10199N PIN: 310199N

Prepared By WSDOT Headquarters

Environmental Services Office

February 2020

FINAL WETLAND AND STREAM ASSESSMENT REPORT

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd - Remove Fish Barrier

February 2020

Prepared By: Tatiana Dreisbach, Wetland Biologist (360)570-2433

WSDOT Headquarters, Environmental Services Office

Project Engineer: Jason Mettler, Project Engineer (360)570-6603

WSDOT Olympic Region, Olympia Project Engineer Office

Other Contributors and Role: Paul Dreisbach, Biologist, WSDOT Olympic Region, Environmental and Hydraulics Office, field work Kano Wakjira, Design Team Lead, WSDOT Olympic Region, Olympia Project Engineer Office, project coordination Sheue-Lan Shyu, Lead Designer, WSDOT Olympic Region, Olympia Project Engineer Office, plan sheets

Title VI Notice to Public It is the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) policy to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with WSDOT’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For additional information regarding Title VI complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations, please contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7090.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information This material can be made available in an alternate format by emailing the Office of Equal Opportunity at [email protected] or by calling toll free, 855-362-4ADA(4232). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the Washington State Relay at 711.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/EqualOpportunity/titlevi.htm

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/EqualOpportunity/ADA.htm

mailto:[email protected]

Executive Summary The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is proposing a culvert replacement project on United States (US) 101 between milepost (MP) 184.51 and 184.71, spanning the Clallam/Jefferson County line, south of Forks, Washington. The project will replace the existing culvert with a fish passable structure, allowing unimpeded fish passage and access to an anticipated 42,618 lineal feet of in-stream fish habitat. This project will remove a 187 foot long, 9 foot diameter, corrugated metal pipe culvert under US 101 at MP 184.66. The existing culvert has been identified as a fish barrier due to velocity (Site ID 990269). The culvert will be replaced with a 175 foot long bridge. The project intent is an increase in aquatic resource functions, including restoration of stream processes, structure, and function, by excavation of roadway material placed in the historic creek channel and reestablishment of functional stream bed under US 101.

This wetland and stream assessment report informs the project on presence and location of wetlands, streams, and their buffers and aids project designs on avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to these sensitive areas. These aquatic resources are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as waters of the United States, by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) as waters of the state, and by Clallam and Jefferson Counties through their municipal codes.

Five wetlands and May Creek were identified within the project limits. All five wetlands are Ecology and County category III wetlands and are primarily palustrine forested and palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. Three are slope wetlands, one is a roadside ditch wetland characterized as riverine wetland, and a fifth wetland is a small depressional wetland. These wetlands provide low to moderate water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions. Several wetlands and wetland and stream buffers extend beyond the project limits.

Sensitive fish, wildlife, plants, and unique habitats are not known to occur within the project. Spotted owl suitable habitat (FPHCP 2009) and marbled murrelet suitable habitat (NFP 2018) occur in and adjacent to the project area. A separate Biological Assessment will be prepared to address federally listed endangered or threatened species and designated or proposed critical habitat.

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland and Stream Assessment Report i

February 2020

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Proposed Project ................................................................................................................ 1

2.1. Project Location............................................................................................................... 1

2.2. Project Purpose and Description ..................................................................................... 3

2.3. Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3

3. Methods.............................................................................................................................. 4

3.1. Wetland Delineation, Classification, Functions, and Buffers ............................................ 4

3.2. Stream Delineation, Classification, and Buffers ............................................................... 5

3.3. Wetland and Stream Boundary Documentation ............................................................... 5

3.4. Species and Habitats of Interest ...................................................................................... 5

4. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 6

4.1. Landscape Setting........................................................................................................... 6

4.2. Watershed Description .................................................................................................... 6

4.3. Climate, Precipitation, and Growing Season.................................................................... 6

Climate ................................................................................................................. 6

Precipitation.......................................................................................................... 7

Growing Season ................................................................................................... 7

4.4. Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 7

Overview............................................................................................................... 7

Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 9

Soils...................................................................................................................... 9

Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 9

Wetland Functions ...............................................................................................10

Wetland Buffers ...................................................................................................10

4.5. Streams..........................................................................................................................16

4.6. Species and Habitats of Interest .....................................................................................18

5. Limitations..........................................................................................................................18

6. References ........................................................................................................................19

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland and Stream Assessment Report ii

February 2020

Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity Map................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Study area, wetland boundaries, and stream location. ................................................ 8

Figure 3. Photos of typical wetlands in the study area................................................................ 9

Tables Table 1. Wetlands within the project corridor.............................................................................. 7

Table 2. Functions and values of wetlands in the study area.....................................................10

Table 3. Wetland A summary ....................................................................................................11

Table 4. Wetland B summary ....................................................................................................12

Table 5. Wetland C summary....................................................................................................13

Table 6. Wetland D summary....................................................................................................14

Table 7. Wetland F summary ....................................................................................................15

Table 8. Streams within the project corridor. .............................................................................16

Table 9. May Creek summary. ..................................................................................................17

Appendices Appendix A. Background Information

Appendix A-1. Comparison of Observed and Normal Precipitation Appendix A-2. Daily Precipitation for 10 Days Preceding Fieldwork, Forks, Washington Appendix A-3. USGS Topographic Map Monthly Appendix A-4. National Wetland Inventory Map Appendix A-5. NRCS Soil Survey Map

Appendix B. Wetland Delineation Data Sheets Appendix C. Wetland Rating Summaries and Figures Appendix D. Wetland Functional Assessment Summaries Appendix E. Plan Sheets

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland and Stream Assessment Report iii

February 2020

Acronyms and Abbreviations BA Biological Assessment DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ESA endangered species act GIS geographic information system HGM hydrogeomorphic wetland classification LRR land resource area MLRA major land resource area MP mile post NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory OHWM ordinary high water mark PEM palustrine emergent PFO palustrine forested PHS priority habits and species PSS palustrine scrub-shrub ROW right of way USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Survey WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WRIA water resource inventory area

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland and Stream Assessment Report iv

February 2020

1. Introduction This report was prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Olympic Region in preparation of a proposed fish barrier removal project on US 101 between Mile Post (MP) 184.51 and MP 184.71. May Creek passes through a culvert at US 101 MP 184.66 identified as a fish passage barrier (Site ID 990269) by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and WSDOT (WDFW 2020a). Correction of the barrier is necessary according to a federal permanent injunction requiring the State of Washington to accelerate fish barrier corrections for salmon and steelhead streams in the Puget Sound area (Federal Court Injunction 2013) and the WSDOT Fish Passage Performance Report (WSDOT 2019).

The purpose of this report is to identify and describe wetlands and streams occurring within the project. This report helps WSDOT:

• Avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams during the project design process and construction.

• Document wetland and stream boundary determinations for review by regulatory authorities.

• Describe the projects anticipated aquatic resource increase, a net benefit anticipated to offset minor impacts.

This report provides supporting documentation for potential federal, state, and local permit applications.

2. Proposed Project 2.1. Project Location The proposed project occurs approximately four linear miles southeast of Forks, Washington on the Olympic Peninsula. The project spans the Clallam and Jefferson County line, with the culvert itself occurring in Clallam County. The project lies in the WSDOT right of way (ROW), both west and east of US 101 between MP 184.51 and MP 184.71, in section 34, township 28 north, range 13 west Willamette Meridian, to the north in Clallam County, and section 3, township 27 north, rage 13 west to the south in Jefferson County (Figure 1). The project occurs in land resource area (LRR) A and major land resource area (MLRA) 4A.

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland and Stream Assessment Report 1

February 2020

Figure 1. Vicinity Map.


February 2020

2.2. Project Purpose and Description The purpose of the project is to replace an existing nine foot diameter, 187 foot long corrugated metal pipe culvert, identified as a fish barrier due to excessive velocity, with a fish passable structure. The culvert exceeds velocities to pass some attempting fish species at various life stages. The proposed fish passable structure includes a 175 foot, precast concrete bridge, excavation of stream bed, and placement of stream bed materials. It is designed to allow fish passage for all attempting species at various life stages and development of channel morphology characteristics typical of May Creek stream reaches above and below the US 101 crossing.

The proposed project includes a temporary detour upstream of the crossing, a temporary stream bypass, removal of the existing functioning culvert and a non-functioning adjacent plugged culvert, earthwork above and below ordinary high water mark (OHWM), paving, bridge installation, excavation of roadway material placed in the historic creek channel, streambed restoration including streambed profile establishment and alignment, roadside restoration, and planting of temporarily impacted areas. In addition, guardrail will be removed and 2.5 feet of widening from the edge of the existing paved shoulder will be added to accommodate the new guardrail.

The project will result in net increases in aquatic resource functions to May Creek and the Bogachiel River, including restoration of fish habitat and stream processes, structure, and function. The project is anticipated to provide significant fish access gains of in-stream habitat including approximately 8.07 miles (12,990 meters) of lineal in-stream fish habitat gain, with 5.61 acres (22,700 square meters) of new spawning habitat, and 5.72 acres (23,129 square meters) of new rearing area (WSDOT 2019).

2.3. Study Area The study area includes the WSDOT ROW of US 101 between MP 184.51 and MP 184.71 as well as an additional construction easement extending 100 feet beyond the ROW to the east and surrounding the downstream end of May Creek (Figure 2; Appendix E).

This report documents wetlands and streams within the study area. Should proposed project impact areas change and extend beyond the study area, additional wetland and stream assessment will need to occur in those additional areas.


February 2020

3. Methods The following data sources were reviewed for information on precipitation, topography, drainage patterns, soils, vegetation, and potential or known wetlands and streams in the project vicinity:

• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Climate Data for Clallam County, Station Forks, Washington (NRCS 2020a) (Appendix A-1 and A-2).

• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Raster Graphics topographic maps (USGS 2020) (Appendix A-3).

• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (USFWS 2017; FGDC 2013) (Appendix A-4).

• NRCS, Soil Survey of Clallam and Jefferson Counties, Washington (NRCS 2020b), and Washington State Hydric Soils (NRCS 2020c) (Appendix A-5).

• Aerial photograph, Washington 1ft 2017, 4 band, Statewide Imagery (Figure 2). Scientific plant names in this report are from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3 (USACE 2016). Wetlands, stream, and aquatic resources assessment fieldwork was completed:

• On August 14, 2018.

• By WSDOT wetland biologists, Tatiana Dreisbach and Paul Dreisbach.

• While walking the extent of the study area. Wetland and stream assessment and report preparation follows policy and guidance on the WSDOT Wetlands webpage (WSODT 2020).

3.1. Wetland Delineation, Classification, Functions, and Buffers Wetlands were delineated using routine methods described in:

• Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

• Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010).

Wetland boundaries were delineated based on on-site observations of vegetation, soils, and hydrology in conjunction with background information listed above. Wetland locations are described in Chapter 4, and shown in Figure 2 and on the wetland plan sheet in Appendix E. Several wetlands have boundaries that extend beyond the study area.

Wetlands were classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system (Cowardin) (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the hydrogeomorphic classification System (HGM) (Brinson 1993). Wetlands were rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – 2014 Update (Hruby 2014) for wetlands occurring in Jefferson County which references the 2014 Wetland Rating System (Jefferson County 2020). The Clallam County Municipal Code establishes its own unique wetland classification system (Clallam County 2020). Wetlands occurring in Clallam County were evaluated using the classification system established in their municipal code as well as the 2014 Update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System. Wetland functions were assessed using the Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (BPJ Tool) (Null et al. 2000).


February 2020

Clallam County (Clallam County 2020) and Jefferson County (Jefferson County 2020) wetland buffers were applied to the wetlands in the project occurring in their respective jurisdictions. Wetland buffer widths in Clallam County range from 25 to 200 feet depending on the Clallam County-specific wetland classification system and whether proposed impacts are considered major or minor new development. Jefferson County wetland buffers range from 25 to 300 feet based on the Washington State Wetland Rating and whether the proposed land use is considered high, moderate, or low. Buffers widths were applied based on minor new development (Clallam County) and low impacts (Jefferson County) because the sole purpose of the project, to correct a fish passage barrier culvert under US 101, is anticipated to result in net increases in aquatic resource functions and services. Wetland buffer condition within the study area was assessed using the following criteria:

• Land use (e.g., agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial).

• Buffer vegetation structure (tree, shrub, herb, vine, un-vegetated).

• Buffer vegetation community (dominant plant species per strata, native vs. non-native dominants, and description of invasive species or noxious weeds).

3.2. Stream Delineation, Classification, and Buffers One stream occurs in the study area, with boundaries extending beyond the study area. May Creek OHWM was surveyed by a WSDOT survey crew on September 27, 2018 (Appendix E).

Clallam and Jefferson County stream buffers (Clallam County 2020; Jefferson County 2020) were applied to streams in the project, in conjunction with Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Forest Practices Rules, water type classifications (DNR 2020a). Stream buffer widths range from 50 to 150 feet depending on water type for both counties. When wetland and stream buffers overlap, they are treated only as wetland buffer (Appendix E).

3.3. Wetland and Stream Boundary Documentation Boundaries of wetlands and streams were documented using WSDOT Sensitive Areas Naming & Flagging Conventions (WSDOT 2020). The portions of boundaries occurring within the study area were subsequently surveyed.

3.4. Species and Habitats of Interest A separate Biological Assessment (BA) will address impacts to Endangered Species Act (ESA) federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species and proposed and designated critical habitat. This report includes preliminary information regarding potential ESA species, Washington State threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, and habitats of interest that may occur in the project. The following data sources were reviewed for information on federally and state listed threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive species, and species of concern, as well as habitats of interest:

• US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Biological BA.

• Federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife species (WDFW 2020b).

• Washington State threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants (DNR 2020b).

• Wetlands of High Conservation Value (DNR 2020c).

• WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) (WDFW 2018b).


February 2020

4. Existing Conditions 4.1. Landscape Setting The project is located near the northwest corner of the Olympic Peninsula boarded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and surrounded by the temperate rainforest foothills of the Olympic Mountains, which lie to the east. Geology in the area is complex and includes repeated glaciations, tectonic activity, and physical weathering process of wind and water.

The landscape in and around the project area is typical of the Olympic Peninsula foothills with alpine glacial outwash soils supporting native conifer dominated forests and riparian plant communities tolerant of a mild, wet climate. Seasonal and perennial flowing creeks pass through the glaciated foothills draining to the larger rivers of the western Peninsula, ultimately draining west to the Pacific Ocean. Wetlands are common on the landscape and are often part of large wetland complexes including riverine wetlands associated with tributaries and larger rivers.

The project area is just over 300 feet east of the May Creek confluence with the Bogachiel River and is situated at 260 feet above sea-level (Appendix A-3).

The project is on DNR managed forest lands where commercial logging activities occur. Rural residential lands just east of the project area and the Bogachiel River are present. Aerial photos show land use on surrounding private land includes hay fields or potentially other agricultural production or pasture. Bogachiel State Park lies to the north and Olympic National Forest and Park lie farther east of the rural residential areas.

4.2. Watershed Description The May Creek drainage basin is in water resource inventory area (WRIA) 20 Soleduc, in the Bogachiel River Watershed (5th hydrologic unit code – 1710010105). It has numerous headwater tributaries originating from several peaks within two miles south and east of the project, ranging from 640 feet to 1,222 feet above sea level. The streams drain four peaks, including one with significant mapped headwater wetlands, generally flowing east/northeast through a valley where they merge into May Creek, west of the project. May Creek crosses US 101, flowing northeast, and meets its confluence with the Bogachiel River just over 300 feet northeast of US 101 and the MP 184.66 culvert (Appendix A-3; Appendix A-4).

The proposed project intends to make the culvert fish passable, allowing access to over five miles of stream and aquatic habitat that make up this significant drainage basin in the Bogachiel River watershed.

4.3. Climate, Precipitation, and Growing Season Climate

The climate is wet and mild, with ocean moderated temperatures meeting the vegetated west coast, and regularly releasing precipitation.


February 2020

Precipitation The Regional Delineation Supplement Version 2.0 (USACE 2010) recommends using methods described in Chapter 19 in Engineering Field Handbook (NRCS 2015) to determine if precipitation occurring in the three full months prior to the site visit was normal, drier than normal, or wetter than normal. Actual rainfall is compared to the normal range of the 30-year average. When considering the three prior months as a whole, drier than normal precipitation conditions were present prior to the August 14, 2018 field work, with the first prior and third prior month drier than normal, and the second prior month within the normal range (Appendix A-1). Moderate precipitation describes the ten day period preceding field work. A heavy rain event for the time of year occurred three days prior to the field visit (Appendix A-2).

Growing Season Field work was conducted during the mid-growing season (NRCS 2020a) in August 2018. Plants were identifiable to species and temperatures were typical of growing season conditions.

4.4. Wetlands Overview

Five Ecology and County Category III wetlands were identified in the project (Table 1). Wetlands are primarily palustrine forested (PFO) and palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) slope wetlands dominated by native vegetation. A roadside ditch wetland is documented as riverine and small depressional wetland is adjacent to May creek, downstream and east of US 101 (Tables 3 through 7). Delineation data sheets (Appendix B), wetland rating forms (Appendix C), and functional assessment summaries (Appendix D) are provided. Note there is no Wetland E.

Table 1. Wetlands within the project corridor.

Wetlanda

Wetland Classification Wetland Size

(acre) e

Buffer Width (feet)fCowardinb HGM Ecologyc Local

Jurisdictiond

A PFO/PEM Slope III III Jefferson Co. 0.38* 75

B PSS Slope III III Jefferson Co. 0.06* 75

C PFO/PSS/PEM Slope III III Clallam Co. 0.30* 50

D PEM Riverine III III Jefferson Co. 0.05 75

F PSS Depressional III III Clallam Co. 0.01 50 a Wetland identifier. Note there is no Wetland E. b NWI Class based on vegetation: PFO = palustrine forested, PSS = palustrine scrub-shrub, PEM = palustrine emergent (Cowardin et al. 1979).

c Ecology rating (Hruby 2014). d Clallam County (Clallam County 2020) and Jefferson County wetland rating (Jefferson County 2020). e An asterisk indicates the wetland extends beyond the ROW. Only the wetland area occurring within the ROW is included in the table.

f Clallam County wetland buffer widths based on “minor new development” (Clallam County 2020), Jefferson County wetland buffer widths based on “low impact land use” (Jefferson County 2020).


February 2020

Figure 2. Study area, wetland boundaries, and stream location.


February 2020

Vegetation Vegetation in the study area is typical of Olympic Peninsula foothills (Figure 3). Wetland, riparian, and upland vegetation is comprised of similar plant comities due to significant precipitation inputs throughout the year. Conifers are primarily Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) with deciduous red alder (Alnus rubra) and vine maple (Acer circinatum) interspersed. Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), and devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus) are dominant species in the shrub layer. Arctic sweet coltsfoot (Petasites frigidus), common ladyfern (Athyrium cyclosorum), youth on age (Tolmiea menziesii), redwood-sorrel (Oxalis oregana), yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus), giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), and western swordfern (Polystichum munitum) are common understory plants.

Wetland B Wetland C

Figure 3. Photos of typical wetlands in the study area.

Soils Soils in the study area are mapped as Klone very gravelly loam (NRCS 2020b) (Appendix A-5). Klone soils are well drained soils formed in glacial outwash, occurring on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula. (NRCS 2020b).

Hydrology Primary hydrologic inputs to the wetlands in the project come from a high ground water table and hillside seeps. Two slope wetlands (Wetlands A and B) abut May Creek and have very small wetland areas influenced by creek flow. These small areas may receive seasonal overbank flooding and subsurface hyporheic flows associated with the creek.

Soil saturation and high water tables were observed in soil pits during the August 14, 2018 field visit. Roadside ditch wetland areas were conveying surface flows about one inch deep.


February 2020

Wetland Functions The five wetlands in the project perform various functions (Table 2). Slope wetlands A, B, and C do not provide water quality or hydrologic functions but provide moderate general habitat functions and potential functions for amphibian adult life stages. Wetland D is a roadside ditch wetland primarily providing water quality functions. Wetland F is a small depressional wetland near May Creek. It occurs in the small depressional outfall of an out-of-service, plugged culvert. This wetland provides some general habitat functions. Summaries of Functions and Values are provided for each wetland (Appendix D).

Table 2. Functions and values of wetlands in the study area.

Function/Valuea Wetlandb

A B C D F

Water Quality Functions

Sediment Removal - - - X* -

Nutrient and Toxicant Removal - - - X* -

Hydrologic Functions

Flood Flow Alteration - - - - X

Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization - - - X* -

Habitat Functions

Production & Export of Organic Matter X* X* X* X* -

General Habitat Suitability X* X* X* X X

Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates - - - X X*

Habitat for Amphibians X X X X X

Habitat for Wetland-Associated Mammals - - - - -

Habitat for Wetland-Associated Birds - - - - -

General Fish Habitat - - - - -

Native Plant Richness X* X* X* X -

Special Characteristics

Educational or Scientific Value - - - - -

Uniqueness and Heritage - - - - -a “-“ indicates that the function is not present “X” indicates the function is present “*” indicates a principal function of the wetland b Note there is no wetland E.

Wetland Buffers Wetland buffers consist of forested habitat dominated by native plants. Mature deciduous and coniferous canopies with shrub and herbaceous understories provide screening and habitat functions and connectivity to other habitats including May Creek, the Bogachiel River, adjacent wetlands, riparian corridors, and forested uplands. Wetlands C and D have their eastern boundary bordered by US 101 and lack buffers on those sides.


February 2020

Table 3. Wetland A summary WETLAND A – INFORMATION SUMMARY

Location: West of US 101, south of May Creek Local Jurisdiction Jefferson County Ecology Rating (2014) III Local Rating III Jefferson County Buffer Width (feet) 75 feet

Wetland Size 0.38 acre within ROW,

wetland extends beyond ROW

Cowardin Class PFO/PEM HGM Class slope

Wetland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point A-SP1

Upland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point A-SP2

Wetland Delineation

Dominant Vegetation

Trees – red alder Shrubs – salmonberry, Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), Herbaceous – giant horsetail, arctic sweet coltsfoot, common ladyfern

Soils Soil matrices of 10YR 3/2 with redoximorphic concentrations were observed. Indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6) met.

Hydrology

Hillside seeps are the primary hydrology source for this wetland. The lowest area of the wetland abutting May Creek receives occasional overbank flows and regular hyporheic flow. This comprises an insignificant portion of the wetland and does not characterize the majority of the wetland hydrologic inputs. Hydrology is naturally problematic (Appendix B Sampling Point A-SP1).

Rationale for Delineation

Slope wetland that supports hydrophytic vegetation, has hydric soils, and has moist soils throughout the upper 12 inches in August during a drier than normal precipitation period.

Wetland Rating and Functions

Rationale for Local Rating

The Jefferson County Municipal Code classifies wetlands based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System (Jefferson County 2020). Wetland A rates as a Category III (Appendix C).

Functions

Wetland A lacks water quality and hydrologic functions. Slope wetlands generally do not provide these functions (Null et al. 2000). Wetland A provides moderate habitat functions for general wildlife species and potentially for amphibians in their adult life stage. Functions summaries provided in Table 2 and Appendix D.

Wetland Buffers

Buffer Condition

Buffer is primarily forested habitat with mature deciduous and coniferous native trees with a shrub and herbaceous understory. Buffer provides screening and habitat functions and connectivity to other habitats including May Creek and adjacent wetlands.


February 2020

Table 4. Wetland B summary WETLAND B – INFORMATION SUMMARY

Location: West of US 101, north of May Creek Local Jurisdiction Jefferson County Ecology Rating (2014) III Local Rating III Jefferson County Buffer Width 75 feet

Wetland Size 0.06 acre delineated,

wetland extends west of ROW

Cowardin Class PSS HGM Class slope

Wetland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point B-SP1

Upland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point B-SP2

Wetland Delineation

Dominant Vegetation

Trees – Sitka spruce Shrubs – salmonberry Herbaceous – redwood-sorrel, youth on age, western swordfern, yellow skunk cabbage

Soils Soil matrices of 10YR 3/2 and 5GY with redoximorphic concentrations were observed. Indicators Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) and Depleted Matrix (F3) met.

Hydrology

Hillside seeps are the primary hydrology source for this wetland. The lowest area of the wetland abuts May Creek however, steep banks along May Creek separate this wetland from the hydrologic influences of the creek. Indicators High Water Table (A2) and Saturation (A3) met.


Slope wetland that supports hydrophytic vegetation, has hydric soils, and saturation and a high water table present throughout the upper 12 inches in August during a drier than normal precipitation period.



The Jefferson County Municipal Code classifies wetlands based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System (Jefferson County 2020). Wetland B rates as a Category III (Appendix C).

Functions

Wetland B lacks water quality and hydrologic functions. Slope wetlands generally do not provide these functions (Null et al. 2000). Wetland B provides moderate habitat functions for general wildlife species and potentially for amphibians in their adult life stage. Functions summaries provided in Table 2 and Appendix D.

Wetland Buffers

Buffer Condition

Buffer is primarily forested habitat with mature deciduous and coniferous native canopy with a shrub and herbaceous understory. Buffer provides screening and habitat functions and connectivity to other habitats including May Creek and adjacent wetlands.


February 2020

Table 5. Wetland C summary WETLAND C – INFORMATION SUMMARY

Location: West of US 101, north of May Creek Local Jurisdiction Clallam County Ecology Rating (2014) III Local Rating III Clallam County Buffer Width 50 feet

Wetland Size 0.30 acre within ROW,

wetland extends beyond ROW

Cowardin Class PFO/PSS/PEM HGM Class slope

Wetland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point C-SP1

Upland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point C-SP2

Wetland Delineation

Dominant Vegetation

Trees – none Shrubs – salmonberry Herbaceous – youth on age, water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), common ladyfern, yellow skunk cabbage

Soils Soil matrices of 10YR 4/2 with redoximorphic concentrations were observed. Indicator Depleted Matrix (F3) met.

Hydrology

Hillside seeps are the primary hydrology source for this wetland. Hydrology from seeps collects in the roadside ditch wetland area, flowing south to May Creek. Shallow, slow-flowing inundation to one inch was observed in the ditch portion of the wetland. The lowest area of the wetland abuts May Creek however, steep banks along May Creek separate this wetland from the hydrologic influences of the creek. Indicators Saturation (A3) and Oxidized Rhizospheres Along Living Roots (C3) met.


Slope wetland that supports hydrophytic vegetation, has hydric soils, and saturation and shallow inundation in August during a drier than normal precipitation period.



The Clallam County Municipal Code classifies wetlands based on their own county-specific criteria (Clallam County 2020). Wetland C rates as a Category III for Clallam County as well as the Washington State Wetland Rating System (Appendix C).

Functions

Wetland C lacks water quality and hydrologic functions. Slope wetlands generally do not provide these functions (Null et al. 2000). Wetland C provides moderate habitat functions for general wildlife species and potentially for amphibians in their adult life stage. Functions summaries provided in Table 2 and Appendix D.

Wetland Buffers

Buffer Condition

Buffer on the west side of the wetland is forested habitat with mature deciduous and coniferous native canopy, with a shrub and herbaceous understory. The western buffer provides screening and habitat functions and connectivity to other habitats including May Creek and adjacent wetlands. The eastern wetland boundary is bordered by US 101. The eastern edge of the wetland lacks a buffer and consists of roadside.


February 2020

Table 6. Wetland D summary WETLAND D – INFORMATION SUMMARY

Location: West of US 101, south of May Creek, along roadside Local Jurisdiction Jefferson County Ecology Rating (2014) III Local Rating III Jefferson County Buffer Width 75 feet

Wetland Size

0.05 acres within project limits, wetland

extends beyond project limits

Cowardin Class PEM HGM Class riverine

Wetland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point D-SP1

Upland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point D-SP2

Wetland Delineation

Dominant Vegetation

Trees – none Shrubs – none Herbaceous – sawbeak sedge (Carex stipata), bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), common ladyfern, largeleaf avens (Geum macrophyllum), arctic sweet coltsfoot


Hydrology

Primary hydrology sources for this roadside ditch wetland are high ground water table and precipitation in the form of stormwater runoff and runoff from upslope areas. Water collects in the roadside ditch, flowing north towards May Creek. Shallow, slow-flowing inundation to two inches was observed in the lowest elevations of the ditch. Indicators High Water Table (A2) and Saturation (A3) met.


This ditch wetland is treated as riverine wetland, supports hydrophytic vegetation, has hydric soils, and has saturation and shallow inundation in August during a drier than normal precipitation period.



The Jefferson County Municipal Code classifies wetlands based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System (Jefferson County 2020). Wetland D rates as a Category III (Appendix C).

Functions

Primary functions provided by Wetland D include sediment, nutrient, and toxicant removal, erosion control, and production and export of organic matter. Wetland D provides limited habitat functions for general wildlife species. Functions summaries provided in Table 2 and Appendix D.

Wetland Buffers

Buffer Condition

Buffer on the west side of the wetland is forested habitat with mature deciduous and coniferous native canopy with a shrub and herbaceous understory. The western buffer provides screening and habitat functions and connectivity to other habitats including May Creek and adjacent wetlands. The eastern wetland boundary is bordered by US 101. The eastern edge of the wetland lacks a buffer and consists of roadside.


February 2020

Table 7. Wetland F summary WETLAND F – INFORMATION SUMMARY

Location: East of US 101, south of May Creek Local Jurisdiction Clallam County Ecology Rating (2014) III Local Rating III Clallam County Buffer Width 50 feet

Wetland Size 0.01 acre Cowardin Class PSS HGM Class depressional

Wetland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point F-SP1

Upland Data Sheet(s) Appendix B; Sampling Point F-SP2

Wetland Delineation

Dominant Vegetation

Trees – none Shrubs – salmonberry, Indian plum Herbaceous –common ladyfern, yellow skunk cabbage


Hydrology Primary hydrology sources for this small closed-depressional wetland is a high ground water table. Indicator Saturation (A3) met.


Wetland occurring in small depressional outfall of an out-of-service, plugged culvert (Appendix E) that supports hydrophytic vegetation, has hydric soils, and has saturation in August during a drier than normal precipitation period.



The Clallam County Municipal Code classifies wetlands based on their own county-specific criteria (Clallam County 2020). Wetland F rates as a Category III for Clallam County as well as the Washington State Wetland Rating System (Appendix C).

Functions

This is a very small wetland providing limited functions. Wetland F provides limited flood flow alteration functions and limited habitat functions for general wildlife species and potentially for aquatic invertebrates. Functions summaries provided in Table 2 and Appendix D.

Wetland Buffers

Buffer Condition

Buffer is primarily forested habitat with mature deciduous and coniferous native canopy with a shrub and herbaceous understory. Buffer provides screening and habitat functions and connectivity to other habitats including May Creek, the Bogachiel River, and its associated adjacent wetlands and riparian areas.


February 2020

4.5. Streams May Creek, a tributary to the Bogachiel River, was identified within project limits (Tables 8 and 9). This perennial stream flows from west to east through the project. May Creek has numerous headwater tributaries originating from a glaciated valley east of the project. It meets its confluence with the Bogachiel River just east of the stream crossing at US 101 MP 184.66, which is documented as a fish barrier due to velocity (Site ID 990269). It is mapped as a DNR water type F or fish bearing stream (DNR 2020a), indicating it has potential to provide fish habitat. WDFW fish passage inventory data shows May Creek potentially supports occurrence of chinook, coho, steelhead, resident cutthroat, and sea run cutthroat (WDFW 2020a).

Table 8. Streams within the project corridor.

Stream Name DNR Water Typea Clallam Countyb

Buffer Width (feet) Jefferson Countyc

Buffer Width (feet) May Creek F (formerly Type 2) 65 150

a DNR Water Types: Type F = fish bearing, formally Type 2 = fish bearing perennial (DNR 2020a) b Clallam County stream buffer widths based on “minor new development” for Type 2 Waters (Clallam County 2020).

c Jefferson County stream buffer widths for Type F Waters (Jefferson County 2020).


February 2020

Table 9. May Creek summary. MAY CREEK - INFORMATION SUMMARY

Stream Name May Creek Long./Lat. ID Number 1243493478820 WRIA Name/Stream # May Creek/0247 WDFW Site ID 990269 Local Jurisdiction Clallam & Jefferson Co. DNR Water Type F

Buffer Width 65 feet Clallam Co. 150 feet Jefferson Co.

Documented Fish use coho, winter steelhead, resident cutthroat (WDFW 2018a)

Potential Fish Use chinook, sea run cutthroat (WDFW 2020a)

Location of Stream Relative to Project Corridor May Creek bisects the project at US 101 MP 184.66.

Connectivity May Creek is a perennial creek with flows from southwest to northeast, where it meets its confluence with the Bogachiel River just over 300 feet northeast of the project and the US 101 crossing.

Fish Habitat

May Creek, downstream of the US 101 culvert provides habitat for all life stages of fish, from several species including salmonids. The proposed project intends to fix the US 101 MP 184.66 fish barrier culvert, allowing access to significant high quality aquatic habitat upstream of the culvert.

Riparian/Buffer Condition

The existing buffer consists of mature deciduous and coniferous native forest with an understory of native shrubs and herbaceous species. The buffer provides functions such as wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity, screening from the road, shading, and organic matter inputs.


February 2020

4.6. Species and Habitats of Interest A separate BA will be prepared to address potential impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered species and proposed and designated critical habitat. The following information is a cursory look at potential ESA species and habitats that may occur in the project. In addition, information on sensitive or unique wildlife, plants, and habitats occurring in Washington State is provided.

Federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species are not known to occur within the study area (WDFW 2020b). Spotted owl suitable habitat (FPHCP 2009) and marbled murrelet suitable habitat (NFP 2018) occur in and adjacent to the project area.

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) identifies Washington State threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants. The WNHP database does not show any of these plant species in or adjacent to the study area (DNR 2020b).

The WNHP also documents Wetlands of High Conservation Value. These sensitive areas are not identified in or adjacent to the study area (DNR 2020c).

WDFW data indicates that PHS are not present within or adjacent to the study area (WDFW 2018b).

5. Limitations The wetland delineation was performed in compliance with accepted standards for professional wetland biologists and applicable federal and state regulations, and local ordinances. This wetland assessment report documents the investigation, best professional judgment, and conclusions of WSDOT based on the circumstances and site conditions encountered at the time of this study.

The information contained in this report is correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. It should be considered a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination of wetlands and other waters until it has been reviewed and approved in writing by the appropriate jurisdictional authorities. The final determination of the wetland boundary, classification, and required setback and buffer will be made by local, state, and federal jurisdictions.


February 2020

6. References Brinson MM. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Vicksburg (MS): US Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.

Clallam County. 2020. Clallam County Municipal Code. Chapter 27.12 Critical Areas. [cited 2020 January 15]. Available from: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/ClallamCounty/#!/ClallamCounty27/ClallamCounty 2712.html#27.12

Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Washington (DC): US Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31.

[DNR] Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2020a. Forest Practices Water Typing. Available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/forest-practices-water-typing. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool. [cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available at: https://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/default.aspx

[DNR] Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2020b. Washington Natural Heritage (Current Precise). Olympia (WA). [cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available at: http://datawadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/washington-natural-heritage-program-elementoccurrences-current

[DNR] Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2020c. WA Wetlands of High Conservation Value Map Viewer. [cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available from: http://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5cf9e5b22f584ad7a4e 2aebc63c47bda

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Vicksburg (MS): US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Technical Report Y-87-1. Available from: http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/regulatory/wlman87.pdf

Federal Court Injunction. 2013. United States, et al vs. Washington, et al No. C70-9213 Subproceeding No. 01-1 dated March 29, 2013.

[FGDC] Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Adapted from Cowardin, Carter, Golet, and LaRoe (1997). FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommitee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. Available from: https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/wetlands/nwcs-2013

[FPHCP] Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan. 2009. Spotted Owl Habitat Biological Opinion Analysis. Accessed form ArcGIS 10.6.1 WSDOT Environmental Workbench February 11, 2020.

Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Available from: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1406029.pdf


February 2020

https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/ClallamCounty/#!/ClallamCounty27/ClallamCounty2712.html

https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/ClallamCounty/#!/ClallamCounty27/ClallamCounty2712.html

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/forest-practices-water-typing

https://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/default.aspx

http://data-wadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/washington-natural-heritage-program-element-occurrences-current



http://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5cf9e5b22f584ad7a4e2aebc63c47bda

http://wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5cf9e5b22f584ad7a4e2aebc63c47bda

http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/regulatory/wlman87.pdf

https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/wetlands/nwcs-2013

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1406029.pdf

Jefferson County. 2020. Jefferson County Municipal Code. Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas. [cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCo unty1822.html#18.22

[NFP] Northwest Forest Plan. 2018. Marbled Murrelet Effectiveness Monitoring Program. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat Suitability (4-bin model)—2012. Accessed form ArcGIS 10.6.1 WSDOT Environmental Workbench February 11, 2020.

[NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2015. Hydrology Tools for Wetland Identification and Analysis. Chapter 19 in Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook. Pages 19-85 through 19-89. US. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. Available from: https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=37808.wba

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service [Internet]. 2020a. Field Office Technical Guide. US Department of Agriculture. Climate Data for Clallam County, Station Forks Washington 452914. [cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available at: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/

[NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service [Internet]. 2020b. Web Soil Survey for Jefferson and Clallam Counties, Washington. US Department of Agriculture. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Accessed form ArcGIS 10.6.1 WSDOT Environmental Workbench January 15, 2020.

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service [Internet]. 2020c. Hydric Soils List: Clallam and Jefferson Counties (WA); [cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316619.html

Null WS, Skinner G, Leonard W. 2000. Wetland functions characterization tool for linear projects. Olympia (WA): Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office. Available from: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2017/08/29/Env-WetFunctionCharacterTool.pdf

[USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. Wakeley JS, Lichvar RW, Noble CV, editors. Vicksburg (MS): US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Available at: https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-andPermits/reg_supp/

[USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. Available at: http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/

[USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. National Wetland Inventory (NWI). US Department of the Interior. Accessed form ArcGIS 10.6.1 WSDOT Environmental Workbench January 15, 2020. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/


February 2020

https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1822.html

https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1822.html

https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=37808.wba

http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/

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

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316619.html

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2017/08/29/Env-Wet-FunctionCharacterTool.pdf

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2017/08/29/Env-Wet-FunctionCharacterTool.pdf

https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/reg_supp/

https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/reg_supp/

http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

[USGS] US Geological Survey. 2020. Digital Raster Graphics (DRGs) from the United States Geological Survey. Topographic Map. Accessed form ArcGIS 10.6.1 WSDOT Environmental Workbench January 15, 2020.

[WDFW] Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018a. Salmonid Stock Inventory. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Statewide Integrated Fish Distribution. These two data sets combined into a WSDOT accessed GIS layer titled Fish Species of Interest. Accessed form ArcGIS 10.6.1 WSDOT Environmental Workbench January 15, 2020.

[WDFW] Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018b. Priority Habitats and Species Program. Accessed form ArcGIS 10.6.1 WSDOT Environmental Workbench January 15, 2020.

[WDFW] Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020a. WDFW Habitat Program, Fish Passage Division. Fish Passage Inventory. Accessed form ArcGIS 10.6.1 WSDOT Environmental Workbench January 15, 2020.

[WDFW] Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020b. Wildlife Occurrence Points. Accessed form ArcGIS 10.6.1 WSDOT Environmental Workbench January 15, 2020.

[WSDOT] Washington State Department of Transportation. 2019. WSDOT Fish Passage Performance Report. WSDOT Environmental Services Office. Appendix I, p. 72, Appendix III, p. 118 . Accessed from the internet January 13, 2020. Available here: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019/09/20/Env-StrRest-FishPassageAnnualReport.pdf

[WSDOT] Washington State Department of Transportation. 2020. WSDOT Wetlands Webpage. Available at: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/disciplines/wetlands


February 2020

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019/09/20/Env-StrRest-FishPassageAnnualReport.pdf

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019/09/20/Env-StrRest-FishPassageAnnualReport.pdf

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/disciplines/wetlands

Appendix A. Background Information Appendix A includes the following sub-appendices:

A-1 Comparison of Observed and Normal Precipitation for Forks, Washington

A-2 Daily Precipitation for 10 Days Preceding Fieldwork, Forks, Washington

A-3 USGS Topographic Map

A-4 National Wetland Inventory Map

A-5 NRCS Soil Survey Map

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland and Stream Assessment Report

February 2020

Appendix A-1. Comparison of Observed and Normal Precipitation The Regional Delineation Supplement Version 2.0 (USACE 2010) recommends using methods described in Chapter 19 in Engineering Field Handbook (NRCS 2015) to determine if precipitation occurring in the three full months prior to the site visit was normal, drier than normal, or wetter than normal. Actual rainfall is compared to the normal range of the 30-year average. The following table shows this information.

Monthly precipitation data for Forks, Washington.

1st prior month

2nd prior month

3rd prior month

Long-term rainfall recordsa

Month 3 yrs. in 10 less

than Average

3 yrs. in 10 more

than Rain falla

Condition dry, wet, normalb

Condition Value

Month weightvalue

Product of previous two

columns

Jul 1.41 2.79 3.41 0.85 D 1 3 3

Jun 2.69 3.82 4.54 3.58 N 2 2 4

May 4.20 6.15 7.33 1.29 D 1 1 1

Sum 8

a NRCS 2020a b Conditions are considered normal if they fall within the low and high range around the average.

Note: If sum is Condition value: 6 - 9 then prior period has been drier than normal Dry (D) = 1 10 - 14 then period has been normal Normal (N) = 2 15 - 18 then period has been wetter than normal Wet (W) = 3

Conclusions: Drier than normal precipitation conditions were present prior to the August 14, 2018 field visit.


February 2020

Appendix A-2. Daily Precipitation for 10 Days Preceding Fieldwork, Forks, Washington To determine if light, moderate, or heavy precipitation occurred in the 10 days prior to field work, the 10 day total is compared to 1/3 of the monthly average precipitation for the month evaluated (NRCS 2020a).

Daily precipitation data preceding the August 14, 2018 field visit for Forks, Washington.

Date (20XX) Daily Precipitation (inches)a

Aug 13 0.00

Aug 12 0.06

Aug 11 0.56

Aug 10 0.00

Aug 9 0.00

Aug 8 0.00

Aug 7 0.00

Aug 6 0.00

Aug 5 0.0

Aug 4 0.00

Sum 0.62

a NRCS 2020a

Conclusions: Moderate precipitation describes the ten day period preceding field work. A heavy rain event for the time of year occurred three days prior to the field visit.


February 2020

Appendix A-3. USGS Topographic Map Monthly


February 2020

Appendix A-4. National Wetland Inventory Map


February 2020

Appendix A-5. NRCS Soil Survey Map


February 2020

Appendix B. Wetland Delineation Data Sheets

Appendix B includes the following sample point data sheets. Note there is no Wetland E:

A-SP1

A-SP2

B-SP1

B-SP2

C-SP1

C-SP2

D-SP1

D-SP2

F-SP1

F-SP2


February 2020

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

Project/Site: US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – RFB City/County: Jefferson County Sampling Date: 8/14/2018

Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: Aug 14, 2018 Sampling Point: A-SP1

Investigator(s): Tatiana Dreisbach, Paul Dreisbach Section, Township, Range: 2, 27N, 13W

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 20

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.88 Long: -124.352 Datum: NAD83HARN

Soil Map Unit Name: Klone gravelly silt loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes NWI Classification: none

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (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.)

Yes No

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No

Remarks: Project/Site name note: RFB = Remove Fish Barrier. Drier than normal precipitation conditions preceded the August 14, 2018 field work (Appendix A-1). Hydrology is naturally problematic in Washington State in August, as it is towards the end of the driest part of the growing season.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.2. 3.4.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

2. 3. 4. 5.

Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

2. 1.

5ft x 5ft

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50

2. Petasites frigidus Equisetum telmateia

3. Athyrium cyclosorum

5ft x 5ft

Oemleria cerasiformis

15ft x 15ft 1. Rubus spectabilis

20ft x 20ft Alnus rubra

53

10 40

3

40

10

30

30

30

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

5.7 N 18.9 Y 75.5

N

Y 25.0 Y 75.0

Y 100.0

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

FAC FACW FACW

FACU FAC

FAC

Indicator Status

Dominance Test worksheet:

(A)

(B)

(A/B) 75.0% Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3

OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B)

Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.675

329123 0 0

100 63 189 50 0 0

10 40

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: Prevalence Index worksheet:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹ 4

5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)

¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers (WSDOT Adapted Form) Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: A-SP1

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

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

C M Silty Clay Loam concentration is prominent 0-20 10YR 3/2 80 10YR 4/6 20

Depth (inches)

Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks

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

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

Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

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

MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except

Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,

Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe)

Yes No Yes No Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

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

Remarks: Though primairy indicators of hydrology were not observed, wetland hydrology is assumed to be present during periods with normal precipitation and during earlier parts of the growing season. Soils were moist but not saturated throughout the upper 12 inches in mid-August in a period with drier than normal precipitation conditions.




Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: Aug 14, 2018 Sampling Point: A-SP2








Yes No









2. 3. 4. 5.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.


2. 1.

5ft x 5ft


2. Petasites frigidus Polystichum munitum

3.

5ft x 5ft

Rubus spectabilis

15ft x 15ft 1. Rubus parviflorus

Picea sitchensis


40

20 20

75

35

105

40

75 30

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Y 50.0 Y 50.0

Y 46.7 Y 53.3

Y 71.4 Y 28.6

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

FACW FACU

FAC FACU

FAC FAC

Indicator Status


(A)

(B)






700220 0 0

40 140 420 20 0 0

60 240







Remarks:


SOIL Sampling Point: A-SP2



Silty Clay Loam 0-16 10YR 3/2 100

Depth (inches)








Remarks:










Remarks: This area not likely to have wetland hydrology during a period with normal precipitation or in the earlier part of the growing season as indicated by lack of hydric soils.




Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: Aug 14, 2018 Sampling Point: B-SP1








Yes No









2. 3. 4. 5.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.


2. 1.

5ft x 5ft


Lysichiton americanus

2. Tolmiea menziesii Oxalis oregana

3. Polystichum munitum

5ft x 5ft

Acer circinatum Oemleria cerasiformis


20ft x 20ft Picea sitchensis

53

3

5 40

5

10

60

10

20

40

20

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

N 5.7 9.4

N 9.4 Y 75.5

N

N 16.7 N 16.7 Y 66.7

Y 100.0

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

OBL FACU FAC

FACU

FAC FACU FAC

FAC

Indicator Status


(A)

(B)






448133 0 0

0 75 225 0 3 3

55 220








SOIL Sampling Point: B-SP1



5 C M Silt Loam concentration is prominent

Silt Loam

4-20 5GY 4/2 95 10YR 4/4

0-4 10YR 3/2 100

Depth (inches)








Remarks:








0 4



Remarks:




Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: Aug 14, 2018 Sampling Point: B-SP2








Yes No









2. 3. 4. 5.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.


2. 1.

5ft x 5ft


Athyrium cyclosorum

2. Polystichum munitum Oxalis oregana

3. Tolmiea menziesii

5ft x 5ft

15ft x 15ft 1. Vaccinium parvifolium

Tsuga heterophylla


85

5

20 50

10

30

50

30

40 10

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

N 5.9 11.8

Y 23.5 Y 58.8

N

Y 100.0

Y 80.0 Y 20.0

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

FAC FAC

FACU FACU

FACU

FAC FACU

Indicator Status


(A)

(B)






605165 0 0

0 55 165 0 0 0

110 440







Remarks:


SOIL Sampling Point: B-SP2



Silt Loam 0-20 10YR 3/3

Depth (inches)








Remarks:










Remarks:



Project/Site: US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – RFB City/County: Clallam County Sampling Date: 8/14/2018

Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: Aug 14, 2018 Sampling Point: C-SP1








Yes No









2. 3. 4. 5.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.


2. 1.

5ft x 5ft


Lysichiton americanus

2. Oenanthe sarmentosa Tolmiea menziesii


5ft x 5ft


20ft x 20ft

55

5

15 30

5

40

40

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

N 9.1 9.1

Y 27.3 Y 54.5

N

Y 100.0

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

OBL FAC OBL FAC

FAC

Indicator Status


(A)

(B)






24595 0 0

0 75 225 0

20 20

0 0







Remarks:


SOIL Sampling Point: C-SP1



C PL&M Silt Loam concentration is prominent 0-16 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 5/6 5

Depth (inches)








Remarks:








0



Remarks:

Saturation to surface in mid-August in slope area of wetland. Ditch area has slow flowing water to a depth of 1 inch.




Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: August 14, 2018 Sampling Point: C-SP2








Yes No









2. 3. 4. 5.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.


2. 1.

5ft x 5ft


Carex sp.

2. Polystichum munitum Oxalis oregana

3. Tolmiea menziesii

5ft x 5ft

Alnus rubra Acer circinatum Sambucus racemosa


Tsuga heterophylla Picea sitchensis


65

5

20 30

10

5 5

40

10

70

20

10

50 10

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

N 7.7 15.4

Y 30.8 Y 46.2

N

N 12.5 N 12.5 Y 25.0 Y 50.0

N 14.3

Y 71.4 N 14.3

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

#N/A FAC

FACU FACU

FAC FAC

FACU FAC

FACU

FAC FAC

Indicator Status


(A)

(B)






580170 0 0

0 100 300 0 0 0

70 280







Remarks:


SOIL Sampling Point: C-SP2



Silt Loam 0-16 10YR 4/3 100

Depth (inches)








Remarks:










Remarks:




Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: Aug 14, 2018 Sampling Point: D-SP1


Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): wetland ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5






Yes No









2. 3. 4. 5.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.


2. 1.

5ft x 5ft


Geum macrophyllum Petasites frigidus

2. Lotus corniculatus Carex stipata


5ft x 5ft

15ft x 5ft 1.

20ft x 5ft

110

10 10

30 40

20

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

N 9.1 18.2

N 9.1

Y 27.3 Y 36.4

N

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

FAC FAC

FACW

FAC OBL

Indicator Status


(A)

(B)






240110 0 0

20 60 180 10 40 40

0 0







Remarks:


SOIL Sampling Point: D-SP1



C PL Silt Loam concentration is prominent 0-20 10YR 4/2 80 10YR 4/6 20

Depth (inches)








Remarks:








0 8



Remarks:




Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: Aug 14, 2018 Sampling Point: D-SP2


Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5






Yes No









2. 3. 4. 5.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.


2. 1.

5ft x 5ft


2. Equisetum telmateia Polystichum munitum

3.

5ft x 5ft

Oplopanax horridus Rubus laciniatus Rubus spectabilis Rubus parviflorus

15ft x 5ft 1. Acer circinatum

20ft x 5ft

25

5 20

10 20 20

100

20 30

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Y 20.0 Y 80.0

N 10.0 Y 20.0 Y 20.0 Y 20.0 Y 30.0

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

FACW FACU

FAC FACU FAC

FACU FAC

Indicator Status


(A)

(B)






430125 0 0

10 60 180 5 0 0

60 240







Remarks:


SOIL Sampling Point: D-SP2



Silt Loam 0-20 10YR 3/2

Depth (inches)








Remarks:










Remarks:




Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: Aug 14, 2018 Sampling Point: F-SP1


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






Yes No









2. 3. 4. 5.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.


2. 1.

5ft x 5ft


2. Lysichiton americanus Athyrium cyclosorum

3.

5ft x 5ft

Oemleria cerasiformis


10ft x 10ft

7

2 5

22

2 20

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Y 28.6 Y 71.4

N 9.1 Y 90.9

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

OBL FAC

FACU FAC

Indicator Status


(A)

(B)






8529 0 0

0 25 75 0 2 2

2 8







Remarks:


SOIL Sampling Point: F-SP1



C PL Silt Loam concentration is prominent 0-20 10YR 4/2 75 10YR 4/6 25

Depth (inches)








Remarks:








6



Remarks: Soils moist 0" - 6" above saturated layer 6" - 20". Water table assumed in earlier part of growing season.




Applicant/Owner: WSDOT State: Aug 14, 2018 Sampling Point: F-SP2


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






Yes No









2. 3. 4. 5.


4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.


2. 1.

5ft x 5ft


2. Tolmiea menziesii Polystichum munitum

3.

5ft x 5ft



70

20 50

80

20

80

20

Absolute % Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Y 28.6 Y 71.4

Y 100.0

Y 100.0

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

FAC FACU

FAC

FAC

Indicator Status


(A)

(B)






560170 0 0

0 120 360 0 0 0

50 200







Remarks:


SOIL Sampling Point: F-SP2



Silt Loam

10YR 3/3 50

0-20 10YR 3/2 50

Depth (inches)








Remarks:










Remarks:


Appendix C. Wetland Rating Summaries and Figures

Appendix C includes WSDOT adapted wetland rating forms and all required figures. In addition a description of Wetlands C and F, which occur in Clallam County, provide a rational for determining the Clallam County specific wetland classification.

Wetlands C and F Clallam County classification:

Wetlands C and F are Clallam County Class III because they meets all the characteristics of a Class II except they lacks “significant habitat features” as defined in Chapter 27.12.210 Critical Areas description of their municipal code. Therefore they are both Clallam County Class III (Clallam County 2020).

Class II wetlands are those wetlands classified as:

• Greater than or equal to 20 acres and not meeting Class I criteria; or

• Less than 20 acres, dominated by 50 percent native vegetation (excluding contiguous stands of cattails, soft rush, hard hack, and horse tail), containing a forested or scrub-shrub habitat type; containing at least one significant habitat feature, and connected to a significant wildlife habitat movement corridor.

Class III wetlands are those wetlands classified as:

• Wetlands less than 20 acres which do not satisfy Class I, II, or IV criteria.


February 2020

Wetland name or number A

RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington

Name of wetland (or ID #): US 101 May Creek Vic Dowans Cr Rd - Fish Passage A Date of site visit: 8/14/2018

Rated by Tatiana Dreisbach Trained by Ecology?

HGM Class used for rating Slope No

Source of base aerial photo/map

OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions

1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONSCategory I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based

X Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings

Yes No Date of training 6/11/2014

Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes

NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ).

or special characteristics )

Statewide 2017 1ft 4 band wsps 83h

FUNCTION Improving

Water Quality Habitat Hydrologic

List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Site Potential L M MLandscape Potential L L HValue H H H TotalScore Based on Ratings

5 6 8 19

(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

2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland

CHARACTERISTIC Category

Estuarine

Wetland of High Conservation Value

Bog

Mature Forest

Old Growth Forest

Coastal Lagoon

Interdunal

None of the above X

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - January 14, 2015


Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington

Depressional Wetlands

Map of: To answer questions: Figure #

Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4

Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2

Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1

Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2

Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3

1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including

polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat

H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2

Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3

Riverine Wetlands


Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4

Hydroperiods H 1.2

Ponded depressions R 1.1

Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4

Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2

Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1

Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2



H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1

Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3

Lake Fringe Wetlands


Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4

Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2

Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2



H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2

Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3

Slope Wetlands


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 1

Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants

(can be added to another figure)

S 4.11

Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 3



H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 4

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 5

Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 5



HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington

For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to Question 8.

1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?

NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1

1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?

NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe

NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.

3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?

NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)

4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ),

The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.

NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope


The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.

NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine

If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands.

The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;

The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks.

NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep).

The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river,

2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.

At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).

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

NO - go to 8

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.

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 ESTUARINE

Treat as

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.



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

0

Slope is > 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0

Yes = 3 No = 0 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions ):

0

Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0

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.

3

Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 3 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?

Yes = 1 No = 0 S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?

0

Other Sources Yes = 1 No = 0

S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? 0

Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 - 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?

Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list?

1

Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list.

1

Yes = 2 No = 0

S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found ?

0

Total for S 3 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



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?

Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1 All other conditions points = 0

S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants

should be thick enough (usually > 1 / 8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. 1

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 hydrologic functions of the site?

Yes = 1 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? No = 0

0

Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems:

points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0

The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) 2

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

0


NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Note: H 2.1 and H 2.2 habitat polygons not mapped in figure 4 and calculations not provided in the questionson the form because undisturbed accessible and undisturbed separated habitat are clearly > 50% of the 1 kmpolygon.



HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat

These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.

H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?

Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if : The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon

H 1.1. 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.

2

H 1.2. Hydroperiods

Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points

Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods ).

0

H 1.3. Richness of plant species

If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0

Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2 . Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1

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

1

All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points



H 1.5. Special habitat features:

Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long) Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland

Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata )

Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed ) At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians )

Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.

3

Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Rating of Site Potential If Score is: 15 - 18 = H 7 - 14 = M 0 - 6 = L Record the rating on the first page

H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site? H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit ). Calculate:

% undisturbed habitat + ( % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) =

If total accessible habitat is: 3 > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0

H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate:


3Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0

H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (-2) 0 ≤ 50% of 1km Polygon is high intensity points = 0

Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 6 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?

Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)

It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species

Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0

It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources

H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated .

It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)

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

2

Rating of Value If Score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page



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 SpeciesList. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/

Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.

Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).

Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ).

Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.

Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.

Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above ).

Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.

Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above ).

Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.

Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page ).

Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.

Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.

Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.

Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long.

Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere.


http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf


CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type

Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List 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.

Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2

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?

SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?

Yes = Category I No = Category II

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.

SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)SC 2.1.

Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?

Yes = Category I No = Not WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCV

SC 2.4.

Yes = Category I No = Not WHCV

Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website?

Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value?

SC 3.0. Bogs

SC 3.1.

Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2.

Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3.

Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4

SC 3.4.

Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog

Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions . Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile?

Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond?

Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4?

NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, 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?



SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands

Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section

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).

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.

SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?

Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?

The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II

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 )

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 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).

SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands

In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109

Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1.

Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?

Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3.

Yes = Category III No = Category IV

Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.

Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)?

Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?

Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form


Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Update .~ N

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier Wetland A 0 30 60 120

Feet Coward in Plant Classes Mapc:J PFO \l.ith 3 of 5 strata

Questions H 1.1, H 1.4, - D & •wt1ol'11'11111a1111_ _.., PEM Plant Cover Map ~. ,......

Questions S 1.3, S 4.1 f'!.9 f_ S_C:0Mf.Jl'l&PJ.a.'J!Ql~'e/_ t:]weuand Di~ sa1oe« 1n11w20 2:, 1:11 PU ~ :_:, study area Figure 1

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Update

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier 0 30 60 Wetland A

Feet

la saturated only (SO) Hydroperiods MapW D •w11ol'll'll.111a1111_11111., Question H 1.2 ~. ,......

120

[ : -:• study area

O wet1and 1'g2_ S_H'j(il:Jpt:IJOl!S

DIO.- sa1-ed' 112112020 2:5 4.tJlPU Figure 2

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Update .~ N US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd· Remove Fish Barrier

Wetland A 0 50 100 200

Feet

.9:.. ,...... D 150 foot buffer up slope of wetland 150 ft Polygon MapW D s •wt1ol'll'll111a1111_ _.., - NHD Rivers & Stream s Questions S 2.1, S 5.1

rr: stud y area ,c:;.;s_S_153.@01)9311 CJ wetland 01:<: sa1-ed' 112 112a20J:1d:SOP.U Figure 3

mailto:153.@01)9311

Ha bit at land use types not mapped because undisturbed accessible and undisturbed separated habit at are clearly > 50% of the 1 km polygon.


US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier Wetland A

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Kilometers

1 Km Polygon Map ~.'*et .... Questions H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 - D & •••ol11'11.111a...--.. : ~, stuc1j area

CJ wetland 1'g4_ S_f'WPotgo.? CJ 1 Km buffer Ou: S3~~4' 1121/2020 l..'.41:fl)P.U Figure 4

,__\ N

0 0.1 0.2 0.4 ~. Miles

Was,.......•••ol11T1t,aa___

1?;S_S_J03P)& T.tDLs

01:<: sa1~d' 11271202/J 1:20:tJSPU


US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd · Remove Fish Barrier Wetland A - NHD Rivers & Streams

CJ WRIA (1 24K) 303(d) listed waters in basin &i~l study area

TMDL's forWRIA Map CJ wetland Questions S 3.1, S 3. 2, S 3.3 • Category 5 Impaired Waters D Approved TM DL.s c::J TM DL.s in Development Figure 5

Wetland name or number B


Name of wetland (or ID #): US 101 May Creek Vic Dowans Cr Rd - Fish Passage B Date of site visit: 8/14/2018












FUNCTION Hydrologic Habitat Improving

Water Quality

List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Site Potential L L LLandscape Potential L L HValue H H H TotalScore Based on Ratings

5 5 7 17





Estuarine


Bog

Mature Forest

Old Growth Forest

Coastal Lagoon

Interdunal

None of the above X













H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3



Riverine Wetlands



Hydroperiods H 1.2








H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3










H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3



Slope Wetlands







S 4.11




H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.34






NO - go to 7

NO - go to 8










Depressional


Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland

Treat as ESTUARINE




Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality

SLOPE WETLANDS




0



0



2




0






1


1

Yes = 2 No = 0


0




Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion SLOPE WETLANDS








0






0










0

H 1.2. Hydroperiods



1




H 1.4. Interspersion of habitatsDecide 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.


0





Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long) Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed ) At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians )



1


















2






Category












SC 2.4.




SC 3.0. Bogs

SC 3.1.




SC 3.4.










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).


















Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Update ..-\

N US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier

Wetland B 0 25 50 100 Feet

Coward in Plant Classes Mapc:J Pss Questions H 1.1, H 1.4,

- D •••ol'll'11111a1111_ _.., Plant Cover Map ~. ,......

~--__·, stud y area Questions s 1.3, s 4.1

f!g f_ S_ C.OMIJ'l'l&P.la.'l?Q l\'e/ O wetland

QI~ sa1-ed' 112712()2/J O:J~/J8AU Figure 1

l ,, l ,,

I

,1

1, 1,

_____________ ~ ,-~---...... ,, 11----=-~-

\ ------ ..... --------------\

\ \

'

(SO)

\ ,, \

\ \

\

' ' \ '\

\ \

\

' \ \

I \

\ \

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Update~ N

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier 0 20 40 80 Wetland B

Fe.et 1 - - , study area Hydroperiods Map~. '*4 .... Question H 1.2t:::] wetland- D & •••ol'll'lllaaN1_...,

occasionally inundated (0 1) Rgi_ s_Hfdr.Jpe/JOl1s

saturated only (SO) Figure 2Ou: S3t~ d' fl27/2t.J21J 1-0:00;SS AU

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Update .~ N US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd· Remove Fish Barrier

Wetland B 0 37.5 75 150

Feet -~ study area C wet1and

150 ft Polygon MapC 150 foot uphill buffer .9:.. '** ....- D & •wt1ol'11'11111a1111_ _.., Questions S 2.1, S 5.1 ~ pollutant generating sulfaces 121 excess runoff generating sulfaces

~3- S_ f53.cPoJ)9:)/I = pollutant and excess runoff generating sulfaces 01:<: sa1'ed' 1/'l7l'NJ'l/J 1~1D~'NJ A.U Figure 3

Ha bit at land use types n ct mapped because undisturbed accessible and undisturbed separated habit at are clearly > 50% of the 1 km polygon.


US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier Wetland B

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Kilometers

:':i stuOj area 1 Km Polygon Map~. '*4 .... - D & •••ol11'11.Na""l_illlll., Cl wetland Questions H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3

CJ Buffer1Km F.!g4_S_fJWPot<go.?

Ou : S3~~d' 11271202/J 10:20:00 AU Figure 4

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Update ...\

N US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier Wetland B

0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .4

Miles CJ WRIA (1 24K) 303(d) listed waters in basin &;; : , stucy area

TMDL's forWRIA MapJ!!\.. '** .... t:J wet1and - D & •••ol'll'll.laa...-illllll., Questions S 3.1 , S 3. 2. S 3.3

• category 5 Impaired Waters ,;gs_s_Ja3fJ'J& Tt.OLs D ApprovedTMDL.s O!Ji: S3~~d' 112712/JW 1:20:JJ PU c:J TM DL.s in Development Figure 5

Wetland name or number C


Name of wetland (or ID #): US 101 May Creek Vic Dowans Cr Rd - Fish Passage C Date of site visit: 8/14/2018












FUNCTION Improving


List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Site Potential L L MLandscape Potential L L HValue H H H TotalScore Based on Ratings

5 5 8 18





Estuarine


Bog

Mature Forest

Old Growth Forest

Coastal Lagoon

Interdunal

None of the above X













H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3



Riverine Wetlands



Hydroperiods H 1.2








H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3










H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3



Slope Wetlands







S 4.11




H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 4






NO - go to 7

NO - go to 8










Depressional


Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE

Treat as




SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality




0



0



2




0






1


1

Yes = 2 No = 0


0




SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion








0






0










4

H 1.2. Hydroperiods



1






2







Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed ) At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians )


1


















2






Category












SC 2.4.




SC 3.0. Bogs

SC 3.1.




SC 3.4.










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).

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.


















Text

£¤101

PSS

PEM

Dense woody plants cover > 1/2 of wetland

PFO 3 of 5 strata

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 UpdateUS 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier´ Wetland C

study area 0 37.5 75 150 wetland Cowardin Plant Classes Map

PAB QuestiPons H 1.1, H 1.4,lant Cover Map

Feet

PEM Questions S 1.3, S 4.1 PSS

Fig1_S_Cowardin&PlantCover PFO Figure 1 Date Saved: 1/27/2020 3:52:34 PM PFO 3/5

occasionally inundated along ditch

saturated only along slope

(OI)

(SO)

(SO)

(SO)

£¤101

´ e

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish BarrierWetland C

0 40 80 160 Feet Hydroper

Ques iods Map

study area tion H 1.2 wetland occasionally inundated (OI)

Fig2_S_Hydroperiods saturated only (SO) Date Saved: 1/27/2020 4:11:45 PM Figure 2

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Updat

£¤101

100 200 50 Feet

0

´ e US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier

Wetland C study area wetland 150 foot uphill buffer 150 ft Polygon Map

Questions S 2.1, S 5.1 pollutant generating surfaces excess runoff generating surfaces

Fig3_S_150ftPolygon pollutant and excess runoff generating surfaces Date Saved: 1/27/2020 4:30:35 PM Figure 3


£¤101

Habitat land use types not mapped because undisturbed accessible and undisturbed separated habitat are clearly > 50% of the 1 km polygon.

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Updat´ e US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier

Wetland C 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Kilometers

1 Km Polygon Map study area Questions H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 wetland

Fig4_S_1KmPolygon Buffer1km Date Saved: 1/27/2020 4:55:08 PM Figure 4

Soleduc 20

£¤101

Bogachiel River

Bear

Cree

k

May C

reek


Wetland C 0 0.1 0.2 0.4

Miles WRIA (1:24K) study area 303(d) listed waters in basin &

TMDL's for WRIA Map wetland Questions S 3.1, S 3.2, S 3.3 Category 5 Impaired Waters

Fig5_S_303(d)&TMDLs Approved TMDLs TMDLs in Development Figure 5 Date Saved: 1/28/2020 6:57:21 AM


Wetland name or number D


Name of wetland (or ID #): US 101 May Creek Vic Dowans Cr Rd - Fish Passage D Date of site visit: 8/14/2018


HGM Class used for rating Riverine & Fresh Water Tidal No










FUNCTION Improving


List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Site Potential M M LLandscape Potential M L HValue M H H TotalScore Based on Ratings

6 6 7 19





Estuarine


Bog

Mature Forest

Old Growth Forest

Coastal Lagoon

Interdunal

None of the above X













H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3



Riverine Wetlands




Ponded depressions R 1.1 2

Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 3

Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 1

Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 2

Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 4



H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.35

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 6

Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 6








H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3



Slope Wetlands



Hydroperiods H 1.2

Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3



S 4.1

Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1



H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2

Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3




NO - go to 7

NO - go to 8






being rated HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to

use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine

Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe


Depressional



Treat as ESTUARINE


NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Note: For HGM, this wetland is rated as riverine. It is a roaside ditch wetland feature. H 2.1 and H 2.2 habitat polygons not mapped in figure 5 and calculations not provided in the questions on the form because undisturbed accessible and undisturbed separated habitat are clearly > 50% of the 1 km polygon.



Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality

RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS

R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?

Depressions cover > 3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4 Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0

R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event:

0

Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0

R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes)

6

Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page

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

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

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

0

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

0

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

1


R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1 - R 2.4? 0

Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 - 6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?

Yes = 1 No = 0 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?

1

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

0

Yes = 2 No = 0

R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found )

0

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



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

R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?

R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides:

If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is 10 - 20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5 - < 10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1 - < 5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1

Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks).

2

Forest or shrub for > 1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7

Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4

Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0

R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes ).

7

Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 9 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page

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

R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 0 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 Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

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

R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site.


The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds)

2

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

0

Total for R 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








0

H 1.2. Hydroperiods



1



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

Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2 .

1


Moderate = 2 points None = 0 points Low = 1 point

0







Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed ) At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata )

1














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



2






Category












SC 2.4.




SC 3.0. Bogs

SC 3.1.




SC 3.4.







£¤101

Entire wetland is PEM Dense herbaceous plants cover >2/3 the wetland

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Updat´ e US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier

Wetland D 0 40 80 160

Feet Cowardin Plant Classes Map Questi

Pons H 1.1, H 1.4,lant Cover Map

study area Questions R 1.2, R 4.2 wetland Fig1_R_Cowardin&PlantCover

Date Saved: 1/28/2020 8:08:56 AM Figure 1

£¤101

e US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier

Wetland D 0 30 60 120

Feet Hydroperi

Ponded Depress iods & ons &

Width of Wetland vs Stream Map study area Questions H 1.2, R 1.1, R 4.1

Date Saved: 1/28/2020 8:36:11 AM wetland Figure 2 Fig2_R_Hydroperiods&Depressions&WidthOfStrmVsWtlnd

Wetland lacks surface depressions. It is a functional roadside ditch wetland. The ratio of wetland to stream width is 2:1 (too narrow of a feature to show on figure) with the stream section having occasionally flooded areas and the wetland banks on either side of the channel having saturated only hydroperiods.

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Updat´


US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier Wetland D 0 37.5 75 150

Feet

150 ft Polygon MapCJ 150 foot buffer .9:.. '** .... - D & •wt1ol'11'11111a1111_illl., It.] study area Questions R 2.4

CJ wetland ~3_ R_ 1S®Fo.lygon r.... pollutant generating sulfaces ao: sa1-ed' 112312a20 10:t 7:® AU Figure 3


US 101 May Creek in Vic of Cowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier Wetland D

0 200 400 800 CJ contributing basin Feet

~ : ; study area Contri buting Basin Map ~. '*4 .... t:J Y.etland

- D & •••ol11'11.111a1111_illllll., Questions R 2. 2, R 2.3, R 5.2 NHD Rivers & Streams

CJ Incorporated Cities~l_ R_ CO.'Ji~td.'lgB3SJ)

Oil /': Sa'~'ed' 1/2312-020 10:JS :10 AU l!ZZ2J UGA Figure 4

£¤101

Undi

Rd

UndieRd

Kallman Rd

Dowans Creek Rd

Hol

low

Rd


Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Updat´ e

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Wetland D

Kilometers

1 km Polygon Mapstudy area Questions H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 wetland

Fig5_R_1KmPolygon 1 km buffer


Soleduc 20

£¤101

Bogachiel River

Bear

Cree

k

May C

reek

0.2 0.40.1 Miles

0


Wetland D WRIA (1:24K) study area 303(d) listed waters in basin &

TMDL's for WRIA Mapwetland Questions R 3.1, R 3.2, R 3.3 Category 5 Impaired Waters Approved TMDLs TMDLs in Development

Fig6_R_303(d)&TMDLs Figure 6Date Saved: 1/28/2020 9:03:35 AM


Wetland name or number F


Name of wetland (or ID #): US 101 May Creek Vic Dowans Cr Rd - Fish Passage F Date of site visit: 8/14/2018


HGM Class used for rating Depressional & Flats No










FUNCTION Hydrologic Improving

Water Quality Habitat

List appropriate rating (H, M, L) Site Potential L M LLandscape Potential L L HValue H H H TotalScore Based on Ratings

5 6 7 18





Estuarine


Bog

Mature Forest

Old Growth Forest

Coastal Lagoon

Interdunal

None of the above X

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015





Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 1

Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 1

Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 1

Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 2

Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 3



H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.34

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 5

Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 5

Riverine Wetlands



Hydroperiods H 1.2








H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3










H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3



Slope Wetlands



Hydroperiods H 1.2

Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3



S 4.1

Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1



H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3

Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2

Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3




NO - go to 7

NO - go to 8










Depressional



Treat as ESTUARINE





DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality

D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?

D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:

points = 3

points = 2

points = 1

points = 1

Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing

Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.

Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).

Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch.

3

Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions ).

0

Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3

Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1

Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0

D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):

1

D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 0 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0

Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page

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

D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0

Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?

0

D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0

Source Yes = 1 No = 0

D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? 0

Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?

Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list?

1

Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list?

1

Yes = 2 No = 0

D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found )?

0

Total for D 3 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



Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS

D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:

points = 4

points = 2

points = 1

points = 0

Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet)

Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing

Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch

4

Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0

D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.

3

The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5

D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.

3

Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 10

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

D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff?

Yes = 1 No = 0 0

Yes = 1 No = 0

D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? 0

Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 0

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

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

points = 2

points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1

points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0

The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why

D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.

The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):

Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient.

2

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

0

Total for D 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








0

H 1.2. Hydroperiods



1






0







Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed ) At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata )

1


















2






Category












SC 2.4.




SC 3.0. Bogs

SC 3.1.




SC 3.4.














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.













£¤101

Northwest Geomatics, LTD

´

Entier wetland is PSS with sparse persistent vegeation >1/10 the wetland

Closed depression, lacking an outlet. Wetland has occasionally ponded and saturated only hydroperiods.

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Update US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier

Wetland F 0 30 60 120

Feet Cowardin Plant Classes Map Questions D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4

study area Hydroperiods & Location of Outlet Map wetland Questions D 1.1, D 1.4, D 4.1, H 1.2

Fig1_D_Cowardin


£¤101

e US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier

Wetland F 0 25 50 100

Feet

150 ft Polygon Map 150 foot buffer Questions D 2.2, D 5.2 study area

Fig2_D_150ftPolygon wetland pollutant and excess runoff generating surfaces Figure 2 Date Saved: 1/28/2020 11:29:23 AM

9% of the 150 foot buffer contains surfaces that generate pollutants

Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Updat´

£¤101


Wetland F 0 37.5 75 150

contributing basin Feet

study area Contributing Basin Map wetland Questions D 4.3, D 5.3 NHD Rivers & Streams

Fig3_D_ContributingBasin Incorporated Cities UGA Figure 3 Date Saved: 1/28/2020 11:35:22 AM


£¤101

Undi

Rd

UndieRd

Kallman Rd

Dowans Creek Rd

Hol

low

Rd


Wetland Rating for Western Washington 2014 Updat´ e

US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Cr Rd - Remove Fish Barrier0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Wetland F

Kilometers

1 km Polygon Mapstudy area Questions H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 wetland

Fig4_D_1KmPolygon 1 km buffer


Soleduc 20

£¤101

Undi Rd

Smith Rd

Kallman Rd

UndieRd

Hol

l ow

Rd

Dowans Creek Rd

Bogachiel River

May C

reek

Bear

Cree

k

Eaton Creek


0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Wetland F WRIA (1:24K)Miles study area 303(d) listed waters in basin &

TMDL's for WRIA Mapwetland Questions D 3.1, D 3.2, D 3.3 Category 5 Impaired Waters

Approved TMDLs

TMDLs in Development Fig5_D_303(d)&TMDLs

Figure 5Date Saved: 1/28/2020 11:51:52 AM


Appendix D. Wetland Functional Assessment Summaries

Summary of Functions and Values Project: US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland ID: A

Cowardin Class: PFO/PEM HGM: Slope Ecology Rating: III Jefferson County Rating: III

Assessed by: Tatiana Dreisbach Date: August 14, 2018

Function/Value Occurrence Y N

Rationale (qualifiers & attributes)

Principal Function Comments

Flood flow alteration X As indicated in Table 1 of the BPJ Tool, slope wetlands do not provide this function.

Sediment removal X As indicated in Table 1 of the BPJ Tool, slope wetlands do not provide this function.

Nutrient and toxic removal X As indicated in Table 1 of the BPJ Tool, slope wetlands do not provide this function.

Erosion control & shoreline stabilization X As indicated in Table 1 of the BPJ Tool, slope

wetlands do not provide this function.

Production of organic matter and its export X 1, 2, 3, 6 yes

Wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, woody plants are primarily deciduous, has two Cowardin classes and has an outlet to export organic matter.

General habitat suitability X 1, 2, 3, 5 yes Wetland has habitat connectivity to other high quality habitat, intact, functioning buffers, and two Cowardin classes.

Habitat for aquatic invertebrates X Wetland lacks permanent or seasonal inundation

necessary to provide this function.

Habitat for amphibians X 3, 4, 5, 6 no

Wetland lacks physical characteristics of seasonal or permanent ponding needed for breeding and rearing, however other habitat elements are present to support adult life stages.

Habitat for wetland-associated mammals X Wetland lacks physical characteristics of permanent

ponding needed to provide this function.

Habitat for wetland-associated birds X 3, 4, 7, 8 Wetland lacks physical characteristics of open water,

mud flats, or sand bars to provide this function.

General fish habitat X

Though wetland drains to May Creek, a fish bearing water, steep banks along May Creek separate this wetland from the creek, creating a barrier to fish and blocking access to the wetland.

Native plant richness X yes

Wetland is dominated by native plants, has two Cowardin classes with three strata in PFO areas, including mature trees, and has moderate species diversity.

Educational or scientific use X In public ownership by DNR as managed forest lands.

Uniqueness & heritage X Wetland is not documented as providing habitat for unique or sensitive fish, wildlife, or plant species and does not contain unique habitats.


February 2020

Summary of Functions and Values Project: US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland ID: B

Cowardin Class: PSS HGM: Slope Ecology Rating: III Jefferson County Rating: III










Production of organic matter and its export X 1, 2, 6 yes

Wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, woody plants are primarily deciduous, and has an outlet to export organic matter.

General habitat suitability X 1, 2, 3 yes Wetland has habitat connectivity to other high quality habitat and intact, functioning buffers.



Habitat for amphibians X 3, 5, 6 no




Habitat for wetland-associated birds X 3, 7, 8 Wetland lacks physical characteristics of open water,




Native plant richness X yes Wetland is dominated by native plants, only has one Cowardin class, and has moderate species diversity.




February 2020

Summary of Functions and Values Project: US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland ID: C

Cowardin Class: PFO/PSS/PEM HGM: Slope Ecology Rating: III Clallam County Rating: III










Production of organic matter and its export X 1, 2, 3, 6 yes

Wetland has dense herbaceous vegetation, woody plants are primarily deciduous, has multiple Cowardin classes and has an outlet to export organic matter.

General habitat suitability X 1, 2, 3, 5 yes Wetland has habitat connectivity to other high quality habitat, intact, functioning buffers, and three Cowardin classes.



Habitat for amphibians X 3, 5, 6 no




Habitat for wetland-associated birds X 3, 7, 8 Wetland lacks physical characteristics of open water,




Native plant richness X yes

Wetland is dominated by native plants, has three Cowardin classes with three strata in PFO areas, including mature trees and has moderate species diversity.




February 2020

Summary of Functions and Values Project: US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland ID: D

Cowardin Class: PEM HGM: Riverine Ecology Rating: III Jefferson County Rating: III





Flood flow alteration X Wetland is a PEM ditch that functions as water conveyance, not storage and desynchronization.

Sediment removal X 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 yes Dense PEM vegetation traps excess sediments coming off road and up gradient slopes, as water flows through the ditch.

Nutrient and toxic removal X 1, 2, 4 yes Wetland receives stormwater from road with excess toxicants and has some ability to remove them due to dense PEM vegetation in seasonally flooded areas.

Erosion control & shoreline stabilization X 1, 2 yes Dense PEM vegetation is present throughout ditch.

Scour was not observed.

Production of organic matter and its export X 1, 4, 5 yes

Wetland has dense PEM vegetation with an outlet to transport organic matter to downstream environments.

General habitat suitability X 1, 2, 3 no

Wetland has habitat connectivity to other high quality habitat, intact, and functioning buffers on one side. It is a roadside ditch wetland, with simple vegetation structure, and does not provide significant habitat functions.

Habitat for aquatic invertebrates X 1, 4, 6 no

Has inundation and PEM vegetation, but likely poor water quality due to stormwater inputs from the roadside.

Habitat for amphibians X 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 no

Has surrounding undeveloped criteria, other adjacent wetlands and streams, and PEM vegetation in inundated areas however close proximity to road likely reduces water quality and lacks buffers on roadside to protect amphibians. Function may be present with limitations.





General fish habitat X Though wetland drains to May Creek, a fish bearing water, the wetland is physically separated from May Creek in terms of fish access.

Native plant richness X Wetland has one Cowardin class with low species diversity.




February 2020

Summary of Functions and Values Project: US 101 May Creek in Vic of Dowans Creek Rd – Remove Fish Barrier Wetland ID: F

Cowardin Class: PSS HGM: Depressional Ecology Rating: III Clallam County Rating: III





Flood flow alteration X 2, 3, 7 no Very small wetland (0.01 acre). It is a closed depression, but has a small contributing basin and sparse vegetation. Function present but not primary.

Sediment removal X Lacks sources of excess sediment inputs, has sparse vegetation.

Nutrient and toxic removal X 2, 3 Wetland does pond water seasonally but lacks inputs of excess nutrients and toxicants.

Erosion control & shoreline stabilization X

N/A – not associated with a water course. May Creek is adjacent but overbank flooding does not appear to interact with Wetland F.

Production of organic matter and its export X

Wetland has sparse delicious PSS vegetation and lacks an outlet to transport organic matter to downstream habitats.

General habitat suitability X 1, 2, 3 no

Wetland has habitat connectivity to other high quality habitat, intact, and functioning buffers on one side. It is a very small wetland, with sparse vegetation, and does not provide significant habitat functions.

Habitat for aquatic invertebrates X 1, 5, 6 yes Has inundation and leaf litter and in close proximity to

May Creek. The potential for this function is high.

Habitat for amphibians X 1, 3, 5, 6 no

Has surrounding undeveloped criteria and other adjacent wetlands and streams to support adult life stages, but lack PAB/PEM vegetation to support breeding and rearing habitat.






Though wetland is adjacent to May Creek, a fish bearing water, the wetland is physically separated from May Creek in terms of fish access. This wetland is a closed depression that does not appear to receive overbank flooding from May Creek.

Native plant richness X Wetland has one Cowardin class with low species diversity and sparse cover.




February 2020

Appendix E. Plan Sheets


February 2020

T.27N. & T.28N. R.13W. W.M.

~ ----~,.---- :

THALWEG (TPY.)

~

END F .A. STPF-0101 368 END PROJECT US 101 MP 184.71

- r -----------------------1 . I

~ BUFFER

····· ·.... ····· ··········

I I I

.. I .. ... ... ..... ..,

! -- --, -----------------------

~ R/W

------------------------j~~~~~~~-~~~~-+~~~~-----.a,--1

--------------\ BEGIN F.A. STPF-0101(368)

LEGEND:

... ... ......

BEGIN PROJECT US 101 MP 184.51

STREAM BUFFER WITHIN ROW/CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT

STREAM BUFFER

WETLAND BUFFER WITHIN ROW/CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT

KX><XXXX><l ROAD PRISM

2/24/2020

shyus

J . WYNANDS REVISION DATE BY

STREAM BUFFER

REGION STATE NO.

10 WAS

JOB NUMBER

CONTRACT NO.

0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET

FED.AID PROJ.NO.

LOCATION NO.

XL5220 P.E. STAMP BOX

CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT

DATE DATE

P.E. STAMP BOX

Washington State Department of Transportation

NOTES: 1. THERE IS NO WETLAND E. 2. WETLANDS A, B, AND C EXTEND WEST OF WSDOT ROW.

us 101 MAY CR IN VIC OF COWANS CR RD

REMOVE FISH BARRIER

WETLANDS

Pl.AN REF NO

SHEET

OF

SHEETS

final wetland and stream assessment report · 2020-05-18 · final wetland and stream assessment...

Documents