202 happy valley mitigation site...mar 26, 2018 · what is the 202 sahalee way (happy valley)...

202 Happy Valley Mitigation Site

SR 202 Improvement Project: SR 520 to Sahalee Way NE USACE IP 2004-00024

SR 202 Junction with 244th Avenue Northeast Signalization and

Channelization (MP 12.92 to MP 13.04) & Temporary Signal (MP 13.00) NWS-2005-1158

SR 520: West Lake Sammamish Parkway to SR 202 Widening (MP11.40 to

12.83) NWS-2007-1926

Northwest Region

2017 MONITORING REPORT

Wetlands Program

Issued March 2018

Environmental Services Office

Author: Sean Patrick

Editor:

Doug Littauer

For additional information about this report or the WSDOT Wetlands Program, please contact:

Doug Littauer, Wetlands Program WSDOT, Environmental Services Office P. O. Box 47332, Olympia, WA 98504 Phone: 360-570-2579 E-mail: [email protected]

Monitoring reports are published on the web at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Wetlands/Monitoring/reports.htm

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Wetlands/Monitoring/reports.htm

202 Happy Valley Mitigation Site

SR 202 Improvement Project: SR 520 to Sahalee Way NE – USACE IP 2004-00024

SR 202 Junction with 244th Avenue Northeast Signalization and Channelization (MP 12.92 to MP 13.04) & Temporary Signal (MP 13.00) – NWS-2005-1158

SR 520: West Lake Sammamish Parkway to SR 202 Widening (MP11.40 to 12.83) – NWS-2007-1926

1 Wetland impact acreage was referenced from the applicable USACE permits (USACE 2004, USACE 2005, USACE 2007). 2 Mitigation acreages were referenced from the Final Wetland & Stream Mitigation Plan SR 202 Improvement Project: SR 520 to Sahalee Way NE (WSDOT 2005) and are only for the 202 Happy Valley mitigation site. Additional mitigation acreage is provided at the 202 Turple mitigation site.

General Site Information USACE Permit Numbers

200400024, NWS-2005-1158, NWS-2007-1926

Mitigation Location

At the intersection of SR 202 and Sahalee Way, King County

LLID Number 1220631476556 Construction Date 2006-2007 Monitoring Period 2008-2017 Year of Monitoring 10 of 10 Area of Project Wetland Impact1 2.39 acres

Type of Mitigation Wetland Establishment

Wetland Enhancement

Buffer Enhancement

Planned Area of Mitigation2 5.43 acres 1.72 acres 5.76 acres

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

202 Happy Valley 1 2017 Annual Monitoring Report

Summary of Monitoring Results and Management Activities (2017)

Performance Standards 2017 Results3 Management Activities

Wetland hydrology will be present Hydrology was present in all intended wetland areas during the March 20 delineation visit

Installed pond leveler on 12/3/2015

Wetland delineation: 8.07 acres of new wetlands in total (202 Happy Valley and 202 Turple combined)

6.23 acres of new wetland (Happy Valley site only)

75% cover of native FAC or wetter woody species in the PSS/PFO 20% cover (visual estimate)

50% cover of native woody species in the upland buffer 85% cover (CI80% = 71-99%)

Less than 20% cover of King County listed Class A weeds, reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), non-native blackberries (Rubus species), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)

Class A weeds: none observed Other species (visual estimates): 10% in the wetland < 5% in the buffer

2015: 7 weed control visits 2016: 6 weed control visits 2017: 2 weed control visits

Three native facultative or wetter vegetation species will achieve 8% relative cover in the scrub-shrub wetland community

Not assessed due to deep inundation

Three native facultative or wetter vegetation species will achieve 8% relative cover in each forested wetland community

Not assessed due to deep inundation

Less than 30% relative cover of each red alder (Alnus rubra) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) in the wetland < 5% for each (visual estimates)

Three native upland vegetation species will achieve 8% relative cover in each buffer community

5 species with ≥ 8 percent relative cover

Report Introduction This report summarizes final-year (Year 10) monitoring activities at the 202 Happy Valley Mitigation Site. Included are a site description, the performance standards, an explanation of monitoring methods, and an evaluation of site success. Monitoring activities in 2017 included vegetation surveys, photo-documentation, and a wetland delineation. A wetland delineation and an assessment of hydrology were conducted on March 20. Vegetation monitoring occurred on July 17 to 18. 3 Estimated values are presented with their corresponding statistical confidence interval. For example, 85% cover (CI80% = 71-99%) means we are 80% confident that the true cover value is between 71% and 99%.


What is the 202 Sahalee Way (Happy Valley) Mitigation Site? This 16.7 -acre property (Figure 1) contains a new wetland established on the south side of SR 202, approximately 1.5 miles east of Lake Sammamish. This site was established to partially compensate for the loss of 4.39 acres of wetlands due to road improvements along SR 202 and SR 520. The rest of the mitigation for this project is taking place at SR 202 Sahalee Way NE Wetland Mitigation Site #1 (Turple). The mitigation at these sites is intended to provide the following functions: flood flow alteration, sediment removal, nutrient/toxicant removal, erosion control and shoreline stabilization, production/export of organic matter, general habitat suitability, habitat for aquatic invertebrates, habitat for amphibians, and general fish habitat.

Figure 1 Site Sketch The 202 Sahalee Way Happy Valley Mitigation Site consists of established forested and scrub-shrub wetlands surrounded by upland buffer on all sides but the northwest corner. Evans Creek runs through the northwest corner of the site and an unnamed tributary, designed to function as a backwater channel, runs through the center. Directions to the site are included in Appendix 2.


What are the performance standards for this site? Year 10 Performance Standard 1 The soils will be saturated to the surface, or standing water will be present in a monitoring well at 12 inches below the surface or less, for a consecutive number of days greater than or equal to 12.5 percent of the growing season. Wetland hydrology will be determined using indicators of wetland hydrology, as listed in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology publication #96-94). Performance Standard 2 The wetland areas will be delineated using current methodology to assure that the mitigation sites contain 8.07 acres of new wetlands in total. Performance Standard 3 Native facultative or wetter woody species will achieve 75 percent coverage in each scrub-shrub and forested wetland community. Native colonizing vegetation will be counted in this coverage calculation. Performance Standard 4 Native upland buffer woody species will achieve 50 percent coverage in each upland buffer community. Native colonizing vegetation will be counted in this coverage calculation. Performance Standard 5 King County listed Class A weeds and reed canarygrass, non-native blackberries, Scot’s broom, Japanese knotweed, and purple loosestrife will not exceed 20 percent coverage in each forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetland and upland buffer community. If coverage by native plant species falls below 80 percent of the success standard, then contingency actions shall be implemented and the invasive species list shall be evaluated to determine if additional invasive species should be controlled. Performance Standard 6 Three native facultative or wetter vegetation species will achieve eight percent relative cover in the scrub-shrub wetland community.


Performance Standard 7 Three native facultative or wetter vegetation species will achieve eight percent relative cover in each forested wetland community. Performance Standard 8 Relative cover of red alder and black cottonwood will be less than 30 percent for each species in the wetland creation and enhancement areas. Performance Standard 9 Three native upland vegetation species will achieve eight percent relative cover in each buffer community. Appendix 1 shows the as-built planting plans (WSDOT 2008a).


How were the performance standards evaluated? WSDOT staff performed a wetland delineation using methods described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010) and a Global Positioning System (Trimble Mapping Grade) (Performance Standard 2). The tables below document the sampling methodology utilized for the remaining performance standards (PS) as required by the mitigation plan and permits. For additional details on the methods see the WSDOT Wetland Mitigation Site Monitoring Methods Paper (WSDOT 2008b).

Figure 2 Site Sampling Design (2017)

Placement of Baseline: Two segments: one along the wetland/buffer boundary in the southern half of the site and one through the buffer on the northern half of the site. Segmented Baseline: Length 135m Transects 1–2 Length 294m Transects 3–8

PS 3 PS 4&9 PS 5 PS 8 Attribute Cover Cover Cover Cover

Target population

Native woody species

Native woody species

Noxious weeds

Red alder/ black

cottonwood

Zone PSS/PFO Buffer Entire site Wetland

Sample method

Visual Estimate

Line Intercept

Visual Estimate

Visual Estimate

SU length n/a 10 n/a n/a

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C211AB59-D5A2-4AA2-8A76-3D9A77E01203/0/MethodsWhitePaper052004.pdf



Is this site a success? This site is successful despite its development differing significantly from what was planned. Due to persistent and extensive inundation throughout much of the wetland area, caused by beaver activity during the second half of the monitoring period, the wetland woody plantings have suffered high mortality and the resulting native woody cover in these areas did not meet the final-year performance standard (Performance Standard 3). Beaver are native to this area and are a natural component of riparian wetland environments such as this one. Attempts were made by WSDOT to limit the extent of inundation caused by the beaver dams by installing a pond leveler in 2015. Although much of the scrub-shrub and forested wetland areas have developed differently than intended, the plant communities that have developed in these areas are diverse and dominated by native species, but with a much larger emergent component than anticipated. Cover of invasive species is still relatively low and mainly consists of species that are ubiquitous to the area and not of major concern in this context. The buffer community has developed very well and is easily meeting its final-year performance standards (Performance Standards 4 and 9). Wildlife observations on-site include Pacific chorus frogs, garter snakes, and evidence of deer, coyote, and beaver. A large variety of birds have been observed on-site including many wetland-dependent species such as Belted Kingfisher, Bufflehead, Canada Goose, Common Yellowthroat, Gadwall, Great Blue Heron, Green-winged Teal, Hooded Merganser, Lesser Yellowlegs, Mallard, Marsh Wren, Northern Shoveler, Red-winged Blackbird, and Wilson’s Snipe.


Results for Performance Standards 1 and 2 (Wetland hydrology and wetland delineation): A wetland delineation was conducted on March 20, 2017. A total of 8.34 acres of wetland were delineated on-site, 6.23 acres of which are newly established wetland. During the delineation visit, inundation (Photo 1) or water within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface was present in all intended wetland areas of the site. Results for Performance Standard 3 (75% cover of native FAC or wetter woody species in the PSS/PFO): Cover of native facultative or wetter woody species in the scrub-shrub (Photo 2) and forested wetland (Photo 3) areas of the site was visually estimated at 20 percent overall. This is below the performance standard target. The majority of these areas have been consistently inundated for the last several years due to beaver activity. Many of the woody plantings have died and, therefore, woody cover has decreased significantly. Most of these areas are now generally dominated by native emergent species including broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and many other species. The cover of native emergent species in these areas was visually estimated at 70 percent overall.

Photo 1 Inundation in the wetland (March 2017)

Photo 2 Woody and emergent cover in the scrub-shrub wetland (July 2017)


Results for Performance Standard 4 (At least 50% cover of native woody species in the upland buffer): Cover of native woody species in the upland buffer (Photo 4) is estimated at 85% (CI80% = 71-99%). This exceeds the performance standard target. Results for Performance Standard 5 (Less than 20% cover of specified noxious weeds): Of the species listed in the performance standard, only reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and cutleaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) were observed on-site. Cover in the buffer was primarily of non-native blackberries and was visually estimated at five percent. Cover in the wetland was primarily of reed canarygrass and was visually estimated at 10 percent.

Photo 3 Woody cover in the forested wetland (July 2017)

Photo 4 Woody cover in the upland buffer (July 2017)


Results for Performance Standard 6 and 7 (Three species will achieve 8% relative cover in the scrub-shrub and forested wetland): These areas were not quantitatively sampled in 2017 because of access issues due to deep inundation in much of these zones. Visual estimates of relative cover are extremely difficult and unreliable in most situations. After the changes to the woody communities in these zones over the last few years and the resulting patchy cover, it is unclear whether the remaining woody species are meeting this performance standard. Overall, woody diversity in these zones has likely decreased along with the overall woody cover, as the species less equipped to handle inundation have suffered the larger proportion of the mortality on-site. At the same time, the native emergent community that has developed in these zones is quite diverse and would likely be meeting this performance standard if it were applied to the emergent vegetation. Results for Performance Standard 8 (Less than 30% relative cover of each red alder and black cottonwood in the wetland): The wetland areas were not quantitatively sampled in 2017 (see results for Performance Standards 6 and 7 above) so the relative cover of these species are unknown, but based on visual observation it is clearly less than 30 percent for each of these species. Results for Performance Standard 9 (Three species will achieve 8% relative cover in the buffer): Within our sample, five woody species achieved at least eight percent relative cover in the buffer: tall oregongrape (Mahonia aquifolium), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis). Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and red alder were also close, at seven and six percent relative cover respectively. What is planned for this site? Routine weed control will continue in 2018.


Appendix 1 – As-Built Planting Plans (WSDOT 2008a)


Appendix 2 – Photo Points The photographs below were taken from permanent photo-points on July 18, 2017 and document current site development.


Photo Point 1a

Photo Point 1c

Photo Point 1b

Photo Point 2a


Photo Point 2b

Photo Point 3a

Photo Point 2c

Photo Point 3b


Photo Point 3c

Photo Point 3e

Photo Point 3d

Photo Point 3f


Photo Point 3g

Photo Point 4b

Photo Point 4a

Photo Point 4c


Photo Point 4d

Photo Point 4e

Driving Directions: From I-5 northbound take Exit 14 for WA-520 West/WA-520 E toward Seattle/Redmond. Keep right at the fork to continue toward WA-520 East and merge onto WA-520 East. Take the WA-202 East exit. Merge onto Redmond Way/WA-202. Continue to follow WA-202. Turn Right on Sahalee Way and park inside the gate on-site.


Appendix 3 – Wetland Delineation Report

WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT

SR 202 Sahalee Way Happy Valley Mitigation Site

SR 202 Improvement Project: SR 520 to Sahalee Way NE USACE IP 200400024

SR 520: West Lake Sammamish Parkway to

SR 202 Widening (MP11.40 to 12.83) USACE NWS-2007-1926-SOD

SR 202 Junction with 244th Avenue Northeast

Signalization and Channelization (MP 12.92 to MP 13.04) & Temporary Signal (MP 13.00)

USACE NWS-2005-1158

King County, Washington

Prepared by:

Kristen Andrews WSDOT Environmental Services Office

Olympia, Washington

November 2017

202 Happy Valley Mitigation Site November 2017 Wetland Delineation Report 1

Introduction This report was prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to describe the wetland boundary delineation for the 202 Sahalee Way Happy Valley Mitigation Site. Field work was conducted by WSDOT wetland biologists Tatiana Dreisbach and Sean Patrick, on March 30, 2017. The delineation identifies 8.39 acres of wetland within the mitigation site boundaries. The wetland was previously delineated in May 3013 (WSDOT 2013). The purpose of the 2017 field work was to reevaluate the 2013 wetland boundary and document any wetland boundary modifications if necessary. This report updates and replaces the 2013 delineation report. The 2017 delineation resulted in a minor wetland boundary amendment (Figure 1).

General Information for the SR 202 Sahalee Way Happy Valley Mitigation Site

Location: S17, T25N, R6E. King County. (Vicinity map, Figure 1)

USACE NWP, IP Numbers

IP 200400024, NWS-2007-1926-SOD, NWS-2005-1158

Long./Lat. ID Number 1220631476556 Land Resource Region (LRR) A

Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 2

Construction Date 2007

Monitoring Period 2008 - 2017

Year of Monitoring 10 of 10 (in 2017)

Area of Project Impact1 2.39 acres Type of Mitigation Required Acreage1 2017 Delineated Acreage

Establishment 5.43 5.20

Enhancement 1.72 1.11

Totals 27.15 6.31

Total Delineated Wetland Area

In addition to 6.31 acres of wetland occurring within the required establishment and enhancement areas, an additional 2.03 acres of wetland is present in upland buffer enhancement and wetland preservation areas as well as areas designated as open water. There is also approximately 0.04 acre of wetland that falls out of the planted areas of the mitigation site The total delineated wetland area within the study area is 8.34 acres (Figure 2).

1 Project impact acreages from USACE Permits IP 200400024, NWS-2007-1926-SOD, NWS-2005-1158.

Required mitigation acreages from WSDOT 2008, Table 11. 2 The required wetland mitigation acreage is for this site is 7.15 acres. Additional wetland acreage is

provided at the 202 Turple mitigation site.


Location

Figure 1. Vicinity Map


Methods Wetland boundaries within the Happy Valley Mitigation Site were delineated using routine methods described in the:

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

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

Wetland boundaries were delineated based on on-site observations of hydrology, soils, and plant communities, in conjunction with background information.

Mitigation sites are recognized as difficult wetland situations in the regional supplements and may have problematic hydric soils or lack one of the other factors (USACE 2010). Wetland determination data forms provide a rationale for the delineated boundary when one or more of the factors are problematic (Appendix A W1-SP1, W1-SP2, W1-SP4).

A Global Positioning System (GPS) Trimble GeoXT mapping grade unit was used to record wetland boundaries and sampling point locations (Figure 2). Wetland boundary points were recorded at regular intervals and at any change in direction along the boundary. Wetland mitigation types (Figure 2) were georeferenced by digitizing the mitigation site as-built planting plan in ArcGIS 10.5.1. Inherent in both GPS and georeferencing are minute errors, resulting in slight inaccuracies in both boundary line placement and acreage calculations. These tools represent the best available methods at the time of the study and report preparation.

Wetland Delineation and Study Area Study Area Wetlands described in this report were assessed only within the wetland mitigation site boundary (Figure 2). Wetland preservation areas are present within the mitigation site boundary and were included in this delineation.

Wetlands The Happy Valley Mitigation Site has depressional and riverine wetland areas with a variety of Cowardin classes. Palustrine aquatic bed (PAB), palustrine emergent (PEM), and palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) characterize the wetland vegetation communities. Wetter areas of the wetland are dominated by PAB and PEM communities, forming gaps in the canopy and contributing complexity to the habitat and structure of the wetland.

The delineation determined 8.39 acres of wetland were present within the 202 Happy Valley Mitigation Site. Delineation data were collected at seven sampling points and


recorded on wetland determination data forms (Appendix A). Paired wetland and upland sample points were used to define the wetland edge. Additional wetland sample points characterize various wetland vegetation communities. Data recorded on wetland determination data forms characterize typical wetland and upland conditions observed on site. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology were examined in many additional sampling locations to determine the wetland boundary.

Precipitation The Regional Delineation Supplement Version 2.0 (USACE 2010) recommends using methods described in Chapter 19 in Engineering Field Handbook (NRCS 2015) to determine if precipitation occurring in the three full months prior to the site visit was normal, drier than normal, or wetter than normal. Actual rainfall is compared to the normal range of the 30-year average. When considering the three prior months as a whole, wetter than normal precipitation conditions were present prior to field work. One of the three months prior to field work was drier than normal with the first and second prior months wetter than normal (Appendix B-1).

Heavy precipitation was recorded in the ten days preceding field work (Appendix B-2).

Growing Season The following evidence of the growing season was observed at the time of the delineation:

• Blooms present on tall oregongrape (Mahonia aquifolium)

• Buds breaking on red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa)


Figure 2. Site Boundary in black, wetland boundary in red, and sampling point locations in black.


202 Happy Valley Mitigation Site – Wetland Delineation Summary

Total Delineated Wetland Area 8.34 acres

Wetland Determination Data Forms

Appendix A; Sampling Points W1-SP1, W1-SP2, W1-SP4, W2-SP1

Upland Determination Data Forms

Appendix A; Sampling Points W1-SP3 and W1-SP5, W2-SP2

Delineators Tatiana Dreisbach, Sean Patrick, Tony Bush

Delineation Date May 20, 2013 and March 20, 2017

Vegetation

Trees – black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) and red alder (Alnus rubra) Shrubs – hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana), cluster rose (Rosa pisocarpa), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Herbs – broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), soft rush (Juncus effusus), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), slough sedge (Carex obnupta),

Soils

Soils examined to a depth of 18 inches exhibited hydric characteristics. Matrix colors of 10YR 3/2 were observed. Redoximorphic concentrations and depletions were observed in some layers. Indicator F6 met at W2-SP1. Although hydric soil indicators were not observed at the other sample points, soils meet criteria for problematic hydric soils (recently developed wetlands).

Hydrology

Groundwater, surface water runoff, and flooding from Evans Creek appear to be the main sources of hydrology. Precipitation and snow melt also contribute to the hydrologic regime of this wetland. Water in the observation pits ranged from 0 inches (at the soil surface) to 8 inches below the surface. Surface water deeper than two feet was observed in some areas with the open water areas even deeper than that.

Rationale for Delineation

Positive indicators of all three wetland criteria are present. Placement of boundary determined primarily by the presence of water and somewhat by vegetation and topographic break. In some areas, inundation encroached on the buffer vegetation causing a die off of upland species. Distinct topographic break present in some areas.

Limitations This wetland delineation report documents the investigation, best professional judgment and conclusions of WSDOT based on the site conditions encountered at the time of this study. The wetland delineation was performed in compliance with accepted standards for professional wetland biologists and applicable federal, state, and local ordinances. It is correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. It should be considered a preliminary jurisdictional determination of wetlands and other waters until it has been reviewed and approved in writing by the appropriate jurisdictional authorities.


References 1. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.

Vicksburg (MS): US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Technical Report Y-87-1. Available from: http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/regulatory/wlman87.pdf

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

3. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service [Internet]. 2017. Field Office Technical Guide. US Department of Agriculture. Climate Data for Snohomish County, Station Monrore, Washington. [cited 2017 Nov 8]. Available at: http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/efotg_locator.aspxt

4. [NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service [Internet]. 2017. Web Soil Survey for King County, Washington. US Department of Agriculture. [cited 2017 Nov 8]. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

5. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2014. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.2 [Internet]. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. Available at: http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/

6. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Department of the Army Individual Permit Number 200400024.

7. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Department of the Army Nationwide Permit Number (23) 200501158.

8. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Department of the Army Individual Permit Number NWS_2007-1926-SOD.

9. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. Wakeley JS, Lichvar RW, Noble CV, editors. Vicksburg (MS): US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Available at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/west_mt_finalsupp.pdf

10. [WSDOT] Washington State Department of Transportation. 2005. Final Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan. SR 202 Improvements Project: SR 520 to Sahalee Way NE. Seattle (WA): Washington State Department of Transportation, Northwest Region.

11. [WSDOT] Washington State Department of Transportation. 2008. Final Wetland Mitigation Report. SR 520 West Lake Sammamish Parkway to SR 202 Project. Seattle (WA): Washington State Department of Transportation, Northwest Region.

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

http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=37808.wba%20

http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/efotg_locator.aspx

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

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

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/west_mt_finalsupp.pdf


202 Happy Valley Mitigation Site November 2017 Wetland Delineation Report

Appendix A —Wetland Determination Data Forms Wetland Delineation Data Forms for: W1-SP1 W1-SP2 W1-SP3 W1-SP4 W1-SP5 W2-SP1 W2-SP2 Wetland polygons, sampling point locations, and wetland names shown in Figure 2.


Appendix B — Precipitation Data

Appendix B-1. Comparison of Observed and Normal Precipitation (NRCS 2015) Monthly precipitation data for Monroe, Washington.

Long-term rainfall recordsa

Month 3 yrs. in 10 less

than Average

3 yrs. in 10 more

than Rain falla

Condition dry, wet, normalb

Condition Value

Month weight value

Product of previous two

columns

1st prior month March 3.99 5.09 5.87 9.22 W 3 3 9

2nd prior month Feb 3.48 4.79 5.65 9.02 W 3 2 6

3rd prior month Jan 4.35 6.14 7.28 3.41 D 1 1 1

Sum 16

a NRCS 2017 b Conditions are considered normal if they fall within the low and high range around the average.

Note: If sum is Condition value: 6 - 9 then prior period has been drier than normal Dry (D) =1

10 - 14 then period has been normal Normal (N) =2 15 - 18 then period has been wetter than normal Wet (W) =3

Conclusions: Wetter than normal precipitation conditions were present prior to the field visit.


Appendix B-2. Daily Precipitation 10 days preceding field work

Daily precipitation data for Monroe, Washington.

Date (2017)

Daily Precipitation (inches)a

March 29 0.60

March 28 0.42

March 27 0.19

March 26 0.07

March 25 0.00

March 24 0.83

March 23 0.01

March 22 0.05

March 21 0.23

March 20 0.01

Sum 2.41 a NRCS 2017

Conclusions: Heavy precipitation was recorded in the ten days preceding field work.

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

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

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

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification:

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

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

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

Remarks:

Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: )1. (A)2.3. (B)4.

= Total Cover (A/B)Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

2.3. OBL species x 1 =4. FACW species x 2 =5. FAC species x 3 =

= Total Cover FACU species x 4 =Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =1. Column Totals: (A) (B)

4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation6. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%7. 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹8. 4 -9.

10. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants¹11. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)

= Total CoverWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

2.

Remarks:

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

202 Happy Valley King County 3/20/2017

WSDOT WA w1-sp1

Briscott silt loam PEM

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Hydric Soil Present?Wetland Hydrology Present?

Tatiana Dreisbach, Sean Patrick S17, T25N, R6E

depression concave 5

A 47.656 -122.064 NAD83HARN

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute % Cover

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

Indicator Status15ft x 15ft Number of Dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2

100.0%15ft x 15ft

1. Spiraea douglasii 20 Y 100.0 FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:70 70

20 0 05ft x 5ft 0 0

400 020

Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.222

1102.

Typha latifolia 70 Y 100.0 OBL 90

3.

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

70 ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.5ft x 5ft

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

= Total Cover% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30

1.

dead woody plantings including syal and psme in this area spdo and tyla have established in this location due to beaver creating permanent ponding.

Yes NoYes NoYes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No


Sampling Point:

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

¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicble to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present?

Remarks:

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

MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Depth (inches):Water Table Present? Depth (inches):Saturation Present? Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?(includes capillary fringe)Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

SOIL w1-sp1

Depth (inches)

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

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

0

Beaver have built extensive dams across the site and this has caused a rise in water since last delineation.

A soil pit was not excavated due to the presence of water (see hydrology section below). This soil meets the definition of a hydric soil due to the presence of inundation, saturation, or a high water table for extended periods during the growing season.

HYDROLOGY

70

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

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

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

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

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except

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

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

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

Yes No

Yes No

Yes NoYes NoYes No











Remarks:










2.

Remarks:



WSDOT WA W1-SP2

Briscott silt loam PSS






A 47.656 -122.064


Absolute % Cover

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover

Indicator Status5 x 15 Number of Dominant Species



100.0%5 x15

1. Spiraea douglasii 30 Y 85.7 FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:


Symphoricarpos albus 5 N 14.3 FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:0 0

35 5 205ft x 5ft 0 0

600 030


802.

35

3.


¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.5ft x 5ft



1.

dead maaq and syal and psme indicating this area is wetland. Dead due to influence of wetland hydrology.

Yes NoYes NoYes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No


Sampling Point:





Remarks:



Field Observations:


Remarks:

SOIL W1-SP2

Depth (inches)


Sandy Loam0-2 10YR 2/1 100


0

beaver have brought water table up at this location

10YR 2/1 0-2 inches above sandy gravelly loam that lacks hydric soil features due to newly forming soils. Soils problematic. This soil meets the definition of a hydric soil due to the presence of inundation, saturation, or a high water table for extended periods during the growing season.

HYDROLOGY

2









Yes No

Yes No

Yes NoYes NoYes No











Remarks:










2.

Remarks:



WSDOT WA W1-SP3

Briscott silt loam upland





depression

A 47.656 -122.064


Absolute % Cover

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover




25.0%15ft x 15ft

1. Mahonia aquifolium 50 Y 57.5 FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:


Symphoricarpos albus 30 Y 34.5 FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:Pseudotsuga menziesii 3 N 3.4 FACU 0 0

87 84 3365ft x 5ft 0 0

0Populus balsamifera 2 N 2.3 FAC 14 42Rosa nutkana 2 N 2.3 FAC 0


3782. Galium aparine 1 N 3.2 FACU

Holcus lanatus 10 Y 32.3 FAC 98

3. unid heerb 20 Y 64.5 #N/A





1.

Yes NoYes NoYes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No


Sampling Point:





Remarks:



Field Observations:


Remarks:

SOIL W1-SP3

Depth (inches)


Loam

3-20 10YR 2/2 100

0-3 2.5YR 2.5/1 100

Sandy Loam very sandy with gravel


19

Water table too deep to meet indicator A2.

HYDROLOGY

20









Yes No

Yes No

Yes NoYes NoYes No











Remarks:










2.

Remarks:



WSDOT WA w1-sp4

Briscott silt loam PEM






A 47.656 -122.064 NAD83HARN


Absolute % Cover

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover




100.0%15ft x 15ft

1. Prevalence Index worksheet:


Total % Cover of: Multiply by:85 85

0 05ft x 5ft 0 0

100 05


952. Juncus effusus 5 N 5.6 FACW

Typha latifolia 80 Y 88.9 OBL 90

3. Scirpus cyperinus 5 N 5.6 OBL





1.

Yes NoYes NoYes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No


Sampling Point:





Remarks:



Field Observations:


Remarks:

SOIL w1-sp4

Depth (inches)



0

A soil pit was not excavated due to the presence of water (see hydrology section below). This soil meets the definition of a hydric soil due to the presence of inundation, saturation, or a high water table for extended periods during the growing season.

HYDROLOGY

20









Yes No

Yes No

Yes NoYes NoYes No











Remarks:










2.

Remarks:



WSDOT WA W1-SP5

Briscott silt loam upland





slope of depression concave 15

A 47.656 -122.064 NAD83HARN


Absolute % Cover

Dom. Sp.?

Relative % Cover


That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1Acer macrophyllum


20 Y 66.7 FACUPseudotsuga menziesii 10 Y 33.3 FACU

20.0%30

1. Mahonia aquifolium 30 Y 75.0 FACU Prevalence Index worksheet:


Symphoricarpos albus 10 Y 25.0 FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by:0 0

40 74 2960 0

047 1410


4372. Schedonorus arundinaceus 5 N 9.8 FAC

Agrostis capillaris 40 Y 78.4 FAC 121

3. Geranium robertianum 2 N

Cardamine oligosperma 2 N 3.9 FACGalium aparine 2 N 3.9 FACU

3.9 FACU





1.

Yes NoYes NoYes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No


Sampling Point:





Remarks:



Field Observations:


Remarks:

SOIL W1-SP5

Depth (inches)


Loam

7-18 2.5Y 5/2 100

0-7 10YR 2/1 100

Sandy Loam with gravels


HYDROLOGY









Yes No

Yes No

Yes NoYes NoYes No

2 -

3 -

4 -

5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology mustbe present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is > 50%

Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1

1

1

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

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

1

1

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrologic Vegetation

w2-sp1

5.0 2.9

Yes NoYes No

Yes NoYes NoYes No

Yes No

20

202030

5

00000

5

Yes No

40.0%

0.0%

40.0%

0.0%

100.0%0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0 00.0% 40 800.0% 50 150

0 00

0 021.1% FACW

90 23021.1% FAC

2.55621.1% FACW 31.6% FAC

5.3%

0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

95

0.0%

0.0%

0

, or Hydrology

Prevalence Index = B/A =

1.2.3.4.

(A/B)

Project/Site:

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Applicant/Owner:

1.2.3.4.5.

Sampling Date:

Lat.: Long.:

Sampling Point:

Investigator(s):

= Total Cover

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

T

Number of Dominant SpeciesThat are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

1.2.

Remarks:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A)

(A)

Are Vegetation

(B)

Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.

Soil Map Unit Name:

Datum:

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


NWI classification:

Remarks:

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

R

Absolute% Cover

Are Vegetation

Section, Township, Range: S

significantly disturbed?

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

naturally problematic?

Slope:

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

, Soil

Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

% /

, Soil

Hydric Soil Present?

Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0

Woody Vine Stratum

(B)

Herb Stratum

= Total Cover

Subregion (LRR):

IndicatorStatus

°

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

HydrophyticVegetationPresent?

US Army Corps of Engineers

(If no, explain in Remarks.)


City/County:

Percent of dominant SpeciesThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of DominantSpecies Across All Strata:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

State:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

, or Hydrology

DominantSpecies?Rel.Strat.Cover

0 0.0%

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

20-May-13sr 202 happy valley na/king

WSDOT WA

6E25N17Tatiana Dreisbach, Tony Bush

sloping terrace undulating

NAD83HARN-122.06647.655LRR A

Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slpoes PEM

Agrostis exarata

Holcus lanatusJuncus effususRanunculus repens

Vicia spp.

(Plot size: 15 x 15 feet




)

)

)

)

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

w2-sp1

8

0

Sample point within 2 feet of an area with inundation to 1 inch.

Soil Sampling Point:


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

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes NoYes No

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



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

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

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

2 cm Muck (A10)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydrology

Remarks:

Surface Water (A1)High Water Table (A2)Saturation (A3)Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Iron Deposits (B5)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Salt Crust (B11)

Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)


Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Geomorphic Position (D2)

FAC-neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?Saturation Present?(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?

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

Remarks:

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

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Red Parent Material (TF2)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

3

3

1


Depth(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features% Loc² Texture RemarksType%

concentration is prominent

concentration is prominent

manganese or concentration of organic carbon

1

0-6

6-18

+mottle

+mottle

+mottle

10YR

10YR

3/2

3/2

100

10YR

5YR

7.5YR

10YR 2/1

5/6

5/6

5/1 7

2

5

5

C

C

D M

M

M

M

Sandy Loam

Silt Loam

2 -

3 -

4 -

5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology mustbe present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is > 50%

Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1

1

1

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

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

1

1

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrologic Vegetation

w2-sp2

5.0 2.9

Yes NoYes No

Yes NoYes NoYes No

Yes No

60

2055

0

00000

10

Yes No

20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

0.0%

100.0%0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0 00.0% 10 200.0% 80 240

0 00

0 066.7% FAC

90 26022.2% FAC

2.8895.6% FACW 5.6% FACW

0.0%

0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

90

0.0%

0.0%

0

, or Hydrology

Prevalence Index = B/A =

1.2.3.4.

(A/B)

Project/Site:

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Applicant/Owner:

1.2.3.4.5.

Sampling Date:

Lat.: Long.:

Sampling Point:

Investigator(s):

= Total Cover

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

T

Number of Dominant SpeciesThat are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

1.2.

Remarks:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A)

(A)

Are Vegetation

(B)

Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.

Soil Map Unit Name:

Datum:

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


NWI classification:

Remarks:

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

R

Absolute% Cover

Are Vegetation

Section, Township, Range: S

significantly disturbed?

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

naturally problematic?

Slope:

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

, Soil

Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

% /

, Soil


Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0

Woody Vine Stratum

(B)

Herb Stratum

= Total Cover

Subregion (LRR):

IndicatorStatus

°

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

HydrophyticVegetationPresent?

US Army Corps of Engineers

(If no, explain in Remarks.)


City/County:

Percent of dominant SpeciesThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of DominantSpecies Across All Strata:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

State:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

, or Hydrology

DominantSpecies?Rel.Strat.Cover

0 0.0%

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

20-May-13sr 202 happy valley na/king

WSDOT WA

6E25N17Tatiana Dreisbach, Tony Bush

Toeslope undulating

NAD83HARN-122.06647.654LRR A

Briscot silt loam Upland

Ranunculus repens

Holcus lanatusAgrostis exarataEquisetum telmateia





)

)

)

)

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

w2-sp2

Saturated at 14 inches.

Soil Sampling Point:


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

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes NoYes No

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



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

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

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

2 cm Muck (A10)


Type:

Depth (inches):

Hydrology

Remarks:

Surface Water (A1)High Water Table (A2)Saturation (A3)Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Iron Deposits (B5)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Salt Crust (B11)

Dry Season Water Table (C2)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)


Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Geomorphic Position (D2)

FAC-neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?Saturation Present?(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?

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

Remarks:

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

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Red Parent Material (TF2)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

3

3

1


Depth(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features% Loc² Texture RemarksType%

concentration is faint

1

0-18

+mottle

+mottle

10YR 3/2 98 7.5YR

10Y 5/3

4/1 1

1 D

C M

M

Sandy Loam


Literature Cited

1. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Vicksburg (MS): US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Technical Report Y-87-1. Available at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf

2. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Department of the Army Individual Permit Number 200400024.

3. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Department of the Army Individual Permit Number NWS-2005-1158.

4. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Department of the Army Individual Permit Number NWS-2007-1926 SOD.

5. [USACE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), Wakeley JS, Lichvar RW, Noble CV, editors. Vicksburg (MS): US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Available at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/west_mt_finalsupp.pdf

6. [WSDOT] Washington State Department of Transportation. 2005. Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan SR 202 Improvement Project: SR 520 to Sahalee Way NE. Seattle (WA): Washington State Department of Transportation, Northwest Region.

7. [WSDOT] Washington State Department of Transportation. 2008a. SR 202 SR 520 to Sahalee Way Stage 2 Wetland Mitigation Site #2 As-Built Planting Plan.

8. [WSDOT] Washington State Department of Transportation. 2008b. WSDOT Wetland Mitigation Site Monitoring Methods. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C211AB59-D5A2-4AA2-8A76-3D9A77E01203/0/MethodsWhitePaper052004.pdf

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf



202 happy valley mitigation site...mar 26, 2018 · what is the 202 sahalee way (happy valley)...

Documents