Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D Wetland Assessment
APPENDIX D
WETLAND ASSESSMENT
RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY 17,2004
WETLAND ASSESSMENT
Draft EIS Report
Kersey III
Auburn, Washington
May 17,2004
RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC.
AA
Report To: JcffMann
Apex Engineering, PLLC
2601 South 35'h
Suite 200
Tacoma, W A 98409
Title: 'Wetland Assessment oftlle
Kersey III Property,
Aubum, Washington
Draft EIS Report
Project Number: lOC! 1-021-00]
Prepared By: RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC.
571 ] Northeast 63rd Street
Seattle, Washington 98115
(206) 525-8] 22
Date: rvlay 1 7, 2004
[<AEDEKE l1SS0CIATES, INC
c- 'I (;, I '-I:; I .c....L Seoiile, VV;q 98115 I ""~ "
,1 ", 'L' ,-
AA
Principals: Kenndh J. Raedekc:" Ph,[),
Ceni fled Senior Ecologist, ESA
Project Manager: Richard W, Lundquist, lv1.S,
Associate'/ Wildlife Biologist
Report Author Emmett Pritchard, 8,S,
Wetland EcolDgist
Proj cd Persollnel: Christopher Wright, B,S,
Soil and Wetland Scientist
Dawn Garcia. 8,S,
\Vildlife Biologist
Claude JvlcKenzic, B,S,L.A
Landscape A.rchitect
Gail v,,r, Livingstone, B,S,L.A,
Natural Resource Planner
Lisa Danielski, B,A,
\Vetland Biologist/Botanist
I~' i! E 1-\ E fl E J' ,,-, ir-)~, , ;.::1 T:: c: I ", 1(--'
'" I ~'_ \ ,Lj)~h~ ~./L, L,__"I \ '__
::,-j'l ik ,.1'1.1.: :,1- ; S,'~\cr Ii \ 'Vi nPl'1'~ I . ' ,
/ '..---, ":~ I.~). '..,-# I ,'-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................,......v
LIST OF TABLES""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ,v
1,0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................,,1
1, 1 Statement of Purpose, " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1
1,2 Proj ect Area"",,"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ,1
2,0 METHODS......................................................................................................,............2
2,1 Definitions and Methodologies.............................................................................2
2.2 Background Research"",,"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" ,3
2,3 Field Sampling Procedures ,...................................................................................4
2.4 Hydrologic Analysis,............................................................................................ ,5
3,0 EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................,........................................6
3,1 Results of the Background Investigation,................................................,............ ,6
3,2 General Property Descri pti on , " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " , " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ,,8
3,3 Wetland and Stream Descriptions ........................................................................,9
3.4 Wetland Functional Assessment,................................................,........................ 14
3,5 Wetland and Stream Buffers"",""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ,14
4,0 IMPACTS ,..........................,......................................................................................,18
4,1 Impacts of Alternative 700 ..................................................................................20
4.2 Impacts of Alternative 481..................................................................................28
4,3 Impacts of the No Action Alternative,................................................ ,................29
5,0 MITIGATION"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ,32
5,1 Summary of Required and Proposed Mitigation ................................................,32
5.2 Other Potential Mitigation Measures,................................................,................,34
6,0 SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS........................................35
7,0 LIMIT A TIONS""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ,3 6
8,0 LITERATURE CITED ..............................................................................................,37
FIGURES AND TABLES ..................................................,............................................,.43
111
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
APPENDIX A: Methodology ........................................................................................ A-I
APPENDIX B: Field Survey Data................................................................................ ..B-1
APPENDIX C: Agency correspondence"",,"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" "C-l
APPENDIX D: Wetland and Buffer Rating Assessment Form ...................................... D-l
IV
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Regional map of the proj ect area """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 44
2, Vi cini ty map of the proj ect area """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 4 5
3, US, Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory map.........................46
4, U S,D ,A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey map........................................,.4 7
5, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices
Base Map"",""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 48
6, Existing Conditions Map,.................................................................................... ,.49
7, Alternative 700 site plan"",,"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ,,50
8, Alternative 481 site plan"",,"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ,,51
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. List of aerial photographs used in the study ........................................................,52
2, Key to the US, Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory map ......53
3, Key to Washington State Department of Natural Resources water types ............54
v
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This report documents the results of our inventory of wetland communities of the Kersey
III property located in the City of Auburn, Washington (Figure 1), The primary objective
of our study is to provide baseline biological information on the existing conditions of the
wetlands and streams on the property for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
the proposed development of the Kersey III property, Using the baseline information, the
report will assess probable impacts of the proposed development and each of the
alternatives, and discuss mitigation measures to reduce identified adverse impacts,
Raedeke Associates, Inc, (2004) prepared a separate report to assess the plant and animal
communities on the project site (Plants and Animal Assessment for Kersey III),
1.2 PROJECT AREA
The project site is located in the City of Auburn, Washington (Figure 1), The study area
consists of three separate tracts of land totaling approximately 170 acres in size, The
Wayne Jones parcel, or Division I, occupies the eastern portion of the site, The Todd
Duty parcel, or Division III, occupies the western portion of the site, The Six-W parcel,
or Division II, is located in the middle of the site between the other two parcels,
The project site is located between the terminus of Evergreen Way for the Lakeland Hills
development and Kersey Way at the intersection of 53rd Street SE (Figure 2), Generally
the site is located west of the Kersey Way right-of -way, from 49th Street SE (if
extended) to the King County/Pierce County line, The project area includes
approximately 1,950 feet of frontage on Kersey Way proximate to its intersection with
53rd Street SE. Specifically, the project area is located in the southeast quarter of Section
31 and the southwest quarter of the Section 32, Township 21, Range 5 East, W,M, A
Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) easement runs north to south through the
eastern portion of the site, The site is accessible via Kersey Way and 49th Street SE. The
project site is adjacent to and east of the existing Lakeland Hills Divisions 8, 9, and 10,
Property boundaries, topography, and wetland and stream boundaries for the project area
were surveyed by DBM Consulting Engineers and determined from maps received by our
office from Apex Engineering on March 9, 2001.
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
2
2.0 METHODS
2.1 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
Wetlands and streams are protected by federal law as well as by state and local
regulations, Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) generally prohibits the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States", including certain
wetlands, without a permit from the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers (COE 2002), The
COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of a
wetland, and whether the wetland is under their jurisdiction,
The COE wetland definition was used to determine if any portions of the proj ect area
could be classified as wetland, A wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated
by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986 :41251),
We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the COE Wetlands Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as revised in the Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual published by the Washington Department of
Ecology (WDOE 1997), The WDOE wetlands manual is required by state law for all
local jurisdictions (including the City of Auburn), is consistent with the 1987 COE
wetland delineation manual with respect to wetland identification and delineation, and
incorporates subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991a,
1991b, 1992, 1994), Generally, as outlined in the 1987 wetland delineation manual,
wetlands are distinguished by three diagnostic characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation
(wetland plants), hydric soil (wetland soil), and wetland hydrology, Definitions for these
terms are provided below,
Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as "macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or
substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water
content" (Environmental Laboratory 1987), The U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) ratings were used to make this determination
(Reed 1988, 1993), The WIS ratings "reflect the range of estimated probabilities
(expressed as a frequency of occurrence) of a species occurring in wetland versus non-
wetland across the entire distribution of the species" (Reed 1988:8), Plants are rated,
from highest to lowest probability of occurrence in wetlands, as obligate (OBL),
facultative wetland (F ACW), facultative (F AC), facultative upland (F ACU), and upland
(UPL), respectively, In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when the majority of
the dominant species are rated OBL, F ACW, and F AC, Further discussion of the
analysis is in Appendix A.
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
3
A hydric soil is defined as "a soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding,
or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part" (Federal Register 1994: 35681), The morphological characteristics of the
soils in the study area were examined to determine whether any could be classified as
hydric, A discussion of the morphological characteristics used to identify hydric soil is
presented in Appendix A.
According to the 1987 methodology, wetland hydrology could be present if the soils were
saturated (sufficient to produce anaerobic conditions) within the majority of the rooting
zone (usually the upper 12 inches) for at least five percent of the growing season, which
in this area is usually at least two weeks (CaE 1992a), It should be noted, however, that
areas having saturation to the surface between five and 12 percent of the growing season
mayor may not be wetland (CaE 1992b; see also Table A.4, Appendix A), Depending
on soil type and drainage characteristics, saturation to the surface would occur if water
tables were shallower than about 12 inches below the soil surface during this time period,
Positive indicators of wetland hydrology include direct observation of inundation or soil
saturation, as well as indirect evidence such as driftlines, watermarks, surface
encrustations, and drainage patterns (Environmental Laboratory 1987), Hydrology was
further investigated by noting drainage patterns and surface water connections between
wetlands and streams within and adjacent to the project area, The hydrologic
characteristics that constitute wetland hydrology are discussed in Appendix A.
2.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
We collected and analyzed background information available for the site prior to the on-
site investigation, We collected maps and information from the U.S, Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS 1988) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), U.S,D,A. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) Soil Survey (Snyder et al. 1973), and the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR 2002) Forest Practice Base Map, We reviewed aerial
photographs (Table 1) to assist in the definition of existing plant communities, drainage
patterns, and land use, In addition, we reviewed previously prepared reports by DBM
Consulting Engineers (2000a and 2000b), These studies identified, delineated, and
assessed wetlands, evaluated wildlife habitat, and assessed on-site stream and
downstream conditions on the three separate parcels that now make up the 170-acre
Kersey III site,
Under the national conditions for Nationwide Permits in Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, no activity that is likely to jeopardize endangered or threatened species or their
critical habitat is permitted (CaE 2002), Consequently, we requested that the
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) conduct a search of their Priority
Habitats and Species (PHS) database to determine if there were any endangered,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
4
threatened, and sensitive wildlife species and/or critical habitats on or in the vicinity of
the proj ect area,
In addition, we requested that the WDNR search their Natural Heritage Information
System for information on rare plants, high quality native wetlands, and high quality
native plant communities in the vicinity of the project area, Correspondence with
WDFW and WDNR is contained in Appendix C,
2.3 FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Raedeke Associates, Inc, personnel conducted wetland investigations of the project area
on May 9, May 14, and September 24,2002, Wildlife and habitat studies of the property
were also conducted by Raedeke Associates, Inc, staff on May 14, May 15, and June 6,
2003, During the field investigations, we used information from the background studies,
aerial photographs, and previous wetland investigations (DBM Consulting Engineers
2000a) to assist us in the investigation of the project area, We examined potential
wetland areas identified in the aerial photographs, reference maps, and previous wetland
studies, and thoroughly searched the proj ect area for the presence of previously
unidentified wetlands and streams, We examined the boundaries of all wetlands that had
been delineated during earlier investigations and adjusted their boundaries, where
necessary, to reflect current site conditions, In addition, we investigated off-site portions
of drainages that extended from the Kersey III property including Bowman Creek for
unidentified wetlands and stream conditions,
During our field investigations of the project area, we inventoried, classified, and
described representative areas of plant communities, soil profiles, and hydrologic
conditions in both uplands and wetlands, We searched specifically for areas with
positive indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology, We
used the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale and a plotless sampling methodology to
describe homogenous plant "cover types" in both wetlands and uplands (Mueller-
Dombois and Ellenberg 1974), A detailed description of vegetation sampling and
analysis is found in Appendix A. Vegetation nomenclature follows Hitchcock and
Cronquist (1976; Appendix B, Table Rl), as updated by Cooke (1997), Pojar and
MacKinnon (1994), and Hickman (1993),
We excavated soil pits to at least 18 inches below the soil surface where possible in order
to describe the soil profile and hydrologic conditions in both wetland and upland areas,
We sampled soil at locations that corresponded with vegetation sampling areas, During
the course of delineating wetlands, we frequently used soil probes to sample soil and note
hydrologic conditions to a depth of 20 inches or more at points chosen to help define the
wetland boundaries, Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Chart
(Munsell Color 2000),
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
5
Where flags from the previous DBM (2000a) wetland studies were present we reviewed
the previously delineated wetland boundary for accuracy, In areas where Raedeke
Associates, Inc, staff determined that additional areas of wetlands were present, new
wetland boundaries were established based on the presence of hydric soil, hydrophytic
vegetation, and indicators of wetland hydrology, Topographic changes within the
context of the landscape were used to aid in the placement of the wetland boundaries,
We placed pink and black diagonally-striped plastic flagging to represent the outer edge
of all wetlands found on the proj ect area,
2.4 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
In an effort to determine if the proposed development would have a negative impact on-
site hydrology, Apex Engineering (2003) conducted a hydrologic analysis using the
Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran (HSPF) model to evaluate wetland and stream
hydrology under existing and post-development conditions, In addition, GeoEngineers
(2003) collected site subsurface soil and groundwater data for use in site water budget
calculations to evaluate surface and subsurface flow to streams and associated wetlands
in the site vicinity, These models provided output to evaluate the difference between the
volume of water potentially available to wetlands and streams on a monthly basis under
existing conditions and under the various proposed site development alternatives,
The existing conditions of each wetland within the property were modeled with the
assumption that a forested community occurs within the watershed and that each wetland
has a discrete outfall point. The post-development model assumed a specific percent
impervious surface within the watershed of each wetland, Where the model indicated
that a significant change to hydrology may occur, water was either routed away from the
wetland, or roof run-off was routed to the wetland in order to keep the modeled volume
of water as close as possible to the modeled pre-development condition,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
6
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 RESULTS OF THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION
3.1.1 National Wetland Inventory
We examined the USFWS (1988) NWI, Auburn Quadrangle map, to identify previously
inventoried wetlands within or near the project area, Figure 3 depicts the NWI
inventoried wetlands within the project area, See Table 2 for a key to the classification
symbols ofNWI wetlands identified within the project area,
The Auburn Quadrangle map (USFWS NWI 1988) shows several wetlands located
within and adjacent to the subject property, These consist of a stream that is classified as
riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bed, permanently flooded wetland (R3UBH)
located in the western half of the property, and a second stream that is classified as a
riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally flooded wetland (R4SBC) located in the
eastern half of the property, The stream that is shown to be located in the eastern portion
of the property was not found during our 2002 site investigation (see section 3,3,1 for
further discussion), The stream in the western part of the site drains northward to
Bowman Creek, which is depicted as a riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bed,
permanently flooded wetland (R3UBH) located north of the property on the north side of
Kersey Way,
Wetlands shown on the NWI are general in terms of location and extent, as they are
determined primarily from aerial photographs, Thus, the number and areal extent of
existing wetlands located within the project area may differ from those marked on an
NWI map,
3.1.2 Soil Conservation Service Maps
The soils of the project area were mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 by the SCS (Snyder et al.
1973; Figure 4), Soil series boundaries or mapping units are mapped at a scale of
1 :24,000 from aerial photographs with limited field verification, Thus, the location and
extent of the boundaries between mapping units may be approximate for a given parcel of
land within the survey area, In addition, mapping units described by the SCS may
encompass smaller inclusions that were not shown as separate units on the survey maps,
For example, non-hydric soil units may contain areas of poorly drained to very poorly
drained hydric soil, which could be classified as wetland, Conversely, there may be areas
of well-drained or moderately well-drained soils within mapping units designated as
hydric,
According to the soil survey, soils of the study area consist of the moderately well-
drained Alderwood soil series (Map Codes AgC, 6 to 15 percent slopes and AgD, 15 to
30 percent slopes), Alderwood soils are moderately well-drained over a hard pan below
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
7
1.5 to 3 feet. These soils formed under conifers in glacial deposits (till) on uplands
(Snyder et al. 1973), The elevation ranges from 100 to 800 feet. These soils are not
hydric; however, in some areas these soils include up to 3 percent of the poorly-drained
Norma, Bellingham, Tukwila, and Shalcar hydric soils (U.S,D,A. Soil Conservation
Service 1991, Federal Register 1994, Snyder et al. 1973),
3.1.3 WDNR Forest Practice Base Maps
The Forest Practice Base Map (WDNR 2002; Figure 5; Table 3) indicates that two Type
5 streams flow through the property, The WDNR map indicated that one stream
originates off-site to the south of the property, then flows northward through the western
portion of the property to Bowman Creek, a WDNR Type 3 water, which is located off-
site on the north side of Kersey Way, The other stream is depicted in the eastern portion
of the property as a stream segment. This stream is depicted entirely within the project
site and is not shown to flow to any other stream or wetland by the Forest Practice Base
Map, The two mapped streams are depicted in the same general location as the streams
that are shown in the USFWS (1988) NWI. Bowman Creek flows generally to the
northwest along the east edge of the Kersey Way right-of-way to the White River, which
is a WDNR Type 1 water located approximately 0,5 miles north of the property,
3.1.4 WDNR Natural Heritage Information System
Searches of the WDNR Natural Heritage Information System (WDNR 2003) did not
reveal any documented occurrences of rare plants, high quality native wetlands, or high
quality native plant communities in or within the vicinity of the project area, nor were
any identified during our field surveys, See Appendix C for agency correspondence,
3.1.5 WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Database
A search was made of the WDFW (2003a and 2003b) PHS database and maps to
determine if any endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species or critical habitats
are known to exist on or in the vicinity of the project site, No documented habitats or use
of the Kersey III site by any such species was found, Numerous off-site wetlands
associated with the White River drainage are shown on PHS maps to be located within
one mile of the project site, In addition, the PHS map indicates that Bowman Creek and
the White River are listed as having priority anadromous and resident fish present
(WDFW 2003a), For Bowman Creek, the PHS map and database indicate that Coho
salmon use the lower reaches of the creek within 0,5 miles of the White River. Resident
cutthroat are found throughout Bowman Creek from the White River to Bowman Lake,
located approximately 1 mile southeast of the site, For the White River, the PHS map
and database indicate that spring Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, summer and winter
steelhead, chum salmon, and pink salmon, Dolly Varden/bull trout, and resident cutthroat
trout are present. See Appendix C for agency correspondence,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
8
Chinook salmon and bull trout that are or may be present within the White River drainage
are listed as federally endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
Coho salmon is a candidate species for listing under the ESA. A thorough discussion of
endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants and animals that may be found within and in
the vicinity of the project site is included in the plants and animals report (Raedeke
Associates, Inc, 2004),
Based on available habitat descriptions for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants
and animals species thought to occur in King County (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1976,
Washington Natural Heritage Program 1981, 1994, 1997, WDNR 2003) and our field
surveys and experience in the Pacific Northwest, none of these species would likely find
adequate habitat conditions on the site, and are thus not likely to be present within the
project site,
3.1.6 Previous Wetland Studies
DBM Consulting Engineers (2000a) and 1. S, Jones and Associates, Inc, conducted
wetland assessments for the Kersey III project site, Four palustrine, forested (PFO)
wetlands were identified within the western portion of the site, These are Wetland A
(0,370 acres), Wetland B (0.490 acres), Wetlands C (0,151 acres), and Wetland D (0,057
acres), Wetland B was found to include a small area dominated by emergent vegetation
located at the north end of the wetland,
3.2 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Kersey III project site is located within the Bowman Creek basin on the north slope
of the Lake Tapps plateau, south of the White River. The site consists of a series of north
to south oriented ridges and ravines that slope down to the north towards Kersey Way
(Figure 6), Elevations of the overall site range from approximately 220 feet above sea
level at the northeastern corner of the property to about 570 feet above sea level at the
southwest property corner. The site consists of moderately to steeply sloping terrain with
the predominance of the steeper slopes located in the southern portion of the site and
within two deep ravines located in the northwestern portion of the property, The eastern
portion of the site is bisected by a 200-foot-wide, BPA powerline and easement that runs
generally north to south,
At the time of our 2002 site investigations, the property was undeveloped and dominated
by deciduous, mixed and coniferous forests, In addition to the forested areas, a small
area of pasture is located in the north-central portion of the site, The BP A powerline
corridor is regularly mowed to maintain low plant heights within the corridor, and as a
result is dominated by small trees, shrubs and grasses,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
9
As with most of the Western Hemlock Zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1973) that forms the
Puget Sound lowlands, the majority of the property appears to have been logged during
the 1930's or 1940's based on the 18-inch to 24-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) of
the majority of the coniferous trees on the site, Several areas within the southern portion
f the site appear to have been logged more recently due to the relatively smaller
diameters of trees found growing these areas, No buildings exist on the site; however,
three pairs of powerline towers are located within the on-site portion of the BP A
easement. In addition, several old logging roads and trails extend through the property,
3.3 WETLAND AND STREAM DESCRIPTIONS
3.3.1 Streams
Two unnamed streams were encountered during our 2002 site investigation, These had
been previously described by DBM (2000a) as intermittent, originating in the western
portion of the Kersey III project site, These have been named Streams A and B for
purposes of discussion within this report, Both Streams A and B flow northward to the
northeast comer of the Division III portion of the project site (Figure 6), The headwaters
of Stream A are located upstream of Wetland 1 approximately 200 feet south of the
wetland, At the time of our 2002 site investigation, we found that the defined channel of
Stream A extended approximately 50 feet farther to the south than had been documented
by DBM (2000a; Figure 6),
Wetland B forms the headwaters of Stream B. Stream B flows north from the north end
of the wetland to join Stream A and become Stream AB, Stream AB flows northward for
approximately 300 feet before leaving the project site, Stream AB flows northward from
the project site through the ravine for approximately 1,200 feet to the south side of
Kersey Way, Stream AB passes beneath Kersey Way through a concrete pipe and flows
approximately 100 feet further to the north before reaching Bowman Creek. Water was
present within Streams A, B, and AB at the time of our May 2002 site investigations,
Water was not present within anyon-site portion of the stream channels during our
September 2002 site investigation; however, water was present within a 500-foot long
segment of the off-site portion of Stream AB extending upstream from Bowman Creek.
The locations of Streams A and AB correspond closely to the location of the R3UBH
wetland shown in the USFWS (1988) NWI and also to the location of the Type 5 stream
shown in the WDNR (2002) Forest Practices Base Map for the western portion of the
property, Stream B appears to be un-mapped by either the USFWS (1988) NWI or the
WDNR (2002) Forest Practices Base Map,
A topographic swale is located in the vicinity of the stream that is depicted in the eastern
portion of the property by both the USFWS (1988) NWI and the WDNR (2002) Forest
Practice Base Map, A culvert beneath Kersey Way is located at the terminus of the
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
10
swale, However, the swale was determined to not be a stream because water was absent
and a stream channel was not present upslope from the culvert at the time of the 2002 site
investigation, nor was evidence of scouring, debris dams, sediment deposits, or other
evidence of water flow observed, The culvert appears to capture flow from a roadside
ditch located on the west side of Kersey Way rather than flow from the swale within the
project site,
3.3.2 Wetlands
The project site contains approximately 1.1 acres of wetlands (Figure 6) based on
previous delineations (DBM 2000a) and our 2002 site investigations, Five wetlands, all
of which occur within the western portion of the site in the Division III portion of the
site, comprise the total on-site wetland acreage, Four of the five wetlands (Wetlands A,
B, C, and D) were identified during previous studies (DBM 2000a), although the
boundaries of Wetlands A and C were adjusted based on field conditions observed during
our 2002 investigations, The fifth wetland (Wetland 1) was not identified by DBM
(2000a); however, during our May 2002 investigations we found that it met conditions to
be considered wetland according to criteria of the COE Wetland Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987), The boundaries of Wetlands A, B, C, and D were
surveyed by DBM Consulting Engineers (2000a) at the time of their original delineation,
The boundaries of additional wetland areas that were identified during our 2002
investigations (portions of Wetlands A and C and Wetland 1) have not been surveyed,
Two of the on-site wetlands are isolated depressions (Wetlands C and D), The other
three wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and 1) are associated with two intermittent streams
(Stream A and Stream B) that are located within the western portion of the property,
The on-site wetlands range in size from approximately 0,06 acres (Wetland D) to 0.49
acres (Wetland B), Wetland 1 may be the smallest of the on-site wetland areas
(estimated to be 0,02 acres); however, because the boundary of Wetland 1 has not been
surveyed, the actual size of the wetland could not been determined for purposes of this
report, The following sections describe the on-site wetlands and wetlands on adjoining
sites where downstream habitats are of interest or concern,
Wetland A
Wetland A is a small, linear wetland fringing both sides of the Stream A channel in the
eastern portion of the Division III part of the site (Figure 6), The wetland is
approximately 0,39 acres in size, including a small area of the wetland that was added to
the north end of the DBM (2000a) delineated area during our 2002 site investigation,
Wetland A consists of a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO 1) vegetation
class according to the USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1992), The
wetland is dominated by red alder trees with an understory of salmonberry, creeping
buttercup, and stinging nettle (DBM 2000a), Raedeke Associates, Inc, found that
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
11
dominant species within additional areas that were identified during the 2002 site
investigation included lady fern (Table B.2), Western hazelnut, Indian plum, and sword
fern were also present on low hummocks within this portion of the wetland, Soils within
this portion of the wetland were saturated to the surface at the time of our May 14,2002
site investigation and consist of low chroma fine sandy loams with mottles indicative of
hydric mineral soils (Table B.2), Wetland A receives water from Stream A and from
groundwater seepage along the edges of the shallow swale that contains the stream,
Wetland 1
Wetland 1 is located within the Stream A drainage approximately 150 feet upstream from
Wetland A (Figure 6), The wetland is approximately 0,02 acres in size based on visual
estimates made in the field by Raedeke Associates, Inc, staff at the time of our 2002 site
investigations, Wetland 1 was not identified by DBM (2000a) during their investigation
of the property, and the boundaries of the wetland have not been surveyed, Wetland 1
consists of a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO 1) vegetation class
according to the USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1992), The
wetland is dominated by red alder trees with an understory of salmonberry, lady fern, and
tall mannagrass (Table B.3), Soils within Wetland 1 were saturated to the surface at the
time of our May 14, 2002 site investigation and consist of low-chroma gravelly sandy
loams indicative of hydric mineral soils (Table B,3), Wetland 1 receives water from
Stream A and from groundwater seepage within the shallow swale that contains the
stream,
Wetland B
Wetland B is the largest on-site wetland at approximately 0.49 acres in size, The linear
wetland is located within the Stream B drainage in the northwestern portion of the
property, approximately 300 feet northwest of Wetland A (Figure 6), Wetland B includes
three vegetation classes, These are palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFOl),
palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous (PSSl), and palustrine, emergent,
persistent (PEMl) according to the USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et
al. 1992),
The majority of Wetland B consists of forest vegetation including red alder, salmonberry,
stinging nettle, and lady fern (DBM 2000a), Raedeke Associates, Inc, staff also observed
skunk cabbage as a dominant species growing within the forested portion of the wetland
at the time our 2002 site investigation (Table B.4), The southernmost portion of the
wetland consists of a scrub-shrub vegetation community that is dominated by Indian
plum, salmonberry, and lady fern (Table B,5), The northern quarter of the wetland
consists of an emergent vegetation community that is dominated by thistle, bentgrass,
ryegrass, and creeping buttercup (DBM 2000a), Raedeke Associates, Inc, staff also
observed soft rush, small-fruited bulrush, common velvet-grass, meadow foxtail,
Cooley's hedge-nettle, and American brooklime as dominant species growing within the
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
12
emergent portion of the wetland at the time our 2002 site investigation (Table B,6),
Wetland B forms the headwaters for Stream B. Soils throughout Wetland B were
saturated within 6 inches of the soil surface during our May 2002 investigations, and had
low-chroma loams indicative of hydric mineral soils (Tables BA to B.6), The wetland
receives water from groundwater seepage within the shallow swale that contains the
wetland, as well as from sheet flow from the uplands within the drainage basin,
Wetland C
Wetland C is a small, isolated wetland located approximately 200 feet north of the
northern portion of Wetland B (Figure 6), The wetland is approximately 0.20 acres in
size, including a small area of the wetland that was added to the west end of the DBM
(2000a) delineated area during our 2002 site investigation, Wetland C consists of a
palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO 1) vegetation class according to the
USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1992), The wetland is dominated
by red alder trees and salmonberry (DBM 2000a), Raedeke Associates, Inc, found that
dominant species within the western portion of the wetland also included Himalayan
blackberry and tall mannagrass (Table B.7), Soils within this portion of the wetland were
saturated to the surface at the time of our May 9, 2002 site investigation and consisted of
low chroma sandy loams with an aquic moisture regime indicative of hydric mineral soils
(Table B,7), The wetland receives water from groundwater seepage from the sides of the
shallow depression that contains the wetland, as well as from sheet flow from the
uplands,
Wetland D
Wetland D is a small, isolated wetland located approximately 500 feet southwest of
Wetland A (Figure 6), The wetland is approximately 0,06 acres in size, DBM (2000a)
described the wetland as consisting of forest vegetation due to the presence of red alder
trees that are rooted outside the wetland boundary but which were overhanging the
wetland, Raedeke Associates, Inc, staff found the vegetation rooted within the wetland to
be dominated by hardhack spirea, slough sedge, and skunk cabbage, with approximately
25 percent of the wetland area unvegetated due to the presence of deeply ponded water
(Table B.8), Therefore, Wetland D consists of a palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved
deciduous (PSS 1) vegetation class according to the USFWS wetland classification
system (Cowardin et al. 1992), The wetland receives water from groundwater seepage
from the sides of the shallow depression that contains the wetland, as well as from sheet
flow from the uplands,
Off-site Wetlands Associated with Stream AB
A series of small off-site wetlands are located to the north of the project site within the
bottom of the ravine that is associated with Stream AB, between the property and the
south side of Kersey Way, All but one of these consist of small areas that were visually
estimated to be less than 1000 square feet in size at the time of our 2002 field
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
13
investigations, The wetlands are dominated by salmonberry, vine maple, red elderberry,
pig-a-back plant, and skunk cabbage, and are overhung by red alder trees that are rooted
within the upland sides of the ravine (Table B,9), Soils within these areas were saturated
at a depth of 10 inches at the time of our September 2002 investigation of the off-site area
and consisted of low chroma fine sandy loams with mottles indicative of hydric mineral
soils (Table B.9), These small off-site wetland areas receive water from Stream AB and
from groundwater seepage at the base of the ravine slopes,
The largest of the wetlands that are contained within the ravine is located approximately
1000 feet to the north of the project site and extends northward to the south side of
Kersey Way, The total extent of the wetland appears to be less than 1 acre in size, The
wetland consists of a forested vegetation class that is dominated by Pacific willow, red
alder and black cottonwood trees, with an understory of salmonberry, hardhack spirea,
skunk cabbage, pig-a-back plant, tall mannagrass, and creeping Charlie ground ivy
(Table B ,1 0), Soils within the wetland area were saturated to the surface at the time of
our 2002 investigation and consisted of peaty muck to a depth of greater than 27 inches,
which is indicative of hydric organic soils (Table B.l 0), The wetland receives water
from Stream AB and from groundwater seepage along the base of the ravine slopes,
Several other off-site wetland areas ranging in size from less than 1,000 square feet in
size to up to approximately 1 acre in size are located adjacent to Bowman Creek from the
project site to the White River located approximately 3,500 feet to the north, Principal
among these is an approximately I-acre, multiple vegetation class (emergent, scrub-
shrub, and forested) wetland that is located approximately 1,500 downstream from the
project site,
Upland Plant Communities
The upland (non-wetland) areas encompass most of the site, with much of the area
consisting of well-developed second growth (about 60 to 70 years old), The majority of
the uplands within the project site consist of coniferous, deciduous, and mixed
coniferous/deciduous forested cover types, Grassland cover type occurs within a pasture
that is located in the northern portion of the Division III (western) part of the site,
Shrubland cover type occurs within the powerline corridor located in the Division I
(eastern) portion of the project site,
Detailed descriptions of these cover types and their locations within the project site can
be found in Plants and Animal Assessment for the Kersey III Plat (Raedeke Associates,
Inc, 2004),
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
14
3.4 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
Wetland functions and values for Wetlands A, B, C, and D were rated by DBM (2000a)
according to the Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance
Assessment (Cooke 1995; Appendix D), Wetlands A, B, and C were rated high for water
quality improvement and overall habitat functions; moderate for flood/stormwater
control, base flow/groundwater support, natural biological support, and specific habitat
functions; and rated low for cultural/socioeconomic value, Wetland D was rated higher
than the other wetlands for flood/stormwater control, base flow/groundwater support, and
water quality improvement.
Wetland 1 was assessed by Raedeke Associates, Inc, based on field investigations
conducted during May and September 2002 using the Wetland and Buffer Functions and
Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment (Cooke 1995; Appendix D), See Appendix
D of this report for the wetland rating assessment form, Wetland 1 was rated moderate
for flood and storm water control, base flow/groundwater support, water quality
improvement, natural biologic support, and specific habitat functions, The wetland was
rated low for overall habitat functions and cultural/socioeconomic value, Overall, the
wetland provides the lowest level of functions and values for all five on-site wetlands,
3.5 WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFERS
The City of Auburn regulates wetlands and streams as sensitive areas under Objective
18.4 contained within Chapter 9 of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City of Auburn
1997), The City of Auburn does not have specific buffer standards for wetlands or
streams, DBM (2000a) recommended minimum buffer widths for Wetlands A, B, C, and
D of 50 feet based on the overall moderate functions and values assessment for each of
the wetlands,
The Washington Department of Ecology publication Wetland Buffers: Use and
Effectiveness (Castelle et al. 1992) states that appropriate buffer widths should be based
on four factors: existing wetland sensitivity to disturbance, existing buffer characteristics,
adjacent land use, and desired buffer function, In general, wetlands with higher
functional values are afforded greater protections than those determined to have lower
functional values,
The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include
removal of sediments and pollutants, erosion control, provision for large woody debris
(LWD) recruitment, regulation of water temperature, and regulation of microclimate
(May 2000), The required buffer width for maintenance of these functions varies with
stream size and ability of the channel to migrate freely and there is not a single buffer
width that can be applied to all situations, Streams that provide direct support salmonids
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
15
generally are afforded greater protections than those streams that are determined to have
lower value,
Several buffer functions are accommodated within the first 50 to 100 feet (water quality)
or are not directly related to specific widths (hydrologic functions), Buffer enhancement
measures or mitigation and/or management strategies appropriate to the development
context may address potential adverse affects more effectively than buffer width, For
example, in urban or urbanizing areas, many of the critical water quality and stormwater
storage functions provided by wetlands and wetland buffers are fully performed by
stormwater facilities and best management practices currently required under the 1998
City of Auburn Design and Construction Standards Manual.
3.5.1 Stormwater Control and Hydrologic Functions
In general, wider buffers provide incrementally better protections to wetlands and
streams than narrower buffers, The relative protective function provided by buffers for
hydrologic and water quality functioning is related primarily to buffer characteristics,
including vegetation density and structure, as well as slope and soil characteristics, For
some functions, such as peak flow reduction and downstream erosion, optimal buffer
widths per se are undetermined or not applicable to a particular level of performance
(e,g" Castelle et al. 1992, McMillan 2000), The use of detention and water quality
treatment facilities for stormwater runoff prior to discharge into wetlands and streams
reduces the potential for uncontrolled or untreated stormwater flows into wetlands
through the buffers,
3.5.2 Water Quality Functions
In areas of urban development, wetland buffers are not relied on for protection of water
quality, Rather, removal of sediments and other pollutants are accomplished by detention
and water quality treatment facilities and other erosion control measures, Even in
undeveloped areas, the effectiveness of water quality function of wetland buffers may not
be dependent on buffer width, but on buffer characteristics, as noted above, The results
of a number of studies, even in situations lacking stormwater detention or other water
quality control measures currently required, suggest that most of the removal of
sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants, as well as amelioration of temperature effects,
is accomplished within 100 feet of the wetland edge (See Castelle et al. 1992, McMillan
2000 and references cited therein), In the absence of evaluation of site-specific
characteristics, McMillan (2000) suggested that a minimum of approximately 50 to 100
feet is necessary to provide water quality improvement within the buffer.
To protect water quality, proper functioning of a buffer depends more on resistance to
channelization of surface flow than on buffer width (Castelle et al. 1992, McMillan
2000), For example, forested buffers on relatively gentle slopes, well-developed low
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
16
vegetative cover and forest duff layer, and hummocky ground surface from downed logs
would be relatively resistant to channelization,
3.5.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Functions
Wetland and stream buffers are intended to protect wildlife habitat in two basic ways: by
providing habitat that meets certain life requirements of wetland and stream-dependent
species, and by ameliorating the adverse impacts of human activities adjacent to the
wetland, The level of habitat needs met is only partly related to the width of buffers, but
also related to connectivity with other habitats nearby and the level of basin-wide
development. Some species would not be well suited to habitats adjacent to urban-level
development because of human disturbance or competition with or adverse impacts from
urban-adapted species (e,g" crows, starlings, cowbirds, and domestic dogs and cats), In
the context of urban growth areas designated for urban development, expanded buffers
may not significantly improve habitat conditions due to unavoidable habitat
fragmentation or isolation that occurs with development. Some species are more likely
limited by the lack of suitable nesting snags independent of wetland proximity (i,e"
pileated woodpeckers, wood ducks) than by smaller buffers per se,
In terms of human disturbance and wildlife use of wetlands, Milligan (1985) found that
visual screening was the most important factor affecting buffer functioning in terms of
bird species diversity within wetlands, Only small (non-significant) increases in bird
species diversity were noted with increases in wetland buffer widths from 50 to 100 or
200 feet. Josselyn et al. (1989) noted disturbance to wildlife when approached by
humans at 50 to 175 feet in open habitats without screening, Shisler et al. (1987)
recommended varying buffer widths, depending on intensity of adjacent land uses (50 to
100 feet for low intensity, 100 or more for higher intensity), Cooke (1992, included as an
appendix to Castelle et al. 1992), in reviewing existing buffers on wetlands in the Puget
Sound area, found that most buffers less than 50 feet wide showed demonstrable
degradation, and that the effectiveness of a buffer in protecting adjacent wetlands
depended on intensity of adjacent land use, buffer width, buffer vegetation
characteristics, and buffer ownership, Buffers were found to function more effectively
when they were 50 feet or wider, vegetated with shrub or forest communities, adjacent to
low-intensity uses, and were located on land outside residential lots (Cooke 1992),
In the context of urban growth areas designated for urban development, general wetland
buffer standards may be more appropriately based primarily on protection of wetland
habitats from disturbance, as well as maintaining and protecting hydrologic and water
quality functions, In these areas in particular, wildlife-dependent functions of buffers
should focus on particular species of concern in urban areas (e,g" listed, priority, or other
species of local importance), where they occur, and in consideration of wildlife habitat
networks, where applicable,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
17
3.5.4 Recommended Buffer Width
Based on the overall moderate functions provided by the on-site wetlands, the relatively
high vegetation density, low slope, and stable soil characteristics within a majority of the
uplands adjacent to the on-site wetlands and streams, a 50-foot buffer would likely
provide adequate protection for most wetland and stream functions provided that
standard best management practices and a Total Erosion and Sediment Control Plan are
implemented at the time of site development.
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
18
4.0 IMP ACTS
This discussion of probable wetland impacts is based on Raedeke Associates, Inc, field
surveys, review of available literature, as well as information provided by the applicant
and project consultants, This analysis of impacts was based on the proposed site plans
for the 481 and 700 development alternatives (DBM 2004a and 2004b) that were
provided to Raedeke Associates, Inc, by Apex Engineering, Inc, on February 27, 2004,
Implementation of the proposed Kersey III Preliminary Plat would develop a range of
urban residential housing densities (no fewer than 481 and no more than 700 residential
units) and a recreational park complex, as well as native open space including sensitive
area tracts, Roads, utilities, and storm water facilities will be included in the site
development. The project will use the City of Auburn zoning and subdivision
ordinances, and open space and sensitive areas would be set apart as required by the City
of Auburn sensitive area regulations, The plat may utilize the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) ordinance in order to provide for multi family units, On-site storm facilities will
include wet ponds for detention and water quality treatment. The proposal also requires
the dedication of land for use as a public park. Three alternatives, Alternative 700,
Alternative 481, and Alternative No Action, are to be analyzed in the EIS, A brief
summary of alternatives follows:
. Alternative 700: This alternative assumes the development of 700 single-family
homes including 72 four-plex units on the 170-acre parcel (Figure 7), The project
will use the City of Auburn PUD ordinance to achieve the higher densities and for
preservation of open spaces, Sensitive areas would be retained according to the City
of Auburn sensitive area regulations, Approximately 31.4 acres of the site, including
wetlands, buffers, and steep slopes, will be contained within sensitive areas tracts and
set aside as native open space, Approximately 15,9 acres ofland will be dedicated
for use as a public park. Approximately 11,1 acres would be retained within the
existing powerline corridor,
The project would consist of three divisions developed within six phases, The
proposal will require that on-site and off-site installation of new public facilities to
serve the development include water, stormwater, and sanitary sewer lines, Two
stormwater detention and treatment facilities would be constructed, totaling
approximately 15,0 acres,
The proposal requires the dedication and construction of approximately four miles of
new public right of ways to access the development and provide internal circulation,
These roads include internal streets and a new arterial connection from Evergreen
Way SE to Kersey Way,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
19
. Alternative 481 - This alternative assumes 481 single-family homes including 72
four-plex units on the 170-acre property (Figure 8), The project will use the City of
Auburn zoning and subdivision ordinances and open space and sensitive areas would
be set apart as required by the City of Auburn sensitive area regulations,
Approximately 31.4 acres of the site, including wetlands, buffers, and steep slopes,
will be set aside as native open space, Approximately 7,6 acres ofland will be
dedicated for use as a public park. Approximately 11,1 acres would be retained
within the existing powerline corridor.
The project's proposed construction will consist of three divisions developed within
six phases, The proposal will require on-site installation of new public facilities to
serve the development to include water, stormwater, and sanitary sewer lines, Two
stormwater detention and treatment facilities would be constructed totaling
approximately 15,0 acres,
The proposal requires the dedication and construction of approximately four miles of
new public right of ways to access the development and provide internal circulation,
These roads include internal streets and a new arterial connection from Evergreen
Way SE to Kersey Way,
. No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would assume that each of the
three parcels of the 170-acre Kersey III site would be developed separately utilizing
on-site water and septic systems, While the site is currently zoned R-l, allowing
8,000 square-foot minimum lots, the use of on-site wells would require a minimum of
5-acre lots, The No Action Alternative would allow for the subdivision of each of the
parcels that make up the Kersey III project. Based upon zoning only the parcels
could still yield the 481 lots; however, the challenge would be the provision of
utilities and road access that is currently being coordinated between the three
properties, Assuming that the provision of utilities for the separate subdivisions
would be prohibitive, the No Action Alternative will assume that a lower density
would result based on the utilization of on-site wells and drainfield systems, For
purposes of the No Action Alternative, it will be assumed that a 5-acre minimum will
be required to provide for on-site wells, The No Action Alternative will assume a
possible yield of approximately 34 lots, Sensitive areas would continue to be
protected in accordance with the City's sensitive areas regulations,
Detailed descriptions of each alternative may be found in the DEIS, The probable
impacts of each of these alternatives on the wetlands on the project sites are discussed in
the following sections,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
20
4.1 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 700
4.1.1 Direct Impacts
No filling of the wetlands and streams is proposed, Stream crossings would occur as a
result of installation of the sanitary sewer line to provide service to the project site, Two
options for routing the sanitary sewer are proposed, One option would rout the line along
Kersey Way to Oravetz Road, and then along Oravetz Road to the Lakeland Hills lift
station, The other would route the line along Kersey Way to 19th Street S,E., and then
westward through the project site to the western property boundary, Under both options,
however, all crossings of streams would occur within the existing road prisms of Kersey
Way, Oravetz Road, and 49th Street S,E. and would not require the filling of wetlands or
streams (Mr. Jeff Mann, Apex Engineering, pers, comm, March 4,2004), By retaining
the on-site wetlands, streams and their buffers in their native state within Sensitive Areas
Tracts, Alternative 700 would avoid direct alteration of any wetland or streams,
4.1.2 Hydrologic Impacts
While no direct impacts would occur to wetlands or streams because of the proposed
development, clearing of vegetation, grading, and construction of impervious surfaces
and stormwater collection and detention facilities would modify the surface hydrologic
conditions of the site, and thus potentially could cause indirect wetland impacts through
modification of the hydrologic conditions of the wetlands and/or streams, If unmitigated,
these changes could cause an increase in total surface water run-off, concentration of
water into surface channels, increases in peak discharge of a drainage basin during
storms, as well as decreased recharge of near-surface groundwater (interfl ow) ,
Changes to existing surface and subsurface flows could also affect hydrology within the
wetlands, Sources of wetland hydrology include surface flow from the wetlands'
contributory basins and direct precipitation falling within the wetlands, In addition,
virtually the entire site is underlain by a shallow layer of low permeability till, and the
wetlands generally act as discharge points of the shallow groundwater aquifer
(GeoEngineers 2003), Shallow groundwater flow to Wetlands A, B, C, D, and 1 is
estimated to be approximately 23 gallons per minute under existing conditions, on an
average annual basis (GeoEngineers 2003), Thus, under current conditions, the shallow
groundwater interflow "perched" above the glacial till provides a major source of water
to the wetlands on the site, Due to their dependence on shallow groundwater interflow,
the on-site wetlands are highly susceptible to local changes in shallow subsurface
interflow patterns that may result from the proposed plans,
The hydrologic effects of site development on wetlands, and their plant and animal
communities, depends on the magnitude of changes to their hydroperiod (the time of
year, frequency, duration, and depth of inundation), as well as the amount of siltation,
following development, all compared with current conditions (Mitsch and Gosselink
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
21
1986; Azous and Horner 1997), The relative susceptibility of a particular wetland to
these changes depends on its size, topographic position, relation to surface and ground
water sources, and proximity to proposed development of different types,
Surface water discharge from the proposed stormwater detention ponds under Alternative
700 will be designed to match 50 percent of the existing peak flow rate for the 2-year
storm event under existing conditions (DBM 2003a), Discharge from the proposed ponds
will also be designed to match the peak flow rates for the 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year
storm events under existing conditions (DBM 2003a), Two primary detention/water
quality ponds are proposed to be constructed within the site: one would be located west
of Wetland C and would discharge into the ravine that contains Stream AB downstream
of all on-site wetlands; the other would be constructed adjacent to Kersey Way in the
vicinity of the BP A powerline easement and would discharge to a concrete culvert
beneath Kersey Way located east of the intersection of Kersey Way with 49th Street SE
(DBM 2000b), In addition to these two facilities, several smaller detention ponds would
be constructed adjacent to the buffers of the on-site wetlands in order to detain rooftop
runoff before discharge into the wetlands,
The proposed stormwater management features would alter the volume and timing of
water flowing to the wetlands, The Draft Average Monthly Volume Calculations Report
for the project prepared by Apex Engineering (2003) indicates that routing of site
generated stormwater through the proposed detention/water quality facilities would result
in changes to the volume of water within the sub-basins containing wetlands,
In addition to potential impacts resulting from alterations to surface water flow patterns
and timing across the project site, the creation of impervious surfaces will likely cause a
net reduction in groundwater recharge and shallow groundwater interflow to the wetlands
and streams (GeoEngineers 2004), Alternative 700 would result in the construction of
approximately 56 acres of new impervious surface on the project site (DBM 2003a),
Created impervious surfaces could potentially reduce groundwater recharge by about 21
percent as estimated for existing conditions (GeoEngineers 2004),
Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF) computer modeling of existing and post-
development of overall hydrologic conditions was performed for Wetlands A and B
(Apex 2003), Wetland 1 was included in the analysis for Wetland A because it was
located within the same drainage as Wetland A (Mr, Joe Blankenship, Apex Engineering,
pers, comm, October 6, 2003), The computer models predicts that there could be
approximately 87 percent less water available to Wetland All, and 78 percent less water
available to Wetland B when shallow groundwater interflow and surface water inputs are
considered together on a yearly basis (Apex Engineering 2003), Computer models for
Wetlands C and D were not generated; however, it is likely that similar reductions in
hydrologic inputs could be experienced for these wetlands because of Alternative 700
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
22
development. Without mitigation, decreases in the volume of water available to the
wetlands could result in a decrease in the total wetland area on-site,
In order to mitigate for potential impacts, the project has been designed such that the
volume of water reaching Wetlands A, B, C, D, and 1 and would be augmented by
infiltration facilities located up-gradient of the wetlands in order to re-establish wetland
hydrology to levels similar to those that existed prior to development (DBM 2003b), In
general, changes to existing wetland plant and/or animal communities are considered
unlikely to occur when the amount of hydrology available to a wetland on a yearly basis
does not change more than 10 percent. In the case of the on-site wetlands, a more
valuable measure of potential impacts to the existing wetland communities may be the
change in water volume available to the wetland during the first half of the growing
season (February through June) because this is the portion of the year when many native
plant and wildlife species, particularly amphibians, are often most vulnerable to changes
in available water volumes and corresponding water levels within the wetland, Again, as
long as post-development volumes remain within 10 percent of pre-development
volumes, than it would be unlikely that impacts to wetland plant and/or animal
communities would occur,
Apex Engineering (2003) estimated that approximately 8.4 acres of rooftop runoff, all of
the available runoff from the up-gradient off-site sub-basin, all of the undisturbed on-site
areas, and approximately 1.7 acres of backyard area adjacent to the wetlands would have
to be infiltrated in order to maintain volumes of water available to Wetland All and
Wetland B during February through June within 10 percent of the pre-development
volumes, Water volume available to Wetland All during this part of the year would
decrease by approximately 9 percent. From February through June, water volume to
Wetland B would decrease by approximately 7 percent. However, on a yearly basis,
changes in water volume to Wetland All would be less than 1 percent while water
volume for Wetland B would increase by approximately 13 percent. An increase in
available water volume on a yearly basis such as that predicted for Wetland B may result
in alterations to existing plant and/or animal communities; however, nearly all of the
additional water volume is received by the wetland during October through December, a
period during which wetland plants and animals are not as vulnerable to changes in
wetland water levels,
Augmentation of water volumes available to Wetlands C and D is included as part of the
development proposal (DBM 2003b), However, because HSPF models were not
generated for these wetlands, the actual area of rooftop runoff necessary to maintain
hydrology within the wetlands at current levels was not available for analysis in this
report, Therefore, the amount of roof area needed to maintain hydrology within
Wetlands C and D cannot be determined until after further analysis has been completed
during final engineering design and platting,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
23
4.1.3 Erosion/Sedimentation and Water Quality Impacts
Erosion/Sedimentation Impacts
Clearing and grading activities associated with the proposed development would expose
erodible soils on the site and increase surface run-off rates from storms when soils are
saturated, In addition, installation of the sanitary sewer line using either the Kersey Way
or lift station options have the potential to create erosion and deliver sediments to off-site
wetlands and streams including Bowman Creek and the White River.
The potential for erosion delivery of sediments is greatest during the construction period
and depends on the construction season, soil types, the amount of exposed soils, slopes,
surface drainage patterns, and mitigation measures employed, Sediment budget analysis
indicates that, if un-mitigated, soil loss rate could be as high as 2,000 tons per year during
construction (GeoEngineers 2003), Sediment transport and deposition, particularly
during construction, can adversely impact plant and animal communities of the wetlands
by affecting water quality (increased turbidity, suspended and settleable solids,
temperature, pollutants), which could adversely affect the suitability for various forms of
vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife,
Much of the site includes soils that are classified as moderate to severe erosion hazard
(GeoEngineers 2003), Many of these areas would be retained as native vegetation areas
because they are located on steep slopes, thus reducing the potential for erosion and
sedimentation impacts to the on-site wetlands, However, proper implementation of
erosion and sedimentation control measures during and after construction would further
limit the potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts to on-site wetlands, In addition,
wetland buffers (with minimum buffers ranging from 50 to 100 feet in width) can be
effective in sediment and pollutant removal and erosion control (Castelle et al. 1992,
McMillan 2000), In general, wetland buffers that have well-established vegetation cover,
soil duff cover, and favorable micro-topography and slope, would aid in preventing
introduction of substantial sediments from adjacent construction to wetlands,
Alternative 700 proposes 50-foot-wide buffers for Wetland A, Wetland B, and the
majority of Wetland C, Buffers for Wetlands A and B have well established vegetation
and favorable micro-topography and slope that would be likely to provide adequate
protection from erosion/sediment and water quality impacts, Buffers for Wetland 1 are
not shown on the current site plan; however, it is assumed that these would be 50 feet
wide as recommended by DBM (2000a) for all on-site wetlands, Wetland 1 buffer
characteristics are similar to those of Wetland A and Wetland B. Proposed buffers for
Wetland 1 would be likely to provide adequate protection from erosion/sediment and
water quality impacts, Therefore, in general, no substantial adverse sediment-delivered
impacts to water quality of Wetlands A, B, or 1 are expected,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
24
Alternative 700 provides 25-foot-wide buffers for the west side of Wetland C, Wetland
D, and all on-site streams, These are less than those recommended by DBM (2000a),
While the proposed buffers have well established vegetation, soil duff cover, and
favorable micro-topography and slope, it is unlikely that they would afford sufficient
protection to the wetland from sediment, pollutant, and erosion impacts due to their
narrow width, Therefore, sediment-delivered impacts to water quality of Wetland C,
Wetland D and on-site streams may occur due to the proposed 25-foot wetland buffer
width,
Stream crossings by the proposed sanitary sewer could occur on Bowman Creek or on
Stream AB, depending on the route that is ultimately chosen for the sewer line, While
these crossings would be located within the road prism for either Kersey Way, 49th Street
S,E., or Oravetz Road and would not require the filling of wetlands or streams, existing
buffers between Stream AB and 49th Street S,E., Bowman Creek and Kersey Way, or
between Oravetz Road and the White River may not be sufficient to prevent sediment-
delivered impacts,
Water Quality Impacts
Some increases in sediment deposition would be expected in on-site wetland buffers, and
potentially the wetlands, particularly during construction, Following construction, as the
site is landscaped and less soil is exposed, much less sediment is typically generated, An
increase in sediment deposition within the wetland has the potential to adversely affect
some vegetation and associated wildlife in the wetlands, However, by providing
adequate buffers and with the use of standard erosion and sediment control measures,
most sediment generated is likely to be trapped locally within proposed detention ponds
or settling basins (where appropriate) and at the outer edges of the buffers and not reach
the wetlands,
Pollutants and nutrients generated from developed portions of the site after construction
("operational" impacts) could be discharged from the detention facility that collects
runoff as part of the stormwater runoff and suspended solids and sediment load, If
unmitigated, pollutants have the potential to accumulate in the downstream wetlands
located off-site to the north within the Stream AB ravine and could potentially cause
adverse impacts to habitat conditions for plants and animals (vertebrates and
invertebrates), Inputs of runoff from urban development could cause changes in other
water quality parameters, such as pH, conductivity, suspended solids, and nutrients such
as phosphorus and nitrogen, The magnitude of such changes is not precisely known,
However, potential hydroperiod changes (related to quantity of runoff, particularly if
unmitigated) appear to be a more important factor in potential adverse effects on wetland
vegetation and wildlife (e,g" Azous and Horner 1997 and references therein),
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
25
Direct runoff from maintained landscapes within yards adjacent to on-site streams and
wetlands may carry fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to the wetlands and streams,
Introduction of these chemicals to on-site streams and wetlands could potentially have
adverse impacts on plants and animals within these native vegetation communities,
Herbicide and pesticide drift during application can be an additional source of these
chemicals to wetlands and streams and can have similar impacts,
Runoff from roof drains would flow through existing soils of the wetland buffers (a
minimum of 50 feet as proposed for Wetlands A and B and assumed for Wetlands C and
1, and a minimum of25 feet for Wetland D), Although the roof runoff would not
undergo prior treatment as through detention facilities, runoff collected from this type of
surface is generally considered clean, Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to water
quality of the receiving waters are expected,
4.1.4 Buffer and Habitat Impacts
Buffer Impacts
Under Alternative 700, the wetlands and streams on the Kersey III site generally would
be retained within native open space areas that include minimum 50-foot buffers for
Wetlands A and B and a majority of Wetland C and a minimum width of25 feet for
Wetland D, Wetland A, and all on-site streams, Wetland A, Wetland 1, and Wetland B
also would be contained within larger native open space tracts that include set asides for
steep slopes, The on-site native open space tracts are contiguous with off-site sensitive
areas encompassed by Stream AB and its buffers and steep slopes associated with the
Stream AB ravine, Linkage of these areas helps provide avenues of movement for
wildlife among them and between the on-site and off-site habitats, The two smaller,
isolated wetlands, Wetlands C and D and their buffers, are not contiguous with the larger
native open space tracts, Thus, these two wetlands would not be linked to other wildlife
habitats retained as native vegetation areas,
As discussed above, none of the on-site wetlands are proposed to be filled, Therefore, all
of the acreage of all wetland cover types currently found on the property would be
retained, Encroachments within the recommended minimum 50-foot buffers are
proposed in the following areas: (1) within the western portion of the buffer for Wetland
C by the proposed location of the western stormwater treatment facility; (2) within the
western portion of Wetland D buffer by proposed house lots; and (3) if the sewer line is
routed into the project site along 49th Street S,E., within the northern portion of the buffer
for Stream AB by the proposed location of a sanitary sewer lift station to be constructed
within the northeastern portion of the project site,
Construction activities and implementation of the proposed development would result in
both short-term disturbances to wildlife inhabiting the wetlands and long-term
disturbance from increased human activity (and associated increase in domestic pets) and
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
26
clearing and conversion of adjoining areas to residential and recreational uses, In
addition, increased fragmentation of native habitat would increase the risk of spread of
invasive plant species, which could also adversely affect the habitat value of remaining
native open space areas,
This disturbance would reduce the suitability of the retained natural habitats for some
wildlife species, particularly those least tolerant of disturbance by humans and domestic
cats and dogs, In addition, invasive plant species, such as Himalayan blackberry or reed
canarygrass, could invade wetland and buffer habitats and adversely affect habitat value
for native wildlife, These effects would be greatest in the smallest native habitat areas
retained, such as those encompassing Wetland C and Wetland D, which would become
relatively isolated "islands" of native habitat. However, it should be noted that the
smallest wetlands have relatively limited habitat value for most wildlife, although
Wetland D could provide breeding habitat for amphibians, Because of their small size
and relatively low wildlife habitat value, such indirect effects on these small wetlands
would not be considered a significant impact to the overall wetland resources on-site,
See the plants and animals report (Raedeke Associates, Inc, 2004) for further discussion
of impacts of the Proposed Action on wildlife,
Buffer Effectiveness
Wetland buffers such as those on the Kersey III site can provide a variety of functions to
varying degrees, such as hydrologic and water quality functions (e,g" peak flow
reduction, sediment, nutrient, and pollutant removal, maintenance of water temperatures),
protection from human disturbance, and vegetation and wildlife habitat (e,g" upland
habitat, contribution oflarge woody debris), Buffer effectiveness should be evaluated on
the basis of protecting these wetland functions, but this effectiveness with respect to
buffer width can vary in relation to a number of factors, including slope, vegetation and
soil characteristics, the nature of adjoining land uses, disturbance history, and geographic
location, Consequently, the adequacy of buffers is often difficult to evaluate empirically
in particular circumstances (i,e" region or habitat conditions) and apply the results
broadly in different locations or conditions, Nevertheless, several reviews of scientific
literature have been conducted in order to evaluate effectiveness of wetland buffers of
different widths in protecting wetland functions (e,g" Castelle et al. 1992, McMillan
2000),
With respect to hydrologic and water quality functions, the scientific literature has
documented generally greater wetland protection with wider buffers than narrower ones,
and most of the water quality protection occurs within the first 50 to 100 feet (e,g"
Castelle et al. 1992; McMillan 2000), This range is comparable to the 50-foot minimum
buffer widths provided on Wetlands A and B, and which are assumed to be provided for
Wetland 1, The proposed buffers under Alternative 700 for Wetland D, the western
extent of Wetland C, and all on-site streams is less than the 50-foot minimum and could
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
27
result in adverse impacts to wetland and stream functions, It must be noted, however,
that the relative protection provided for some functions is often related primarily to
buffer characteristics, such as vegetation density and structure, slope, and soil
characteristics, rather than buffer width per se (see Castelle et al. 1992, McMillan 2000),
Moreover, stormwater management and control facilities, as well as water quality
treatment facilities, and best management practices for erosion and sediment control,
typically used in urban development (such as on Kersey III) provide a primary means of
protection of hydrologic and water quality functions of wetlands, Studies regarding the
water quality functions of buffers often focus on uncontrolled runoff or situations lacking
water quality treatment facilities, rather than under requirements of urban-level
developments such as Kersey III.
As discussed above, Alternative 700 includes diversion of excess runoff away from
downstream wetlands, provision of clean roof runoff to supplement wetland hydrology,
and the use of best management practices to control or limit erosion and sediment
transport, In addition, the plan includes stormwater detention and water quality treatment
facilities consistent with the 1998 City of Auburn Design and Construction Standards
Manual requirements (DBM 2000b), Consequently, appropriate protection of wetland
hydrology and water quality would not require buffers wider than those provided on the
larger wetland systems,
With respect to wildlife habitat functions of wetland buffers, recommendations from
literature reviews often include buffers significantly wider than those included under
Alternative 700 to provide for the habitat needs of wildlife that may occur in wetlands,
depending on the species involved (e,g" Castelle et al. 1992, McMillan 2000), However,
in the context of urban or rural residential development, habitat needs of wildlife are only
partly met by buffers (even wider buffers), Wildlife usage of wetlands in urban settings
is also related to connectivity with other habitats and the level of basin-wide
development. Some species are not well suited to habitats adjacent to urban-level
development, such as on Kersey III, because of human disturbance or competition with or
adverse impacts from urban-adapted wildlife, Unavoidable fragmentation of habitats
would occur with urban residential development such as proposed under Kersey III.
The overall habitat corridors formed on Kersey III by the larger wetland systems and
their buffers would be contiguous with adjoining native open space areas, In particular,
the sensitive area tracts encompassing Wetlands A, 1, and B would connect to the large
area of native forest within the Stream AB ravine located to the north of the proj ect site,
The width of the habitat corridors created by these sensitive areas and their respective
buffers and native open space encompassed by steep slopes is consistent with overall
widths of habitat corridors suggested to provide avenues of movement and dispersal of
amphibians (Richter 1997), Given the actual buffer widths on of these corridors, the
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
28
well-developed forest buffers would continue to function as a source of snags and large
woody debris,
In the context of unavoidable impacts to wildlife habitat on-site, including those species
associated with wetland habitats, wetland and stream buffers that are a minimum of 50
feet in width, but which are contiguous with additional areas of native open space
encompassing other wetlands and steep slopes, would protect most wetland and stream
functions on-site,
4.1.5 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative effects are the additive effects of future activities that are reasonably certain
to occur in the vicinity of the project site, Development in the vicinity of the Kersey III
project is expected to continue as the population in the greater Auburn metropolitan area
continues to grow and urbanize, Additional impacts of urban growth in this area include
an increase in impervious surface, pollutants that can come from land development, and
urban runoff such as fertilizers, pesticides, pet wastes, and storm sewers,
Direct impacts to on-site or off-site wetlands are not proposed, Hydrologic and water
quality impacts would be as described above, Hydrologic impacts to the on-site and off-
site wetlands could increase in the future if property located south of the project site is
developed to a higher density than currently exists,
4.2 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 481
This alternative assumes the development of 481 single-family homes on the 170-acre
parcel. The location of roads, utilities, and development areas including stormwater
detention and treatment facilities would be the same as with Alternative 700, Alternative
481 would have approximately 8,3 acres less land to be dedicated for use as public parks,
4.2.1 Direct Impacts
As with Alternative 700, direct wetland impacts would not occur under Alternative 481,
All on-site wetlands would be protected within similar sensitive area tracts with similar
buffers,
4.2.2 Hydrologic Impacts
Similar kinds of hydrologic impacts to wetlands could occur under Alternative 481 as
under Alternative 700, Slightly more new impervious surface would be created under
Alternative 481 (60 acres) than under Alternative 700 (56 acres), Given the site layout
for this alternative, reduction of volumes of water available to Wetlands All and B
during the spring and early summer would be slightly greater than under Alternative 700;
however, the total reduction is predicted to be 10 percent or less for both wetlands, Thus,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
29
impacts under Alternative 481 to plant and/or animal communities are not likely to be
significantly different from those under Alternative 700, As with Alternative 700,
augmentation of water volumes available to Wetlands C and D is included as part of the
development proposal (DBM 2004c), However, because HSPF models were not
generated for these wetlands, the actual area of rooftop runoff necessary to maintain
hydrology within the wetlands at current levels would have to be determined during final
engineering design and platting,
4.2.3 Erosion/Sedimentation and Water Quality Impacts
Alternative 481 will likely have less potential to cause erosion than Alternative 700
because the development of fewer building lots may result in less vegetation removal,
grading, fewer utility service connections, and less soil stockpiling (GeoEngineers 2003),
Given the lower potential for soil erosion under Alternative 481, the likelihood of
probable impacts to some wetlands from sedimentation would be somewhat less than
from Alternative 700,
The potential for water quality impacts to wetlands and streams under Alternative 481
would likely be less than those under Alternative 700 because of lower residential density
and less likelihood for introduction of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides via surface
runoff from adj acent yards or accidental overspray,
4.2.4 Habitat Impacts
Native growth open space encompassing the wetlands and their buffers would total
essentially the same acreage on both Alternatives 481 and 700, Proposed wetland and
stream buffer widths would also be the same, Lower lot density under Alternative 481
could decrease the potential for disturbance in the wetlands and associated buffers
compared with Alternative 700,
4.3 IMPACTS OF THE No ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action Alternative would allow development of the 170-acre Kersey III site
under existing zoning regulations and comprehensive plan, Although the No Action
Alternative would allow the development of the same number of building lots as under
Alternative 481, physical limitations on the ability to provide utilities and road access
would limit the number of lots that could be provided, The No Action Alternative
assumes that the project site would be developed according to densities that would be
based on the utilization of on-site wells and drain field systems, The No Action
Alternative assumes that a 5-acre minimum lot size will be required to provide for on-site
wells, Therefore, the No Action Alternative will assume a possible yield of
approximately 34 lots,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
30
Sensitive areas would continue to be protected in accordance with the City's sensitive
areas regulations; however, no single, cohesive buffer system or open space for the area
encompassed by the Kersey III site would necessarily be provided under the No Action
Alternative, It should be noted that the City of Auburn has the authority to assure
adequate mitigation of impacts for any approved development of the site,
4.3.1 Direct Impacts
Under the No Action Alternative, the potential for direct wetland impacts within the
Kersey III project site would be greater than under either Alternative 700 or Alternative
481 if developed piecemeal versus as a single plat. Identified wetland habitats within the
City of Auburn may be altered as long as adequate compensatory mitigation for the
impacts is provided, Potential lot, utility and road locations under the No Action
Alternative may require filling or crossing of on-site wetlands and streams,
4.3.2 Hydrologic Impacts
It is likely that the No Action Alternative would result in less hydrologic impacts to on-
site wetlands than either Alternative 700 or 481 because of the lower residential density,
less grading, less clearing (on average), and less impervious surface, This assumes that
development of the three individual properties that make up the Kersey III project site
would utilize stormwater detention facilities in conformance with the 1998 City of
Auburn Design and Construction Standards Manual requirements,
As with Alternatives 481 and 700, wetlands not receiving runoff from the stormwater
management system may need additional drainage from rooftops to compensate for
probable reduction in undisturbed tributary areas, depending on the amount of clearing
and area of impervious surfaces, However, due to lower development densities, required
water volumes would be lower. The level of potential hydrologic impact (relative to the
other alternatives) is difficult to predict, however, because of the potential for more
variation in the management of the project site, Overall, the amount of vegetative
clearing, grading, and impervious surfaces would be less, which may lessen risk of
hydrologic diversions from the smaller wetlands,
4.3.3 Erosion/Sedimentation and Water Quality Impacts
Under the No Action Alternative, the density of residential lots would be less, and
impervious surface areas, grading, and storm water runoff are anticipated to be less, This
would likely lessen the risk of adverse impacts to wetlands from erosion and
sedimentation,
The potential for water quality impacts to wetlands on the Kersey III site under the No
Action Alternative would likely be less than those under the other development
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
31
alternatives, because of lower residential density, less clearing likely, and less impervious
surfaces, Direct effects on water quality by construction likely would be less than under
the other alternatives,
4.3.4 Habitat Impacts
Because of the uncertainty with the location of potential layout lots, roads, and utilities
under the No Action Alternative, it is difficult to predict the level of habitat impact
relative to Alternatives 481 and 700, Required native growth open space encompassing
the wetlands and their buffers would likely be similar under the No Action Alternative as
long as direct impacts to wetlands and streams or their buffers did not occur, However,
due to lower residential densities, effective wetland and stream buffers may be greater
under the No Action Alternative due to the greater potential for retained native open
space within the minimum I-acre lots, Lower human density should reduce the potential
for disturbance in the wetlands and associated buffers,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
32
5.0 MITIGATION
Mitigation has been defined by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) (WAC 197-
11-768; cf. Cooper 1987), and more recently in a Memorandum of Agreement between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers
(Memorandum 1989), In order of desirability, mitigation may include:
1. Avoidance - avoiding impacts by not taking action or parts of an action;
2, Minimization - minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action and its implementation;
3, Compensatory Mitigation - which may involve:
a) repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
b) replacing or creating substitute resources or environments;
The development alternatives incorporate one or more mitigating measures that would
avoid or reduce impacts to wetlands on-site,
5.1 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
City of Auburn ordinances would require that development of the site under any of the
three alternatives avoid or minimize impacts to most of the regulated sensitive areas (e,g"
wetlands and streams) and attempt to limit impacts to these native habitats by retaining
them within open space tracts that include buffers of native vegetation,
5.1.1 Avoidance of Impacts
As noted previously, direct impacts (i,e" fill or excavation) to on-site wetlands would not
occur under the development alternatives, Thus, 100 percent of the existing wetland
acreage on both sites would be retained under the proposed development as currently
defined,
Buffers that meet or exceed the current recommended requirements for most on-site
wetlands and streams would be established within designated open space tracts
encompassing a substantial area (18 percent) of the project site,
While direct impacts are not currently proposed under either Alternative 481 or 700,
preparation of detailed engineering plans for site development may show that the filling
Wetland D and mitigation for direct wetland impacts would be more cost effective than
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
33
mitigation requirements for maintaining hydrology within the wetland at pre-
development levels,
The City of Auburn (1997) has a stated overall goal of achieving no net loss of wetland
functions and values, The City of Auburn does not have specific mitigation standards for
wetlands, In general, mitigation for direct impacts to wetlands with higher functional
values is greater than impacts to those wetlands that are determined to have lower
functional values, The WDOE (1998) recommends a mitigation ratio of 2: 1 on an areal
basis to compensate for direct impacts to a scrub-shrub wetland such as Wetland D,
Given the relatively low to moderate functions and values provided by Wetland D a 2: 1
mitigation ratio would likely be adequate to off-set lost functions and values from the
filling of the wetland,
A mitigation plan should be developed based upon available site plan information, The
plan should present: (1) a grading and planting plan and construction specifications
prepared in conjunction with a landscape architect; (2) a monitoring plan outline; (3)
evaluation criteria and performance standards; and (4) a discussion of contingency plans
and bonding,
5.1.2 Minimization of Impacts
The proposed development plan incorporates a number of design features that would
minimize or limit impacts to the wetlands and their buffers, including:
. Routing stormwater runoff from the proposed development through stormwater
detention and water quality facilities prior to discharge to sensitive downstream areas
(Stream AB),
. Limiting hydrologic impacts to all on-site wetlands by routing roof runoff and runoff
from undeveloped portions of the on-site and off-site sub-basin to the wetlands,
. The use of stormwater detention ponds to control discharge rates from rooftops and
undeveloped surfaces to the major wetlands to avoid substantial erosion impacts,
In order to further minimize impacts, we recommend that the development plan
incorporate providing minimum 50-foot native vegetation buffers for all on-site wetlands and
streams,
5.1.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation would not be required by the City of Auburn because wetland
loss or alteration is not proposed, However, ifit is determined during final site plan design
that the filling or other disturbance of wetlands and streams is necessary, then compensatory
mitigation would be provided at the recommended ratios,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
34
5.2 OTHER POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Other potential mitigation measures would further minimize adverse impacts to wetlands
resulting from site development. These include the following:
. Alter the configuration of lots located west of Wetland D to provide the
recommended 50-foot wetland buffer.
. Clearly mark the limits of wetland buffers or setbacks prior to construction
activities on the project site to prevent inadvertent or unnecessary encroachment.
. Include energy dissipaters or flow dispersion facilities at outfalls for stormwater
detentions/water quality treatment facilities to prevent substantial erosion impacts
within the stream AB ravine,
. Limit major initial clearing, grubbing, and grading activities, where feasible, to
the drier months of the year (e,g" April to October), or implement additional best
management practices (BMP' s) for any such activities during the wet-season,
This would further reduce the potential for substantial adverse impacts to
wetlands from sediment deposition,
. Monitor hydrologic changes in on-site wetlands, after development of Kersey III,
in order to provide information necessary to determine if additional compensatory
mitigation would be required,
. Move the location of the western stormwater treatment facility would be moved
westward and out of the recommended 50-foot buffer for Wetland C,
. Route all utilities including the proposed lift station for the sanitary sewer so that
they are located outside the recommended 50-foot wetland and stream buffers
where possible,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
35
6.0 SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMP ACTS
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands or streams are anticipated to
result from Alternative 700 or Alternative 481. Direct alteration of wetlands or streams
would not occur, Development of the site, including clearing of native vegetation and
construction of impervious surfaces, will change site recharge patterns and create greater
surface runoff, which could result in some unavoidable changes to the hydrologic
conditions in the wetlands, With mitigation measures, the primary hydrologic impacts to
the wetlands can generally be limited to insignificant levels, as long as hydrologic
changes are kept within acceptable limits as determined through hydrologic modeling,
Some limited additional sediment deposition and associated water quality impacts from
the proposed development areas are unavoidable, but can be kept to minimal levels
through the use of stormwater detention/wetpond facilities and other erosion/sediment
control measures,
Indirect impacts to wetland vegetation and wildlife resulting from increased human
activity and associated disturbance on-site are unavoidable; however, these will largely
be minimized through retention of the wetlands within larger open space areas that
connect the wetlands,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
36
7.0 LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of The City of Auburn and their
consultants, No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or
conclusions contained herein without permission from The City of Auburn,
The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries
is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different
conclusions, With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for
regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate
development activities in wetlands, We cannot guarantee the outcome of such
determinations, Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the
appropriate regulatory agencies,
We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our
field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines
and criteria, The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the
information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with
information gathered in the course of the study, No other warranty, expressed or implied,
is made,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
37
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, 1., E. Hardy, 1. Roach, and R, Witmer. 1976, A land use and land cover
classification system for use with remote sensor data, U.S, Geological Survey
Professional Paper 964, 28 pp,
Apex Engineering, 2003, Kersey III, Average Monthly Volume Calculations, Report
dated June 27,2003,
Auburn, City of. 1997, Chapter 9 of Comprehensive Plan, Received by Raedeke
Associates, Inc, on December 18, 1998,
Azous, AL., and R,R, Horner, eds, 1997, Wetlands and urbanization: implications for
the future, Final Report of the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater
Management Research Program, Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, W A, King County Water and Land Resources Division, and University
of Washington, Seattle, W A 255 pp,
Blankenship, Joe, 2003, Personal communication with Mr, Joe Blankenship of Apex
Engineering, Inc, regarding HSPF model for Wetlands A and 1, October 6, 2003
Buol, S" D, Hole, and R. McCracken, 1980, Soil genesis and classification, The Iowa
State University Press, Ames, 406 pp,
Castelle, A, C, Conolly, M, Emers, E.D, Metz, S, Meyer, M, Witter, S, Mauermann, T.
Erickson, S, S, Cooke, 1992, Buffers: Use and Effectiveness, Publ. #92-10,
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia Washington, 171 pp,
Cooke, S, 1992, Appendix A Wetland Buffers: A Field Evaluation of Buffer
Effectiveness in Puget Sound, pp, 61-133 In Castelle, A et al. Wetland Buffers:
Use and Effectiveness, Pub, #92-10, Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, W A 171 pp,
Cooke, S, 1995, Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Quantitative Assessment
Methodology, Draft User's Manual. Cooke Environmental Services, Seattle,
Washington,
Cooke, S, 1997, A field guide to common wetland plants of Western Washington and
Northwestern Oregon, Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington,
Cooper,1. 1987, An overview of estuarine habitat mitigation projects in Washington
State, Northwest Environmental Journal 3(1): 112-127,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
38
Cowardin, L., F, Golet, V. Carter, and E. LaRoe, 1992, Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States, US,D.I, Fish and Wildlife Service Publ.
FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp,
DBM Consulting Engineers, 2000a, Wetland Delineation, Functional Value
Assessment, and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the Kersey Three Project
Located South of Kersey Way Between the Intersections of 49th Street SE and
53rd Street SE, City of Auburn, Washington, Report dated August 21,2000,
DBM Consulting Engineers, 2000b, Downstream Analysis for the Kersey Three Project
Located South of Kersey Way Between the Intersections of 49th Street SE and
53rd Street SE, City of Auburn, Washington, Report dated August 21,2000,
DBM Consulting Engineers, 2003a, Kersey III stormwater calculations, provided to the
City of Auburn on February 20, 2003,
DBM Consulting Engineers, 2003b, Wetland Hydrology Conceptual Plan for the Kersey
III, Auburn, W A. November 5,2002 memo to Mr. Jeff Mann, Apex Engineering,
Inc,
DBM Consulting Engineers, 2004a, Alternative 481 Site Plan for the Kersey III,
Auburn, W A, drawings dated February 25, 2004,
DBM Consulting Engineers, 2004b, Alternative 700 Site Plan for the Kersey III,
Auburn, W A, drawings dated February 25, 2004,
DBM Consulting Engineers, 2004c, Preliminary Wetland Hydration Plan for the Kersey
III, Auburn, W A, drawings dated February 25,2004,
Environmental Laboratory, 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, 100 pp,
Federal Register, 1986, 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the
Corps of Engineers; final rule, Vol. 51. No, 219, pp, 41206-41260, US,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D,C,
Federal Register, 1994, US, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service:
Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States, Volume 59, No 133, July 13, 1994,
Franklin, IF,, and C,T. Dyrness, 1973, Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington,
US, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-
8, 417 pp,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
39
GeoEngineers, 2004, Geologic, Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Kersey III Subdivision, Auburn, Washington, Report dated March
2004,
Hickman, 1. 1993, The Jepson manual: higher plants of California, Univ, of Cal. Press,
1400 pp,
Hitchcock, C" and A. Cronquist. 1976, Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ, of
Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, 730 pp,
Josselyn, M" M, Martindale, and 1. Duffield, 1989, Public Access and Wetlands:
Impacts of Recreational Use, California Coastal Conservancy, 56 pp,
Mann, 1. 2004, Personal communication with Mr. Jeff Mann of Apex Engineering, Inc,
regarding construction of the Kersey Way and Lift Station sanitary sewer options
for the Kersey III Preliminary Plat. March 4,2004,
May, C,W, 2000, Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of the best
available science, Kitsap County Natural Resources Department.
Memorandum, 1989, Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S, Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Army Concerning the Determination of
Mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 404 B 1 Guidelines, Effective 7
November 1989,
McMillan, A. 2000, The science of wetland buffers and its implications for the
management of wetlands, M,S, Thesis, the Evergreen State College, Olympia,
Washington, 97 pp,
Milligan, D, 1985, The ecology of avian use of urban freshwater wetlands in King
County, Washington, M,S, Thesis, Univ, of Washington, Seattle,
Mitsch, W.J, and 1. Gosselink. 1986, Wetlands, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
York. 539 pp,
Mueller-Dombois, D, and H. Ellenberg, 1974, Aims and methods of vegetation ecology,
John Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp,
Munsell Color. 2000, Munsell soil color charts, GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, NY.
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
40
Pojar, 1., and A. MacKinnon, 1994, Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington,
Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska, B,C, Ministry of Forests; B.C, Forest
Service; Research Program,
Raedeke Associates, Inc, 2004, Plants and Animals Assessment for the Kersey III
Property, Auburn, Washington, Draft EIS, May 17,2004 Report to the City of
Auburn, Washington,
Reed, p" Jr. 1988, National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9), US,D,I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88 (26,9),
89 pp,
Reed, p" Jr. 1993, 1993 Supplement to list of plant species that occur in wetlands:
Northwest (Region 9), US,D,I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Supplement to
Biological Report 88 (26,9) May 1988,
Richter, K.O, 1997, Criteria for the restoration and creation of wetland habitats of
lentic-breeding amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Pages 72-92 In MacDonald,
K.B., and F, Weinman (eds,), Wetland and riparian restoration: taking a broader
view, Contributed papers and selected abstracts, Society of Ecological
Restoration International Conference, September 14-16, 1995, University of
Washington, Seattle, Published by US Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, Seattle, Washington,
Shisler, 1., R. Jordan, and R. Wargo, 1987, Coastal Wetland Buffer Delineation, New
Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources,
Trenton, New Jersey, 102 pp,
Snyder, D" p, Gale, and R, Pringle, 1973, Soil Survey of King County area,
Washington, US,D,A. Soil Conservation Service, 100 pp,
US, Army Corps of Engineers, 1991a, Special notice, Subject: Use of the 1987
wetland delineation manual. US, Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
August 30, 1991.
US, Army Corps of Engineers, 1991b, Memorandum, Subject: Questions and answers
on the 1987 manual. US, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D,C, October
7, 1991. 7 pp, including cover letter by John p, Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch,
US, Army Corps of Engineers, 1992, Memorandum, Subject: Clarification and
interpretation of the 1987 methodology, US, Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington D,C" March 26, 1992, 4 pp, Arthur E. Williams, Major General,
U S,A. Directorate of Civil Works,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
41
US, Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, Public Notice, Subject: Washington regional
guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District.
8 pp,
US, Army Corps of Engineers, 2002, Special Public Notice, Final Regional
Conditions, 401 Water Quality Conditions, Coastal Zone Management
Consistency Responses, for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of
Engineers for the State of Washington, US, Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle
District. July 23, 2002, 138 pp,
US, Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, 1988, Auburn, 7,5 minute
quadrangle,
US,D,A. Soil Conservation Service, 1991. Hydric soils of the United States: In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, US,D,A.
Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491,
Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997, Washington state wetlands
identification and delineation manual. March 1997, Publication No, 96-94, 88
pp, plus appendices,
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, 1999b, Priority habitats and species list.
Habitat Program, July 1999, Olympia, Washington, 32 pp,
http:www,wa, gov /wdfw /hab/phsli st. htm,
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, 2003a, Habitats and Species Map,
Auburn Quadrangle and accompanying data, May 23, 2003, Habitat Program,
Olympia, Washington,
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, 2003b, Habitats and Species Map,
Sumner Quadrangle and accompanying data, February 21, 2003, Habitat
Program, Olympia, Washington,
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 2002, Forest Practices Base Map
for Section 32, Township 21 North, Range 5 East, W,M, May 13,2002,
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 2003, Letter from WDNR in
response to a request for search of the Washington Natural Heritage Program
database for priority plant species for the Kersey III site, May 12,2003,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
42
Washington State Forest Practices Board, 2000, Washington forest practices, Title 222
WAC, Forest Practices Board Manual; Chapter 76,09 RCW, Forest Practices,
Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Division,
Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1981. An illustrated guide to the endangered,
threatened and sensitive vascular plants of Washington, Olympia, Washington,
334 pp,
Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1994, Endangered, threatened, and sensitive
vascular plants of Washington, Washington Department of Natural Resources,
Olympia,
Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1997, Endangered, threatened, and sensitive
vascular plants of Washington -- with working lists ofrare non-vascular plants,
Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington, 62 pp,
Washington State Natural Heritage Program, 2002, Field Guide to Selected Rare
Vascular Plants of Washington,
http://www,wa, gov/ dnr/htdocs/fr/nhp/refdesk/fguide/htm/fsfgcntv ,htm, Last
updated March 2002,
Wentworth, T. and G, Johnson, 1986, Use of vegetation in the designation of wetlands,
Final report to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Agricultural
Service and N,C, State University, Raleigh, 107 pp,
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
FIGURES AND TABLES
, I CANADA
"'S', 'fr_ I, 1
I', J \ ........ -"", -- - - -==---=-..- ---
"r " UIiITED STATES
' , ",< " ' " '-
U!~ "~~_ '~,
',"-, ~
' \ ", ',',
- ;:, '\ \~
(~ [Jl,
, ... '-~--.~>. J
/ " '---, ~ ", ~ t>' r" -
vi- \ '\ '. ...___!
'r ' 'C' -, I
~-"\ N "\h" \--~I _ Bellingham
"-" \. ,~,) ~"-l:'r ,\Jfi!.' c(:
'..-----' .,.. .z-'j ~--",
....
II \ \,j.l .I......,
c-' } ~ Yllhaccom Co,
( r ----- ---Skagit Co. ---..----.,
,
I i ,-
'.01) ~
/, "
( I,
,I '...
V ''1 .f
i
/
~~ ----------I Sk&gil CQ I
I -----snoho~----
-
I
Cia/lam Co,
- ~-r.;ofj Co.
Snohomish Co, -
King Co,
Jefferson Co,
i- Mason Co,
~ I I
"' I
"' I
<:!;
~ I
~
l" ...
ii
C:l
'" NO RT H
~
Q>
:xc I
, '--------' ~ - '\
g King r, 1
"- -- -0
'" prGI'c-:-, ~'~" j
co '~~I- CO, --
co
"
""
-
, , " \1. ~ ',rni"',"1
' I' --, 'i'I\\ ;"", CCi:Cra! )ocatIO:1 l11 ,It.. [, '.IL",
hp:;'c i Ri..:i,:IOl1a I;t"r ;','- ",., co
~'r ',.iT/1 - r .., 30 -- I
'f 4IkQI.'R!i C.,~\lt 29
[ -" :! . . '~{.;ANF
-" !.:IlL , ,'-" .c::.-\F.""~ {-'~Ip,g
'I , C' r,.1N"f
'J,'- '"
~, (. .;,L ,.'~ Ie.. Jill 1..DU~.V{S5, ' ILl :~ ,,~~ ./ f:.1'J
r,::' ,,_ -;:., ,.' - -- f [,'iil,l,
:,L ~ :.;.. ~ :~~;~,T ':
n'" ,- ()'"
~.~ TI I
--',;',1, ----CO' ;F ~+ -~
~.'IJ'.i/I,"",':'
I" p-,- .. -:j\,(,v
.
,','1'1
I~, '.T p. ~ II ~,i 'i F'r\f:
',So L~ \1., ,\
~"
V ~ - SIT!=\
--~--
, g
1 L;
, ''''',1
. .-
31 2'.'i-'-\.-'" ,~ '
.~ ~
,1.- ",.: C.~~ } ;; 11"T'.,~
,,' I " i
, , -i,' f' ',F.
I <,.;j" ,'C:i t ~
1', .' >
"
I" li;'f r {"C . ..1 ...:;
- }\0', .~'~ - 'C
- --~\" ~~'!---'--1 ~ '~.~ ~.
,t .~;
I ,'~.. " -- .....,
I ,'.". ~, -;. " ;
, . ~, " "."','
,',;1' r 0,
" ,':-. , i'1 --
<
,I;'.' Ii/, . " TH ~'I ;:5
-~~ T :1 ~ ~ ~
-, ,~ r :-,' \----- -.......~
"J! - - , ~ '--'
" < --"-' ~
,:1 -'11 <;,' <
" -- ,- .'
'''"
,.- ~--- ~( ;;~ -~-
> -~ "
'" .j'l
" F;IER(:;F
a \~;, '. 1 i~:,.'I" 1;.1 =:"
J, e'
., I,~. ~
E ' ~ (, (--1/ J lJ T \,/
" "
'" 6 l (, )~. ,
<:( .1 J -' ';..__ "f.:J' .' ~
'0 ',,"~.~ ,. ~ c, .-
'" '~ ", /' J"_ L
.!!!
~ I'~\, " ~
S2 -
l1J .':_1
a " ------ "-0 ----~~- -
~
LI
.. "
=, ' .1-
e. ~I"l x ;-':'
'9 ;-- <
- I~" ,. ,- I
'" ,-' ~ I
~ [1 _
8 -C '1~1' . '1/. ,'l ,.-.
~ i;,,-',U[\:H~ - -, ,- .~- ')
C, 1,
\ .- -=../ "
Figure 2, Vicinity map for the study area, "Reproduced \l,itl1 permission granted
by Thomas Bros, Maps, This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros
Maps, and it is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof,
whether for personal use or resale, without permiSSlOl1,"
...,.',.\. .~
~~,~! 1, ,:J~' ~;t, "... ~ ,,~~LC'CC~'-,"
,;--- .~I
.:'-J " ~
-- " ~ """-
:1 t .~ . "." '~;I;[~ ." ":'
o~ I
- - ~ '-'~~ --=-, -- ---=:~--
1 ,
-, 'i
I,; ~~i ~I-~ ~~__ . p
""t
I ~ - ~ ~;~~I .~~ _ _
: ,~:~;'~
] l~c-~-~~;;;~, . ...~:
,,"=', ~A"-'J~
":: ~ ..Up !' vn ,~' c ..~
'.'t.~-t ... - '.'.' ..,~. ,.. ., C_,~)._._j':-,,:,~
:', 1 " =$"'" ,~..~, .. ,
!t1 I [.::J V. . . ." .
::< ,1 . ..- " -- ,-;' ' '-..
";1' , ".;,. \ -... rueHl<.f'
,:'~ JZU5C,;' ';, .,,,~iF~~~~., _.,' '.' ,
'1,'(,. \0",. :',L' f'
:~f ..' '--'., _ ( "\"~';'\~,-'G0~~:; :0- ' pssc~'1 . ",
, ',' ...'_~ ,::...,., i" :', /, " - ~ ' ftMC I ,;
~'!n' . ' pC'., - , ,oG' .. --=-.
~ I".. ' ~7UBH /
~ ~-:~~: "j '~_'__ ,:~.': .__. ~~t., r~._., ,~I<
- ,:~i ;:~ ' SITE -7 ~""'-- '<'. : /-.. '
10 .. "'j , 'Q."f!C'~'" -... -:-; ~~c'n'~' ~:.';, _~ ~ _ .
""1'" r"'''~ '..' ..' .~_. '-"-~'--.'
~'. "talc;;:, '.. "-n' '~\,~<< . .,... __..' " , ..' , ,
"'..e.,.... .' 'I ~R4S~ ."".fEMet f\ , '
,::gPS5C'~r (., ,,;c:,'\.,".', \,. 1 "::'''':l'91C...----cv , !'fIX
~ <I ',1,/1 ;"!"l /~) ':. ';\I..j.1 '':.',
~, '~I?~C: o" . -", II PuBtj I
! ~!: '~~~~~\_ ~,- \ \ - -~_': ":" , .u _ .. ~___ =_~
or MSac; ,.':': , ....
-",;~,' N~H 1t-rSSA~L1lll'>l-\,
~. \r'pssc. .. ; LL=\', fOOKh~
- - -- - _ __ __ ,_. _ _'- ._. .._.M. 'n __ _ ,.
Figure ], U,S, Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory ( 1988/ map t()j' th\..'
project area, See Tanlc 2 f()r a key to the mapping symbols,
,....., ... -"'-", .u-.J1~ ~ ~).. --.....= _ I _...;r.; "<'\ j"I" ".~
[ ~ . -, 1 . '-I ~ "" "~' ,,- - / :, '~~- t I 'i' ,..., \ \'
.c: T ~-:, ....,:.~-,. ,_~I" (, ~''1'" X"- '. ~ -----;,h = '~ )1 I...
~- ,- ~ =-~~ -,,' -'_J '- r' r.----.., - ' _'0' '. r :.CJ' \, _. \ _,,--';":)
~ ~ 1_-= _ IJ ...... -............... ~ j -.i~.;:- .~ _' - J t"( =-- -i.:j ".:~, \,- ". / ~
'~i l~ 'I \. '-.~-';:'ft)IC ", , , ' C'I ~ "" I ,.~'...."
. ::r~ '-'L Ii = : - --L I, -,';' , <'~ ,I '" 1;.,= _ 'I =~ = " ~' ~ '
: . ,I I,. ,- \ '- <,q 'n ~':"""'" fl "---='-;-" I ~,r ',de -'11"-" , ~
~ , -~ .' .,. . - ~,h" li_,' '~" ',' 1 "-;
" "', J ,.~ 1 , " , ' \:..' " '~~"'B = '" -" ~ ...~, , :'~F ,,' -.......;
i":;r'~:n""-,':< .:T.>:=--:'-:~ ~=-I '~~~., ~:-_~~! r~E~1~:-~'
~;!1~ '~-__'-:!,~:':'...~I:~~,,~: ~,~_~_' 'S:,;~~7 ~r_.- ': v ,._~:'<\.~~~~, I ",:," r'i~, ,~,.~:
~ -- . '111 = cfil t '/ 'I - ,,~ "jJf.:l -, ~..it. ;, /.:--"'/.of"\..
...""" : c.. ~ =---=--=----~ c , - - .,~I)I./ I' . II -- . / .. !.::'T'-- .. ; }"'~
~" --:--.. ;', I ~","l_,__ 'l ~-./i,' ,k...! \ "!,I U ..~~ l,k " _',B '.. ".-=-'= ~
""'--- '.. ,... 'L=--~~' - L L--- :-.- ~"<'" - >- ", -_,-:---
~~=. ;;-*.-;,,---0, ;;-'jT ',~ ~..f ~ ~'Y" \ ..,,__~ I' L~i(! , , i., ,.... ,- ~,c~ -7, '
i -~ ... ~'.~" -=-- '. ' :,.u.: -='. --'- ~ I I.~:~ ~ /_~z'('. '\ 1-- -i- ~'A
;J '];:-'C_ - ,:n--,:4 ,---=- ,...- '-- , y;'~~ "'__ '-....::.",. .. y/ ~ -7,
= ',:'.~" ,//,:,1; ;':~i "L' ., - ..~ ,I'. ' .;/' ;-~ __J=-i_-::. -~ ' ',' ~. "_~< r"!
,.,,:1.1 __, 'I il\-~ f..J-~'_~ = 'r' >:~ 0 -=,,' 1 _0_ ~~' ,''-
Jti=.' . "'~""-< ~- ;-:11' /",'''''' "',
. ~ . 1l :11" -r. ~, =-= I ~, .I) /' _ ,_
. ~;oI~ ~.: ~ . -...; ,..~ 'I-r--." _ _----!..___~ I ~...~ = /~'\~ 1\ :. I ~,I :
0:=='- "';-;:"';~','J0lJ"''-'-~I~~ .-'" ~,tJ j/;r "',:, !. '" ':--~-
~ '~ ,~, ~ ....P '~'~.;:~=- - ~S;2~/ .. ' , -";; 'T~-'~~ ~\ ,
,I " . ' . ~..o"'--=- / I "_ /' '
l.'<': - c;;~.~._~ ~~._> ',: ~. ,,)!~:~ " --, ee, ',' 'i' < . ",'.: >-;~~
., ..~, ~4'11:.- ~ ~ ~- ,~
I ~~ -.:0-= ~..;:'~ . =- - - ,~~.~ . i:" .... /
. . "'" - .... r'''- t ,r-..... ....-\
",' l:.:' Y'~'_.' ", '.. /.: "I /\)" '/ ~II
,~~.. ,- --..' ..o ~'~~ ...... J '
-,~~-~-->, - ," - ~ /, '"' . ~'~
) -','1 ?': _~~~-;,;_~:::~,:-<---:----.~::.\---I__'~.:' // Jtr: 1''''-''
..., -,' - ~, =.-o-~ ',/ \. " L,- . I \, \ I
-r J:-~~~~~~L ':01 ~ ,'/ ;!~L,.FJ ~~J- . /~ . \
~'..., / ad ?J.~!..,~, ~~.,.~ ", ':--...o ,-f: ' ~ ~~, 'I' "'~'': ,\ '"
;:, '(;' T"> "1" '~.../ /C l ~ ~
:J' ,-, . D ...o I..- :""-- "r, ','_ ~.,
"~ '\'''~ ".
",~ J" - 'd. '-.. J -" ~ t { .
-',~ ~- ,J/~:~__.":,-__~--,:,',::, ",,"~-~~-{':=-_-____~-:m(,:L___~__'\._,~ _..~{,_~ ~~
) i n ,".. " .o- ~ \ '
'",- I . - I! ,I \, r."" - EvO ... '__
"~, , . ,':. t'! \'., \.7.'....".'\ .... '.;::-"c "., . ["~.' ..... ' ....." , ~ , -.,A~'
J" L l" \ I \ I ~
"', I \" J \" \ I , " 13 .J \
~ '" "", \ J LV< ,
\ '~I \,..,'.:.~':'\:~ \\ j r ~"\ \,
\ ~' \.~ --- \~ \ I ~
l' '\-'. ,....' , . .'. .---:'." \. '.' '.. I L_h
"\ I '- \'."'-:::.. '<.. ._ _ _ - - . ) ,',_. "..)_
jl"rrE~ \,:>-,}: ..07,. ..~\~ . .. ". /5 . ,\
(=,:: \\ : \; , ". - t, ~" "\-:' . " '// " ,
'\. ' \ '. \FvD ," .~ , -,'.,
, \.- , \ -\ ' ". ,{ ,~ ( I: " '
31 .,c \. 1 ~, \ 32~ ,; , I" '?"-:"''-'' "-33 '~
~ '... ., ,Q -"~ ~ I r
J. t.,iC :". . ,\.. ~ :.. \~. ~*:, riJ'\ "E,~, ~.: / __ .', =, :i"a/"\I~./
~,. ~', .. '- \ I .' _ ;:'--0" , ,A I
"'. '~"-'-".'.'. ,,- c\, - '\y[ V A,.C ,-,--.~, .~'~) ,," ,V, ~T;l' J
::. ::1 -., ".~--- ';'. '_ .. i""---""'t--.. :0-......., /" " /..... . J. ~ \ .
'" ~ \'" !, ' , ,', , A (' '/--- - -i, L::.... - .\. r
~ Il..:- '-11 . ~ -. ~ . \ . ~_~.=- :.~- . ,... ~-_=.::;;;:::tll r.-'---"i;::-=---=. ...~
't:i ., '. \1, ...:t ~ '"\~JD ~'l." ". ~ ..~. > jJI,' J-'-'"
".'\'. SITE' . "" ~". 'I .' :
~ '. ", J , --, 1 "" ,
~ ::':. ,. \,1..' \ \ . ~: ' ~:~ . \ :
S , . . \'. .. ) I\JC \ : ' , ' , .- " :'. I' , '-"
~ I -.' ',t 1 \ I '.,5.'-\
~-_--,:'" ---~_ i ,(, :r'>.;r; r (\. ~\~---___~_~L---!
~ " PIEt-~C'[', <:0 , I' ......'
25,' }',;.JO " .-i
~ ... .. 11
~ .~
; _ '. ~. . h.------:--_-;.;:::.=.......;_ -
'" ..A. 5,' -< '--'T7.='li 4-
8 -...:. .... 1,'( .:
~ NORTH -' 'I<, ~';I
!l~".J._~ '..~~.~~..,~~L': ."L :",.' ~
Figure 4. U,S,D.A Soil Conservation Servkc Soil Sune\' map 1(,))' the project area
(D,I:. Snyder et al. 19731,
- I', ,"", [ r - I' n .', i', T I ,'" I IE'."') 11- -- ~ I '~ '1
I UK J ~ j" D, I Iv l ,", "\ 1,1 I \1 { , - lvi', I'
\ ,~' \ v ~ ,~ I, .~, L
~) I/i ~0 ') ,-I I ,U ) I ~! 0 F j H ~'A N CE o 5 [~ S 1 ( VI M '\ ~~E';riON J i
\ )
~PPLIC,\,fli]N iI
f
.",,,~,,,-
'+ /'-~
.':::==-----
1~"li~l~ '
~~~ I \' I. -
I \
,Ii i I
~ I' I i
I
I 0
I /~
I
tE I If' J! fE
3ezoo~ II
0 ,7 3820 \;
I J'
,
J
i
i ..- I
I ,/
-- I
7
j.
If
\~,
3J !!J 1
3SC6 }80e~D I
I
Ii I
'\
II
j/ "<" I I
SITE ii I
'\ I \
II '~:...
'\,
,I \.
.~ "
.~ 1
I r ,I
EEl I ff: fl II EfJ I~
J
.,. , ,
'"
.f>
t; [I 1[0\) iOc~ :;X,Q 4C0J 5:.'t~.
'" ,
"' ~~,'I----r. '~ , ' ". " . .......... ',', -.1 ~.... " '. .::-,..... , ~
""
3< 1:.Ei I i.lir
~
~ ';,: ~;'~, :"i;~.,~::C,;":':~~n,:: ",;:::;,;:,:";,~~;~";, :1;::~~ !~: :~~
[f)
i1 ~ ;1:0 l fI . I (I.': ~ i!' I ~ -J~(-.:! /11.:;1'
C - -
'" I ~~.~~~t~~!~~~:~~; .~:t;. ~ ~ Vi, I ~ "')~, -:- I (~~~~~;~~;~6~ ;);.!~~ ~,1~~ l...(!~ r~\!: !Ie',' 1; ~(,~;
,., f' I " ~ I ~
:l\ ;"!i; ~ ~; 7
:;; 11.::lQ ;:.f~ I,.,~.I-'"I~: :j('1~
"
0:5(:'4 ~l:( '" ',:~ c 11"
2 H'r.,' nj~.,i]~ r-r ~p~1 1:~ I~ Ir~ ~I~: I( H,l 1)/,
N
5'
a
'"
N
.. Figul-e ), Washington Department of Natural Resources (2002) Forest Practice
j\,lap !()f the rroj~ct area, See Table Ji()r a key 10 water types,
..., z - - >< - >< r- - r- L..I r- L..I en :J :J>- .... w r::a C VI U
W _0 W 0 W 0 ene> enw enw C Can C LL W <('" rJ)
..., I-:!: C ... C ... :JO:: :J> :J> en :J w'" rJ)
W 0. wo. <c -N w Z <c :r:~
o !:!2r::a ...JW ...J<c ...J<c 0 O. ~ 0:: 0:: f-<Xl <(
0:: >< C <c 0. <co. <c> <cw <cw 0:: w wan 0 :I: a:,),
ll. W_ o::~ o::~ ll.W ll....J ll....J e> C C=. :!: 0 en 0'" w
ZLD :::,:::
<0 w
>1 ~ ~ 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ '" W
~: ',' ~ A ~ U) 0 ['-..~ <(
~ LD 0::::
I .', I \ W U) LL ~'O'O EuU)
D.. D.. D.. C)LLLL LL LL
lVI1N3C1S3~ A1ISN30 MOl
I ------------------------
,
, I
I 4.
,
, ~~
I I
, , t-/
, ,
I I 12
,
, ~
I I
, ,
, ,
I I
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
~---1-----------
,
,
I
,
,
I
r------ "" "
-----
,
,
I
,
,
I
3:
0
...J
C
W
I-
en
w
0::
0
LL
C
IIi ~ wow 0 c.. C ~ ~
""') ~ Co.. Co.. w w w~ <.n
0_ we.. we.. w <C I;;; <c
0::: >< <C<c <C<c I- 0:::tJ::1
c.. w 0:::- 0:::- UJ O~ W
ZLD y::
~ W
>- I ~'41 ^ .,~~., :::: ~ 8
w . ' , 1\ r--- ~ <c
~ . I \ LD 0::::
I' I \ I ~
" ..
..~~I
lVll.N3C1S3}J Al.ISN3C MOl
i .~. .-..-.. -.. -.. - ..-..-. .-. ~ 1ft~~~\ \!,!C[11fll~!,~.
i ! ~ ~~~ I ~ ' ~~<<1~)~~~.~~ l/;\)~ < ",
I I ~\.: / / ',."", ,/\, '..,.,.,. /, ; ,;:::, /~
, , Ii', o/j..T7c, eu3/ 7~! . ,uuu
, ,@, 1/ , ,,f' "'" ,'" .. / ..':!~ \ i ~ 1 uu/
I ~/~ II , ,/ ,..'.... /;Y/,t.""""" / i '. c .j, "~ '~
, d! III 1\""1M' .7'~ i": / b7\V ,0
, ""-.;;;; CC 'ff/ . , . r; /~~, p'm
I /~'//// ',"-------. > ' ' . -r-::;I,s; /~( !mu
: /:J~//, .', '---T'VI1ZY/~/)h(f
I r. #, ~ ':r VYY1}1// /" ~ ,/)
: ; f(1 ~ ~ ~" ~ iI/:fJL( (li ~ '~L
i ~ III II/I! . h'~'\! ., I ;'1' !\ h . . . .='i -.
i \ !~~~ rj II '", ' '. \', \~~2\! I" "~~N . j ...J
, ' /~~ / '\ ~ ,I it · ~
~__________'~ ~,~\\ ~~\\\'\\, '~17 '\': I " c, . i ~
I '(~~ · .---- · ~\ \ 'f\:s '\ 1 · w
i ....~~ ~. ~ff-'r \ ,I / /Cyi~ 'vJ
x ~ ~ \ \\~\\ I(c! '(0 IjhJVY '(V~ Z
/ .- . ~ ~ s\\\\\\~ ,\,'~', ~j:~I~r \ n (\ i ~
:~~ ~\ \\~S II \\\\ct ~.~~~ ,~~
l't\2 f!}; A7~~/((~~,~ II \\~ ~.~~~ "~roiR~n~~
~'~ \ ~~-~~__---:C\'~~~~ ~ \\ \0 \ ~~~' (t~h-~
C ~ /: ': /' '~-- -" / " ~~:fI '\ ~ ~ '~ !\
~ IV UI ',~-- - , ~~'...( ~ '> \<, ~ ,,\ IX\ S'S I\J,-,'1: :' \ }~( ~'~ ' 1i\
UJ i'J'~ '~t~{( _~\ !; ~ '\; t; lx\ \ X\X ~:\.\;, i ..
C ,//1// ~' ~ 0--' . ~~ -<:",0-" (\~\-\' /\;- ~\ ~\; I' l
w ~ ~ ~~\~... ," -~ -~~" '" '~~\\'~~~\L'~'0::\
~ ~~0~ \~\,,~r;,~X ~ ~ --;\ "Iv,; 8h\~\2~'~ '~'!,
...J ~v ~ '0A ~"'-~... ','-- '-' # ~ I~\n~
W -;;,7 , ' VI/f- ~~""'" -_ - /S4;;>, ~ ~ ':A' '~~
> ~ ',YY ~ JI / ~)\"\f--.::- ~.~ ~,~ \) ~,'''X "''''-''''.:i~'~
IIi ~ wow 0 c.. C ~ ~
""') ~ Co.. Co.. w w w~ <.n
0_ we.. we.. w <C I;;; <c
0::: >< <C<c <C<c I- 0:::tJ::1
c.. w 0:::- 0:::- UJ O~ W
ZLD y::
I ~ w
>- ~'41 ^ .'~~" :::: ~ 8
w . ' , 1\ r--- ~ <c
~ . I \ LD 0::::
I' I \ I ~
" ..
,~~I
lVll.N3C1S3}J Al.ISN3C MOl
I---------------------------------Irf;/~ I ~ ~ ~
--:~ \ I I I I
I ~~ I I I 1::-------------
, I ~~xi ~:~
1 1 ~~. ~ ;r : ~;=/
: : A. /_ 11 I ~ ' ;;.-- 1~ II' "
1 1 ~\.. '/ / /i ' ~\, -~
, , ~~'(~/' ~ '. ~--';:= '_m
I I v' ,:/ ' ---=--"--~ :~ I
I ~ /, ~ 'II. "&''/.I ~ ' , .--i , " ~' ~
, l:A/ III '}\ Jm ~~" .::h m7,v-7-, 0
I' /...;/// , /y'/f:/ y '" ,I~J/~~~ ,Vn
'1 , / )A?~~~~//i ,
' /...7///' , ' ~ n___
, /.11 'l ,'~' ' /
1 . # Y/ '" , ~. ~ i , : :: ~ ~ '_m_
i IffJifff4". ,11. ., , ~~. ~.~'t,p~~ .....
, : l@ ~,~~ ~~;~'j w:;;77 1/:) ,
' ,', ~ '0' '// ( ,"1 '(
I \v " , , ,.
I I I I I
I ""':\ I I I \
I I" : : : i : 1\ \
i \J"- .~. . r! ' IlL. II.i
: /!!Wfr7fffr /1/;;;)11 ! :' :. :; '\ ::1 (ir=t~i1i , ,-; -- -:---
) / - - I I I I ' \ II I ~ I I I I I
I !.~~ ~ ' , ' " ,~, ',l ' . ::\ v::' r : ~'_n
I: \?:! r/ II - -JI~ _ _i n_}'~~ \ I'~'- \~x' '~!'~',,~ '<T~: n-,i ..J
, / 1-m ~ ' ffJ '-\ \.. \J .'i\\ \ n I. \ : \ ", \. <C
L-n__n_1 ,~~!u_'h\jz\\~~~\;. . ~J}L 11\\. ~ I i r i ~
! I /~~ -. ,;(i\\~;. II:\.. I : J(. W
!. ;~~ ::: ~~~~W0: II;, ,j e)~-)-~I~~(!,--(1:.,i ~))!";1)~N~~=~n/r~ ~
I CLl\ II:'! 11 ;: / /'! 'I' ~ >-
, \ \ ,I, II' / "/' ~y l-
II CO \\~\F \\~\\\\\\~\\\\ ~'/~ c./ .\/\\ ---j~\-,!~ ~---~ ~
.: IV ;Wr \\~~ \\ \\.,\\ \W\\.\ if ~\ /(\~ ~\~-, \, , : ~ ..J
,~ij \\~CLl \\ \\\\\\\)i r\<.,,~ ~'>(,' : : ~l\,~~
L;;: ~~~ :(i ~ I~ \ ~. . ~ ,\;4' ~~:~
, \ '<-~-- -- -:~, . ~ :& \\ ~\0 ~ ~~~' *~If1-",--
UJ I\, ,,-/ ~ /;;;j\.\:~ - , " ~'~, 0. '\ ,'\ "~~ ~ \' \ ' '---..
W ... ....- . . :-.. " \ . / I " \ \:\ {I\, I I \ \ ! I I
rt -LL. .. "" /~- --... \ \ 'j \ \~ I I \ \ ./ I I,
~ ~" II ~ ~\~'~:\}" '\\\~ .-,~=/L~0Ii\\~-;0iN.
W .... ~ "', ~<~. c .~~ " :\ '" ',",.' " '. 0:--
~ ~~~~-'~~~,~;,~-;(.,"'~ -~""';', /1,,- ~'- ~~',:~~-"-.'--",'~-,-,:!I---..
..J ~V~ \. '. \"XA~~~'-."" /,i)-c'. 0:~ 1\\
w 7 \' '. " ... ~I/tzt~~" '--~ ~# ;~J~, ~ ~~~ ,~- I~~~
> ~ ' \ ',-Y'?V ct---... J/ / A"'-"i'~ =.~ I ~ ~1f\'\t ~"~ "'-"'-~~,~
52
Table 1. List of aerial photographs used in previous and current studies of the proj ect
site,
Agency Date Type 1 Scale
Wash, Dept. Natural Resources (NW-95) 1995 B&W 1" = 1,000'
Wash, Dept. of Natural Resources (NW-C-2001) 2001 Color 1" = 1,000'
1 B&W = black and white photograph
Color = color photograph
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
53
Table 2, Partial Key to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Inventory
Maps (Cowardin et al. 1992),
Symbol Classification
R4SBC Riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally flooded wetland
R3UBH Riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded
wetland
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
54
Table 3, Summary of definitions of water types found on Washington Department of
Natural Resources Forest Practice Base Maps (source of definitions:
Washington State Forest Practices Board 2000),
Type Definition
1 All waters, within their ordinary high-water mark, as inventoried as "shorelines of
the state" under chapter 90,58 RCW,
2 All segments of natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated
wetlands, which are not classified as Type 1 Waters, and have a high fish, wildlife,
or human use, including use for or by:
(a) Domestic water supplies (>100 units), including 1,500 ft. upstream;
(b) Fish hatcheries, including 1,500 ft. upstream if significant for water quality;
(c) Campgrounds (>30 units);
(d) Substantial numbers of fish for spawning, rearing, or migration or wildlife;
(i) Stream segments having a defined channel 20 feet or greater within the
bankfull width and having a gradient of less than 4 percent.
(ii) Lakes, ponds, or impoundments having a surface area of 1 acre or
greater a seasonal low water
(e) Salmonids for off-channel habitat. This habitat shall be identified based on
the following criteria:
(i) The site must be connected to a stream bearing salmonids and
accessible during some period of the year, and
(ii) The off channel water must be accessible to juvenile salmonids
through a drainage with less than a 5% gradient
3 All segments of natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated
wetlands that are not classified as Type 1 or 2 and have moderate to slight use for:
(a) Domestic water supplies (>10 units), including 1,500 ft. upstream;
(b) Significant numbers of fish for spawning, rearing, or migration, The
requirements for fish use are described in the board manual section 13, If fish
use has not been determined:
(i) Waters presumed to have significant anadromous or resident game fish
use:
(A) stream segments having a defined channel of~2 ft. in width
within the bankfull width in W, Wash, (::3 ft in E. Wash,); and
having a gradient of 16 percent or less;
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
55
Table 3, continued
Type Definition
(B) stream segments having a defined channel 2:2 ft. within the
bankfull width in W, Wash, (2:3 ft. in E. Wash,), with a gradient
of> 16 and <0r=20 percent, and 2:50 acres contributing basin in
W, Wash, (2:175 ac, in E. Wash,) based on hydrographic
boundaries;
(C) ponds or impoundments having a surface area ofless than 1 acre
at seasonal low water and having an outlet to a fish stream;
(D) ponds or impoundments having a surface area greater than 0,5
acre at seasonal low water
(ii) Dept. shall waive or modify characteristics in (i) above where:
(A) water quality confirmed to be incapable of supporting such fish;
(B) flow cycle of stream is too short to support life history phases of
such fish (i,e" snowmelt streams with no typical winter flow and
dry by June 1); or departure from criteria in (i) as determined in
consultation with WDFW, WDOE, affected tribes, and interested
parties,
4 All segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined channels that
are not Type 1,2, or 3 Waters and which are perennial waters of non- fish-bearing
streams, Perennial waters means waters downstream from a perennial initiation
point.
5 All segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined channels that
are not Type 1,2, or 3 Waters and which are seasonal non-fish-bearing streams,
"Seasonal stream" means those streams that are not perennial but are physically
connected to downstream waters so that water or sediment initially delivered to
these waters may eventually be delivered to a Type 1,2,3, or 4 Water.
Kersey III - Wetland Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc,
Draft EIS May 17, 2004
APPENDIX A
Methodology
A-2
A.I Plant Community Description and Classification Methods
Qualitative and quantitative indicators are used to determine whether hydrophytic
vegetation is present on a particular site, Each of the plant communities on the Kersey III
property are classified according to the predominant vegetative growth form, and in some
cases, substrate material, flooding regime, and/or land use, Wetland communities are
classified according to Cowardin et al. (1992), while upland communities are classified
according to Anderson et al. (1976),
The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987)
defines hydrophytic vegetation as "the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in
areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce
permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling
influence on the plant species present" (Environmental Laboratory 1987: 16),
Specifically, "hydrophytic vegetation is prevalent in an area when the dominant species
comprising the plant community or communities are typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions" (Environmental Laboratory 1987: 17),
In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when "more than 50 percent of the
dominant species are OBL, F ACW, or F AC [as defined below] on lists of plants species
that occur in wetlands" (Environmental Laboratory 1987: 19), Other indicators of
hydrophytic vegetation include visual observation of plant species growing in areas of
prolonged inundation and/or soil saturation, morphological adaptations of vegetation,
technical literature, physiological and reproductive vegetation adaptations,
In order to determine the dominant vegetation in an area, vegetation communities are
described and classified using the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance "plotless" sampling
methodology as outlined in Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974; Table AI),
According to this methodology, a vegetated area is divided into one or more
homogeneous cover types, For each cover type, plant species composition and cover are
recorded based on "plotless" sampling, Table Al contains a key to the Braun-Blanquet
cover scale, Scientific and common nomenclature of vegetation follows Hitchcock and
Cronquist (1976), as updated by Pojar and MacKinnon (1994) and Hickman (1993),
Each species within the cover type is assigned a wetland indicator status (WIS) rating as
established by Reed (1988, 1993), Wetland indicator status ratings were developed in
order to segregate species into "ecological groups," Each group contains species with
similar probabilities of occurrence in wetlands or similar abilities to withstand saturated
soil conditions, Plants are rated, from highest to lowest probability of occurrence in
wetlands, as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (F ACW), facultative (F AC), facultative
upland (FACU), and upland (UPL) , Table A2 contains a detailed key to the wetland
indicator status categories, Plant species not listed in Reed (1988, 1993) are rated upland
by default.
Two quantitative indices are used to analyze vegetation data in order to determine if the
plant community meets the definition of "hydrophytic vegetation," The first index
represents the percentage of dominant species with a WIS rating of facultative or wetter.
A species with a cover class value of 2 (5-25% canopy cover) or greater on the Braun-
Blanquet scale is considered a dominant.
A - 3
The second vegetation index is a weighted mean of the WIS ratings, This weighted mean
index (WMI) calculates the average WIS rating of all species in the plot by weighting
each species based upon its relative cover. The WMI is a measure of the plant
community's adaptation to saturated soil conditions (Wentworth and Johnson 1986), The
WMI provides an objective parameter for determining whether a plant community is
indicative of wetland or upland conditions, Ideally, the "breakpoint" between wetland
and upland vegetation is a weighted mean index of 3,0, with wetland vegetation
characteristics indicated by a WMI less than 3,0 and upland vegetation characteristics
indicated by a WMI greater than 3,0, When the weighted mean index is near 3,0,
however, vegetation may not clearly indicate whether an area is wetland or upland, In
such cases, soil and hydrologic conditions must be carefully considered, As the weighted
mean index of a plant community or plot approaches either extreme on the scale (i,e,
approaching 1 or 5), however, the probability of the vegetation indicating either wetland
or upland increases (see Figure AI), Wentworth and Johnson (1986) confirmed the
effectiveness of this methodology for a wide variety of plant communities in different
regions of the United States,
The following example illustrates the calculation of the two indices, Table A3 contains
an example of a calculation in the format contained within the text of Appendix B of our
report,
1, Calculation of the percent of the dominant species that are rated facultative
(F AC) or wetter:
% F AC or wetter species = y/x * 100
Where,
x = the total number of dominant species, Dominant species are defined
as species with a cover class of 2 or greater according to the Braun-
Blanquet methodology,
y = the number of dominant species that have WIS ratings ofFAC or
wetter,
2, Calculation of the weighted mean index (WMI):
For the calculation of the WMI, each Braun-Blanquet cover value is converted to
the mid-point of the cover class, and the WIS ratings are converted to numerical
values, The calculation is done according to the following formula:
WMI= sum of (CCM * WIS)
sum of (CCM)
where,
CCM = percent cover class midpoint for each species,
WIS = wetland indicator status rating for each species,
A-4
The 1987 manual requires only an analysis of vegetation dominance, If the proportion of
dominant plant species rated F AC or wetter is greater than 50%, the vegetation
community is considered hydrophytic, Although a WMI is calculated for each vegetation
community in this report, the determination of the presence of hydrophytic vegetation
according to the 1987 methodology is based solely on vegetation dominance values,
A.2 Soil Description and Classification Methods
Hydric soils are classified by examining soil morphology, Soils are described by using
exposed profiles within pits or by examining soils obtained from boreholes, Other
observations such as topography and degree of disturbance (i,e, filling and/or grading)
are also recorded, In order to determine the variation and distribution of soils, boreholes
are dug throughout the study area, In addition to the field investigation, U.S, Soil
Conservation Service Soil Survey reports and maps are examined to determine the soil
mapping unites) for the study area,
Soil color is based on three spectral variables: hue (the dominant spectral color), value
(the relative brightness of color) and chroma (the purity of color) (Buol et al. 1980),
Alphanumeric values are assigned to these spectral variables using the notation of the
Munsell Color System (Munsell Color 2000),
Soils are examined for hydric soil characteristics within the upper 20 inches of the
profile, Hydric soil indicators include, but are not limited to, 1) gley conditions,
2) mottling in a low chroma matrix, 3) histic soils, and 4) saturated or inundated
conditions,
Gley conditions are the presence of gray, greenish gray, or bluish colors in the soil. Gley
conditions indicate that iron in the soil has been leached or occurs only in reduced form
because soil conditions have been anaerobic for a considerable amount of time,
Mottling in a low chroma matrix is the occurrence of "spots" of contrasting soil colors
within the soil matrix, Low chroma is defined as having a chroma less than or equal to 2,
according to standard Munsell notation, and indicates colors oflow purity (i,e, gray
colors), The presence of mottles in a low chroma matrix indicates alternating oxidized
and reduced conditions as occurs with fluctuating saturated and unsaturated soil
conditions,
A histic soil is a soil primarily composed of organic material. In most cases, organic
soils are indicators of very poorly to poorly drained conditions, Histic soils typically
develop on-sites with nearly constant saturation because under such anaerobic conditions
plant materials decay slowly,
Saturated or inundated soil conditions are often indicators of hydric soils; however,
recent weather conditions must be taken into account. Intense rates of precipitation or
constant precipitation over a period of time can produce saturated or inundated conditions
in an otherwise non-hydric soil.
While hydric soil morphology can be an indicator of wetland soil, it may not define an
area as wetland, Artificially drained hydric soils may exhibit hydric morphology, but no
longer be flooded or saturated for sufficient time to favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation, Therefore, these areas would no longer be classified as wetland
(Cowardin et al. 1992; Environmental Laboratory 1987),
A - 5
Conversely, a soil may be subjected to saturated or flooded conditions for a sufficient
period of time to favor the growth of hydrophytic vegetation, yet lack "typical" hydric
soil morphology, This phenomena occurs commonly in young or poorly developed soils,
Examples of soils lacking hydric morphology, yet meeting the hydric soil definition,
include poorly drained recent deposits such as sand bars, poorly drained minesoils, or
other recently disturbed soils, Certain soil materials can also "mask" the usual
morphological indicators of poorly drained conditions,
Soil morphology is an indicator of environmental conditions under which the soil
developed; however, its morphology may not reflect present environmental conditions,
Careful observation of soil morphology in association with vegetation, topography, and
hydrology is needed especially when soils are young or disturbed,
A.3 Characterization of Hydrology
The importance of water to the existence of wetlands is clearly stated in the Corps of
Engineers (COE) definition of wetlands as:
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions (Federal Register 1986:41251),
Wetland hydrology, the primary determinant for the development of hydric soils and
hydrophytic vegetation, is the most critical factor for wetland formation, Without
wetland hydrology an area cannot be classified as a wetland, "Wetland hydrology"
describes the hydrological characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated, or have
soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season of the prevalent
vegetation (Environmental Laboratory 1987),
Topography and soil properties are the primary factors controlling local hydrology,
Wetland hydrology exists because 1) topography directs water towards or impedes water
flow out of an area, 2) soil conditions restrict drainage, or 3) both topographic and soil
conditions favor wetland hydrology, Therefore, observations of topography and soil
properties are a necessary part of any wetland determination,
Indicators of wetland hydrology include both recorded and field data, Recorded data
typically include stream, lake, and tidal gage records of the COE, US, Geological Survey
(USGS), state, county, and/or local governments, Field data typically include visual
observations of inundation, soil saturation, watermarks, driftlines, sediment deposits, and
drainage patterns (Environmental Laboratory 1987),
In order for an area to have wetland hydrology according to the 1987 manual, soils must
be saturated within a major portion of the vegetation rooting zone (usually within 12
inches of the surface) for at least 5% of the growing season (US, Army Corps of
Engineers 1991b, 1992; see Table A.4), The growing season is defined as "the portion of
the year when soil temperatures are above biological zero (41 degrees F), In the absence
of soil temperature data, growing season length is estimated from climatological data
provided by most US,D,A. Soil Conservation Service county soil surveys, Growing
season starting and ending dates are determined based on the "28 degree F or lower"
temperature threshold at a 50 percent annual (i,e, "5 years in 10") frequency (US, Army
Corps of Engineers 1992),
A- 6
For example, the growing season as recorded at Everett, Snohomish County, Washington
begins on March 13 and ends on November 20, Thus, the growing season is 251 days
long, Five percent of the growing season (251 days) is 13 days, Therefore, soils at
locations near Everett must be saturated in the major portion of the vegetation rooting
zone for 13 consecutive days between March 13 and November 20 in order to exhibit
wetland hydrology according to the 1987 manual. Since the climate in this region is
generally cool and wet in the winter and warm and dry in the summer, soils are generally
wettest (and therefore most likely to meet the wetland hydrology criteria) during the 13-
day period between March 13 and March 26,
Inundation or soil saturation are the most direct evidence of wetland hydrology;
however, these observations must be considered in context with prevailing weather
conditions, Saturation does not necessarily indicate wetland hydrology because even a
well drained soil may have ponded or saturated conditions when the rate of precipitation
exceeds the infiltration rate of water in the soil. In most cases, however, saturated soil
conditions associated with hydric soil morphology form a reasonable indicator of wetland
hydrology,
Because of the seasonal nature of precipitation in the Pacific Northwest, positive
indicators of wetland hydrology (i,e, saturation) may not be present during all seasons of
the year. In addition, the hydrology of many wetland systems has been altered through
agricultural and construction practices such as ditching, diking, groundwater withdrawal,
surface water diversion, excavation, placement of fill material, soil compaction, and
removal of vegetation, These activities can make the evaluation of wetland hydrology
difficult, and may require the use of more intensive field evaluation techniques,
A.3.1 Field Techniques for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology
Appropriate field techniques for wetland hydrology investigation may include detailed
soil investigation and mapping to establish the presence of hydric soil morphology, and
implementation of groundwater monitoring to determine the extent and duration of soil
saturation,
In order to establish whether or not an area meets the federal wetland hydrology criteria,
direct observation of wetland hydrology must be made in the field, These direct
observations must be performed during the growing season with sufficient frequency to
verify the duration of the hydrologic condition, Further, observations of wetland
hydrology must be spatially distributed to adequately represent the area in question,
Because soil saturation is a critical factor in wetland determination, it may be necessary
to establish a series of monitoring points over a given area to measure the degree and
duration of soil saturation, One method for performing this task is the implementation of
detailed groundwater monitoring using a combination of groundwater observation wells,
boreholes, and soil pits in conjunction with additional site-specific geologic, climatic,
and hydrologic information,
Measurement of a shallow water table may be done by excavating a soil pit or borehole
in the soil profile and observing the depth at which the soil is saturated, Water table
elevation data may also be obtained through the use of observation wells, When placed
at variable elevations on the site, shallow groundwater monitoring wells allow
measurement of water table levels over time, Observation wells have an advantage over
A-7
soil pits or boreholes in that the wells are sealed from direct contact with precipitation
and allow measurement of water table elevations during periods of heavy precipitation,
A.3.1.1 Soil Pit Methodology
Soil pits are used to examine the morphology of the soil profile at a given location to
establish the depth of the water table below the ground surface, Soil pits are excavated
with a 6-inch wide trenching spade to a depth of at least 20 inches below the ground
surface, After excavation, one side of the soil pit is scraped so that fine soil is not
smeared across pore openings, Observations of soil morphology, color and texture are
made, Observations of water table depth below the ground surface and seepage from the
soil pit wall are recorded after a period of time depending on soil texture,
A.3.1.2 Borehole Methodology
Unlined boreholes excavated with a 4-inch diameter bucket auger are used to make quick
assessments of water table elevations, Borehole excavation is performed by rotating the
auger into the soil over several 6- to 8-inch intervals and removing the soil from each
successive interval. This process is repeated until the desired depth (20 to 36 inches) is
reached, Soil samples taken from the auger are examined for color, texture, and water
content. The depth to water table is recorded after a period of time determined by soil
texture,
A.4 Overview of 1987 Manual
The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987)
was originally developed as a set of guidelines for wetland determination rather than as
explicit criteria, Nonetheless, all three parameters (i,e, hydric soil, hydrophytic
vegetation, and wetland hydrology) must exist for an area to be classified as wetland,
The manual "stresses the need to use sound professional judgment, providing latitude to
demonstrate whether an area is a wetland or not based on a holistic and careful
consideration of evidence for all three parameters" (US, Army Corps of Engineers
1991b: 1),
According to the 1987 manual, hydrophytic vegetation cannot be inferred from hydric
soils or wetland hydrology, except as detailed in the Atypical Situations and Problem
Areas sections of the manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), Hydric soils, however,
can be inferred from hydrophytic vegetation given that the vegetation is dominated by
obligate wetland plants, or the vegetation is dominated by facultative or wetter wetland
plants and the wetland boundary (i,e, the wetland/upland interface) is abrupt.
A - 8
Range of Weighted Average Scores
extreme wetland Wetland <----------^----------> Upland extreme upland
(100% obligate hydrophytes) (100% obligate upland species)
1.0 1.5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0
1------------1------------1------------1------------1------------1------------1------------1------------I
,<----------1---------->, , ,<----------1----------> ,
I I
High probability site is wetland High probability site is upland
<--------> <-------->
Good probability that site is wetland; Good probability that site is an upland;
additional data regarding soils and/or additional data regarding soils and/or
hydrology are desirable, hydrology are desirable,
<--------------------->
Vegetation data alone are inadequate for designation of site;
additional data regarding soils and/or hydrology are required,
Figure AI. Weighted Mean Index (WMI) Scale (Wentworth and Johnson 1986),
A- 9
Table A.l, Key to Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale,
Braun-
Blanquet Cover Class Cover Class
Code Definition Range (%) Mid-Point (%)
5 Any number, with cover 75-100 87,5
more than 3/4 of the
reference area
4 Any number, with cover 50-75 62,5
between 1/2 and 3/4 of
the reference area
3 Any number, with cover 25-50 37,5
between 1/4 and 1/2 of
the reference area
2 Any number, with cover 5-25 15,0
between 1/20 and 1/4 of
the reference area
1 ~umerous, but less than <5 2,5
1/20 cover, or scattered,
with cover up to 1/20
+ Few, with little cover <5 2,5
r Solitary, with little cover <5 2,5
A - 10
Table A.2, Key to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Indicator Status
(WIS) categories and equivalent numeric values,
Indicator Indicator Numeric
Category Symbol Value Definition
Obligate OBL 1.00 Plants that occur almost always
Wetland (estimated probability >99%)
Plants in wetlands under natural
conditions, but which may also
occur rarely (est. probability
<1%) in non-wetlands,
- F ACW+ 1.67 See footnote 1
Facultative FACW 2.00 Plants that occur usually
Wetland (est. probability >67% - 99%)
Plants in wetlands, but also occur
(est. probability 1% - 33%) in
non-wetlands,
- FACW- 2.33 See footnote 1
- FAC+ 2.67 See footnote 1
Facultative FAC 3.00 Plants with a similar like-
Plants Ii hood (est. probability 33% -
67%) of occurring in both
wetlands and non-wetlands,
- FAC- 3.33 See footnote 1
- FACU+ 3.67 See footnote 1
Facultative FACU 4.00 Plants that occur sometimes
Upland (est. probability 1% - <33%) in
Plants wetlands, but occur more often
(est. probability >67% - 99%)
in non-wetlands,
- F ACU- 4.33 See footnote 1
A-ll
Table A.2, (Continued,)
Obligate UPL 5.00 Plants that occur rarely (est.
Upland probability <1 %) in wetlands,
Plants but occur almost always (est.
probability >99%) in
non-wetlands under natural
conditions,
Obligate UPL* 5.00 Not listed by Reed (1988, 1993), and
Upland therefore presumed to be an
Plants by obligate upland plant.
Default
1 Species with a "+" after the rating are considered wetter (i,e" have a greater estimated
probability of occurring in wetlands) than respective species without a plus rating, while
species with a "-" are considered drier (i,e" have a lower estimated probability of
occurring in wetlands) than respective species without a minus rating (Environmental
Laboratory 1987: 18-19),
A - 12
Table A.3, Example calculation of vegetation indices,
B-B Cover Product of
Scientific WIS WIS Cover Class Midpoint and
Name Symbol Value Value Midpoint WIS Value
Juncus effusus F ACW+ 1.67 4 62,5 1 04.4
Ranunculus repens FACW 2,00 2 15,0 30,0
P halaris arundinacea FACW 2,00 1 2,5 5,0
H oicus lanatus FAC 3,00 1 2,5 7,5
Dactylis glomerata FACU 4,00 1 2,5 10,0
Lolium perenne FACU 4,00 + 2,5 10,0
Juncus spp, F AC-OBL 2,00 + 2,5 5,0
TOTALS 90,0 171.9
WMI = 171.9/90,0 = 1.91
Percent of the dominant species rated FAC or wetter = 2/2*100 = 100%
A-13
Table A.4, Hydrologic zones in nontidal areas (Environmental Laboratory 1987),
Zonel Name Duration2 Comments
I Permanently inundated 100% Inundation >6,6 feet mean water
depth
II Semipermanently to >75% - <100% Inundation defined as /16,6 feet
nearly permanently mean water depth
inundated or saturated
III Regularly inundated or >25% -75%
saturated
IV Seasonally inundated or >12,5% - 25%
saturated
V Irregularly inundated or 5% - 12,5% Many areas having these hydrologic
saturated characteristics are not wetlands
VI Intermittently or never <5% Areas with these hydrologic
saturated characteristics are not wetlands
1 This defines an aquatic habitat zone,
2 Refers to duration of inundation and/or soil saturation during the growing season,
APPENDIX B
Field Survey Data
B-2
Table B ,1, Scientific and common names of plants with assigned Wetland Indicator Status
(WIS) (Reed 1988, 1993), Scientific names from Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976),
Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), Kunze (1994), Hickman (1993), and Cooke (1999),
Scientific Name1 Common Name WIS1,2
TREES
Acer macrophyllum Big-leaf maple FACU
Alnus rubra Red alder FAC
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW
Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood FAC
Prunus emarginata Bittercherry FACU
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir FACU
Salix lucid a Pacific willow F ACW+
Salix spp, Willow F ACWEEi
Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock F ACU-
SHRUBS
Acer circinatum (s) Vine maple FAC-
Acer macrophyllum (s) Big-leaf maple FACU
Corylus cornuta (s) Hazelnut FACU
Gaultheria shallon Salal FACU
Mahonia nervosa Cascade Oregongrape UPL
Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum FACU
Oplopanax horrid us Devil's club FAC+
Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry FACU
Rubus laciniatus Evergreen blackberry FACU+
Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry FAC-
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC+
Rubus ursinus Pacific blackberry FACU
Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU
Sorbus aucuparia (s) European mountain ash UPL
Spiraea douglasii Hardhack spirea FACW
B-3
Table B.l. Continued,
Scientific Name1 Common Name WIS1,2
HERBS
A lope curus pratensis Meadow foxtail FACW
Athyrium filix-femina Lady-fern FAC
Carex deweyana Dewey's sedge FACU
Carex obnupta Slough sedge OBL
Claytonia sibirica Siberian miner's-lettuce F AC
Dicentra formosa Pacific bleedingheart FACU
Epilobium spp, Willow-herb F ACW/OBL EEl
Equisetum spp, Horsetail FACWEEl
Galium spp, # Bedstraw --
Geranium robertianum Herb Robert UPL
Geum macrophyllum Largeleaved avens F ACW+
Glecoma hederacea Ground ivy FACU+
Glyceria elata Tall mannagrass F ACW+
H oicus lanatus Common velvet-grass FAC
Juncus effusus Soft rush FACW
Lysichiton americanum Skunk cabbage OBL
Musci# Undifferentiated mosses --
Polystichum munitum Sword-fern FACU
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken-fern FACU
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW
Scirpus microcarpus Small-fruited bulrush OBL
Stachys cooleyae Cooley's hedge nettle FACW
Stellaria crispa Crisped starwort FAC+
Tellima grandiflora Fringe cup UPL
Tolmiea menziesii Pig-a-back-plant FAC
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC+
Veronica beccabunga American brooklime OBL
B-4
Table B ,1, Continued,
1 = The following codes are used:
EEl = Genera with species having a narrow range ofWIS ratings that were averaged and
were then included in our vegetation plot calculations,
# = Genera with species having a wide range ofWIS ratings, not included in our
vegetation plot calculations,
(s) = Sapling
Table B.2 Kersey III DEIS - Wetland Assessment. Sample Plot located in Wetland A at
North end,
VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
A/nus rubra 4 62,5 3,0 187,5
Shrubs
Rubus spectabilis 4 62,5 2,7 166,9
Cory/us corn uta (s) 3 37,5 4,0 150,0
Oem/eria cerasiformis 2 15,0 4,0 60,0
Herbs
Athyrium filix-femina 3 37,5 3,0 112,5
Po/ystichum munitum 3 37,5 4,0 150,0
SUMS 252.5 826.9
Weighted Mean Index: 3..27... ...... ...... ...... ......,
% of dominant species with aWlS Hydrophytic
index of 3,0 or less: ,!?9.:,99...................................................., vegetation: No
V eg N otes Haze.lnlJt."lnd.ian,.Plum~,and.,sw.o.r.d,.fe.rn"a[e"p.r.e:S,e,nt,w.lthin.th,e."w.e.tJ.and.,o.o.,hlJ.mmo,cks,."""
................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Features ...............................................................................................................................................................................
(snags, logs, etc.) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......,
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: May 14, 2002 Observers: GEP, VTL Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.2 Continued,
SOIL
Soil pit number A..1................................ Field observations confirm mapped type? DYes ~No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) A.,!?' ~ fY.{,9. 9,9. ,g, f.<;! y.f?.I.IY.,,~ 9, f),q y.,) 9. 9, m ',.", On hydric list? DYes ~No
Map Symbol A.,g,G..............................................................................................., Hydric inclusion? ~ Yes DNo
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-9" A black (1 OYR 2/1 ) loam
9-16" grayish brown (2,5Y common, coarse, dark yellowish brown fine sandy loam
5/2) distinct (10YR 3/4)
Soil Profile ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Notes: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
D Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions
D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma D Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Rationale ,$,Q.i.l..9,t1f.9,m9..i~..~..9.r..!~,?~..w.i.t.t1.f.~9,Q~!m9,r.p.,t1!f..f.E?9.t.W~,~,Pr.~.~~:m.tl?~!9.w..t,t1~..A..b,Qf.!;?,QrL............,...
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: May 14, 2002
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit 16" ........................................................................................................................
......................................................................
Depth to saturation ?,~ r.f9,9,E?"",."",."",."",."",."",. ........................................................................................................................
Depth to free water/water table 7" Notes (inlet/outlet, etc,):
.......................
......................................................................................................................
Inundation depth f),Q.IJ ~,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',., ......................................................................................................................
Other indicators:
......................................................................................................................................................................................
Wetland Hydrology? DYes DNo
Ratio nale: $.9.!!~,.9,r.E?"~9.t.l,I.r.g1~,9..w.,i1b.i,f),,9.,m9j9.r,,p.grt.i,Qn,,9.fJ~~"r9g,t,?:Qn,E?,mgr~"t.~9.n,t.w.9.,m,QJ:1,t.t1~"9,ft.~r.,,.
the..s,tart,Qf..the..g.r.Qw.ilJ.Q..s~as,Qn............................................................................................................................
CLASSIFICA TION
Wetland Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Class ifi cation .P.,gJ,\.!~.tf.lf!.~",fQr~?,E?t,E?9. '"t?,r9.9,9,:,I~9.y.E?~,,9. ~,9,i9.,l,I.9,\.!.~,W.~.t!9.f!.g"(P.,f.9.1)..,,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,""."",."",
.................................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: May 14, 2002 Observers: GEP, VTL Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.3 Kersey III DEIS - Wetland Assessment. Sample Plot located in Wetland 1,
Located in 10-foot-wide fringe along both sides of the stream,
VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
Alnus rubra 4 62,5 3,0 187,5
Populus balsamifera 2 15,0 3,0 45,0
Shrubs
Rubus spectabilis 4 62,5 2,7 166,9
Oplopanax horridus 1 2,5 2,7 6,7
Acer circinatum (s) 1 2,5 3,3 8,3
Sambucus racemosa 1 2,5 4,0 10,0
Herbs
Athyrium filix-femina 3 37,5 3,0 112,5
Glyceria elata 2 15,0 1,7 25,1
Urtica dioica 1 2,5 2,7 6,7
Claytonia sibirica 1 2,5 3,0 7,5
Polystichum munitum 1 2,5 4,0 10,0
Tellima grandiflora 1 2,5 5,0 12,5
SUMS 210.0 598.6
Weighted Mean Index: ~.J;l,~..,........................,
% of dominant species with aWlS Hydrophytic
index of 3,0 or less: .1.0.0.,0.0. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......, vegetation: Yes
Veg Notes "",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."""
................................................................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Features ...............................................................................................................................................................................
(snags, logs, etc.) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......,
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: May 14, 2002 Observers: GEP, VTL Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.3 Continued,
SOIL
Soil pit number SP1 Field observations confirm mapped type? DYes ~No
......................................
Map Unit (Series/Phase) A.,!g,~,ryy,9.9.9.,9f.~.Y.~.I,!y"~,9.ngy.,.I.9.,~m".,,, On hydric list? DYes ~No
Map Symbol A.,g,G..............................................................................................., Hydric inclusion? ~ Yes DNo
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-10" very dark gray (10YR gr, sandy loam
3/1 )
1 0-16" dark grayish brown gr, sandy loam
(10YR 4/2)
Soil Profile ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Notes: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
D Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions
D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma D Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Rationale ,$.9..i.l.~..~f.~..~,~~,W9.t.E?9..19...tb,~..~,~.r:f~f,~..!D.Q.r.~Jb,~nJb.r.E?~.m,9.nt.~~..9,ft.~rJ,b,~..p.,E?g!nnl!1g..9.,Ub,E?.......,...
gr.o,wing.,s,eas,on,indi.cate,s.1ha1.,an,,aqulc.IDoi.st.ur.e..r.egjme-Is.pre.s,ent.............................................,...
HYDROLOGY Field Date: May 14, 2002
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit H:?,':.............................................................., ........................................................................................................................
Depth to saturation ~,~f.f9,~,E?,,",.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',. ........................................................................................................................
8" Notes (inlet/outlet, etc,):
Depth to free water/water table .......................
......................................................................................................................
Inundation depth f).9..IJ~,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',., ......................................................................................................................
Other indicators: ~tf.~,~,m .f.I,9.W~ ..!1,9.,I1.~..mr9.!-!,g,~..tb,~..mj9,9,!~..9.f.m,~..~,~~.I,~.m;L~f.~,~:.. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..........
Wetland Hydrology? DYes DNo
Ratio nale: $.9..!!~,.9,r.E?,'~9.t.l,I.r.~1~,g..w..iW,!1"9.,!D.9j9.r,,p..9.rt.i,9..IJ,,9.fJ~~"rQg,t,?:Qn,E?,fQ.r.mgr~,1b,~.I)",~:,~"~,~.E?K~",,.,'"'.
during the growing season,
CLASSIFICA TION
Wetland Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Class ifi cation .1:, F.,QJ.:" ,.P.9.1,~,~tr! n~, ,f.9.r~,~t.~9",p.rQ,~ 9.~! ~,~,y.~,g,,9.~,9.l9,~.9.,~~:,',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,'",."",."",."",."",."",
Field Date: May 14, 2002 Observers: GEP, VTL Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table BA Kersey III DEIS - Wetland Assessment. Sample Plot located in central forested
portion of Wetland B
VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
Alnus rubra 5 87,5 3,0 262,5
Shrubs
Rubus spectabilis 4 62,5 2,7 166,9
Herbs
Lysichiton americanum 2 15,0 1,0 15,0
SUMS 165.0 444.4
Weighted Mean Index: ~U?,~..,........................,
% of dominant species with aWlS Hydrophytic
index of 3,0 or less: .1.0.0.,0.0. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......, vegetation: Yes
Veg Notes "",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."""
................................................................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Features ...............................................................................................................................................................................
(snags, logs, etc.) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......,
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: May 9, 2002 Observers: GEP, CWW Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table BA Continued,
SOIL
Soil pit number 81 Field observations confirm mapped type? DYes ~No
......................................
Map Unit (Series/Phase) A.,!g,~,ryy,9.9.9.,9f.~.Y.~.I,!y"~,9.ngy.,.I.9.,~m".,,, On hydric list? DYes ~No
Map Symbol A.,g,G..............................................................................................., Hydric inclusion? ~ Yes DNo
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-12" very dark gray (10YR loam
3/1 )
12-18" dark grayish brown common, medium, dark yellowish brown fine sandy loam
(10YR 4/2) distinct (10YR 4/4)
Soil Profile ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Notes: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
D Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions
D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma D Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Rationale ,$.9..i.l..9,tm),m!':l..i~..9n.~..gU~,9.~,p..tb..9.f.J.Qj[),~b,~,~:.................................................................................................,...
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: May 9, 2002
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit Hr:.............................................................., ........................................................................................................................
Depth to saturation 9.'.'"",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",. ........................................................................................................................
12" Notes (inlet/outlet, etc,):
Depth to free water/water table .......................
......................................................................................................................
Inundation depth [).9..IJ~,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',., ......................................................................................................................
Other indicators:
......................................................................................................................................................................................
Wetland Hydrology? DYes DNo
Ratio nale: $.9.!!~,.!':l,f.~"~9.t.l,I.f.g1~,g..w.,i1tJ.i,[)"!':l.,m9j9.r,,p..9.rt.i,9.n"9.f.t.~~"r9g,t,?:9.n,E?,m.9.r~"t.~9.n,t.w.9.,m,9.J:1,t.~~,,!':l,ft.~r.,,.
the growing season has begun,
CLASSIFICA TION
Wetland Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Class ifi cation .P.,~.I,~~,tn!1.~",f9.r~~1~9.", !?f.9.9.9,:.I,~9.y.~9., 9.~9.i.9 ,~9.~,~..w.~,t.I.~n9.,(P.F.Q1):"",.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,'",."",
Field Date: May 9, 2002 Observers: GEP, CWW Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.5 Kersey III DEIS - Wetland Assessment. Sample Plot located in southern
scrub-shrub portion of Wetland B
VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
Shrubs
Oemleria cerasiformis 4 62,5 4,0 250,0
Rubus spectabilis 3 37,5 2,7 100,1
Herbs
Athyrium filix-femina 3 37,5 3,0 112,5
SUMS 137.5 462.6
Weighted Mean Index: ~,:~,g..,........................,
% of dominant species with aWlS Hydrophytic
index of 3,0 or less: 9.~,,9. Z.., ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......, vegetation: Yes
Veg Notes "",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."""
................................................................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Features ...............................................................................................................................................................................
(snags, logs, etc.) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......,
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: May 14, 2002 Observers: Emmett Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.5 Continued,
SOIL
Soil pit number 83 Field observations confirm mapped type? DYes ~No
......................................
Map Unit (Series/Phase) A.,!g,~,ryy,9.9.9.,9f.~.Y.~.I,!y"~,9.ngy.,.I.9.,~m".,,, On hydric list? DYes ~No
Map Symbol ......................................................................................................... Hydric inclusion? ~ Yes DNo
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-12" very dark gray (10YR loam
3/1 )
12-18' dark gray (1 Oyr 4/1) common, coarse, dark yellowish brown fine sandy loam
distinct (10YR 4/6)
Soil Profile ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Notes: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
D Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions
D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma D Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Rationale ,$.9..i.l..9,tm),m!':l..i~..9n.~..gU~,9.~,p..tb..9.f.J.Qj[),~b,~,~:.................................................................................................,...
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: May 14, 2002
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit Hr:.............................................................., ........................................................................................................................
Depth to saturation 9.'.'"",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",. ........................................................................................................................
10" Notes (inlet/outlet, etc,):
Depth to free water/water table .......................
......................................................................................................................
Inundation depth [).9..IJ~,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',., ......................................................................................................................
Other indicators:
......................................................................................................................................................................................
Wetland Hydrology? DYes DNo
Ratio nale: $.9.!!~,.!':l,f.~"~9.t.l,I.f.g1~,g..w.,i1tJ.i,[)"!':l.,m9j9.r,,p..9.rt.i,9..IJ"9.f.t.~~"r9g,t,?:9..IJ,E?,m.9.r~"t.~9.f.1.,t.w.9.,m,9.J:1,t.~~,,!':l,ft.~r.,,.
the growing season has begun,
CLASSIFICA TION
Wetland Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Class ifi cation .P.,~.I,~~,tnf.1.~",~~f.!:I,P.,~~,tJNP.""P.f.9,~9.~,!~,~,y.~,g"g,~,~l9,~.9.,Y.~"Y.'{,~t,l~.lJ9",<P..$.$.,1):",.,"',.,"',.,""."",."",
Field Date: May 14, 2002 Observers: Emmett Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.6 Kersey III DEIS - Wetland Assessment. Sample Plot located in emergent portion
of Wetland B.
VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
Shrubs
Herbs
Scirpus microcarpus 3 37,5 1,0 37,5
Juncus effusus 3 37,5 2,0 75,0
Veronica beccabunga 2 15,0 1,0 15,0
Ranunculus repens 2 15,0 2,0 30,0
Alopecurus pratensis 2 15,0 2,0 30,0
Stachys cooleyae 2 15,0 2,0 30,0
Holcus lanatus 2 15,0 3,0 45,0
SUMS 150.0 262.5
Weighted Mean Index: L7.~..,........................,
% of dominant species with aWlS Hydrophytic
index of 3,0 or less: .1.0.0.,0.0. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......, vegetation: Yes
Veg Notes "",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."""
................................................................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Features ...............................................................................................................................................................................
(snags, logs, etc.) ...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: May 9, 2002 Observers: GEP, CWW Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.6 Continued,
SOIL
Soil pit number 82 Field observations confirm mapped type? DYes ~No
......................................
Map Unit (Series/Phase) A.,!g,~,ryy,9.9.9.,9f.~.Y.~.I,!y"~,9.ngy.,.I.~,9.m".,,, On hydric list? DYes ~No
Map Symbol A.,g,G..............................................................................................., Hydric inclusion? ~ Yes DNo
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-13" black (1 OYR 2/1 ) loam
13-18' dark grayish brown common, medium, dark yellowish brown fine sandy laom
(10yr4/2) distinct (10YR 4/4)
Soil Profile ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Notes: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
D Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions
D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma D Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Rationale ,$.9..i.l..9,tm),m!':l..9.f.J..,P.,~,I.9.W.J.Q..if.1.9,~~,~:.....................................................................................................................,...
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: May 9, 2002
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit Hr:.............................................................., ........................................................................................................................
Depth to saturation ~,~f.f9,9,~"",.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',. ........................................................................................................................
surface Notes (inlet/outlet, etc,):
Depth to free water/water table ....................... w.~,t!9.ng..9,~m~.t~..t9...9...~W~!':lm..9.t..tb,~..t.9.p...9.f..!':l..~.t~,~p..............
Inundation depth f).9..IJ~,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',., 5.lope........................................................................................................ ..
Other indicators:
......................................................................................................................................................................................
Wetland Hydrology? DYes DNo
Ratio nale: W~t,~r.i,~,p(~,~~,nt,w.jt~.i.r.1"~"m!':lj9.r,p.9.r.t!9.n,9.f..tb.~,,f.9.,9.t,f,9.n~"m9.f.~,JI:1,!':l,f),Jw.9"m,9.ntl:1,~,,!':l,n,~f.,t.~,~.
growing season has begun,
CLASSIFICA TION
Wetland Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Class ifi cation .P.,~.I,~~Jnn~",,~ m~,f.9.~nt "'p.~.r~,(~~~nt"w,~~!!':ln,q,{P.,~M,1):,,,.,"',.,"',.,'",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",
Field Date: May 9, 2002 Observers: GEP, CWW Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B. 7 Kersey III DEIS - Wetland Assessment. SP3, wetland plot in wetland "C",
VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
Alnus rubra 3 37,5 3,0 112,5
Shrubs
Rubus discolor 2 15,0 4,0 60,0
Rubus spectabilis 1 2,5 2,7 6,7
Herbs
Glyceria elata 3 37,5 1,7 62,6
Epilobium spp, + 2,5 3,9 9,6
Juncus effusus + 2,5 2,0 5,0
Equisetum spp, + 2,5 2,0 5,0
SUMS 100.0 261.4
Weighted Mean Index: .".,..".2,6.".".,..,
% of dominant species with aWlS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3,0 or less: ..,..,..,6IHH..,..,.., (1987 methodology): Yes
Veg Notes ., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,., ,.,
.. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Features -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
(snags, logs, etc.)
Field Date: 5/9/02 Observers: CWW, GEP Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B. 7 Continued,
SOIL
Soil pit number SP.3. n n n n n n n Field observations confirm mapped type? DYes ~No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) atde.rW99_0 ..9rSly~[Iy_ s_a.oo,y.J9_a_Ul. n On hydric list? DYes ~No
Map Symbol A9.Cn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Hydric inclusion? ~ Yes DNo
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-12" dark grayish brown sandy loam
(10YR 4/2)
12-16" dark gray (1 OYR 4/1) common, coarse, dark yellowish brown sandy loam
distinct (10YR 4/6)
Soil Profile . .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- -. .. .- .
Notes: .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--.-- .--.--...
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
D Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions
D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma D Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Rationale Aquic.,mQis,ture, r.egime. .indi,c,ale.s, bydri,c. s,oiJs."..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....-
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 5/9/02
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit :! Q"n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n of_a, -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -..-..
Depth to saturation s.urface"..,..,..,.....,..,....., .. .........................................................................................
Depth to free water/water table l2~'..,.. ,..,.., Notes (inlet/outlet, etc,):
------------------------------------------------------------
Inundation depth n!.a.................................................. ..........................................................................................
Other indicators: gJ~qS_9f.~tU:!1)9W J;lQI19]Og'n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n u
Wetland Hydrology? DYes DNo
Rationale: s.urtac.e_.s_atu[atLQo_and);Ltr~e_\N.ate[jable_lQ _12..: jDd.ikate-'Ol.eUand_b~d[QIQ.Q.Y. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___
....................................................................................................................................................
CLASSIFICA TION
Wetland Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Classification I?F.Q1_P9.1j.J,~t.rj,IJ~, J9H~,St~g, P.r.Q.Q,(;He,~_ve,o_,Q.eQioJ.l.QWi.w.~_t!Qnd _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.._..
....................................................................................................................................
Field Date: 5/9/02 Observers: CWW, GEP Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.8 Kersey III DEIS - Wetland Assessment. Sample Plot located in Wetland D
VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
Shrubs
Spiraea doug/asii 3 37,5 2,0 75,0
Herbs
Carex obnupta 3 37,5 1,0 37,5
Lysichiton americanum 2 15,0 1,0 15,0
SUMS 90.0 127.5
Weighted Mean Index: L4,~..,........................,
% of dominant species with aWlS Hydrophytic
index of 3,0 or less: .1.0.0.,0.0. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......, vegetation: Yes
Veg N otes W~.t),9.ng"!~.,9Y~r.t1,~ng"!?y',.r.E?g",9.!g,~.r.",."",.,,,,,."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."""
................................................................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Features ...............................................................................................................................................................................
(snags, logs, etc.) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......,
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: May 14, 2002 Observers: GEP, VTL, Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.8 Continued,
SOIL
Soil pit number D1 Field observations confirm mapped type? DYes ~No
......................................
Map Unit (Series/Phase) A.,!g,~,ryy,9.9.9.,9f.~.Y.~.I,!y"~,9.ngy.,.I.9.,~m".,,, On hydric list? DYes ~No
Map Symbol A.,g,G..............................................................................................., Hydric inclusion? ~ Yes DNo
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
Soil Profile $.9. !!~,yy,~ r~.. n9.t~!':l.m p..!~,(t.g,~,~J9..9,~pm..9t~t9.D,g.ing..'!Y9.t~f. ,W,(tD,!nJh,~..'!Y~t),~n,9,: ...... ...... ...... ...... ....,
Notes: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
D Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions
D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma D Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Rationale .v.v~.lgn.(t.i,~..p..9.ng,~,9.J9..9..9,~.p.,tb..9.f.m~,g.t~.r.t~!':ln..~..f.~~t.................................................................................,...
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: May 14, 2002
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit f).9..IJ~,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',."",.", ........................................................................................................................
Depth to saturation N!A,.",,'.""'.""'.""'.""'.""'.""'. ........................................................................................................................
N/A Notes (inlet/outlet, etc,):
Depth to free water/water table ....................... N.9..9.~,t!~.t..W.9.~..9,P.~~XY~,g".w~~!!':ln.(tgpp.~,g.r~..t.9...p..~..............
Inundation depth p..9..lJ9,~,g,.t9.,gf.~.~~~r.,tb,ml,,~., isQ,late,d_...................................................................................................
A
Other indicators:
......................................................................................................................................................................................
Wetland Hydrology? DYes DNo
Ratio nale: !nn.~X!9.!':l.tj,9.n.,p.f.~,~,~,!1~,m,9.f.~,.t.~9.f),,~.,m.9.nt,~~.,g.ft.~f..t,h,~"p..~glnf).iX!g"9.f.t.~~,9f.9.w.jng,~,~,~~.9X!:,,.,"',.
CLASSIFICA TION
Wetland Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Class ifi cation .P.,I,g,~~,tnn~",~gmp.,~~,hmp""t;?f.9,~9.~,!~,~,y.~,g"g,~,gl9,~.9.,Y.~"'f.{,~)1~n9",<P..$.$.,1):,,,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,""."",
Field Date: May 14, 2002 Observers: GEP, VTL, Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.9 Kersey III DEIS - Wetland Assessment. Sample plot located in small offsite
wetland associated with Stream AB, Approximately 100 feet north of Kersey III
oroiect site,
VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
Shrubs
Rubus spectabilis 3 37,5 2,7 100,1
Acer circinatum (s) 2 15,0 3,3 50,0
Sambucus racemosa 2 15,0 4,0 60,0
Herbs
Tolmiea menziesii 3 37,5 3,0 112,5
Lysichiton americanum 2 15,0 1,0 15,0
SUMS 120.0 337.6
Weighted Mean Index: ~.JlJ..,........................,
% of dominant species with aWlS Hydrophytic
index of 3,0 or less: 9.0.,.00.... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......, vegetation: Yes
Veg N otes g~,g,,9.1,g.E?f.,f.9.Qt~,g,,9n,.tD,~,.~.I,QP'~~,,9ttb,E?,r9.Y.in,E?,.i.~,.Qy.~m,9,[)g.i.r.1g.t,b,E?"~9,ml?!~"1?!9.t,.9.ng"".,,,,,."""
provides full shade,
................................................................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Features ...............................................................................................................................................................................
(snags, logs, etc.) ...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: September 24, 2002 Observers: GEP, CWW Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.9 Continued,
SOIL
Soil pit number OW1 Field observations confirm mapped type? DYes ~No
......................................
Map Unit (Series/Phase) ,I,f),gj,9.n9,l9."!9,9,my'.,~9.f),gJ"4.:J.,~%"",,,.,,, On hydric list? DYes ~No
Map Symbol ,1.0.9................................................................................................., Hydric inclusion? ~ Yes DNo
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-12" black (1 OYR 2/1 ) fine sandy loam
12-18" dark gray (1 OYR 4/1) common, coarse, faint dark yellowish brown fine sandy loam
(10YR 4/4)
Soil Profile ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Notes: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
D Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions
D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma D Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Rationale ,$,Q.i.l..9,tm),m9..i~.J..9.t..g,st~P.t.~..p.,E?).9.W.J.Q..!n9,~~,~..gn9..,~9.~..!D.9.tt.l,~~..l?~[9,W.,J..~..i.o.9.b.~,~:....................,...
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: September 24,
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit HUn:........................................................., ........................................................................................................................
Depth to saturation 1.9,,! f),:",."",."",."",."",."",."",. ........................................................................................................................
none Notes (inlet/outlet, etc,):
Depth to free water/water table .......................
......................................................................................................................
Inundation depth f),Q.IJ ~,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',., ......................................................................................................................
Other indicators: ~~,!f~,9.~..W9~~r..ft9,w,ing,.in ..~~r~9.!D.. 9.b,9.nn,~,! :...., ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..........
Wetland Hydrology? DYes DNo
Ratio nale: $..9.!!~,.9,r.E?,'~9.t.l,I.r.g~~,g..w.i1b.i,f),,9.,!D.9j9.r.,p.grt.i.Q.IJ,,9.f.t.~~"r9g,t,?:9n,E?:"".,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,""."",."",."",."",.
CLASSIFICA TION
Wetland Criteria Met? DYes DNo
Class ifi cation .P.,9.1,~~,tnn~",~9.r~,p.,~~,tJNP""t;?f.9,99.~,!~,9,Y.~S~,'g,E?,9.lg,~.9.,y.~"w.,E?t,l9n9",<P..$.$.,1):",.,"',.,"',.,""."",."",
Field Date: September 24, 2002 Observers: GEP, CWW Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table B.IO Kersey III DEIS - Wetland Assessment. Sample plot located in offsite wetland
adjacent to Kersey Way that is associated with Stream AB. Less than 1 acre in
SIze,
VEGETATION Cover Cover WIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
Salix lucida 3 37,5 1,7 62,6
Alnus rubra 3 37,5 3,0 112,5
Populus balsamifera 2 15,0 3,0 45,0
Shrubs
Rubus spectabilis 4 62,5 2,7 166,9
Spiraea douglasii 2 15,0 2,0 30,0
Herbs
Lysichiton americanum 3 37,5 1,0 37,5
Tolmiea menziesii 3 37,5 3,0 112,5
Glecoma hederacea 3 37,5 3,7 137,6
Glyceria elata 2 15,0 1,7 25,1
Ranunculus repens 1 2,5 2,0 5,0
Carex deweyana 1 2,5 4,0 10,0
SUMS 300.0 744.7
Weighted Mean Index: 2..4,8.., ...... ...... ...... ......,
% of dominant species with aWlS Hydrophytic
index of 3,0 or less: ,?~,:,? ~.... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......, vegetation: Yes
Veg Notes "",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."",."""
................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Features ...............................................................................................................................................................................
(snags, logs, etc.) ...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: September 24, 2002 Observers: GEP, CWW Project Number: 2001-021-001
Table RIO Continued,
SOIL
Soil pit number 9.~.w.?............ ...... ........ Field observations confirm mapped type? DYes ~No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) ,I,f),gj,9.n9,l9."!9,9,my...f!n~"~,9..I:1.g,,,.4~,1,~,r.~,, On hydric list? DYes ~No
Map Symbol ,1.0.9................................................................................................., Hydric inclusion? ~ Yes DNo
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-27" very dark gray (10YR muck
3/1 )
Soil Profile ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Notes: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
c><:J Histosol c><:J Aquic Moisture Regime c><:J Concretions
c><:J Histic Epipedon c><:J Reducing Conditions c><:J High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
c><:J Sulfidic Odor c><:J Gley/Low Chroma c><:J Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? c><:JYes c><:JNo
Rationale ,Q.~,~p...9.m9.oj,9.,~g.i.l~..,P..r,~~,~.oL..M~,~1~..b.Y.g.r.i,9.,~9,i.!..9.r.i,t~.r.i,9.:........................................................................,...
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: September 24,
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit 27" ........................................................................................................................
......................................................................
Depth to saturation ~,~f.f9,~,~,,",.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',. ........................................................................................................................
Depth to free water/water table surface Notes (inlet/outlet, etc,):
.......................
......................................................................................................................
Inundation depth f).9..IJ~,.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',.,"',., ......................................................................................................................
Other indicators: .f!9,W., pr~,~,~f)J W.j~,b.iX1..~~r~!':l.m ,9.b.9..l.1 n~.I..!9.~,9.~,~,g ..9.pp.r.9.x! m!':lJ~!y...~.Q..f~~tW.~~.t9.f..~9JTJP..!~,....
0101.
Wetland Hydrology? c><:JYes c><:JNo
Ratio nale: $.9.!!~,.9,r.~"~!':lJl,I.r.91~,g..w..i1b.i,f),,9.,m!':lj9.r,,p..9.r~.i,9.n,,9.fJ~~"r9g,t,?:Q.o,~"I,9~,~"lf)J9.,~,b,~,gr9.w.,i.IJg,~,~,~~9.0:,.
................................................................................................................................................................................................
CLASSIFICA TION
Wetland Criteria Met? c><:JYes c><:J No
Class ifi cation .P.,9J,\.!~Jrln~",.f9.r~~~~9.~, !?r.9.9.~,I,~,9Y.~,g~,~,~,~i9.!-!g,~~,,(EEQ.1},.,"',.,"',.,""."",."",."",."",."",."",."",
.................................................................................................................................................................................
Field Date: September 24, 2002 Observers: GEP, CWW Project Number: 2001-021-001
APPENDIX C
Agency Correspondence
Washington Department of Natural Resources
~~ 1/v'.L\SI~ I !\!GTOI\J STATE DEPt\rnr'v'lENT or DC::Ur.:j SUTHER;~/.:.,,\'l;~:
Natural Resources C'")n:.rr-:;y;;"c..;.r1r;-..- oi" Public L'1nc\
~'--~ -~-~--
y" ----
[VIa:,> 9,2003 RECEIVED
Da \vn Clare iCl ~. 3, ,I., \. ~ 'of I.Ulrj
L I ~. . j ("
Racdeke i;s~ociak~ Inc RAEDEKE ASSQC.
5711 Northeasl 6yd St
5eat11e ''0/;\ 98] ]:;
SUBJECT: Ker"sey 3 EIS ~ Project No. 2001-021-001 (T21~ ROSE S31,32)
\Ve\e searched the Natural Fferitage Information System for information on significant natural
features ill your project area. Currently. \ve have no records for rare plants or high quality native
ecosystems in the viciniTY of your proiect.
The int0rmationprovided by the V/asllingtoll Natura] Heritage Program is based solely 011
existing information in the database In the absence offield inventories, we Call1lot state whether
or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare plant species: there may be significant
natural features in your study area ofv,'hich we are not aware.
The \Vashington Natural Flcritage Program is responsible for infonmltion on the slate's rare
plants as v.iel] as high quality ecosystc,llls. For information on animal species of concenl, please
contact Priority Habitats and Species. Washington Depanment ofFish and V/ildlife. 600 Capitol
Way N, 01}'mpi8 \\'A 9R501-)091. or by phone (3(0) 902-2543,
Please visit our internet website at hrrp://w\,,/\\i,dnr,wa.goV/llhr for more infonnation. Lists of
rare plants and their status, as well as rare plant fact sheets, are available for dowllload hum tile
site, Please feel free to call me at (360) 902-] 667 'if YOll have any questions. or bye-mail at
sandri.l.moody~i "adm.go\'.
~~1i l&tL -~
Sandy S\\-(-",pe l\-f('ody. Em'lronmc.'lllal Revie\\ Coordinator
WashingtlHl NClllll'al Heritage Program
Assel Manag::lllelll 8: Pr(lkCtll)n [)i vis iOIl. PO Be'" cliO 14, () Iympla \\i\ 98504.1(1 I ej
FAX 360-902-I"'H9
11 i 1 vV;:-,)HltJG,'(Jt..: ~,1 "E I PC' rKiX IF DOc' I C;L'y!,;I,",A I,Vi. SSSC;1i '000
rIel (36D) 90} lOOC, I r-/.~.x-, :'361.,IJ 9Cl-;77.~ J if-r-' /360,! 90i i )~-:';
-
EqL.;ai 1:]pp0r1~Jr-lrtv.i..6.tti~'r'nalIV(:. /-(tIOtl [r"~lplo'~~-er 1':L'_'__c~ i.,.f'," ",t
~,-"~:~'~;
r ~"-
~;- ,
STATE OF' W.C._,~.!HINGTON
DEPAH'T~1ENT OF NATURAL ]::;.ESOURCES
FED TD: 91-6012771
* INVOICE * Paqe 1
Agre-emel1L 1d: 39 C03627 Invoi'::'e Date: 05/09/03
J n '.J 0 i c ~N ;:) 1B14C)02 Due Date : Cl6/0e/03
RF_EDEKE ASSOCIATES INC
5711 NORTHEAST 63RD STREET
.SEA TTLE WA. J8l15
LHE:: niTllN'T'T"'V PO !V; L;~.JI T l:JR..I CE v- r -r-'
....:..........,~';---- F';....!....Ju..!::..
001 NATURAL HERI'l'AGE D}\T.n. RETRIEVAL
1.0000 S 30.0QOOO $ 30.00
KERSEY 3 EIS ~ PROJECT NO, 2001-021--00]
(T21N ROSE 531,32)
REQUESTED BY: DAWN GARCIA
TOTAL - PLEASE PAY THIS AMOLTNT ro 30.00
;1'
THE DEPARTMENT ASSESSES INTEREST ON PAST DUE _~CCOUNT.s
If you have any questions, call SAADY MOODY (360) S'02-1667
Keel: this portion for your records
------------------------------------------------------------"---------------------
Agreement Ia: 89 003627 Acct Mg~t-: FR
Invoice No : 1814002 Group : NHDS
Customer 10 : DNE. 0 (I CJ 024 480 Due Date: 06/08/03
N Alv1E : FJl..EDEKE AS:30C'I f\.TES INC
RD-1IT CHECKS TO; TOTAL - Please pay t tL~L s aTTIC)I)?} c
DEPARTMENT OF NATUR.z,L RESOURCES S 30.00
FINJl2\JCI,ZI.L, !-IlGt'1T DIVISION
PO BOX 47041
OLY!V!P lA, W,,,," 9 ~~ =. C <1 - '7 I) 4 1
RETTJRN THI. S P()I\TION FOR PROPER CREDIT TOYCUR ACCOTJNT.
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
RECEIVED
~1/ \,1 "'.,--;.
i
State of Washln9ton MEDEKE r\))OC
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
r'/'i'>I!:n,~: j.,.jjr.::-s~ 600 C2Pi~;J1 'l/a'~- /'~ . =:,j\'n~ p12. '.,t~A 98501- !DP 1 .. 1:3.;;.::, 9C2 -2~~:Q!J. TOD i-:360) S){:2-:2~-',-.I-'
f....~~~T 1~)lliJ::e LC,C;:dl:)n: !\l2i~~rd- F:e.s.o;Jrc~-=--s l~ud~jin~l. 111 ~ I/'Jasll~r"~JJ~.i S~rf'-?::t s!~. ()jyrnpl2> \f/b.
Date: r~i", ~ ;: ([1[(,
Dear Habitats and Species Requester:
Enclosed are the habitats and species products you requested from the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). This package may also contain documentation to help you
understand and use these products
These products only include Information that WDFW maintains in a coniputer database. They
are not an attempt to provide you with an ofiicial agency response as to the impacts of your
project on fish and wildlife. nor are they designed to provide you with guidance on interpreting
this information and determining how to proceed in consideration of fish and wildlife. These
products only document the location of important fish and wildlife resources to the best of olJr
knowledge. It is important to note that habitats or species may occur on the ground in areas not
currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not
been conducted. Site-specific surveys are frequently necessary to rule out the presence of
priority habitats or species.
Your project may require further field inspection or you may need to contact our field biologists
or othel's in WDFW to assist you in interpreting and applying this Information. Generally, for
assistance on a specific project you should contact the WDFW Habitat Program Manager for
your county and ask for the area habitat biologist for your project area. Refer to the enclosed
directory for those contacts.
Please note that sections potentially impacted by spotted owl management concerns are
displayed on the 1 :24,000 scale standard map products. If specific details on spotted owl site
centers are req uired they must be req uested separately,
These products are designed for users external to the forest practice permit process and as
such. does not reflect all the information pertinent to forest practice review. The Forest Practice
Rules adopted August 22. 1997 by the Forest Practice Board and administered by the
Washington Department of Natural Resources require forest practice applications to be
screened against marbled murrelel detection areas and detection sections. Marbled murrelet
detection locations are included in the standard priority habitats and species products. but the
detection areas and detection sections are not included. If your project IS affected by Forest
Practlc€~ Regulallons, you should specially request murrelet detection areas.
WDFW up,jates thiS mformation as addilional data become available. Because fish and wildlife
species alCE-' mobile and because habitats and species information changes. project reviews ror
fist, and wildlife should not rest solely on mapped informatIon. Instead, they should also
consider 118V',' inforrnation gathered fram current field investigations. Remember. habitats and
species information can only show that a species or habitat type IS present, they cannot show
that a species or llabita! type is not present. These products should not be used for future
projects. Please obtain updates rather than use outdated Inforrnation
Because of the high volume of requests for informatioll that WDFW ,~ceives, we need to charge for
these products to recover some of OLlr costs. Encloserj is an invoice itemizing the costs for your
request and instructions for submitting payment.
Please note tl1at sensitive information (e,9., threatened and/or endangered species) may be
included in this request. These species are vulnerable to disturbances and harassment. In order to
protect the viability of these species we request that you not disseminate the information as to their
whereabouts. Please refer to these species presence in general terms. For example: "A Peregrine
Falcon is located within two rniles of the project area".
If your request required a SensItive Fish and Wildlife Information Release Agreement and you or
your organization has one on file, please refer to that document for conditions regarding release of
this information.
For more information on WDFW you may visit our web site at http://www,wa.gov/wdfw or visit the
Priority Habitats and Species site at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm.
For information on ttle state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as tligh quality
wetland and terrestrial ecosystems, please contact the Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Natural Heritage Program at PO Box 47014, Olympia Washington 98504-7014, by
phone (360) 902.1667 or visit the web site at http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocsffr/nhp/wanhp.html.
If you have any questions or problems with the information you received please call me at (360)
902-2543 or fax (360) 902..2946,
Sincerely.
:;. ~
(LStA.-/ ~' df/1V1'VL#
Lori Guggenmos, GIS Programmer
Priority Habitats and Species
Enclosures
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
REGIONAL HABITAT PROGRAM MANAGER CONTACTS
For assistance with Priority Habitats and Species Information contact a regional
habitat program manger and they will direct your questions to a biologist.
County project is in... Contact...
Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield Lincoln, Kevin Robinette
Pend Greifle, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, 8702 North Division Street
Whitman Spokane, WA 99218-1199
Phone: (509) 456-4082
Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Okanogan Tracy Lloyd
1550 Alder Street NW
Ephrata, W A 98823-9699
Phone: (509) 754-4624
Benton, Franklin, Kittitas. Yakima Ted Clausing
1701 24th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902-5720
Phone: (509) 575-2740
Island, King, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Deborah Cornett
Whatcom 16018 Mill Creek Blvd.
Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
Phone: (425) 775-1311
Clark, Cowlitz. Klickitat, Lewis, Skamania, Steve Manlow
Wahkiakum 2108 Grand Blvd.
Vancouver, WA 98661
Phone: (360) 696-6211
Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Steve Kalinowski
Pacific, Pierce, Thurston 48 Devonshire Road
Montesano, WA 98563-9618
Phone: (360) 249-4628
APPENDIX D:
Wetland and Buffer Rating Assessment Form
, ,
/
/
, ~ --
Wetland and Buffer Functions
Semi-Quantitative Assessment Form
Preliminarv Draft
.I
User's Manual
'f , 0
i... ..;
I
- =. - '" -'.....~...,.-=-..,...~---""-.......
Sarah Spear Cooke --
~- .
----, ~.._-, ~-, .
reviewed by
Ruth Schaefer (King County Surface Water Management)
C. Rhett Jackson (Pentec Environmental Inc.)
CSf;
Cooke Scientific Senices
---4Z5tlifEtto--St-,-
-b C 0. ttle,w-.A .-9&-l2g~
C"i /.::"; /.J ,::: ; , . c - .
Ir .. -, I :c-- ~,- '.
..
-.. :-~., ,'-:; ( i ~--
'" . - ~-= (o.~-
' F"" _ ~ ~
...:...':....,.-' ,~. --
August 1995
I;: ~'"'ke S,:;ienti.-'l:,: Ser-,'i::es all ri4'.::!:.~ l"'...se:r-.'d A~.JSt !-i, 19J5 i I
-
r
I I
I Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantITative Performance Assessmen~
tand #~!- 5t2ff Date _
r .bon. S T R
,- Criteria (I
I
I Function ('::roup 1 1 pt G-ollp 2 2pts Group 3 3 pts [
CC S~8 <: 5 acres size 5-10 acres see:>~ aCiBS
Flood! - - -
Itorm Water - riv8rine or lakBsi.1ore wedand - mid-Sloped v,-ejanrj - de[Xessions, headW;:;18G, togs,n5ts
- "" 1 0 % lorested cover - 10 - 38 % iore5ied OJver J,~.- > 30 q.:, loresta-j co ver
J ~.- un CXXlSlrane1 ou1ie\ semi-conslraine1 oliUel cvlverrJenned outlet
. Control ..L... - -
- lcY'....ated in lower 113 Or the df2Jnage Iocatoo in middle 1/3 0 I the a-ainage ~/ Ioca1Bd in u~r 1,:; 0; t.'le drainag€
-
I points J.
(max 15)
,1ase Flow! './-:, Slzo < 5 acres - size 5-10 acres -- size:;. 10 acres
ound Water ~ riverine or lakashore v-ieband - mid-sloped \ve~a'1d - cieprsSSicX1S, headwaters, b:Jgs,r.a:s
_ located ~'l lamr 113 at the jrainag3 - Iocalec 111 middle 1/3 altrle o'2.inage - Ic-caled in U~r 113 of the drainag-cJ
Support _ lej"poially fiooded or Sai:.Jraled -- searonally or rem!i-"'€rmanendy _ i=erm800n~y rrOO".h:l 'x sat:J:at8':l, or
l\oOOed Of satu/'2ted lntarmiitenUy expos..o.d
I - nu f.ow-.sensitive 1Lc.h (:(IJX!lalkJns - low ftow-sensiTive nS'l ::x:pul,!lkms - high r.ow.senstlve pc::::dat'Ons
p:lints _ on.si\e or OOw:lstrB2rn on-Site or downstrea:n contiguous v.ittl site ~1. highly
(max 15) p;')m16abie strata
I I
(oslon/ - sparse graSS/nebs or r,o veg abng - spar-::.e 'MXJd or 'leg along OHVvM - dense wocC or \'eg alOng OHWM I
r oreline OHWM - wetland extends 30 - 60 m rom
- wetland extends < 30 m from OHWM - 'M3tland exlenCS > 200 m rrcm
. otection OHWM - moderately c!e'lelo(:ed shereline or OHW~II.
I ~ITlts S .'" - highlJ d6ve\Qped shoreline Dr sutr...alstlment - uno;1eveiopt:j shore!ir-f.i Or
S-Jb::alcl1ment sutca~dlmer;(
(max. 9)
later Quality - ra...--.id iIow thrOugh stte - rnoderale !law t!liUugh Site - slow flow tt",fOUgh site
~"'Iprovement - < 50 % 'leg cover - 50 - 80 OJo cove.- -'- > 80 % veg cover
upstream in b2.sin fro~ '.....edanc is , ::; So:.-b at basin upstream frarr: ;; 50"(, of basn u~am frc;;n
- - -
I ~-, / U ndsvebpoD wetland Is ::ItJvelopad wedar':d Ls develGped
DJints f ~ ho,:ls < 25 % Dver:and :",no'l - hold..; 25 . 50 % overland runoH - hokJs;. 50 % overianc' n.Jnoft
(inax 12)
I =0 Not Applicable, r'Jii = No Information available
l'linam Vegetatiol'.: \\'ildlile:
I
'"
I
I
I
'.
I
I
I,',
\Netland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Periorrnance Assessment
NatLral - sizi'l < 5 acres size 5 - 10 acres - size > 10 ace" II
Biological - ag land, fa',^" veg 5ttJC~iJ;8 .,_ ~' 2 levei ',e9 - h:gn veg S:,,,c:turB
~ - seasonal surtace W<it9r - DSrTTIansn surlaC€ water - Dpen l'I8lei pxlls througt: S'J ITln e:
Support - on(;) n alXa; t'fD" - - - twc, haooa.! types - :: 3 hatXa~ ry;:~s
FAB POI^I PE~,I PSS~PFO)ES' c,,:,,,, POW PEM JSf,(PP,) :::ST I P.AB ?OW P5Vl PSS PFO EST
- iow plan:, diversity (~6 SfX\cies) ~ mDd(;rats planl diversxy (7-15 - high plam diversity (> 15 sp.;c:es)
species) - < 10% InVas.'/B species
-- > 50 Ok in'/asi',6 spe:ies - 10 to 50 Dk 'invasive species - high pnmary productivny
- low primary prOdiJc:ivlty - moderate p.ima;y product'liiy - high organic accum,lloliClrl
- levl or;j2r.ic aCDJ:Clulat]on - mOOerat8 organic 2X'Jmulat:on - hign organic 8xpJ"
- low organi-:: expcr\ - low organic expo, - rr.any hab:ta features
- 81'1 habtat features ~ 5On18 ~,ab{ta:i: fea.:;_ 3S ~ buffers not dlst:urbed
- buffer:; very dis:urt>:;j - buffers sfightly dlS1Urt€8 - we:! ccnnected to uplar,j hdb~at;
palMS ~ - Isolated !rom upiand h2t;itats - pamaJly conne.::i2<j to upland
(max 35) hat:it21s
,
Overall - S~9 < 5 acres - S~9 5-10 &.::res - size> 1 C aen",
Habitat - loll' hati.tat clivers;ty - moderate hab~21 div8rsty ~ high ha:>ta, CiV':l5'Y
low sanctc;ary or re\J;;e '-..-' , mode,ate sanctuar)' or rsiu1je r1lgr. S'3.nctua,y or retug9
- -
Functions
i
I JXIints ~
(max9)
Specific -. 10'H i;werteLxatel ha..:::,'ta: ./ moderate ilW8r\8brate habi:at - high invertebrate h2bit2.t
Habitat - low amphibian habii21 ~ mo::iera',g a'ilpllOa1 r,ab~i!t - high ampnlbl2.l haXu3!
- low ftsh habilal _/ moderate nsh hatXat - high :ish h abi:at
Functions - low mammal habi1a: - moderate r;1ammal habil2.! - high marnma! ha:.fi.at
paIn 1.5 -'-_ - low bird habitat - modela~5 Of,j naCJltat -- nigh bird haClitzl
(max 15)
Cultural! low ediJca~onaJ opp:munrties _ . mJder""e educatklnal oppor;u;tt-es hign educationaJ opp:Jrtunities - .
- -
I SocioecQ- leI',' aesthe~c; vaJue / mooerar.e !aest!1etic value hlg h aesthetic value
- -
, . lacks commercial fisheries, mVderats ccmrneiC-ial ~s,1erieSI hiah commercial f;shenes. r
- - -
nomic agoculture, ren9W2~ie reSDL:~:;.es agriculture, renewable rescurces agih..'lJltur':l, renaw~b1e resources
- lacks hIstorical or a"rCheO]ogical - his-:o((;al or arCheological S~8 - important historicaJ or archecbgical '
resources - some paSSive and actIVe sf!.s
lacl<.s pa53iv8 ar:c aDJ,-a r-eCi6at~ci;al oVrJOrtl1ni'dE:s m "n y pas..sh'9 and aC',,'va I
- - I
recreationaloppJrt'Jriities - pmatsi'l owned, some pUb'iC recreationalopportunities !
- p;ivately Q'Mled axe 5.5 ~ unias':ricted put]:c acces..s I
- nm ne ar op:Jn spa:-s - som:; C'.GnneGtion to ope.. spS.C8 - dirsctly connected to open space
points II
(max21) '.
I
Notes: