Wetland Delineation Report for the Little Hanaford Road Property Centralia, Washington

Prepared for:

City of Centralia Public Works Department 1100 N. Tower Avenue Centralia, Washington 98531-5044 (206) 330-7512

Prepared by:

Ecological Land Services, Inc. 1157 3rd Avenue, Suite 220 Longview, Washington 98632 (360) 578-1371 Project Number 1547.01

February 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...... 1

METHODOLOGY...... 1

SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 2

VEGETATION ...... 2

SOILS...... 3

HYDROLOGY...... 3

NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY ...... 4

LEWIS COUNTY WETLAND MAPPING...... 4

CONCLUSIONS...... 4 WETLAND CATEGORIZATION ...... 4 WATER TYPING...... 4 WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ...... 4 LIMITATIONS ...... 6

REFERENCES...... 7

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

APPENDIX A Wetland Determination Data Forms

APPENDIX B Western Washington Wetland Rating Form

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

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

______Joanne Bartlett, PWS Professional Biologist

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report ii February 2015 INTRODUCTION Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS) was contracted by the City of Centralia, Public Works Department to complete a wetland delineation and report for the Little Hanaford Road properties, parcel numbers 20965002000 and 02096200000, within a portion of Section 4, Township 14 North, Range 2 West of the Willamette Meridian, near Centralia, Washington (Figure 1). This report summarizes findings of the wetland delineation according to the Lewis County Code (LCC), Title 17 Land Use and Development Regulations, Chapter 17.35A Critical Areas, Article IV (A) Wetlands and Article IV (B) Aquatic Habitats.

METHODOLOGY The wetland delineation followed the Routine Determination Method according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 2010).

The Routine Determination Method examines three parameters—vegetation, soils, and hydrology—to determine if wetlands exist in a given area. Hydrology is critical in determining what is wetland, but is often difficult to assess because hydrologic conditions can change periodically (hourly, daily, or seasonally). Consequently, it is necessary to determine if hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils are present, which would indicate that water is present for long enough duration to support a wetland plant community. By definition, wetlands are 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. Wetlands are regulated as “Waters of the United States” by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as “Waters of the State” by the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), and locally by Lewis County.

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

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 1 February 2015 SITE DESCRIPTION The City of Centralia properties are located south of Little Hanaford Road just outside the eastern limits of the city (Figure 1). They are each composed of rectangles with the irregular property lines around the western property. The north edge of the properties is defined by Little Hanaford Road, a small residential development on Creekside Court, and a larger formerly farmed property west of the residential development (Figure 2). Additional residential development is located south, east, and west of the properties. Lundberg Road lies along the east edge of the properties and a mixed deciduous and coniferous forest lays along the south edge of the eastern property (Photoplates 1 and 2). The property itself is composed of mowed pasture, which is mostly at the base of the moderately steep slopes down from the south (Photoplates 3 through 6). The mowed pasture extends to the south bank of China Creek (Type F water), which runs along the north edge of the property (Photoplates 8 and 11).

The property is composed mostly of wetland that lies within the low pasture but there are areas where the wetland extends a short distance up the south slope (Figure 2). There are upland islands located on the west half of the property and at the north edge along China Creek (Photoplates 6 and 9). Wetland extends to the adjacent north properties (Photoplate 8) and Little Hanaford Road and includes a roadside ditch at the north edge (Photoplate 11). Because the wetland extends to the properties and road to the north, the north boundary was not flagged as part of the delineation. The southern boundary was flagged and the upland islands were flagged to identify their locations within the wetland.

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

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

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

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 2 February 2015 officinale, FACU), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata, FACU), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum, FACU) are present in the partially un-mowed area where Test Plot 2 was conducted (Photoplate 2).

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

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

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

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

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

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 3 February 2015 runoff, groundwater discharge from the south slope, and direct precipitation. Evidence of flooding was observed to the south edge of the wetland during the January 30, 2015 site visit indicating that much of the wetland is seasonally flooded due to riverine flooding. Therefore, the wetland is determined to be a Riverine system. Hydrology was not present in any of the upland test plots and there was no evidence of wetland hydrology.

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS The LCC Chapter 17.35A.610 specifies wetland buffer widths based on the wetland category along with the score for habitat functions and intensity of the proposed land use. The buffer widths

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 4 February 2015 required for the wetland per the LCC have not be adapted for the 2014 updated wetland rating system. The wetland received a moderate rating for habitat functions, which is consistent with scoring less than 20 points for the 2004 wetland rating system. Therefore, buffers for wetlands scoring less than 20 points for habitat was used for this wetland system. The buffers for Type F Waters are greater for Water A types per LCC Chapter 17.35A.680(1). The buffers for the onsite wetland and China Creek per the LCC are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Wetland Classification, Water Type, and Buffer Requirements. Cowardin Wetland Habitat Wetland Buffer Widths Critical Class Category or Score Area Water Type Low Moderate High Intensity Intensity Intensity Wetland PEMB/C II Moderate 75 feet* 80 feet** 110 feet** PFOC China -- Type F -- 150 feet from the ordinary high water Creek Water A line * per LCC 17.35A.610(1)(a) ** per LCC 17.35A.610(2)

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 5 February 2015 LIMITATIONS

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

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 6 February 2015 REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2014. National Wetlands Inventory. Online document . Website accessed November 2014.

U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014. Lewis County Area. Online document . Website accessed November 2014.

City of Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Ecological Land Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report 7 February 2015 FIGURES AND PHOTOPLATES BLAINE LYNDEN

WASHINGTON FERNDALE ROSS 5 LAKE PROJECT BELLINGHAM WHATCOM VICINITY MAP SAN JUAN ORCAS 9 FRIDAY HARBOR 20 SITE LOPEZ ANACORTES SEDRO WOOLLEY ROCKPORT NEAH BAY MOUNT VERNON SKAGIT , W.M.

CLALLAM BAY OAK HARBOR PORT PORT ISLAND DARRINGTON ARLINGTON 2W ANGELES TOWNSEND STANWOOD

/DWLWXGH WA EVERETT /RQJLWXGH SEQUIM SNOHOMISH MUKILTEO 9 FORKS CLALLAM MONROE

LOCATION MAP , Range QUILCENE BOTHELL 1

POULSBO DUVALL 2 County, KIRKLAND JEFFERSON 5 KITSAP REDMOND SKYKOMISH 3 SEATTLE BELLEVUE 14N BREMERTON QUEETS MASON PORT ORCHARD

KENT NORTH BEND Lewis Figure AMANDA HOODSPORT 18 PARK FEDERAL WAY

KING VICINITY MAP GIG City of Centralia 3 HARBOR AUBURN TACOMA GRAYS PUYALLUP ENUMCLAW PACIFIC SHELTON BEACH HARBOR STEILACOOM BUCKLEY , Township COPALIS OLYMPIA DUPONT ORTING 4 BEACH HOQUIAM ELMA Centralia, ABERDEEN 410 OCEAN ROY 161 PIERCE 12 MONTESANO SHORES 5 YELM WESTPORT TENINO 12 EATONVILLE MT. 123 THURSTON RAINIER Little Hanaford Road Wetland Delineation

CENTRALIA Section SITE RAYMOND CHEHALIS LEWIS 7 12 SOUTH PACKWOOD BEND MORTON OCEAN 6 12 RANDLE PARK WINLOCK MOSSYROCK PACIFIC 505 LONG BEACH CASTLE 504 ILWACO 4 SKAMANIA ROCK CATHLAMET COWLITZ MT. ST. HELENS LONGVIEW KELSO

503 KALAMA JB 0 15 30 WOODLAND CLARK LA SCALE IN MILES RIDGEFIELD CENTER 2/10/15 JLL NOTE: 5 BATTLE CARSON GROUND 1547.01 USGS topographic quadrangle map reproduced using STEVENSON VANCOUVER NORTH BONNEVILLE 14 CHK: MAPTECH Inc., Terrain Navigator Pro software. DATE: DWN: REQ. BY: PRJ. MGR: PROJECT NO: CAMAS WASHOUGAL

Jack

SITE 4000 2000 SCALE IN FEET 0 C:\Users\Jack\Desktop\1547.01-Figures\1547.01 DL.dwg

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

China Creek

42 TP4

LEGEND:

Site Boundary Wetland Boundary Stream with Flow Direction Test Plot Location Wetland Flag

NOTE(S): 1. Aerial from Google Earth.

DATE: 2/10/15 Figure 2 DWN: JLL SITE MAP 0 200 400 REQ. BY: Little Hanaford Road Wetland Delineation PRJ. MGR: JB City of Centralia SCALE IN FEET CHK: Centralia, Lewis County, WA PROJECT NO: Section 4, Township 14N, Range 2W, W.M. 1547.01 , W.M. 2W WA , Range 3 County, 14N Lewis Figure

SITE City of Centralia SOIL SURVEY MAP , Township 4 Centralia, Little Hanaford Road Wetland Delineation Section JB 2/10/15 JLL 1547.01 CHK: DATE: DWN: REQ. BY: PRJ. MGR: PROJECT NO:

Jack

800 LEGEND:

27 Buckpeak silt loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes. Not hydric. 119 Lacamas silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes. Hydric. 172 Reed silty clay loam. Hydric. 400 SCALE IN FEET 0 C:\Users\Jack\Desktop\1547.01-Figures\1547.01 DL.dwg

NOTE(S): 1. Map provided on-line by NRCS at web address: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ 2/10/2015 10:50 AM , W.M. 2W WA , Range 4 County, 14N Lewis Figure

City of Centralia , Township 4 Centralia, NTIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY Little Hanaford Road Wetland Delineation Section JB 2/10/15 JLL

SITE 1547.01 CHK: DATE: DWN: REQ. BY: PRJ. MGR: PROJECT NO:

Jack

LEGEND: Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 800 400 SCALE IN FEET PEMC Palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded. PSSC Palustrine, scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded. 0 C:\Users\Jack\Desktop\1547.01-Figures\1547.01 DL.dwg

NOTE(S): 1. Map provided on-line by US Fish & Wildlife Service at web address: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/index.html 2/10/2015 10:50 AM , W.M. 2W WA , Range 5 County,

SITE 14N Lewis Figure

City of Centralia , Township 4 Centralia, LEWIS COUNTY WETLAND MAPPING Little Hanaford Road Wetland Delineation Section JB 2/10/15 JLL 1547.01 CHK: DATE: DWN: REQ. BY: PRJ. MGR: PROJECT NO:

Jack

LEGEND: Wetlands Hydric Soils 800 400 SCALE IN FEET 0 C:\Users\Jack\Desktop\1547.01-Figures\1547.01 DL.dwg

NOTE(S): 1. Map provided on-line by Lewis County GIS at web address: http://ims.lewiscountywa.gov/webmaps/composite2/viewer.htm 2/10/2015 10:50 AM 2/10/2015 10:50 AM C:\Users\Jack\Desktop\1547.01-Figures\1547.01 DL.dwg Jack

LEGEND:

Site Boundary SITE Wetland Unit Boundary Hydrologic Unit Division Permanently 150' Wetland Offset Flowing Stream Gold Street Riverine, Forested & Emergent China Creek Palustrine Forested R1.1 - Depressions cover > 1/2 the UPL UPL (Permanently Seasonally Flooded UPL area of wetland (seasonally flooded Flowing) area). Seasonally Flooded R1.2 Herbaceous plants (>6" high) > Saturated Farm Ditch 2/3 area of the wetland. (Seasonally R2.4 - Greater than 10% within 150 Flowing) Lundberg Road feet of wetland in land uses that Roadside generate pollutants. Ditch R4.1 - The ratio of wetland width is 10 Palustrine Emergent to 20 (seasonally flooded area). R4.2 - Emergent plants > 2/3 area. H1.1 - Emergent, Forested, Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata. H1.2 - Seasonally flooded, saturated, permanently flowing stream, seasonally flowing stream. H1.4 - Low interspersion of habitats.

NOTE(S): 1. Aerial photograph from Google Earth.

DATE: 2/10/15 Figure 6 DWN: JLL WETLAND RATING FORM 1 0 500 1000 REQ. BY: Little Hanaford Road Wetland Delineation PRJ. MGR: JB City of Centralia SCALE IN FEET CHK: Centralia, Lewis County, WA PROJECT NO: Section 4, Township 14N, Range 2W, W.M. 1547.01 2/10/2015 10:50 AM C:\Users\Jack\Desktop\1547.01-Figures\1547.01 DL.dwg Jack

LEGEND:

Site Boundary Wetland Unit Boundary Contributing Basin

R2.2 - Contributing basin of wetland includes UGA or incorporated area. R2.3 - At least 10% of contributing City of Centralia basin contains tilled fields and pastures. R5.2 - Up-gradient watershed does not include a UGA or incorporated area.

NOTE(S): 1. Aerial photograph from Google Earth.

DATE: 2/10/15 Figure 7 DWN: JLL WETLAND RATING FORM 2 0 2000 4000 REQ. BY: Little Hanaford Road Wetland Delineation PRJ. MGR: JB City of Centralia SCALE IN FEET CHK: Centralia, Lewis County, WA PROJECT NO: Section 4, Township 14N, Range 2W, W.M. 1547.01 2/10/2015 10:50 AM C:\Users\Jack\Desktop\1547.01-Figures\1547.01 DL.dwg Jack

LEGEND:

Site Boundary Wetland Unit Boundary (1.83%) M/L Accessible Habitat (4.28%) H Undisturbed Habitat (32.47%) H High Intensity Land Uses (42.63%) Moderate/Low Intensity M/L H Land Uses (18.52%) H2.1 - Accessible habitat 10-19% of 1km polygon. H2.2 - Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches. H H2.3 - < 50% of 1km polygon is high M/L intensity.

M/L H

M/L

NOTE(S): 1. Aerial photograph from Google Earth.

DATE: 2/10/15 Figure 8 DWN: JLL WETLAND RATING FORM 3 0 1500 3000 REQ. BY: Little Hanaford Road Wetland Delineation PRJ. MGR: JB City of Centralia SCALE IN FEET CHK: Centralia, Lewis County, WA PROJECT NO: Section 4, Township 14N, Range 2W, W.M. 1547.01 ←Rated Wetland

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

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

DATE: 2/9/15 Figure 9 DWN: JB Wetland Rating Form 4 PRJ. MGR JB PROJ.#: 1574.01 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 1 is taken from the east end of the property at the start of the wetland delineation. It looks west along the south edge of the property. The wetland is mostly in the low area on the right edge of the photo but extends up the slope in several locations crossing to the tree line on the left edge.

Photo 2 is taken from the same location as Photo 1 and looks northwesterly across the east end of the wetland.

Photo 3 is taken from the same location as Photos 1 and 2. It looks north along the east edge of the property. This onsite wetland extends to Lundberg Road, which is just visible on the Photo 2 is taken from the same right edge of the photo (beyond location as Photo 1 and looks north the utility pole). along the trail. The area beyond the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #1 DATE: 1/30/15 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 4 shows the area of wetland where Test Plot 1 was conducted. This area is dominated by reed canarygrass and hydrology was present as standing water and a shallow water table.

Photo 5 shows the area where Test Plot 2 is located. This area is composed of sloping upland that is dominated by a mixture of grasses.

Photo 6 is taken from the existing farm road that provides access to these city owned properties from Little Hanaford Road. This photo looks west along the south edge of the Photo 2 is taken from the same eastern property with wetlands location as Photo 1 and looks north beginning along the tree line to along the trail. The area beyond the left. the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #2 DATE: 1/30/15 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 7 shows the area where Test Plot 3 was completed. This area is located on the upland slope south of the delineated wetland. It is dominated by grasses that are partially mowed (the upper half of the test plot area is not mowed).

Photo 8 shows the area where Test Plot 4 was completed downslope of Test Plot 3. This area is composed of regularly mowed upland.

Photo 9 shows the area of wetland where Test Plot 5 is located. It is located about 25 feet south of the ditch that crosses the south half of the wetland. The ditch is visible as Photo 2 is taken from the same the tall grasses in the right location as Photo 1 and looks north background. along the trail. The area beyond the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #3 DATE: 11/17/14 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 10 is taken from near Wetland Boundary (WB) flag 36 and looks south up the slope. There is an upland ravine that begins at the top of the slope. No water flow was observed coming down through the swale although there is a shallow ditch part of the way up the slope delineated at WB flag 38.

Photo 11 is taken of the area where Test Plot 6 is located. This test plot lies in the area of un-mowed grasses visible in Photo 10. This area is determined to be non-wetland because it lacks positive indicators for wetland hydrology.

Photo 12 shows the area where Test Plot 7 is located. It is situated downslope of Test Plot 6 and upslope of the wetland as sampled at Test Plot 8 This area is determined to be upland Photo 2 is taken from the same because it lacks positive location as Photo 1 and looks north indicators of wetland hydrology. along the trail. The area beyond the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #4 DATE: 11/17/14 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 13 shows the area of wetland where Test Plot87 was conducted. It is situated just outside the area of standing water south of the ditch where the vegetation is dominated by mowed reed canarygrass.

Photo 14 is taken from the south property line and looks west across the west half of the property. The property line is demarcated by the fence on the left edge of the photo.

Photo 15 is taken from the same location as Photo 14. It looks northwest across the sloping upland pasture that occupies most of the southwestern portion of the property. The residential Photo 2 is taken from the same properties offsite to the north are location as Photo 1 and looks north visible across the right along the trail. The area beyond background. the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #5 DATE: 12/18/14 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 16 is taken from the same location as Photos 14 and 15. It looks north across property toward the residential developments that lie along Little Hanaford Road north of China Creek.

Photo 17 is taken from the same location as Photos 14 through 16. It looks northeasterly across the finger of wetland that extends to the south property line and is delineated with WB flags 40 through 46. The portion of the slope in the foreground of this photo is composed of wetland.

Photo 18 is taken from the same location as Photos 14 through 17. It looks easterly along the south edge of the property, which is demarcated by the fence on the right side of the photo. Photo 2 is taken from the same location as Photo 1 and looks north along the trail. The area beyond the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #6 DATE: 12/18/14 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 19 is at the north end of the upland island that lies in the northwestern portion of the property. This photo looks east along the north side of the upland island with wetland to the left (darkened grasses) and the island is on the right. WB flag 61 is visible at the lower right edge of the photo.

Photo 20 is taken from the same location as Photo 19 and looks southeasterly across the upland island. WB flag 61 is visible in the lower left corner of this photo.

Photo 21 is taken from the same location as Photos 19 and 20. It looks southerly across the wetland that lies south of the upland island. This photo also shows the slope south of the Photo 2 is taken from the same wetland. location as Photo 1 and looks north along the trail. The area beyond the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #7 DATE: 11/17/14 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 22 is taken from near the north property line and looks west along China Creek. China Creek lies along the entire north edge of the property and was at least 10 feet wide in this location.

Photo 23 is taken from the same location as Photo 22 and looks north across China Creek to the offsite portion of the wetland.

Photo 24 is taken from the same location as Photos 22 and 23. It looks easterly along China Creek.

Photo 2 is taken from the same location as Photo 1 and looks north along the trail. The area beyond the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #8 DATE: 11/17/14 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 25 is taken of the upland in the northeastern portion of the property. This upland area slopes gradually up from the delineated wetland, which lies on the left side, and ends at the top of the bank above China Creek (to the right in the un-mowed area).

Photo 26 is taken from the same location as Photo 25 and looks northwesterly across this upland area. China Creek lies in a defined channel between the tall grasses and line of pine trees across the background.

Photo 27 is taken from the same location as Photos 25 and 26. It looks north along the east end of the upland area toward Little Hanaford Road, which lies beyond the line of pine trees in Photo 2 is taken from the same the background. location as Photo 1 and looks north along the trail. The area beyond the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #9 DATE: 11/17/14 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 28 shows the area where Test Plot 11 was conducted. It is located on the upland area along the north edge of the property. China Creek is the right and the wetland is to the left.

Photo 29 shows the area where Test Plot 12 was conducted. This area is part of the delineated wetland, which like the rest of the wetland, is dominated by mowed reed canarygrass.

Photo 30 shows the areas where Test Plots 9 and 10 were completed. This area is dominated by tall fescue and orchard grass with low percentages of soft rush. Photo 2 is taken from the same location as Photo 1 and looks north along the trail. The area beyond the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #10 DATE: 11/17/14 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 Photo 31 looks east along the north edge of the wetland where it abuts the fill along the south side of Little Hanaford Road. China Creek flows in a well defined channel just beyond the line of pine trees.

Photo 32 looks south across the wetland along Little Hanaford Road into the property.

Photo 33 looks west along Little Hanaford Road to document the continuation of wetland conditions up to the road fill.

Photo 2 is taken from the same location as Photo 1 and looks north along the trail. The area beyond the maple tree on the right is a historic clearing that is now dominated by blackberry thickets.

Photoplate #11 DATE: 11/17/14 Project Name: Little DWN: JB Hanaford Road Property PRJ. MGR: JB Client: City of Centralia PROJ.#: 1547.01 Lewis County, Washington 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 APPENDIX A WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 1-30-15 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 1 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: UPL Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

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

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) 2. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

3. Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 67 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. UPL Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' diameter) UPL species x5 =

1. Schedonorus phoenix 30 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Dactylis glomerata 30 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Poa pratensis 30 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Phalaris arundinacea 10 no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-11 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam 11-16" 2.5Y 5/2 80 10YR 4/4 20 C M clay

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: The soil profile meets none of the hydric soil indicators because the matrix chroma in the surface layer is too high.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 1-30-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 2 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: Long: Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

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

3. Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' diameter) UPL species x5 =

1. Phalaris arundinacea 90 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 45, 20% = 18 90 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-11" 10YR 2/1 100 silt loam 11-16" 2.5Y 3/1 80 10YR 4/4 20 C M clay

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator A12 due to the dark surface and subsurface layers.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4" Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): at surface Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 11-14-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 3 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.72624 Long: -122.93472 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: UPL Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

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

3. Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' diameter) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Rubus armeniacus 10 yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 5, 20% = 2 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' diameter) UPL species x5 =

1. Schedonorus phoenix 50 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Dactylis glomerata 50 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Poa pratensis 25 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Hypochaeris radicata 15 no FACU 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Taraxacum officinale 10 no FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. Pteridium aquilinum 10 no FACU 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. Plantago lanceolata 10 no FACU 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 85, 20% = 34 170 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16" 2.5Y 3/3 100 silt loam

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 11-14-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 4 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.72624 Long: -122.93472 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: UPL Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

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

3. Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20' diameter) UPL species x5 =

1. Schedonorus phoenix 50 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Dactylis glomerata 50 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Phalaris arundinacea 15 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Juncus effusus 5 no FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Rubus laciniatus 5 no FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. Rosa nutkana 5 no FAC 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 65, 20% = 26 130 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6" 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam no redoximorphic features 6-16" 2.5Y4/2 100 silty clay no redoximorphic features loam

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 11-14-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 5 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.72643 Long: -122.93469 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

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

3. Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6" 2.5Y 3/2 95 10YR 4/4 5 C M silt loam 6-16" 5Y 4/1 85 10YR 4/4 15 C M silty clay loam

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator A11 because of low matrix chroma over a depleted matrix with redoximorphic features present.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 11-14-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 6 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.72629 Long: -122.93623 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: UPL Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

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

3. Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

1. Phalaris arundinacea 75 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Juncus effusus 25 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Juncus sp. 15 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 57.5, 20% = 23 115 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6" 10YR 4/2 100 silty clay loam 6-16" 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M silty clay loam

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3 because of low matrix chroma over a depleted matrix with redoximorphic features present.

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 11-14-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 7 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 10 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.72652 Long: -122.93629 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: UPL Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

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

3. Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 5, 20% = 2 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10' diameter) UPL species x5 =

1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Rosa nutkana starts 10 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6" 10YR 4/2 100 silty clay loam 6-16" 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M silty clay loam

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3 because of low matrix chroma over a depleted matrix with redoximorphic features present.

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 11-14-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 8 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.72659 Long: -122.93632 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Remarks: Test Plot 8 is located in the mowed wetland area beginning at the toe of the moderate slopes down from the south. This mowed area of wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass with Nootka rose starts. The Nootka rose starts are included in the herb stratum because they are low in stature and do not form a shrub layer.

3. Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Rosa nutkana starts 20 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Juncus effusus 10 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16" 10YR 4/1 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M silty clay loam

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3 because of low matrix chroma with redoximorphic features present.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 12-18-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 9 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.72682 Long: -122.93905 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 119 Lacamas silt loam, 3 to 8% slopes NWI classification: UPL Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Remarks: Test Plot 9 is located on the slope in the southwestern portion of the property and upslope of TP 10. Area of soft rush extends up the slope but is not wetland due to the absence of wetland hydrology indicators. Soft rush continues upslope from TP 9 with increasing cover by trailing blackberry.

3. Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

1. Schedonorus phoenix 70 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Dactylis glomerata 30 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Juncus effusus 15 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Cirsium arvense 5 no FAC 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 60, 20% = 24 120 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 9 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10" 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam 10-16" 5Y 3/2 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M clay loam

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator A11 due to low matrix chroma at 10 inches with low chroma in the upper layer.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 15" Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 12-18-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 10 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.7269 Long: -122.93898 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 119 Lacamas silt loam, 3 to 8% slopes NWI classification: UPL Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

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

3. Total Number of Dominant 2 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

1. Schedonorus phoenix 70 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Dactylis glomerata 30 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Juncus effusus 10 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% = 55, 20% = 22 110 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 10 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10" 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam 10-16" 2.5Y 3/3 80 10YR 4/6 20 C M clay loam

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 15" Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 11-14-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 11 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.72739 Long: -122.93561 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: UPL Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

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

3. Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 11 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4" 2.5Y 3/2 100 silt loam 4-12" 10YR 4/1 50 silt loam 4-12" 10YR 2/1 50 silty clay loam

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: The soil appears to have an old fill appearance due to the compacted condition at 12 inches and mixture of matrix chromas and soil textures. It meets hydric soil indicator F3 because of the low matrix chroma beginning within 6 inches of the soil surface and at least 6 inches thick.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 14" Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project Site: Little Hanaford Road City/County: Centralia/Lewis Sampling Date: 11-14-14 Applicant/Owner: City of Centralia State: WA Sampling Point: TP 12 Investigator(s): J. Bartlett Section, Township, Range: S 4 T 14 N R 2 WWM Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): LRR A Lat: 46.71684 Long: -122.9337 Datum: Magellan Soil Map Unit Name: 172 Reed silty clay loam NWI classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

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

3. Total Number of Dominant 1 (B) 4. Species Across All Strata:

6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Project Site: Little Hanaford Road

SOIL Sampling Point: TP 12 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8" 10YR 5/1 100 gr loam 8-16" 10YR 4/1 80 10YR 4/6 20 C M silty clay loam

1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix, RC=Root Channel Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Remarks: The soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F3 because of the low matrix chromas in both layers and the presence of redoximorphic features in the subsurface layer.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 APPENDIX B Wetland name or number RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): China Creek Date of site visit: 1-30-15 Rated by J. Bartlett Trained by Ecology? X Yes No Date of training Nov. 2014 HGM Class used for rating Riverine Wetland has multiple HGM classes? X_Y N

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

OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions or special characteristics _) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each X Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 function based on three Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 ratings (order of ratings Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 is not FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat important) Water Quality 9 = H,H,H Circle the appropriate ratings 8 = H,H,M Site Potential H M L H M L H M L 7 = H,H,L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L 7 = H,M,M Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 6 8 6 20 Score Based on 5 = H,L,L Ratings 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland

CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above X

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 MapsWetland anamend orfignumberures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands

Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 6 Hydroperiods H 1.2 6 Ponded depressions R 1.1 6 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 6 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 6 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 6 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 7 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 8 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 9 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 9 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 4.1 (can be added to figure above) Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington

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

1. ArNOe the water levels in the entire unit usuYallyES controlled by tides exTceidpta ld Fruriinnggefloods?

– go to 2 – the wetland class is – go to 1.1 1.1 NOIs the– S saallintwiattyerof Ttheid awatl Freinr dgeur (inEgstpuerioarinde)s of annual low flYoESw below– Fres0h.w5atppert ( Tpartsidal pFrerin thgeousand)? If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands.

2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater aNOnd surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.YES Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. – go to 3 – The wetland class is meet all

3. Does the entire wetland unit of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; NOAt least 30% of the open waterYES ar–ea is deeper than 6.6 ftL (2akem Fr). inge

– go to 4 meet allThe wetland class is (Lacustrine Fringe) slope can be very gradual 4. Does the entire wetland unit of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope ( ), The water flows through the wwithetlandout inbe oninegdiirectmpoionun (deundidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, NOT–he water leaves the wetland YES. – Slope NOTEgo to 5 The wetland class is : Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft meet all deep). X 5. Does the entire wetland unit of the following criteria? X The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number YES Riverine NOTE NO – go to 6 – The wetland class is : The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior 6. ofIs thethe ewnettirelanwd.etland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? YES Depressional

NO – go to 7 – The wetland class is 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. YES Depressional

NO – go to 8 – The wetland class is

8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wNOetTlandE unit being scored.

: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit HGM class to being rated use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream Depressional within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other Treat as class of freshwater wetland ESTUARINE

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

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or numberRIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: 4 Depressions cover >3/ area of wetland points = 8 4 Depressions cover > ½ area of wetland points = 4 Depressions present but cover < ½ area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) 6 2 Trees or shrubs > /3 area of the wetland points = 8 1 Trees or shrubs > /3 area of the wetland points = 6 2 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > / 3 area of the wetland points = 6 1 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > / 3 area of the wetland points = 3 1 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < / 3 area of the wetland points = 0

Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H X 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page

R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 0 R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut 1 within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4 0 Other sources Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi? 0

Yes = 1 No = 0 R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer 0 YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M X 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or numberRIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: 6 Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 If the ratio is 10-20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5-<10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1-<5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or 7 shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes). 1 2 Forest or shrub for > /3 area OR emergent plants > / 3 area points = 7 1 1 Forest or shrub for > /10 area OR emergent plants > / 3 area points = 4 Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0

Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 13 Rating of Site Potential If score is: X 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page

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

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

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

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

Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H X 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

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

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

R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the 2 Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 X Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: X The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods 3 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 X Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 X Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland X Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points

H 1.3. Richness of plant species 1 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats 1 Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.

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

All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HWetland1.5. Special namehabita torfeanumbertures: 2 Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) X Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) X At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 9 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H X 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). 1 Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 4.28 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 9.26 = 13.54% If total accessible habitat is: 1 > /3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. 2 Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 32.74+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 9.26 = 42.00 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If 0 > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H X 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page

H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?

H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2  It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)  It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)  It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species  It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources  It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H X 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number WDFW Priority Habitats

Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit:  Aspen Stands:

 Biodiversity ArPuearseaondr miCoxrerdidstoanrsds of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). full descriptions in WDFW PHS report : Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and  Hewilrdblifeaceous( Balds: ).

 Old-growth/MatureVfaorrieasbtls:e size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.

Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that  Ofouregndoinn Woldh-itgeroOwatk:h; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak  Ricomparpoianennt is important ( ).

: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and  WestterresstirdiaelPercosairysietse:ms which mutually influence each other. full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet  Inspratirieea(m: ).

The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide  Nfuenacrtisohnoarlelife history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link:oRneprelativvieoluysupnagdie).sturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (  Caves:

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

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

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

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

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

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or numberCATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category

Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?  The dominant water regime is tidal,  Vegetated, and  With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Cat. I Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?  The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. I  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat. II  The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3 Cat. I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. I SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 WetlandSC 4.0. Fo rnameested Worenumbertlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.  Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.  Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?  The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks  The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. I Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?  The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II  At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. 1 2  The wetland is larger than /10 ac (4350 ft ) Yes = Category I No = Category II

SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:  Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103  Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I  Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating

SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number This page left blank intentionally

Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015